Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-4304 - PSA for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup ProjectAMENDMENT NO. SIX TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. SIX TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Amendment No. SIX "), is entered into as of this /!d4 day of 7UAMWn4J 12012, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, LP a California Limited Partnership, whose address is 26300 La Alameda, Suite 420, Mission Viejo, California 92691 ( "Consultant'), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 14, 2009, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement') to develop a Conceptual Design Plan for a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor ( "Project'). B. On November 10, 2009, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. One "). C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agreement to increase the scope of work, to increase the term of the Agreement to August 30, 2012, and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Two "). D. On October 12, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Three to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Three "). E. On April 28, 2011, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Four to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Four "). F. On June 7, 2011, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Five to the Agreement to increase the scope of work, to increase the total compensation, and update insurance requirements. G. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. SIX to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments and to increase the total compensation. H. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the agreement, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Section 2 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated December 7, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement as amended, shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the Agreement. Consultant's total amended compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Million, Seven Hundred Ninety -Four Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty -Three Dollars and no /100 ($1,794,333.00) without prior written authorization from City ( "Total Amended Compensation "). No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City. 2.1 The Total Amended Compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Six, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Forty -Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Six Dollars and no /100 ($349,906.00), without prior written authorization from City. 3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement as amended, shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. ANCHOR QEA, LP Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. SIX on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Date- r Z. /i 4./I I By: " v I Aaron C. Ha City Attorney ATTEST: Date: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California municipal corporation Date: By: Nancy Ga n r ayor CONSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, LP , a Limited Partnership Date: �c /2 for Partner Attachment: Exhibit A — Additional Services to be Performed ANCHOR QEA, LP Page 3 EXHIBIT A ANCHOR. OEA ` 26300 1-a Alarneda, Suite 240 Nlisson Viejo, Cahfor'nia 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 December 7, 2011 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Request for additional funds for out -of -scope Construction Management tasks, and scope of work for Post - Dredge Confirmational Sediment Sampling and Analysis for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Project Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with construction management services for the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project. This letter requests funds for several out -of -scope construction management tasks related to the dredge effort, and proposes an additional scope of work for conducting post - construction sediment confirmational testing within the Rhine Channel. Each is described below in more detail. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OUT -OF SCOPE ITEMS As the City is aware, dredging of sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as other nearby City- managed areas was recently completed. To comply with several last minute requirements from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as well as numerous operational changes required during construction to account for daily water quality exceedances from the dredge operation, several out -of -scope tasks were required to be immediately implemented by Anchor QEA staff. Authorization to proceed with these tasks was granted by the City at the time of occurrence to ensure that project delays did not result from the agency changes. This letter requests Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 Page 2 funds for these out -of -scope items, as summarized below in Table 1 and detailed in the attached summary. Because the project was completed quicker than expected, the actual on- site construction management task was completed approximately $66,000 under budget. Table 1 Summary of Construction Management Out -of -Scope Costs Task Cut=of -Scope tostsl Task 1— POLB Coordination $737 Task 2 — Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverables $55,404 Task 3 — Rhine Channel Tenant Coordination $14,420 Task 5 — Rhine Channel Construction Management ($66,601) Task 6 — Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring $240,306 Task 7 — Construction Management for other City Properties $0 Total Out -of -Scope Costs $244,266 (xxx) = represents a credit for task that was under budget. POST - DREDGE CONFIRMATIONAL SEDIMENT TESTING SCOPE OF WORK In additional to the out -of -scope task item budget request, this letter also requests funds for post- dredge confirmational sediment sampling and analysis, which is required by the Water Board to verify successful removal of chemically impacted sediments and determine the final surface sediment chemical concentrations. This will allow an assessment of the site from a 303(d) improvement standpoint. At the request of the City, this task was not included previously in Anchor QEA's original scope of work because we were not previously able to anticipate the magnitude of the study that might be required to comply with the Water Board permit. A total of five tasks have been identified for the Rhine Channel confirmational testing program: • Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) • Meeting with Regulatory Agencies • Sediment Sampling • Chemical Analysis • Reporting Mr. Chris Miller December 7.2011 The scope and associated costs for these tasks are presented below. Proposed Tasks Task 1: Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan Anchor QEA will develop a SAP presenting details on the sampling and analysis strategy. It will be designed to determine the final concentrations of contaminants within Rhine Channel following the removal of chemically impacted sediments. It will include procedures for sediment sample collection, sample handling, chemical analysis, quality assurance /quality control (QA /QC), and data analysis. A draft SAP will be submitted to the RWQCB for review and approval. One round of comments is anticipated. Following approval of the SAP, sampling will be initiated. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $12,210. Task 2: Meeting with Regulatory Agencies Anchor QEA will work closely with regulatory agencies to ensure sampling and analysis complies with regulatory requirements. This may include meetings with regulatory agencies, project updates, response to comments, and a presentation of results. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $6,080. Task 3: Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling will be conducted at approximately 15 randomly placed stations using a piston core. The piston core will be deployed from Anchor QEA's sampling vessel, a 20 foot AquaSport. Sediment cores will be processed landside. Each core will be logged and photographed then segmented into 6 inch increments. The top 6 inches will be submitted for chemical and physical analysis. Remaining core segments will be archived for additional analysis, if needed. It is assumed that this task will require 3 days of field work for two Anchor QEA personnel. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $15,010. Task 4: Chemical Analysis Approximately 15 samples will be submitted for chemical analysis. In addition, archived samples may be analyzed if the upper residual layer indicates elevated contaminants. Chemical analysis will include constituents that are listed and have numeric targets for the Rhine Channel water body within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Toxics Total Maximum Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 Daily Load (TMDL). This includes chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc, chlordane, dieldrin, DDTs, and PCBs. In addition, pyrethroids will be measured as requested by the RWQCB. Physical analysis will include grain size, total organic carbon, and total solids. Chemical analysis will be performed at Calscience Environmental Laboratories, located in Garden Grove, California. Anchor QEA will perform a data review, validation, and verification to ensure data quality objectives have been met. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $22,670. Analysis of archived samples will be an additional $1,050 per sample. Task 5: Reporting A final report will be prepared by Anchor QEA documenting all activities associated with collecting, processing, and analyzing sediment samples. Chemistry results will be compared to numeric targets listed in the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Toxics TMDL. The final concentrations of chemical contaminants in the surface layer of the Rhine Channel will be presented using GIS. A project map will be included with the actual sampling locations. Field logs, core photographs, and reports received from the laboratories will be included as appendices. The final report will be submitted to RWQCB for review and approval. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $18,420. Summary of Estimated Sediment Testing Costs and Schedule Total estimated costs associated with the five confirmational testing project tasks are summarized in Table 2. The total cost is estimated at $74,390. Of this amount, approximately $16,760 is for subcontractors for analytical charges. If archived samples from below 6 inches of each core are analyzed, additional costs will be $1,050 per sample. Additionally, if the Water Board were to require more than 15 sample locations to meet the permit requirements, additional costs would be incurred. To provide an estimate of the potential additional costs, a contingency task has been added to the table to reflect the additional cost of collecting 5 more core samples and analyzing two additional depths at half of the core locations (40 samples total). Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time - and - materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Table 2 Summary of Confirmational Testing Project Costs *Base costs do not include analysis of archived samples. A range in costs is provided to account for uncertainty in final testing requirements from the Water Board. Work on this task would begin as soon as authorization is received from the City. Preparation of the draft SAP is expected to take three weeks to complete, followed by RWQCB review. Immediately upon receipt of comments, the SAP will be revised and finalized. Upon approval, field sampling will be conducted. Sampling is expected to last 3 days. The standard turnaround time for chemical analysis is 10 to 15 days. The final report will be submitted to RWQCB 45 days following the completion of sampling. SUMMARY OF COSTS The total additional amount requested for both items is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of Requested Change Order Costs Item _ Task cost($(' 1. Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan 12,210 2. Meeting with Regulatory Agencies 6,080 3. Sediment Sampling 15,010 4. Chemical Analysis 22,670 5. Reporting 18,420 6. Contingency for additional cores /samples 31,250 Total (with and w /out contingency) 74,390 — 105,640* *Base costs do not include analysis of archived samples. A range in costs is provided to account for uncertainty in final testing requirements from the Water Board. Work on this task would begin as soon as authorization is received from the City. Preparation of the draft SAP is expected to take three weeks to complete, followed by RWQCB review. Immediately upon receipt of comments, the SAP will be revised and finalized. Upon approval, field sampling will be conducted. Sampling is expected to last 3 days. The standard turnaround time for chemical analysis is 10 to 15 days. The final report will be submitted to RWQCB 45 days following the completion of sampling. SUMMARY OF COSTS The total additional amount requested for both items is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of Requested Change Order Costs Item Amount - Requested Construction Management Out -of -Scope Items $244,266 Rhine Channel Confirmational Sediment Sampling and Testing $74,390— $105,640* Total $318,656 - $349,906 *Range in costs provided to account for uncertainty in final testing requirements from the Water Board. Mr. Chris Miller December 7. 2011 We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this project. If there are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Summary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope Items Task 1 — POLB Coordination Throughout the majority of the project's duration, the level of effort needed for this task was commensurate with initial expectations and budget projections. However, in November, a significantly more concerted effort was required by Anchor QEA personnel (Steve Cappellino, Shelly Anghera, Rob Walker and Michael Whelan) to present and discuss final placement of Rhine Channel material within the Middle Harbor Slip 1 fill site with Port of Long Beach (POLB) Construction Management staff. Task 2 — Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverables This task required significant effort above and beyond initial expectations and budget projections to work with the contractor on finalizing their pre- dredge deliverables while meeting the needs of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with regards to the water quality permitting and compliance process. The original scope of work assumed one review /comment cycle for each of the contractor's pre - construction deliverables. However, multiple drafts and rounds of comments were needed for some of the key submittal documents (most notably the dredge and disposal plan and environmental protection plan). Similarly, several discussions and meetings were needed to make sure the final submittals were suitable for submittal to agencies and POLE. A similar expenditure of labor time was needed prior to construction in responding to contractor questions regarding work planned for the floating docks and guide piles. It was anticipated that some discussions would be needed, but the amount of time spent prior to construction was more than budgeted. These efforts required several meetings and communications so as to ensure that these aspects of the project would be coordinated and handled properly. For the RWQCB permit, a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) were required prior to construction, although these were not originally anticipated as being necessary for the project. This was an intensive process that required significant effort and numerous internal and external meetings, in part because the RWQCB determined that the documents needed to be consistent with guidelines issued by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), significantly increasing the level of effort needed. The following reviews some of the key steps in the process: A meeting was held on 8/5/10 to discuss water quality monitoring and post- sediment sampling. • A WQMP was submitted on 8/20/10 by Anchor QEA. • Comments were provided on 9/9/10 by the RWQCB. Summary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope Items December 7, 2011 Page 2 of 4 a A follow -up meeting was held after comments were received and notes were prepared by Anchor QEA to document the discussion and planned changes to the document. Anchor QEA wrote numerous emails and called numerous times to request a timely review of the SAP /QAPP. To further facilitate the process, Anchor QEA resubmitted an updated document on 5/19/11. G Comments from the RWQCB were received on 6/8/11. Due to inconsistencies with previous comments and discussions, another meeting was scheduled with the RWQCB to discuss on 6/28/11. Y Based on this meeting the SAP /QAPP was further revised and a final SAP /QAPP, along with response to comments, was submitted on 7/28/11 to the RWQCB. o Based on comments and emails from the RWQCB, a SWAMP compatible SAP /QAPP was required to replace the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) previously submitted. Due to the SWAMP requirements, it required more than triple the effort of typical water quality monitoring SAPs (which have no QAPPs). c Just prior to construction the RWQCB issued additional comments and concerns which required addressing and incorporating into the final field monitoring program. As described above, a significant amount of unanticipated effort went into preparing the WQMP and various SAP /QAPP drafts, coordinating documents and meetings, soliciting feedback from the RWQCB through emails and calls, and discussing comments /revising the document numerous times. This level of coordination that was required with the RWQCB was far greater than what would be needed for a typical document (SAP or report) submittal procedure, as occurs with other Regional Boards or regulatory agencies in Southern California. The typical procedure involves submittal of a draft SAP (if any), respond to one set of comments, one meeting, and submittal a final SAP. Altogether, four versions of the document were submitted, three meetings, several calls, and numerous emails took place to discuss the comments and to keep the process moving forward. In addition, the RWQCB's determination that the documents needed to be compatible with SWAMP requirements made their preparation significantly more rigorous than would have been required by other Regional Boards in California. Anchor QEA suggested that the SWAMP format would not, in fact, be relevant to this project, because California's SWAMP was not designed for evaluating short - term water quality impacts such as those due to dredging, but instead is a regional program focused on assessing long -term water quality trends. Nevertheless, the RWQCB did not change their position in this regard, although Anchor QEA was successful in reducing the number of required sampling events, the analytes required for analysis, and some unachievable reporting limit issues initially proposed by the RWQCB. Summary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope Items December 7, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Task 3 — Pre - Construction Tenant Coordination Out of scope activities for this task was fairly limited and included working with the contractor to coordinate with the POLB on delivery schedules, coordinating with various tenants on the Rhine Channel regarding their participation on the project, and numerous meetings regarding schedule coordination for dredging the Channel Road area and the accompanying dock relocation. At project's end considerable effort was expended in ensuring that piles and docks met the approval of the various property owners and representatives Task 5 — Rhine Channel Construction Manaeement Although in aggregate this task ended up under budget, there were a few notable out of scope items. For instance, change orders were needed to reduce the dredge footprint for certain properties based on discussions immediately prior to (or during) construction between these property owners and the CIty. Both change order efforts required adjusting the plan sheets, calculating adjusted quantities for contract volume estimates, and preparation of updated specifications and /or narrative descriptions for the modified work efforts. In a similar fashion, five separate areas of additional dredging turned out to be needed, each of which also required generation of figures and coordinates depicting the additional dredging, calculation of resulting dredge quantities, additional analysis of progress surveys, and a second round of confirmatory sampling at each location. Although it was anticipated that additional dredging might be needed, and budgeted accordingly, the incidence of five separate areas ended up requiring more effort than originally expected. Task 6 — Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring Implementation of the expanded water quality monitoring program was the single largest out of scope item required for completion of the Rhine Channel construction effort. Based on early water quality monitoring results, an expanded monitoring program was required by the RWQCB which included daily monitoring, special studies, more frequent data reports to the State, and additional chemical analytes. The following highlights the major differences in project assumptions that changed as a result of the Water Board requirements. • Budgeted for 64 samples for chemical analysis and ended up with 218 in total. • Budgeted for 5 QA/QC samples for chemical analysis and ended up with 13 in total. • Budgeted for 23 sampling events and ended up with 66 in total. • Budgeted for three reports to the RWQCB (pre - dredge, midpoint and final) and ended up requiring six (pre- dredge, midpoint, final, 11, week, revised schedule, and two special studies). • Conducted special studies to evaluate the following issues for the RWQCB: turbidity /TSS comparison, water quality at additional reference stations, plume tracking studies, follow -up Summary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope Items December 7, 2011 Page 4 of 4 turbidity study in main channel. All of these special studies required management, negotiation and coordination with Water Board staff. Anchor QEA was, however, able to mitigate the effect of these changes on overall project costs, by utilizing City labor wherever possible for the water quality monitoring. Approximately 55 man hours were used to supplement the Anchor QEA field team resulting in a cost savings of almost $5,000 to the project. Task 7 — Construction Management at other City Properties With an agreement reached between the City and American Legion Post 291 to perform additional dredging and pile replacement activities within the American Legion marina, Anchor QEA provided additional construction coordination and oversight for the expanded scope of work. This included several meetings with American Legion staff prior to construction to work through logistical details relating to constriction. During construction, the temporary relocation of the floating docks required additional oversight. This included documentation of pre - existing conditions, general construction oversight and documentation throughout the move, and assisting the City in maintaining public safety protocols for this temporary obstruction to navigation. With an additional ten piles replaced by the American Legion change order, additional construction oversight during pile driving activities was provided above our initial expectations. The out of scope items for this task ended up not requiring addition funds as the work was completed faster than expected so savings were achieved in other portions of the scope. TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: APPROVED: TITLE: ABS_ T_ ACT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director 949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @newportbeachca.gov Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager �I Rhine Channel Se iment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post - Dredge Sediment Sampling and Analysis On May 10, 2011, City Council awarded Contract No. 4555 to Dutra Dredging Company ( "Dutra') for a total contract cost of $3,450,405 plus a 15% allowance for contingencies. The required work is now complete and staff requests City Council accept and close out of the contract. In addition, Amendment No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement ( "PSA') with Anchor QEA, LP ( "Anchor QEA ,,) is requested for unforeseen project management costs as well as for a new scope of services for required post- dredge confirmation sediment sampling. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and 2. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in acceptance with applicable Portions of the Code; and 3. Release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance; and Rhine Channel Sediment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor IDEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post- Dredge S January 10, 2012 Page 2 4. Approve the Sixth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, LP for additional unforeseen construction management costs, as well as for a new scope of services for required post- dredge confirmation sediment sampling. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS — DUTRA DREDGING: Funds for the construction contract were expended from the following accounts: Account Description Rhine Channel Dredging Rhine Channel Private Funding DISCUSSION— DUTRA DREDGING: Account Number 7231- C4402004 7231- C4402005 __u f . + 1 Time Summary Amount $ 3,218,549.90 $ 56,675.85 $ 3,275,225.75 The work necessary for completion of this contract consisted of dredging contaminated sediment from the Rhine Channel and portions of the adjacent Newport Channel, replacing piles that support the private docks that were affected by the dredging, repairing those private docks where new piles were replaced, and performing additional dredging for a private property owner at their expense. The contract has now been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Harbor Resources Division. A summary of the contract cost is as follows: Original bid amount: Actual cost of bid items constructed: Total change orders Final construction contract cost: $3,450,405.00 $3,198,109.48 $ 77,116.27 $3,275,225.75 Construction Final Cost Contingency Actual Contract Time Contract Award CompletioTarget Contract Time (Under) or . Amount 477t-54 Chan a da s Over JI $3,450,405.00 $3,275,225.5% or le ss (8.0% 101 52 The work necessary for completion of this contract consisted of dredging contaminated sediment from the Rhine Channel and portions of the adjacent Newport Channel, replacing piles that support the private docks that were affected by the dredging, repairing those private docks where new piles were replaced, and performing additional dredging for a private property owner at their expense. The contract has now been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Harbor Resources Division. A summary of the contract cost is as follows: Original bid amount: Actual cost of bid items constructed: Total change orders Final construction contract cost: $3,450,405.00 $3,198,109.48 $ 77,116.27 $3,275,225.75 Rhine Channel Sediment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post - Dredge S January 10, 2012 Page 3 There were six change orders associated with this contract and are detailed below: CO # Description Cost 1 Deletion of Sea Spray Boat Yard bid quantity reduced b $ - 42,000.00 2 Deletion of ETCO property (bid quantity reduced b $ - 32,205.00 3 Steel frame pile guides 16" & 18" $ 11,000.32 4 Double height steel frame pile guides 16" & 18" $ 6,461.20 5 Additional pile replacements at the American Legion $ 62,380.00 6 American Legion marina relocation and dredging $ 71,479075 TOTAL $ 77,116.27 The final construction cost was 8.0% below the original bid amount. As denoted in addition the above contract change orders, the project realized large savings due to the deletion of the Sea Spray Boat Yard and the ETCO property from the project. Additional bid quantity savings resulted from the contractor not fully dredging the "1' paid over - dredge" amount allowed in the contract. A summary of the project schedule is as follows: Estimated completion date per July 2011 schedule: November 4, 2011 Project awarded for construction: May 10, 2011 Contract Completion Date plus Approved Extensions December 1, 2011 Actual Construction Completion Date: November 9, 2011 DISCUSSION — ANCHOR QEA Anchor QEA is currently assisting the City with construction management services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project ( "Project "). During the course of the Project, several unforeseen tasks that were outside of the contract scope were required to be immediately addressed or implemented by Anchor QEA staff. Authorization to proceed with these unforeseen tasks was granted by the City at the time of occurrence to ensure that project delays did not result. A brief summary of these changes is described below, with a detailed summary provided in the Appendix. (The Task Numbers correspond to the respective Tasks in Anchor QEA's original proposal.) Task 1: Port of Long Beach Coordination ( "POLB ") $737 Although Anchor QEA was on budget for most of the project, a concerted effort with POLB coordination was needed at the end of the Project to present and discuss final placement of material within the Middle Harbor Slip 1 fill site. Task 2: Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverables $55,40.4 Rhine Channel Sediment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post- Dredge S January 10, 2012 Page 4 This task required significant effort above and beyond initial expectations and budget projections to work with the contractor on finalizing their pre- dredge deliverables, specifically regarding planning for the floating docks and guide piles. In addition, a significant amount of time was needed to satisfy the unforeseen requests of the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( "RWQCB ") by negotiating and generating additional detailed water quality monitoring plans. Task 3: Rhine Channel Tenant Coordination $14;440 This task required coordinating efforts with the POLB on delivery schedules, numerous meetings with various Rhine Channel property owners, and considerable effort in ensuring that piles and docks met the approval of the various property owners upon project completion. Task 5: Rhine Channel Construction Management ($66,601) Although in aggregate this task ended up under budget, there were two notable out of scope items: two Change Orders to reduce the dredge footprint, and five Change Orders for additional dredging. On the positive side, construction management was under budget through efficient time management as well as the Project finishing 52 days ahead of schedule. Task 6: Water Quality and Air Monitoring $240,306 Implementation of the expanded water quality monitoring program was the single largest out of scope item required for the Project. An expanded program was required by the RWQCB which included daily monitoring, special studies, more frequent data reports to the State, and additional chemical analysis. Anchor QEA was, however, able to mitigate some of these changes by utilizing City labor whenever possible to supplement the Anchor QEA team, resulting in a cost savings of almost $5,000 to the Project. Task 7: Construction Management at Other City Properties $0 There were no additional out of scope costs associated with the American Legion dredging portion of the Project. Total Construction Management Contract - Out of Scope Items $244 266 In addition the above cost identified for items that were out of scope for Anchor's current Construction Management effort, staff is requesting Anchor QEA to perform post- dredge confirmation sediment and sampling analysis which is required by the RWQCB to verify successful removal of chemically impacted sediments, and to determine the final surface sediment chemical concentrations from a 303(d) listing improvement standpoint. Rhine Channel Sediment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post - Dredge S January 10, 2012 Page 5 This task was not included in the original scope of work because it was not possible at the time to predict the magnitude of the study that might be required to comply with the RWQCB permit. Staff now understands the work necessary to comply with the RWQCB post- dredging requirements. A total of five tasks for the sampling program are briefly summarized below with a full explanation in the Appendix. Task 1: Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan 1 $12,210 This task involves preparing a plan to be submitted and approved by the RWQCB. Task 2: Meeting with Regulatory Agencies $ 6,080 Task 3: Sediment Sampling 1 $151010 This task involves sediment sampling at approximately 15 stations using a piston core deployed from a vessel. Task 4: Chemical Analysis $22,670 This task analyzes the sediment samples by Calscience Environmental Laboratories with Anchor QEA performing the data review, validation, and verification to ensure that data quality objectives have been met. Task 5: Reporting $18,420 A final report will be prepared by Anchor QEA documenting all activities associated with collecting, processing and analyzing sediment samples. Chemistry will be compared to numeric targets listed in the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Toxic TMDL. The final concentrations of chemical contaminants in the surface layer of the Rhine will be presented using GIS with a project map of the actual sampling locations included. Task 6: Contingency $31,250 Unforeseen Costs for Final Testing Requirement from the RWQCB and additional cores or samples. Total Post - Dredge Confirmation Sediment Testing Scope of Work: $j-0-5,640 Rhine Channel Sediment Cleanup Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4555; and Consideration of Sixth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Additional Construction Management Tasks and Necessary Post - Dredge S January 10, 2012 Page 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS — ANCHOR QEA, LP The current adopted CIP budget includes sufficient funding for the award of this Amendment Number 6 to Anchor QEA. Approximately $300,000 in project savings will be returned to the Tidelands /Submerged Land fund account. Account Description. Account Number Amount Anchor QEA Unforeseen Management Costs 7231- C4402004 $ 244,266.00 Anchor QEA Post - Dredge Sediment Sampling 7231- C440200.4 $ 105.640.00 Total $ 349,906.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project that was reviewed and approved by the City Council in July 2010. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: Stephen G. Badum � "'Public Works Director Attachments: A. Vicinity Maps B. Professional Services Agreement — Anchor QEA, LP ATTACHMENT l:j k % . .. : . . . g q >. � m& \aZ !, #X 7# % �fJ 1 "r t"J 1 "r �� ,,.{ a� p; '" ,'b::, wz� i � ,. , i ., <y i\ � _.., ': 0 AMENDMENT NO, S.IX TO . PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR Q'E'A' ? LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED S [I'DI'MENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. SIX. TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CAmendment No. SIX is entered into as of this day - of - 2011 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT California Municipal -Corporation .T BEACII,--a—Califo and ANCHOR QEA, LP a California Lim-ited Partnership, whose address is M00 La Alameda, Suite 420, Mission Viejo, California 92691 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: ng: RECITALS' .A: On July 1.4, 2009; . City and Consultqnt: enteied into a, Professional Services Agr6orri6ht ("Age6merit") to develop .a q-9 nce.0tLial Dd.sign Plan fOe 6. Cdhfinod Alubti6l)isp"o. ttk Site i `Newport Harbor -(-Pr-q (''Project" :B. On November 10, nog, City; It._ t entered _ int .Amendment No. One -land Cons�d...an 0 to the Agreement to Increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation (`'.Amehdmdht No. One").. C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agnaoment to increase the scope, of Work, to increase the fern of the Agreement to August 30, 2012 and to increase ffieJotal compensation ("Amend - ent. No. Twd')- b. On October 12, 2610, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Three to ifie Agreement °fb increase 'the scope of work and to increase the total compensation-( "Amendment No. Three"). E On April 28, 2011 City and Consultant 'entered into Arridoft6nt No. Four to the Agfbernehi to ititt6asd the scope 'of work an o increase the :total compensafion (."Arhohdmont No. Four'!). F. 'On June 7, 2011, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Five to the .- Agreement to increase the scope of work, to increase the total compensation,, and update insurance'recIdiremerits. G. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. SIX to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments and to increase the total compensation. 94 H. City,and Consultant mutually desire to amend ffie agreement, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned, parties as follows:. SERVICES70 BE PERFORMED Section 2 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated December 7, 2011, which is attached hereto a's Exhib"it 'A' and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the ,Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement as :amended, shall be Omohqled in its entirety and replaced with AWfolldwii ng : City shall *pay Consultant f&,the services on a time and expense hot 4o- exceed :basis in accordance, With the 'provisions: of this Section and the $chedul 'of Riking -Rafos affadhe-,d to the Agreement. lConsultant's total amended compensailion for rai Vwqrk performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior -qmendMppts-, . including all reimbursable mitems brid subdoh8ultiE1114t - 69, shall hot exceed One Mk[064, SdVdh Hundred ! ' ­ - � 1, z - exceed Dollars ' -rid hb/1-66 ($t70031d Thousand, Three Hundred 'Thirty-'Tiviree a -61 ) without prior wtitten authorization from 'City ( "Total Amended Compensation"). 'No billing rate changes shall be, made during the term of this Agreement without ithout the prior written .approval of the City, 2A The total Amended Compensation reflects bonsUltaht's .additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordanoe with this Amendmerit No. Six, :including all reimbursable items and sybcpnsu#Arjt -fees Hundred in an amount not to Three', forty-Nine Thousand. Nine Hundred Six Ddllars arid ricil . 100 ($349,966.00.)i Without Thousand, . I "I I '. .­ — � '.'� C: Oprior written btJth6rizdtioh'I f r6m . ity. �3.1 INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as express . I . y-modified herein, alli 61ther,pro0i'siong,lerms, and covenants get-forth in.the Agreement as amended, shall remain unchanged and 'shall be in full force and effect:. ANCHOR QEA, LP Page 2 ,I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties h&eto have executed this Amendment No. SIX on the dates Written bel6w. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dater te; 13 11 A California municipal corporation Date: BY: By:, ,Aaron'" " a.rp Michael F. Henn City Atto rney Mayor ATTEST! CONSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, LP , a ,Date:. Limited I Partnership - Date: By: By Leilani 1. Brown r Sfbve. Gapellinb 'Pity Clerk Sem(ior.Partner Attachment Exhibit. A =.Additional Services to be Performed ANCHOR QEA.,1P Page 3 ,J I I )P, ANCHOR ()!;A 26300 La 'Alameda 5ujyq 240 Mission Violo, Cali f-oY* 92691 Phone 949347.2780 Fax 949334.9646 December 7, 2011 d. Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive California - 92660 . Newport Beac h, Re: Requf�stffor additional funds for out-of-scope .66iistructidn MAnhget.no tasks,.- and scope pf work for P,pst-DredreCoinfirmationalS d Analysis f6r Sediment Sampling an Rhine Channg Contaminated Sedimimt Cleanup I?rpjedt Dear Mr, Miller:. Anchor:QEA, LP.-, is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) With construction management services for the Rhine Channel contaminated sediinentcloarnip p rojec, l letter Aquiestsfunds f6r.s�6vefzkl but-of-scope construction management tasks related to the :dredge effort; an4,,proposesanadjltiojiai scope .ot work for cojidudti' post - construction sedhii en co Atihii ption Ed testing i wiihnthe'Rlune Chnnel. Each is described below inmore 4etal 'CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OUT-OF SCOPE- ITEMS As the Cit i yjs aware, ing.of sediments wit1iiii the Rhine Chadiie, as We . 11 as other _ nearb ly � MPI y�Citpmanaged areas was recent co eted. To comply with several last minute requirements from the8anta Am Regional Water Quality Cmitrol.,13pard (RWQCB), as well as numerous operational changes required during construction to account fbT daily water quality exceedances from the dr e dge operation, several out -of scope tasWWere required to be Jimilediatdy inipkift&hted by Anchor QEA staff. Authorization to proceed with these tasks was granted by the City :at the time of occurrence to ensure that project delays did not result from the agency changes. This letter requests M Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 Page 2 funds for these out -of -scope items, as summarized below:in:Table 1 and detailed in the attached summary: Because the project was completed quicker than expected, the actual on- site construction management task was completed approximately $66,000 under budget. Table 1 Summary of Construction Management Out =of -Scope Costs Xd t3s ,i'�-r'�' Sx ����g r ik��'. �u�un 'sa���,�h,r��.,�"y'eAr�l''�c .``b�i ��:..d_,�.F�. tom'': Out of S�cope'Casts" ia; h •! .,.....?i94fn irr.rr..ctr..s�aM.�: Task 1— P%13 Coordjriation _. $737 Task-2 ContractorSelection and 'Pre Dredge'"Dellyeratile's - - _. - $55,404 Task 3 — Rhine Channel Tenant Coordination $14;420 Task 5 Rhine Channel. Construction Managerent ($66,601) Task6 Water Quality, and Air QualityMonttoring $240,306 Task 7 Construction Management: #or othertlty. Properties $0 Total OutofScopeGgsts $244,266 (xxz) represents a credit fo ifask thatwas under b "udget; POST- DREDGE CONFIRM. ATIONA.LSEDIMENTTESTING SCOPE OF WORK In additional to the out of.scope taskitem budget request, this letter also requests funds for posE dredge coiiiirmational sediment sampling• and analysis, which is required by the Water Board to verify,successful removal ofcheinicaRy imp'acted.sediments and determine_ the final surface sediment chemical concentration. This will allow anassessmerit of the site from a $03(d) improvement standpoint: At the request of the Ctty;ahis task .not =included previously in Anchor'- C!EA s orgmal scope of work becfiuse_ we were notpreviously able to anticipate the magnitude of the'study that might be,equired to comply with.che Water Board permit: A total of five tasks have been identified for the Rhine Chamiel confirmational testing program• • Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) • Meeting with Regulatory Agencies • Sediment Sampling Chemical Analysis 0 Reporting Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 Page 3 The scope and associated costs for these tasks are presented below. Proposed Tasks Task 1: Preparation of a Samplin# and Analysis Plan Anchor QEA will.develop a'SAP presenting details on the sampling and analysis strategy, It will be designed to determine the final concentrations of contaminants within Rhine Channel following the removal of Chemically impacted sediments. It will include procedures for sediment sample collection, sample handling, chemical analysis, -quality iissurancoquqjity control (QA/QQ, ft..nd,daxa, analysis. A draft SAP -will be submitted to the RWQ(:% for .review iind,.dpfrbv4i. One round of comments is anticipated, Following approval-of the SAP; sampling will beinitiated. Costs-associated With this task are estimated at $12,210. Task 2:.Meeting With Re�g'ulat6ry Agencies Ajichor'QEA will work closely With regulatory ,agencies to ensure sampling and analys complies .with requirements. This may include meetings -with regulatory qry r, , quir g 6gul ato agencies, project updates 'response to comments, and a presentation of results. Cost's associated with this task are estimated at.$6,080. -Tdsk3' Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling Will be cbifducted 'at approximately 15 randomly placedstations using a .piston core; The piston core will -be deployed frjjfn Anchor . 0 s sampliAg.vessel_a 20 foot Aqda$p.bm Sediiter,i,t,cqKe4 will bq processed landside: Eac , h-cdirewill be logged and ;photographed theri-segment,O* into4irich. increments.. The top 6 inches will be submitted for chemical and physical analysis. Remainiffig core segments Willbe archived for additional analysis if needed. It is assumed that this task will require 3 days of field Work for two Ahchor QEA personnel. Costs associated with this task are estimated at. $15;010. Task 4. Chemical Analysis Approximately B sftinples will bo submitted for chemical analysis: In addition, archived samples maybe analyzed if the upper residual layer indicates elevated contaminants. Chemical analysis will include: constituents-that are listed and have numeric targets for the Rhine Channel water body within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Toxics T I otal Maximum Nit. Chris Millet December 7, 2011 Page 4 Daily Load (TMDL). This includes chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc, chlordane, dieldrin, DDTs, and PCBs. In addition, pyrethroids will be measured as requested by the RWQCB. Physical analysis will include grain size, total organic.carbon, and total solids. Chemical analysis will be performed at CaIscience Environmental Laboratories, located in Garden Grove, California. Anchor.QEA Will perform a data review, validation, and verification to ensure data quality objectives have been met. Costs associated with this Task are estimated at, $22,670. Analysis of arqlilved sa.mples will be. an additional $1,050 per sample: Task s: hepijilth@ A final report will be prepared by Anchor •QEA documenting -all activities associated with collecting; processing, and analyzing sediment samples. Chemistry results will 1 . compared :tp numeric tar Of t ed J the San Dieg(?, Bay Toxics.TMDL. The final get s . n surface layer of the Rhine Channel will be concentrations of chemical contaminants' in the s presented using GIS. A project map will be included with the actual sauip4ing loiJadims. Field logs, core photographs; and reports received from the laboratories will be included 'as appendices. I The fixiatreportwil . I I be submitted to RWCO for review and approval. Costs associated with this task are estimated at $18j420. Summary of Estimated I Sediment Testing Costs and Schedule able 2. The total cqsHs estimated at $74;390. Of this amount, ,apptokiniat ly, 6` 601 foistibc 9;7§ for analytical 7 is -O�t tidal chqrges�. If archived samples frohi below 6 inches of each core Ali6 Mialy26&ddditinnal costs✓ill be $1 050.pdr sample, Additionally, if the W#dT Board we re 'foxequire more than -15 sample locations to meet the .permit requirements; additional . , costs would, be incurred.. To provide an estimate of the potential additional costs, a contitigency task has been added to the table to reflect the additional cost of collecting '5 more core samples and analyzing twoaddid6nal depths at half of the cord locations (40 sairiplestotal). M Mr, Chris Miller :December 7, 2011 ..... -.,, — . Page 5 We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time-,and.-materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Table 2 Summary of Confirmational Testing Project Costs .) C% N' fA' F�� wKr �faarcS� :k rX AFI Fy 4u5 Y Z iy M r{+ .1£ xE iIN 111, . ..:....� � .. .?....:'`. _ „rsG ri,.ev _: rr .. ,s .� .. , sx.. ..;; ;... 1, Preparation of a sampling and Analysis Ph6 12,210 3. Meeting:with:Regulatory Agencies - 6,080 3, Sediment Sampling 15,010 0 4. Chemical Analysis' + 22 670 5. Reporting _. 18420`.,,... _ 6. Contingency for addltion"al cores %samples 31,250. Total- (wlthandw] out contingency) 74,390- 105,640* "Base ,costsrdo not include.analysis of akhrved samples: Arrange in costs is provided to account for uncertainty in final testing requirements from the_Water Board.. Work on this task would begin as soon as aifthorization is received from the City. Preparation bf the draft SAP is expected to take three weeks to complete, followed by RWQCB review. Immediately upon receipt of comments; the SAP will be revised and finalized: Upan approvals field samp'fing wilfbe conducted. Samplutg is expected:tolast`3 days The`standaid turnaround time for:chemical analysis is 'lO to 15:days. The fin "al report will be submitted to RWQCB 45 days folloyAng,; completion cfuampling: SUMMARY OF cOSTS The total additional amount' requested for both items 1s summarized inTable 3.. Table 3 Summary of _Requested Change Order Costs :.at•'-•w 3, vt _ +s L i .. z'.v:. w� �`�....' � m. ns,Ke ;a . ..:....� � .. .?....:'`. _ „rsG ri,.ev _: rr .. ,s .� .. , sx.. ..;; ;... Const tuctlon'Manageinent Out—of—Scope Items 4. $244;266 Rhine Channel Confirmat'ional Sediment Sampling and Testing $74,390° $105,640* 'Total - - - $318,656 - $349,906 "Range in costs provided to account for uncertainty in final testing requirements'froiii the Water Board. Mr. Chris Miller December 7, 2011 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this project. If there: are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, .9teve`Cappellino Anelior QEA, L.P. �I Sumrnary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope Items Task I - POIB Coordination Throughout the majority of the project's duration, the level of effort needed for this task Was commensurate With initial expectations and budget projections However, in November, a significantly more concerted effort was required by Anchor QEA personnel (Steve Capppllino, Shelly Anghera, Rob Walkerand,.Michael Whelan) to present and discuss final placement of Rhine Channel material within the Middle Harbor Slip I fill site with Port of Long Beach (POLB) Construction Managementsiaff. ,Task 2 - Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverable's Twtasixoquired s- ignifi . . aboe. and I keyn - axpectaons and expectations b ei.prqjections to cant cff�qrt, vud 19 work with the contractor on finalizing (heir pre - dredge deliVeiables while meeting di "needs the Regional Water Qlalitk.,Coritr6l board (RWQCB) with regards to the water quality permitting, and compliance Process. The original scope of work assu rn ed one re VievVle bilirn ent'eycletpi each 6fthie contractor's pre constiudtion deliv abf�cs ar However, multiple drafts -, , d rounds of comments were nee,ded:for some of the key submittal documents (most. notably the . dredge and disposal plan and environmental protection plan). Similarly, several d a iscussionszuid meetings were needed to.make suie the final.subinitrals.were suitable for submittal to agencies and.POLB. A suinilar expenditure of labor time was needed prior to construction in respond ng to contractor 0 questions regarding vVotk.plann.ed for the floating .docks and gul de piles. it was anticipated that some discussions would needed, b tfthe amount of time spent prior to construction was more. than budgeted: These efforts required several meetings Anii iati ..s 0 ensure common C.. I on as to g ure that these aspects of the project would be coordunzqe,d and handled P Toperly; 9crthe R'WQ_ permit; a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)Iand Quality Assurance Project Plan, (qAPP) were required p.ii6f-t6,d6 gn ru although rl ese v ere not ongmaily anticipated as being necessary kr the prbjeet This was anintensive- process' that required,significaift eftaft dridintmef6us internal and external meetings, in Part because. the RWQQB determined that the he docu I merits needed to be consistent .with guidelines issued by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), significantly increasing the level of effort needed. The following reviews some of the key steps in the process: Ameqtingwas held on 8/5/10 to discuss water quality monitoring and post sediment sampling. A WQMP was, submitted on 8/20/10 by Anchor QEA. • Comments were provided on 9/9/10 by the RWO-CB, Summary of Anchor QEA Out bf Scope Items December 7, 2011 Page 2 of 4 • A follow- up.meeting was held after comments were received and notes were prepared by Anchor QEA to document the discussion and planned changes to the document. Anchor QEA wrote numerous emails and called numerous times to request a timely review of the SAP /QAPP. To further facilitate- the process, Anchor QEA resubmitted an updated document on 5/19/11. • Corriments from the RWQGB were received on 6/8/11. Due to inconsistencies with previous comments and discussions, another meeting was scheduled with the RWQCB to discuss on 6/28/11. • Based on this meeting the'SAP /QAPP -was further revised and a final SAP /QAPP, along with response to comments; was submitted:on7 /28/11 to the RWQGB. • )used on -comments and emails -from the RWQCB, a SWAMP compatible SAP /QAPP was . required to replace the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (W)MP) previously submitted. 'Due. to the SWAMP; equireinents, it required more „than triple the effbrt,of typical water quality monitoring SAPs (which have rid, PP,$), • lust prior to construcnon'ahe RWQGB 4ssued additional comments and concerns which required addressing and ncorporating into the firial field imnitoring program. As described above, a+ significant, amount bf uiranticipated effort went into preparing the WQMP and vanous SAP /QAPP drafts, coordinating documents and meetings, sohcifin'g feedback from the RWQGB- tluough emails and calls, and dis'cus'sing co,'mments /revising the document numerous times. Th i s level of coordination thaUwas required with the RWQCB was far greatet,thari what would be needed fora typical document (SAP ox,report) submitcal'proceatire, as occurs w th ofher'Regional Boards or'tegulatory' agencies iii Southern California; The typical procedure involves submittal of :a draft SAP (if respond'to one set of comments, one meeting, and.sW mittal a final SAP, Altogethe.rs fourversions'of the document were submitted three rieettngs; seyeral calls, and ,numeroii`s -pin 19 toolr;place to discuss the comments and to keep ithe process moving forward, In addition,, the RWQGB's determination that the documents needed to b'e compatible with SWAMP :requirements made their” preparation sigm ficarttly more -rigorous than would have been required by oiler Regional Boards. in California. Anchor QEA suggested that, the SWAMP format would not, in fact, be relevant to.this project, because California's SWAMP was not designed for evaluating short - terin water quality impacts such as those due to dredging, but instead is a regional program. focused :on assessing long -term water quality trends. Nevertheless, the RWQCB -did -not change their position ii:this regard, although Anchor QEA was successful in reducing the number of required sampling events, the analytes required for analysis, and some unachievable reporting limit issues initially proposed by the RWQGB. Summary of Anchor QEA Out of scope items December 7,2011 Page 3,of 4 Task 3 - Pre - Construction Tenant Coordination Out of scope activities for this task was fairly - limited and included working with the contractor to coordinate with the POLB on delivery schedules, coordinating with various tenants on the Rhine Channel regarding their participation on the project; and numerous meetings regarding schedule coordination for dredging the Channel Road area and the accompanying flock relocation. At project's end considerable effort was expended in ensuring that piles and docks met the approval of the various property owners and representatives. Task 5 — .Rhine Channel Construction Management Although in aggregate this task ended'up under, budget, there were a few.notable out of scope items For instance; change orders were:needed to reduce the.dredge footprint for certain propert es based on discussionsimmediately prior to (or, during) construction between these property owners and the CIty. Both change order efforts' regdirefl.adjusting the plan sheets, calculating. adjusted i rantrt es "for ,contract volume estimates,. and preparation of updated spOlficat ons,and/o1 narrative descriptions for the, modified work efforts. In a similar fashion, five separate.areas of additional dredging turned out to be needed, each of whicb.also;required generation of figures and coordinate's depicting the �sddtttonal dredging, calculation of resulting dredge quantities, addiiional.analysis of progress surveys, and a'second round of confirmatory sampling at each location. Although it was anticipated Ghat additional dredging mighrbe.needed, and btidgeted accordingly, the incidence of five separate areas end.e.d up requiring more effort than originally expected. Task.6 = Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring Implementation of the expanded water quality monitoring program'was the single largest out of scope item require$for'cbrWefion of the Rh ne'Channel construction effort. Based on earl water quality monitoring results, an expandedenonitonng program was required by the RyVQGB wliich included daily monitoring 'special, studies; more frequent data reports to •the State, and additional chemical analytes. The following highlights'the major differences in.pioject assumptions'fhaf changed as a result of the Water.Board requirements. • Budgeted for 64 samples for chemical analysis and ended up with 218 in total. Budgeted for 5 QA/QC samples for chemical analysis and ended up with 13. in total. • Budgeted for 23 sampling. events and ended up with 66 in total. • Budgeted for three reports to the RWQCB (pre -flredge, midpoint and final) and ended up requiring six (pre - dredge, midpoint, final, I" week, revised schedule, and two special studies). • Conducted special studies to evaluate the following issues for the RWQCB: turbidity /TSS comparison, water quality at additional reference stations, plume tracking studies, follow -up 7 9. Summary of Anchor QEA Out of Scope'Items December 7,2011 Page 4 of 4 turbidity study in main channel. All of these special studies required management, 'negotiation and coordination with Water Board staff. Anchor QEA was, however, able to mitigate rthe'effect of these changes on overall project costs, by utilizing City labor wherever ppssible for the water quality monitoring. Approximately 55 man hours Were used to supplement the Anchor QEA field team resulting in a cost savings of almost $5,000 to the project. Task 7 — Construction Management at other GityPronerties With an'agreement re'aehed between the City"and American Legion Post'291 to perform additional Axedgmg-and pile.replacemeat activities within the American Legion marina, Anchor QEA provided ,additroiial construction coordination and ` oversight for the expanded scope of work. This, included several meetings with American Legion staff prior to construction to,work through logistical details relating to :construction. During consthi fb , the to or ry relocation of the floating docks required additional oversight; This included documentation of pre- existing'eonditions; general .construction oversight and docturiehtati6n throughout the move, and assisting the-City in maintaining public safety protocols for this temporary obstruction to navigation. With an additional Yen piles replaced by the American Legion change order, addkional construction oversight during pile driving:activitie's was provided above our Initial expectations. The out of scope items for this task . ended up, not requiring addition funds as the work was completed faster than expected so savings were achieved in other portidns of the scope: 6.1136q AMENDMENT NO. FIVE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. FIVE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Amendment No. Five "), is entered into as of this `1-A day of t ijK1, 2011, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,`a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, LP, a California Limited Partnership whose address is 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240, Mission Viejo , California 92691 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 14, 2009, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") to develop a Conceptual Design Plan for a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor. B. On November 10, 2009, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation. C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agreement to increase the scope of work, to increase the term of the Agreement to August 30, 2012, and to increase the total compensation. D. On October 12, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Three to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation. E. On April 28, 2011, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Four to the Agreement to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation. F. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Five to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments, to increase the total compensation and update insurance requirements. G. This Amendment No. Five will partially fund, with funds contributed by the American Legion Newport Harbor Post 291 ( "American Legion "), a study of the vertical sea walls at the American Legion's marina. H. With the exception of the insurance language provided in Section 3, this Amendment No. Five shall not take effect until Consultant receives the American Legion's share of the costs specified in Exhibit "A." City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided in this Amendment No. Five. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Section 2 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated May 19, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the Agreement. Consultant's total amended compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Million Four Hundred Forty -Four Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty -Four Dollars and no /100 ($1,444,424.00) without prior written authorization from City ( "Total Amended Compensation "). No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City. 2.1 The Total Amended Compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Five, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred Seventy -Two Dollars and no /100 ($17,172.00), without prior written authorization from City. 3. INSURANCE Section 14 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant's bid. B. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. C. Coverage Requirements. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subconsultant's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. iv. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim and in the aggregate. D. Other Insurance Provisions or Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: i. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. ii. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. iii. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. iv. Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. E. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. F. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 4. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS The parties acknowledge the recitals provided in this Amendment No. Five are true and correct and incorporated into the operative part of this Amendment No. Five. 5. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement, as amended, shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. Five on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE TH CITY ATTORNEY Date: Leese Mulvihill µf Assistant City Attorney 54111% ATTEST: Date. By. V�utlNY1� . I Leilani I. Brown U City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Cal ifornia rr unicipal corporation Date: 6/7/// Pu IN By St( Senior Partner Director )NSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, a Limited Services to be Performed ���� L � L � � � dI �; ANCHOR OE A 26300 la Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 May 19, 2011 Mr. Chris \Miller City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 829 Harbor Island Drive Nte,wport Beach, California 92660 Re: Proposed Scope of Work for Engineering Analysis and Plan Preparation Additional Sediment Dredging from American Legion Newport Harbor Post 291 Lower Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., appreciates this opportunity to present our proposed scope of work for evaluating the feasible extent and depths of dredging the marina at American Legion Post 291 in Newport Beach, California. Anchor QEA has been retained by the City of Newport Beach (City) to develop a dredge plan for the Rhine Channel and areas adjacent to Post 291, Marina Park, and 15th Street parcels on Lower Newport Bay. Sediment dredged from these areas will be hauled by barge for disposal in the Middle Harbor slip fill being constructed by the Port of Long Beach. Dredging is planned to occur in the summer /fall of 2011. We understand that Post 291 is interested in performing additional dredging within the extents of the marina, which will be negotiated with the City as an add -on to the planned dredging project for the Rhine Channel. The scope of work presented in this letter reflects proposed engineering studies needed to develop a feasible dredge plan for Post 291. It also Presents permitting efforts that would be needed if this dredging is to be included in the City's Rhine Channel project. As was true for the work with the City in the Rhine Channel, we propose to focus our engineering efforts on assessing the current condition of structural elements within the www.anchorgea.com ;;.Mr. Chris i \Miller N,lay 19, 2011 Page 2 marina and along its shoreline. Specifically, these structural elements include the concrete panel seawall and the standing walls that separate the marina basin from adjoining beaches to the east and west of the property. Dredging has the potential to lessen the stability of these structures, and to counter these potential structural issues, we will design it dredge plan that avoids, or mitigates for, the effects of dredging on these structures. Based on our meeting with you and representatives of Post 291 on May 12, we have divided the engineering analysis into two separate phases, with the costs for our overall effort split between the City and Post 291. This proposal included only those efforts and engineering analyses that are directly related to maintaining the stability of the site seawall. All other engineering and permitting efforts will be Lorne by Post 291 and are presented in a separate proposal. Our proposed scope of work related to seawall stability is as follows. PROPOSED TASKS Task 1: Investigate Existing Site Conditions Under Task 1, Anchor QEA and a team of subcontractors will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to establish existing conditions to a degree of detail needed to support our evaluation of dredging effects. Specific items to be evaluated include the seawalls and the general condition of sediments within the basin. Costs for this task will be split between the City and Post 291, depending on the relevance of various actions to the seawall stability component, as described below. Task 1.1: Investigation of Seawalls The shoreline of the Post 291 marina is comprised of a concrete panel seawall, similar in nature to seawalls used elsewhere in this portion of Lower Newport Bay. Under our contractual authorization fi-om the City, we will evaluate the structural conditions, dimensions, and embedment depths of the seawall panel. This task will include the following set of investigative actions: o We will compile and review all readily available design or construction records from the City and Post 291. A representative from URS Corporation, a locally and nationally recognized structural Air. Chris 9-liller Aia% 19. 2011 Page 3 engineering firm, will walk the site and assess the structural condition of seawalls at a low tide stage when as much of the wall face is exposed as possible. URS will prepare a brief memorandum that summarizes their observations of the seawall's general condition. A team from Shellmaker Inc., a locally recognized marine contractor, to directly measure wall embedment depths at representative locations. These measurements will be accomplished by "jet probing," a process where a small. diameter water jet pipe will be advanced along and in contact with the face of the wall. Once the pipe loses contact with the wall, it is assumed to have reached the bottom of the wall's embedded length. Shellmaker will test the embedded depth at 10 locations along the seawall and the standing walls that flank the east and west sides of Post 291. Task 1.2: Investigation of Sediment Conditions Our evaluation requires an understanding of the geotechnical properties of sediments at Post 291, because these sediments currently play a key role in providing support to the seawall and in evaluating physical sediment properties as they relate to the dredging process. As part of our previous efforts for the City, we obtained historical geotechnical data from the adjacent .Nlarina Park property, and we also have received limited sediment testing information conducted by 1\ewfields from within the marina. In order to properly appraise sediment geotechnical properties, it will be necessary to gather further information on sediment thickness and strength properties. We, therefore, propose to conduct a limited field evaluation of the shallow sediments that underlie Post 291. Because this task relates to the seawall stability evaluation as well as the formulation of sediment properties and dredging design, the effort associated with performing this task has been split equally between the City and Post 291. Our field evaluation will be accomplished through 1 day's worth of effort, during which we will perform the following investigative actions: Y We will collect four to five hand - pushed sediment cores to depths reachable by hand pushing (typically on the order of 4 to 6 feet into the sediment). This type of sampling will allow for an estimate of the depth of "soft" near - surface materials overlying "firmer" materials below and will allow us to directly observe and sample Mr. Chris. Nliller NIay 19, 2011 Paee 4 the shallow sediments. • We will submit up to 8 selected sediment samples to a local geotechnical laboratory for testing of water content, grain size distribution, and Atterberg Limits. • We will estimate the strength of the near - surface sediments using a field vane device. This device is a handheld rod with a set of fins at its base that are pushed into the sediment. The rod is twisted until the embedded fins at the base of the rod are able to shear the sediment and rotate. The force needed to reach this point is an approximation of the sediment's strength. Altogether, these efforts are expected to require 1 full day's worth of work for three Anchor QEA personnel. All work would be completed from the existing floating docks, rather than using a field vessel. Note that this geotechnical program is cursory in nature. The program that we propose herein will require that conservative assumptions be used for the design, which may need to include significant offset distances from the seawall. A more complete and thorough program would include geotechnical borings conducted using a rig operating from a floating drilling platform, which would be a significantly more expensive prospect. If, during the course of our analysis, it becomes clear that additional geotechnical information is needed to avoid a significant project impact, then we will discuss with the Cityand' with Post 291 the reasons and advantages of adding this element of work to the proposed scope. Task 2: Analyze Feasible Extent of Dredging Once Task 1 is complete, Anchor QEA and URS will use geotechnical and structural engineering analysis techniques to determine how dredging could affect seawall stability. At Rhine Channel, we found that seawalls in the area are typically not up to current code requirements for overall stability. As a result, the City will be offsetting all dredging by a distance of 30 feet from the seawalls. It is very possible that the same condition applies to the Post 291 marina, in which case we foresee the need to incorporate a similar amount of offset. This task will include the following set of investigative actions: C We will evaluate the extent of the "passive resistance wedge" in front of the seawall to determine how close dredging could encroach on the seawalls before affecting the wall stability. Air. Chris \filler hlav 19, 2011 Paee 5 We will evaluate the amount of passive resistance that is provided to the wall by the near - surface sediments to determine the degree to which dredging could affect the wall. G We will develop a dredge plan that is reasonably and sufficiently protective of the seawalls, likely with an offset distance, similar to the approach used by the City in the Rhine Channel. Conservative assumptions will be made regarding site geotechnical conditions and the condition of existing site features, along with our Findings from Task 1. If it becomes clear during the design process that additional analysis would be needed to demonstrate the safety of dredging closer to site structures, then the option for conducting additional studies can be discussed. Task 3: Develop Design for Replacement Guide Piles We understand that Post 291 intends to replace any guide piles that are situated within the dredging area. We will conduct a structural analysis of required guide pile dimensions given the planned dredging depths and conservatively estimated geotechnical properties of soils in which they are embedded. This task will be conducted under our contractual authorization with Post 291 and, as such, is not included in this proposal. Task 4: Prepare Construction Plans Anchor QEA will prepare plan sheets documenting the planned marina dredging. We will also provide a typical detail for replacement guide piles within the marina. This task will be conducted under our contractual authorization with Post 291 and, as such, is not included in this proposal. Task 5: Permitting Support In order for the marina dredging to be included in the City's Rhine Channel construction project, Anchor QEA will work with the City to prepare and submit permit modification request documentation. This task will be conducted tinder our contractual authorization with Post 291 and, as such, is not included in this proposal. Mr. Chris \Miller -lay 19, 2011 I'agc 6 ESTIMATED COST AND SCHEDULE Table 1 presents our estimated costs for the three recommended tasks described herein, and the proposed breakdown of the tasks costs between the City and the American Legion Post 291. Table 1 Summary of Estimated Costs We propose to conduct these tasks on a not -to- exceed, time- and - materials basis, as an addition to our existing contract for services related to the Rhine Channel project. '4'.re appreciate the opportunity to continue our work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this proposed additional scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Michael Whelan, P.G. Anchor QGA, L.P. Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Total Estimated Task Task Description Post 291 Share City Share Cost Investigate Existing Site 1 Conditions 1.1 Investigation of Seawalls $7,494 $0 $7,494 1.2 Investigation of Sediment $8,888 $4,444 $4,444 Conditions 2 Analyze Feasible Extent of $5,234 $0 $5,234 Dredging 3 Guide Pile Design $7,150 $7,150 $0 4 Prepare Construction Plans $7,428 $7,428 $0 5 Permitting Support $10,126 $10,126 $0 Total Cost $46,320 $29,148 $17,172 We propose to conduct these tasks on a not -to- exceed, time- and - materials basis, as an addition to our existing contract for services related to the Rhine Channel project. '4'.re appreciate the opportunity to continue our work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this proposed additional scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Michael Whelan, P.G. Anchor QGA, L.P. Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Amendment No. Four "), is entered into as of this ' tLday of R (r , 2011, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, LP, a California Limited Partnership whose address is 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240, Mission Viejo, California 92691 ( "Consultant'), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 14, 2009, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement') to develop a Conceptual Design Plan for a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor ('Project'). B. On November 10, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. One "). C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work, to increase the term of the Agreement to August 30, 2012, and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Two "). D. On October 12, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Three to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Three "). E. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Four to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments and to increase the total compensation. F. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Section 2 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated March 16, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the Agreement, as amended. Consultant's total amended compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Million, Four Hundred Twenty - Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty -Two Dollars and no /100 ($1,427,252.00) without prior written authorization from City ( "Total Amended Compensation "). No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City. 2.1 The Total Amended Compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Four, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Six Hundred Twenty -Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Sixty -Four Dollars and no /100 ($624,964.00), without prior written authorization from City. 3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement and all prior amendments shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. Four on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFIC ,OIAII lly ATTORNEY Dal L2 Leone Mulvihill „y1,N Assistant City Attorney � QI t � 1 ATTEST: �3 Date: By: UW`1 Leilani I. Brown City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California municipal corporation Date: By: Michael F. Henn Mayor CONSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, a Limited Partnership fe Cappellino for Partner Attachment: Exhibit A —'1 1 ervices to be Performed n - - ANCHOR OEA 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 March 16, 2011 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Scope of Work for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with planning for and executing the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project. As the City is aware, sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as other nearby City - managed areas have been found to be unsuitable for open -water disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site. Those sediments have recently been approved for placement into the Port of Long Beach's (POLB's) Middle Harbor confined disposal facility (CDF) fill site. Recent efforts have resulted in the completion of the engineering design, preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, and acquisition of regulatory permits for the dredging/disposal project. This scope of work details anticipated tasks ranging from final project planning through construction management and project closure'. Project closure includes development of a proposed sampling plan for review by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), intended as a mechanism for closure with the RWQCB's 303(d) re- analysis process, as well as field sampling and chemical analyses. The costs for developing the final sampling plan, as well as the actual implementation of the plan, may be eliminated if we are ' Tasks describing project closure are for informational purposes only to aid in project planning, No costs are requested to perform these tasks at this time. www.ancliorgea.com Mr. Chris bliller March 16. 2011 able to convince the R WQCB that data collected during construction are sufficient for future characterization purposes. if successful, this approach would save the City considerable funds by eliminating possible duplicate sampling efforts. A meeting to discuss this possibility with RWQCB staff cannot occur until after a contractor is selected and the final dredge plan is developed. Dredging within the Rhine Channel will be much more complicated than other dredging projects completed in the region. The goal of this project is to remove as much contaminated material as possible, meaning the dredge design is ultimately a target or estimate of the work to be completed. The actual effort will be adjusted in the field based on the results of field monitoring and interim sampling efforts. Moreover, the Rhine Channel is very congested with a considerable number of structures that must be worked around, which will significantly increase the opportunity for damage to occur. More than half of the dock structures in the Rhine Channel are in very poor condition and, as such, will likely require special attention during the pile removal /replacement phase to ensure further degradation does not occur. In addition, the contractor will be under close scrutiny for this project by local residents, as well as the POLB managers, to ensure that all procedures are followed properly and that constant communication between the contractor and local residents occurs. For example, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MCA) with the City of Long Beach, one mistake by the contractor during disposal at the Port will result in an immediate termination of the disposal agreement and hence the end of the project. Simply put, the goal of the construction management effort is to quickly and confidently address any and all issues that arise on the project in the most efficient manner possible while protecting the City's interests (i.e., minimizing liability) on the project. Typical construction management levels for similar projects range from 10 to 15 percent of the contract value. The target level of effort for this current scope of work is closer to 7 percent because it is assumed that City staff will be able to assist in the management process. The following scope of work is broken down into three distinct phases: 1) construction preparation and stakeholder coordination tasks to occur prior to construction; 2) construction management and field monitoring task to occur during construction; and 3) Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 3 post - construction coordination tasks2. Estimated costs are provided based on time and materials estimated using assumptions and information gathered from other, recent, dredging projects in the region. If final costs are less than the estimates provided. the City will not be charged for the additional amounts. A final project schedule will be developed after a contractor has been retained by the City to conduct the marine work. Based on the anticipated POLB fill schedule presented in the MCA, dredging will start in early August 2011 and last for a period of 4 months (18 weeks) for the Rhine Channel work and 2 weeks for the other City- managed areas (water areas along Marina Park, the American Legion Yacht Club, and the City's 15th Street Pier. For purposes of this cost estimate, we have assumed 12 -hour work days and a 6 -day work week for the contractor. Anchor QEA's level of effort to support the project will be much less than "full time," as such, all task items presented herein will be conducted in collaboration with City staff. At the City's discretion, Anchor QEA's participation may be increased or reduced to match project needs. PHASE 1— RHINE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION PREPARATION AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION Task 1: Port of Long Beach Coordination Anchor QEA staff will assist the City in developing and implementing a successful MCA for dredged material placement at the Middle Harbor CDF fill site. Specific tasks will include meeting with POLB and City staff, assisting in the development of an approved fill plan and schedule, working with City attorneys to ensure contractor liability concerns are transferred to the appropriate sections of the contract documents, and coordinating with POLB staff, as needed, to provide project information for regional agency updates (e.g., Dredged Material Management Team and Contaminated Sediments Task Force meetings). The estimated cost for this task is $12,720. Task 2: Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverables Working with City staff, Anchor QEA will lead the contractor solicitation and selection process, including preparing the final contract documents and leading a pre -bid meeting and ' Post construction tasks are presented for informational purposes only to assist with project planning. No costs are requested for these tasks at this time. iMr. Chris \lifter March 16.2011 Page d site walk at the project'site and, if needed, at the POLB disposal site. Once bids are received, Anchor QEA will work closely with the City to review and comment on each bid package, compare bid prices between contractors, check references, and assist the City in selecting and negotiating with a dredge contractor. Because of the project's complexity (remediation dredging versus construction or maintenance) and the unique nature of the dredging work, we anticipate a fair level of involvement with the City in this process. Our firm is currently working with nearly all available dredge contractors in the region, thus affording us the unique opportunity to have insight on their practices, equipment, and personnel. The nature of the work is very different than with upland construction efforts and close attention must be paid at certain critical junctures of the project. Once a contractor has been selected, Anchor QEA will lead the preparation of agency submittals and review of contractor submittals, including those required to obtain a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the agencies. Specific deliverables for this task include a series of pre - construction submittals, as commonly required for similar dredging and pile replacement projects. Some of these submittals are also required by the various agencies specifically for this project. Submittals include the following: Dredging and disposal work plan. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit this work plan as a detailed pre - construction submittal, which will be reviewed by Anchor QEA acting as the City's engineer. Once the contractor has sufficiently revised this work plan and it is judged to be fully consistent with project specifications, Anchor QEA will submit the work plan to the agencies in order to receive NTP for dredging. G Projecr schedule and work sequence, The contractor will provide a proposed project schedule and work sequence. Anchor QEA will assist the City with review and comment and will then submit the final document to the appropriate agencies for project planning. Pile r-eplacementplan. The contractor will document the procedures, equipment, and schedule for removing and replacing all piles indicated on the contract drawing. This information will be documented in a pile replacement plan, to be reviewed and approved by Anchor QEA, and then submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as a permit compliance measure. Mr. Chris Miller March 16. 2011 Page 5 Pre- dredge survey. The City is required to perform a pre- dredge survey of the project site after bid opening, but prior to the start of construction, for use in determining pay quantities with the contractor. Anchor QEA will retain a subcontractor to perform the survey and will coordinate dissemination of this pre- dredge survey to the dredge contractor and to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). Gahagan and Bryant, Inc., has been included for estimating purposes, because they have performed similar work in the Rhine Channel and, therefore, have all the base maps needed already loaded into their systems. The anticipated cost for this effort is $18,000. Pre- construction eelgrass and Caulerpa survey. Anchor QEA will retain a certified subcontractor to perform field surveys and will review and submit the data to the respective agencies as required by the USAGE, CCC, and RWQCB permits. The services of Mike Anghera and Kimo Morris have been included for estimating purposes, because they performed similar work in the Rhine Channel during the permit application process and are already familiar with the site. The anticipated cost for this effort is $3,000. Final water quality monitoring and reporting plan. A draft document is currently in review at the RWQCB. Once comments are received, the document will be finalized and submitted to all interested parties. Labor associated with this task is actually covered by Anchor QEA's previous scope of work but that deliverable is included here for completeness. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The contractor will provide a draft Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan and Anchor QEA will review and comment on the document. Once the SPCC Plan is revised and is judged to be fully consistent with the contract documents, Anchor QEA will coordinate submittal of the plan to the appropriate agencies as required by the permits. Vessel relocation plan and implementation schedule. The City and Anchor QEA will work with the contractor to develop a vessel relocation plan and implementation schedule for submittal to the CCC as required by the permit. This deliverable will require the most effort to complete. Final construction staging and offloading plan. The contractor will provide a draft document, and Anchor QEA will review and coordinate submittal of the plan to the CCC as required by the permit. Mr. Chris \Miller \larch 16.2011 a ffea/rh and Safery P /an. The contractor will provide a draft health and safety plan for Anchor QEA's review and comment. The finalized document will be provided to all staff working on the project and will be made available to the City staff and agency representatives visiting the site. The estimated cost for this task is $59,350. Task 3: Pre- Construction Tenant and Stakeholder Coordination Prior to the start of construction, Anchor QEA will provide consistent and ongoing technical support to City staff to assist in preparing for dredging operations. Specific duties will include preparing for and facilitating frequent stakeholder update meetings, updating the City council members as requested, and meetings with individual property owners along the Rhine Channel regarding issues related to vessel relocation, site access, and construction scheduling. Anchor QFA will also assist in pre - construction coordination with other stakeholders, such as Harbor Patrol, local businesses potentially impacted from the project (e.g., Hornblower Cruises, Newport'1'our operators), local environmental groups like CoastKeeper, regulatory agencies, and concerned harbor citizens. The estimated cost for this task is $23,770. PHASE 2 — RHINE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND FIELD MONITORING Task 1: Rhine Channel Construction Management City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Manager, Chris Miller, will be the lead construction manager for the dredging project. Anchor QEA staff will provide ongoing construction management services to assist Mr. Miller for the duration of the project. For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed that, on average, someone will be present on site and working on the project 50 percent of the time the contractor is working. This level of effort may be adjusted upwards or downwards as the projects needs change. The Rhine Channel dredging effort is estimated to take 18 weeks to complete, and the contractor is planning to work 12 -hour days /6 -day weeks. Thus, a full -time effort for one staff person for the Rhine Channel dredging portion of the project would be 1,296 hours (648 hours was used for this estimate). Mr. Chris Miller ibiarch 16, 2011 Page 7 When Anchor QEA staff members are not present on site, City staff be the primary point of contact for all project responsibilities and Anchor QEA will make sure that qualified representatives can be on -call at any time of the day or night to assist in case an emergency arises. The on -site construction manager will coordinate all contractor activities during the day and resolve issues as they arise. The amount of time required to perform this function is a direct correlation with the experience of the contractor selected and the number of issues (i.e., damages to existing structures, unforeseen changes in site conditions, unexpected debris, etc.) that develop.during construction. Typically, the activities performed by the on -site construction manager include the following: • Participating in a pre - construction meeting with the contractor and City staff to review construction requirements, expectations, lines of communication, construction logistics, permit compliance, and other issues relevant to the construction process • Assisting City staff with implementation of the vessel relocation plan • Observing the technical conduct of the contractor's work for overall quality and compliance with the contract documents, approved submittals, and/or applicable technical standards c Meeting with the contractor on regular occasions each day to observe and discuss progress, schedule, and items of concern G Reviewing interim surveys to verify that dredging reaches the proper depths, slopes, and horizontal extents • Tracking dredging rate and proper filling of haul barges • Planning, participating in, and conducting weekly meetings to discuss project progress G Providing day -to -day interpretation of contract requirements and responding to contractor questions and formal Requests for Information (RFIs), including in -the -field resolution of minor issues Performing, or arranging, and overseeing field measurements to determine constructed dimensions and extents, payable quantities, and conformance with project requirements a Facilitating minor field changes to circumvent change orders due to obstructions or other unanticipated conditions Nir. Chris N iller March 16. 2011 G Determining progress payment quantities using progress surveys provided by the contractor G Verifying Final payment quantities using a post- dredge survey, which is assumed to be performed and provided by our subcontractors G Fulfilling all responsibilities of the engineer as set forth within the contract documents a Collecting sediment grab samples, as needed, to assist in making decisions regarding adequacy of dredging C Photographing and videotaping field activities, as needed, to document the construction effort Y Installing and monitoring survey markers on selected seawalls to detect whether any measurable deflections of the seawalls are noted during the dredging effort C Meetine with local residents and business owners to ensure impacts to vessel passage and business operations are minimized C Observing all activities at staging and offloading areas to ensure compliance with applicable permit conditions C Reviewing all progress reports and payment requests from the contractor for accuracy and compliance with the contract documents • Responding, as needed, to local resident concerns regarding construction activities • Reviewing and inspecting guide pile replacement activities (and floating dock repairs, if necessary) to ensure compliance with the contract documents, to detect unforeseen conditions that could affect dock stability and function, and to develop specific repair task scopes (if needed) so that contractor efforts and costs are fully controlled • Working with the City and contractor to compile a final punch list of various final items to address or repair before the contractor's work can be considered complete In addition to the on -site construction manager, a team of scientists and engineers will also be involved to provide technical and administrative support throughout the construction effort. Support staff will be based in our Mission Viejo office and will be ready to assist in the field on short notice, whenever needed. The support team will assist with items such as contractor oversight, stakeholder coordination, sediment sampling, surveys and pay volume reviews, scheduling updates, Port construction meetings, and progress report preparation. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 9 To assist with project coordination and to provide a central location for staff and contractors to work while in the field, Anchor QEA will secure a rental office located adjacent to the Rhine Channel project location. `Phis space will be available for Anchor QEA and City staff to work while on site monitoring the construction activities as well as available for weekly contractor meetings to occur. This task, like the others, will be based on time and materials expenses. As such, the City will not be charged for any clown time on the current project when staff can be working on other projects. The estimated cost for this task is $383,955. Of this amount, $272,180 is estimated for labor, with the remainder estimated for subcontractors (guide pile oversight, post - construction bathymetric survey, vessel relocation services, and analytical chemistry) and other direct expenses like field office rent, boat rental, and field supplies. Using the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Costs of $4 million (without contingency) for the Rhine Channel dredging effort, the labor portion of this task represents 6.8 percent of the total amount, which is almost half of that typically spent on other, similar regional dredging efforts that we have been involved in over the past 5 years. The assumptions used to develop the current estimate represent a realistic "best case" scenario assuming significant involvement by City staff in the management process. Actual conditions may require an increased level of effort once construction commences. Task 2: Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring and Reporting Anchor QEA will be responsible for ensuring permit compliance for all environmental aspects of the project. This effort includes the following: U Water quality monitoring and reporting prior to, during, and after construction (includes sample collection, processing, and analytical and physical measurements) according to the draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) submitted to the RWQCB. • Coordinating water quality and sediment monitoring activities with the contractor • Collection and tracking of documents associated with off -site landfill disposal of debris and material determined unsuitable for disposal at the Middle Harbor CDF fill site G Working with the contractor to monitor and report air emission information from the construction equipment Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 10 C Assisting the City with the coordination and purchase of emission credits for air quality compliance C Providing written progress reports and preparing presentation materials, as needed, to keep the agencies and City council members apprised of the environmental compliance aspects of the project G Ensuring . compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (SCEMP), including management of an eelgrass survey conducted by a subcontractor The estimated cost for this task is $112,709. Of this amount, $41,000 is estimated for labor needed to collect and process samples and the remaining is estimated for chemical analyses and field equipment rental. Task 3: Construction Management for Marina Park /American Legion Dredge Areas This task is intended to cover construction management responsibilities specifically related to dredging and pile replacement at the non -Rhine Channel dredge areas of the project (e.g., water areas along Marina Park, the American Legion Yacht Club, and the City's 15th Street Pier). The level of effort required for this portion of the project is assumed to be similar to that required within the Rhine Channel but is expected to take place over significantly less time (2 weeks) because of the smaller volume of sediment to be removed. This effort is included as a separate task in case the City wants to track the costs separately for internal accounting purposes. The estimated cost for this task is $30,780. PHASE 3 — RHINE CHANNEL POST - CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION TASKS (FUTURE TASKS )3 Task 1: Rhine Channel Sediment Survey Sampling and Analysis Plan Once field activities are completed and the contractor has been released from the site, a sediment survey will be designed and implemented to document for the regulatory agencies the final extent of sediment removed (and the amount remaining in place) to allow an assessment of the site from a 303(d) improvement standpoint. Two primary items will be z As stated above, these casks are provided for informational purposes only. No cosrs are requested at this time for Phase 3. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page I1 included in this survey: 1) a summary of sediment volumes and a detailed survey of the locations from which sediment was removed; and 2) the final concentrations of chemical contaminants in the surface layer of the Rhine Channel. Typically, the RWQCB requires the project sponsor to develop and submit a draft Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and proposed outline for the final survey report for RWQCB review and approval. Once tlhe SAP is approved, sediment core samples are collected and the results are submitted to document the final surface concentrations for the chemicals of concern. This goal of this data is to show that full beneficial uses have been restored to the site and therefore it may be removed from the 303(d) list. Obtaining full removal from the 303(d) list is an ambitious goal for the dredging project because it is infeasible to remove all of the contaminated sediment from along the bulkheads, but lowering the site ranking to a point where it is no longer considered a "toxic hot spot' by the Water Board with imminent regulatory action planned is a much more realistic outcome. Anchor QEA will work with the RWQCB to determine if some or all of these steps can be eliminated in lieu of the sediment data already planned for collection to verify contractor performance during the actual dredging. If the above approach is not successful, Anchor QEA will develop and submit for approval a draft SAP for agency submittal. Although not included in this scope of work, the estimated costs to prepare this document would be approximately $15,000. Task 2: Rhine Channel Sediment Sampling Depending on the outcome of Task 1 of Phase 3, additional sediment core samples may need to be collected at the end of the project to verify the final surface sediment chemical concentrations within the Rhine Channel. If needed, this task will include mobilizing and collecting sediment core samples from approximately 15 to 20 locations and surface grab samples from up to an additional 10 locations. Samples would be logged and sub - sampled at various intervals to evaluate the potential for residual contamination (metals and pesticides). The estimated number of sampling locations is based on previous work conducted within the Rhine Channel and from similar projects within the region. If needed, the estimated sampling and analysis costs for this task would be approximately $65,000. As with Task 1, this cost is not included in the current budget request. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 12 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF COSTS Table I presents our estimated costs for this scope of work. The total cost is estimated at $624,964. Of this amount, almost $164,000 is for subcontractors including almost $100,000 in analytical charges. Another $33,000 is estimated for field equipment and supplies. The remaining $419,000 is estimated for labor beaveen now and the end of the.construction period (estimated to be around December 31, 2011). The actual construction management effort (labor only) for the entire project is estimated at $302,960 or, on average, 1.6 full -time employees for a period of 4.2 months. This cost, which represents almost 7 percent of the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Costs for the project, is derived by adding the labor costs for the Rhine Channel work with that for the Marina Park/American Legion work. All other tasks are not included because they represent non - standard costs associated with the regulatory aspects of the project (e.g., water quality and sediment monitoring, air quality compliance, etc.) and are not typical of most construction projects. Table 1 Summary of Estimated Costs Phase /Task Task Description Estimated Cost Rhine Channel Construction Preparation and Phase 1 Stakeholder Coordination Task 1 Port of Long Beach Coordination $12,720 Task 2 Contractor Selection and Pre- Dredge Deliverables $59,350 Task 3 Pre- Construction Tenant and Stakeholder Coordination $25,450 Phase 2 Rhine Channel Construction Management and Field Monitoring Task 1 Rhine Channel Construction Management $383,955 Task 2 Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring and Reporting $112,709 Construction Management for Newport Channel Task 3 $30,780 Properties Rhine Channel Post - Construction Coordination (FUTURE Phase 3 TASKS) Task 1 Rhine Channel Sediment Survey Sampling and Analysis $TBD Plan Task 2 Rhine Channel Sediment Sampling I $TBD Total Estimated Cost 1 $624,964 Mr. Chris \filler March 16, 2011 Pape 13 For the labor categories listed in the cost estimate, Steve Cappellino and Dr. Joshua Burnam are included in the principal category. Steve will serve as the project manager, and Dr. Burnam will lead the regulatory requirements. Michael Whelan's time overseeing the engineering work comprises the senior managing labor category. Dr. Jack Malone is the primary staff person in the managing biologist category who will help with the regulatory requirements and air emission tracking. The bulk of labor costs allotted for the senior engineer category, which covers the field hours for Rob Walker, who will serve as the on -site construction manager. The senior CAD designer role will be filled by Greg Howell. Mr. Howell will be responsible for processing daily surveys, calculating the ongoing dredge removal volumes, and locating target sampling locations for sediment analysis. The last labor category with significant quantities of estimated hours is the project coordinator. On this project, three people are included in the project coordinator category. Linnay Trail is a document coordinator who will be responsible for editing and producing all field reports and permit required documents. Brittany Geisler is a project coordinator, who will assist the field staff in preparing their field reports, managing the photograph and video documentation, and project filing. Lastly, Dustin Fellers is a field technician, who will be the lead for all sediment and water quality field sampling. We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time - and - materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Attached to this scope request is a detailed list of assumptions that support our estimated costs. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, rV Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Mr. Chris Miller \larch 16 2011 Page 14 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used for estimating the sediment confirmational and post construction testing costs: During construction, surface sediment grab samples will be collected on an as- needed basis, once the contractor has cleared each dredge area, to verify that the target material has been removed. For the purpose of this cost estimate, we have assumed a total of 50 grab samples at a cost of $600 /sample for metals and pesticide analyses. It is unclear exactly how many samples may be needed but 50 should provide sufficient coverage for the project area to be dredged. Samples will be delivered on a rushed (I - to 2 -day) turnaround time basis and will be used for making management decisions in the field. G During construction, grab samples will be collected from Anchor QEA's vessel and analyzed by Calscience Laboratories, Inc. (Calscience), to achieve the detection limits specified in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan. Calscience was selected for this work, because they have successfully operated in similar roles recently and will guarantee rapid turnaround of the sample data where other laboratories have not been as reliable. G If required following construction, sediment core samples will be collected from 15 to 20 locations using a piston corer deployed from Anchor QEA's sampling vessel. Sediment grab samples will also be collected from up to 10 additional locations, also from Anchor QEA's sample vessel. Each sediment core would be sectioned into two sample depths and analyzed for the same analytes, as with the construction monitoring grab samples at the same estimated analytical price. The following assumptions were used for estimating the water quality monitoring task costs: Y Scope of sampling and analysis based on the draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan submitted to the RWQCB during the permit application process. Dredging will start in August 2011 and will last for a duration of 4 months for the Rhine Channel and 2 weeks for the other City- managed areas, requiring a total of 23 sampling events (pre- dredge, three times a week for the first 2 weeks during dredging and weekly thereafter, and post - dredge). k1r. Chris Miller March lb, 2011 Pape 15 Each monitoring event will include two Anchor QFA personnel for safety on the sampling vessel. One person is budgeted at 6 hours per event, and the other is budgeted at 2 hours per event. The boat will be stored on site and will not require additional mobilization. o The boat use charges and maintenance fees are included in the field construction management task. Equipment charges include a camera, van Dorn water sampler, and multi -probe YSI meter. Eight chemistry samples (four stations, top and bottom) will be analyzed by Calscience during sampling events: pre- dredge, three times per week for the first 2 weeks during dredging, and post - dredge. o Five quality assurance /quality control (QA/QC) chemistry samples will be analyzed for the program (field blank [one sample], equipment blank [one sample], field duplicate [5 percent of total samples - three]). If additional samples are collected for this program, then additional QA /QC samples may be necessary. • Analyses include total and dissolved metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, and organochlorine pesticides. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and tributyltin are not included in the analyte list, as they have not been detected at the site previously. if these were included, the estimated chemistry costs would increase from $64,170 to $96,255. • Five -day turnaround time assumed for all water column chemistry samples. • Reporting includes pre- dredge report, progress report, and final report. In addition, dissolved oxygen and turbidity results will be electronically submitted to the RWQCB at the end of each monitoring day. Additional costs will be incurred if turbidity exceedances are measured during monitoring. If there is an exceedance, permits require that additional water samples be analyzed for the chemical constituents previously listed, totaling $7,440 for the eight samples per event as required by the RWQCB. CITY OF wPOR*BEA SEW �Rr NEWPORT BEACH APF 1 2 2ij11 City Council Staff Report Agend em�Nr�. 5 April 12, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director 949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager APPROVED: G'-Al TITLE: Fourth Amendment to rofessional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project ABSTRACT: The Rhine Channel Dredging Project ( "Project') has been in the planning process for many years, and Anchor QEA, L.P. has been instrumental in bringing the Project to this final stage before construction. This Fourth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement ( "PSA ") will include agency coordination, sediment and water quality sampling during construction, and construction management services. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for agency coordination and construction management services for the Rhine Channel Project; and 2a. If the State Lands Commission does not object to this proposed expenditure, approve Budget Amendment No. 11 -_ appropriating $624,964 from the un- appropriated Tidelands Fund to 7231- C4402004; and 2b. If the State Lands Commission does object to this proposed expenditure, approve Budget Amendment No. 11- appropriating $624,964 from un- appropriated General Fund (010 -3605) to 7014- C4402004. In the event of an objection, City staff will work with the State Lands Commission to address their concerns and seek approval of the proposed expenditure and authorization to reimburse the General Fund from the Tidelands Fund. Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project �? April 12, 2011 Page 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The Budget Amendment records and appropriates $624,964 in increased expenditure appropriations from either unappropriated General Fund (010 -3605) or unappropriated Tidelands Fund. DISCUSSION: The Project is complex in many ways, particularly because: (1) It is a remediation project where sediment is unsuitable for ocean disposal yet compatible with the strict requirements of the Port of Long Beach's ( "POLB ") Middle Harbor Fill site; (2) The POLB has strict requirements for placement of sediment into their confined disposal facility with zero tolerance for contractor error; (3) The City will be dredging under private commercial and residential docks, and also replacing privately owned dock piles that are within the dredge footprint; and (4) Vessels will be relocated during dredging and pile replacement, requiring coordination with all waterfront property owners. Anchor QEA has assisted the City with the preparation and planning for this Project for years, and their contract has been amended many times to reflect the ongoing work required for each step of the process. Staff recommends continuing the City's relationship with Anchor QEA and entering into this Fourth Amendment with Anchor QEA based upon their unique historical knowledge of the Project, working relationship with the POLB, and most importantly, the compressed timeframe of the Project's upcoming sequence of events. A summary of Anchor QEA's previous and proposed work on the Project includes: • Initial Contract, July 2009: CEQA work for Rhine dredging, and engineering work to design a Confined Aquatic Disposal site in Newport Harbor. • Amendment #1, November 2009: Change focus from in- harbor disposal to new POLB disposal opportunity. Adjust CEQA work accordingly. • Amendment #2, June 2010: Final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support for Rhine dredging with POLB disposal. • Amendment #3, October 2010: Guide pile structural analysis and dock condition survey to finalize the plans for bidding. • Amendment #4, April 2011: Agency coordination, sediment and water quality sampling during construction, and construction management. Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES Anchor QEA has submitted a new scope of services that details the tasks needed to dredge the Rhine by December 2011. Under the proposed Fourth Amendment, Anchor QEA would continue to be retained on a time and materials basis (not -to- exceed amount) for the tasks summarized below and included as Attachment D. With that said, however, the Project would be actively managed by Harbor Resources so that this not - to- exceed cost could be further reduced through efficiencies in the field (e.g. utilizing City staff for water quality and sediment sampling, increased field City staff time to support Anchor etc.). Typical construction management levels for similar projects would range from 10 to 15 percent of the contract value. The target level of effort for this current scope of services is closer to 7 percent of the Engineer's Estimate because it is assumed that City staff will assist in the management process. (The 7 percent figure is derived by adding labor costs for the Rhine and the Marina Park/American Legion work. All other tasks are not included in the 7 percent figure because they represent non- standard costs associated with the regulatory aspects of the Project, e.g. water quality and sediment monitoring, air quality compliance, etc... and are not typical of most construction projects.) The goal of the Project is to remove as much contaminated material as possible, meaning the dredging design is ultimately a target, or an estimate, of the work to be completed. The actual effort will be adjusted in the field based on field sampling results. Also, a significant portion of the docks in the Rhine are in poor condition, therefore requiring special attention during the pile removal /replacement stage. And lastly, the contractor will be under close scrutiny by staff, local residents and owners, as well as the POLB managers, to ensure that all procedures are followed properly and that communication remains open and constant. Anchor QEA will quickly and confidently address any and all issues that arise in an efficient manner while also protecting the City's interest. The scope of services is broken down into two distinct Phases with corresponding Tasks associated with each phase. A third, future, post- Project Phase is also discussed but is not a part of this current scope of services. A summary of Phases 1 & 2 are' outlined below: Phase 1 — Rhine Channel Construction Preparation and Stakeholder Coordination Task 1: POLB Coordination Anchor QEA will assist the City in developing and implementing a successful Memorandum of Agreement for dredged material placement at the POLB. This includes . assisting with an approved fill plan schedule, coordinating with the City Attorney's Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 4 Office, and coordinating with the POLB staff to provide Project information for regional agency updates. Estimated cost is $12,720. Task 2: Contractor Selection and Pre - Dredge Deliverables Anchor QEA will lead the contractor solicitation and selection process, including preparing the final contract documents and leading a pre -bid meeting. Once bids are received, Anchor QEA will work closely with the City to review and comment on each bid package, compare bid prices, check references, and assist the City in selecting and negotiating a dredge contractor. Once a contractor has been selected, Anchor QEA will lead the preparation of agency submittals and review of contractor submittals, including: • Dredge and Disposal Work Plan. This plan will be completed by the contractor but reviewed by Anchor QEA and the City for consistencies with Project specification, then submitted to the agencies to receive a Notice to Proceed. • Project Schedule and Work Sequence. This plan will be completed by the contractor but reviewed by Anchor 'QEA and the City, then submitted to the agencies to receive a Notice to Proceed. • Pile Replacement Plan. This plan will be completed by the contractor and will focus on procedures, equipment, and schedule for removing and replacing all piles. The plan will be reviewed by Anchor QEA and the City, and then submitted to the Coastal Commission for permit compliance. • Pre- Dredge Survey. The City is required to perform a pre- dredge survey of the Project after bid opening, but prior to the start of construction, to determine pay quantities with the contractor. Anchor QEA will retain a subcontractor for this survey. Estimated cost is $18,000. • Pre- Construction Eelgrass and Caulerpa Survey. The City is required to perform this survey as part of the permit conditions. Estimated cost is $3,000. • Final Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting Plan. (Labor associated with this Task is already covered under a previous Scope of Services with Anchor QEA [Amendment #3], but is included here as a deliverable for report completeness.) This document is currently under review by the Water Board, and will be finalized soon. Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 5 • Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan. This plan will be completed by the contractor but reviewed by Anchor QEA and the City, then submitted to the agencies to receive a Notice to Proceed. • Vessel Relocation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The City and Anchor will develop this complex plan which will include close coordination with the various property owners, Harbor Patrol (managers of the moorings) and the contractor to ensure the project proceeds as smoothly as possible. This deliverable will require the most effort to complete. • Final Construction Staging and Off - Loading Plan. This plan will be completed by the contractor but reviewed by Anchor QEA and the City, then submitted to the Coastal Commission for permit compliance. • Health and Safety Plan. This plan will be completed by the contractor but reviewed by Anchor QEA and the City, then provided to all staff working on the Project including City staff and agency representatives visiting the site. Estimated cost is $59,350. Task 3: Pre - Construction Tenant and Stakeholder Coordination Anchor QEA will assist with outreach to the community, Council Members and individual property owners along the Rhine regarding issues related to vessel relocation, site access and construction scheduling. (Harbor Resources staff will be heavily involved in this process and it is likely the estimated costs will be reduced.) Estimated cost is $23,770. Phase 2 — Rhine Channel Construction Management and Field Monitoring Task 1: Rhine Channel Construction Management The Harbor Resources Manager will continue to be the lead Project Manager, with Anchor QEA providing both on- and off -site construction management services to assist the City. Anchor QEA staff will be present on the site 50 percent of the time the contractor is working (12 hours /day, 6 days /week) to be adjusted upwards or downwards as the Project's needs change. Anchor QEA staff will be on -call day or night to respond appropriately. The amount of time required for construction management is a direct correlation with the experience of the contractor selected and the number of issues that arise during construction (e.g. damages to existing structures, unforeseen changes in site conditions, unexpected debris etc...). Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 6 Typical on -site construction manager activities would include the following: • Pre- construction meeting with contractor and City to review construction requirements, expectations, lines of communication, logistics, permit compliance and other issues. - • Assisting the City with implementation of the vessel relocation plan. • Observing the technical conduct of the contractor's work for overall quality and compliance. • Meeting with the contractor on a regular basis each day to observe and discuss progress, schedule etc... • Reviewing interim surveys to verify dredging depths, slopes and horizontal exte nts. • Tracking dredging rate and proper filling of haul barges. • Planning, participating and conducting weekly progress meetings. • Providing day -to -day interpretation of contract requirements and responding to contractor Requests for Information, including in- the -field resolution of minor issues. • Performing or arranging, and overseeing field measurements to determine constructed dimensions and extents, payable quantities, and conformance with Project requirements. • Facilitating minor field changes to circumvent costly change orders. • Verifying final pay quantities using a post- dredge survey. • Fulfilling all responsibilities of the Engineer per the contract documents. • Collecting sediment grab samples to assist in making decisions regarding adequacy of dredging. • Photographing and videotaping field activities to document the construction effort. • Installing and monitoring survey markers on selected seawalls to detect any measureable deflections on the seawalls during dredging. Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 7 • Meeting with local residents and business owners to ensure impacts to vessel traffic and waterfront businesses are minimized. • Observing all activities at staging and offloading areas to ensure compliance with permits. • Reviewing progress reports and payment requests from contractor for accuracy and compliance. • Responding to local resident concern regarding construction activities. • Reviewing and inspecting guide pile activities and floating dock repairs to ensure compliance with the contract and to develop specific repair scopes (if needed) so that contractor efforts and costs are fully controlled. • Prepare a final punch list of items before the contractor's job is complete. In addition to the on -site construction manager, Anchor's office staff will be involved to provide technical and administrative support throughout the Project (e.g. contractor oversight, stakeholder coordination, sediment sampling, survey and pay volume reviews, scheduling updates, POLB construction meetings, and progress report preparation). Anchor QEA will rent an office on the Lido Peninsula to be close to the Project and to easily facilitate meetings with the City, contractor and others. Anchor QEA will charge the City on a time and materials basis. It is likely that, during Project down times, the on -site construction manager may work on other non - related Anchor QEA projects in the construction office. However, this time spent will not be charged to the City's Project. Estimated cost is $383,955. (Of this, $272,180 is for labor, with the remainder estimated for subcontractors [guide pile oversight, post- construction bathymetric survey, vessel relocation services, and analytical chemistry) and other direct expenses such as field office rental, boat rental, and field supplies. Using the Engineer's Estimate of $4 million, the labor portion of the Project represents 6.8 percent of the total amount, which is almost half of that typically spent on other, similar regional dredging efforts.) Task 2: Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring and Reporting Anchor QEA will be responsible for ensuring permit compliance for all environmental aspects of the Project, including: Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 8 Water quality monitoring and reporting prior to, during and after construction (includes sample collection, processing, and analytical and physical measurements) according to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Coordinating water quality and sediment monitoring activities with the contractor. G Collection and tracking of documents associated with off -site landfill disposal of other debris not suitable for the POLB. • Contractor coordination in monitoring and reporting air emission information from the construction equipment. • Assisting the City with the coordination and purchase of emission credits for air quality compliance. • Providing written progress reports as needed to keep the agencies and City apprised of environmental compliance of the Project. • Ensuring compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy including management of the surveys. The estimated cost is $112,709. (Of this amount, $41,000 is estimated for labor needed to collect and process samples, with the remaining estimated for chemical analysis and field equipment rental.) Task 3: Construction Management for Marina Park /American Legion Dredge Areas The level of effort required will be similar to that required within the Rhine Channel, but is expected to take less time. At the request of the City, Anchor QEA subdivided this section from the other Tasks so the City could separately track costs for internal accounting purposes only. Estimated cost is $30,780. Summary and Discussion of Costs The total cost for this Amendment is estimated at $624,964. Of this amount, almost $164,000 is for subcontractors including almost $100,000 for analytical charges. $33,000 is estimated for field equipment and supplies. The remaining $419,000 is estimated for labor between now and the end of the construction period (estimated to be December 31, 2011). The actual construction management effort (labor only) for the entire Project is estimated at $302,960 or 1.6 full -time employees for 4.2 Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 9 months. This cost represents about 7 percent of the Engineer's Estimate as previously explained in this report. Please also see the table of Estimated Costs on page 12 of Anchor QEA's proposal. A provision in the City's Tidelands Grant requires the City to notify the State Lands Commission ( "SLC ") when the City proposes to spend $250,000 or more of Tidelands Funds. Staff submitted the necessary notice to SLC and will know by the end of April 2011 if SLC has any objections to the use of Tidelands Funds for the dredging of the Rhine Channel. In the absence of SLC approval staff recommends the City Council authorize a general fund appropriation to cover the Rhine Channel dredging costs. If, and when, SLC approval is obtained the Rhine Channel dredging will be funded by expenditure from the Tidelands Fund, either through direct payment or reimbursement to the General Fund. In addition, Anchor QEA lists some assumptions associated with their construction management budget as outlined on Page 14 of their proposal. A few notable assumptions are: • The number of surface sediment and water quality grab samples. • 'Anchor QEA to supply two staff members for safety on the sampling vessel. (City staff will augment this task by supplying one person, when available; to reduce Anchor QEA's staffing needs.) • Sediment samples are assumed to include a suite of chemicals to be tested. However, the agencies may request further testing for Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and tributyltin which could increase the chemistry costs from $64,170 to $96,255. • Additional costs could be incurred for water quality testing if turbidity is exceeded. G On -site construction management activities will occur at an average rate of 50 percent of the time the contractor is working (7 AM to 7 PM, 6 days a week). Anchor QEA staff will utilize the field office for other Anchor QEA projects, but will not charge the City for this time. Anchor QEA will be available twenty -four hours, 7 days per week to address emergencies during construction. Vessel relocation services will be provided, on a retainer purpose, by an outside contractor. Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 10 • Miscellaneous and equipment rental costs are for field expendables such as gloves, jars, bottles, sediment core tubes, bags, coolers for samples, blue ice bags etc... • Boat rental fees are for one 22 -foot center console boat and one 12 -foot Zodiac for the Project duration. • The assumptions used to develop the estimate represent a realistic "best case" scenario assuming significant City staff involvement in the management process. Actual conditions may require an increased level of effort once construction commences. FUTURE Phase 3 — Rhine Channel Post - Construction Coordination Tasks The Tasks listed below are not part of the cost estimate provided by Anchor, but are included in the proposal as future Tasks to be completed within a reasonable time frame (few months) after the construction portion of the Project is complete. These tasks are briefly summarized below for informational purposes only and to provide a full scope of the entire Project. Future Task 1: Rhine Channel Sediment Survey Sampling and Analysis Plan Typically, the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires post- dredging sediment sampling to confirm that the contaminants have been removed. This is an important step in reducing the Rhine Channel's exposure to the State's 303(d) impaired waterways list, i.e. reducing the site's ranking to a low level of concern within the 303(d) list tier. However, Anchor QEA will work with the Water Board to determine if some or all of the sediment collection steps can be eliminated in lieu of the sediment samples that will have already been collected when the contractor was on site. If the above approach is not successful, Anchor QEA will develop a Sampling and Analysis Plan for agency submittal. Estimated future cost is $15,000. Future Task 2: Rhine Channel Sediment Sampling This Task involves physically sampling the sediment as prescribed by the Sampling and Analysis Plan in Future Phase 3, Task 1. Estimated future cost is $65,000 Fourth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project April 12, 2011 Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project that was reviewed and approved by the City Council in July 2010. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: Publiv�WoXs'Director Attac[Vnent A: Vicinity Map / Dredge Footprint of the Rhine Channel Attachment B Vicinity Map — Dredge Footprint of Marina Park, American Legion and 15'h Street Public Pier Attachment C Vicinity Map of POLB Middle Harbor Fill Site Attachment D Anchor QEA Amendment No. 4 Attachment A Vicinity Map / Dredge Footprint of the Rhine Channel w ANCHOR � Pn CM1n1 CommeJ SeJPlmpe'i c e-p p Attachment B Vicinity Map — Dredge Footprint of Marina Park, American Legion and 15t' Street Public Pier Z�R ANCHOR A neicr zmap OEA '4664 nn�. a.n.x cunxx.x.a s.a�.a�w Attachment C Vicinity Map of POLB Middle Harbor Fill Site e SOUKS: OnvAr, prepared horn Goode BrUr Pro ZX9. E 8 0 '� Nat b SoM s Figure 4 ANCHOR Middle Harbor Confined Disposal Facility FIII Site and Example Barge Haul Route tzRhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup OEA e' AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Amendment No. Four "), is entered into as of this day of 2011, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, LP, a California Limited Partnership whose address is 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240, Mission Viejo, California 92691 ( "Consultant'), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 14, 2009, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") to develop a Conceptual Design Plan for a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor ( "Project'). B. On November 10, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. One "). C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work, to increase the term of the Agreement to August 30, 2012, and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Two "). D. On October 12, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Three to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. Three "). E. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Four to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments and to increase the total compensation. F. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Section 2 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated March 16, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the Agreement, as amended. Consultant's total amended compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Million, Four Hundred Twenty - Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty -Two Dollars and no /100 ($1,427,252.00) without prior written authorization from City ( "Total Amended Compensation "). No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City. 2.1 The Total Amended Compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Four, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Six Hundred Twenty -Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Sixty -Four Dollars and no /100 ($624,964.00), without prior written authorization from City. 3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement and all prior amendments shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. Four on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DatefCE O�I�E JITY ATTORNEY By:�ie Mul�/ k--= Leonvihill Assistant City Attomey ATTEST: Date: Ry. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk M� l-, 'o"V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California municipal corporation Date: By: Michael F. Henn Mayor CONSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, a Limited Partnership Date: By Steve Cappellino Senior Partner Attachment: Exhibit A — Additional Services to be Performed ANCHOR OEA 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 March l6, 2011 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Scope of Work for Agency Coordination and Construction Management Services for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with planning for and executing the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project. As the City is aware, sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as other nearby City- managed areas have been found to be unsuitable for open -water disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site. Those sediments have recently been approved for placement into the Port of Long Beach's (POLB's) Middle Harbor confined disposal facility (CDF) fill site. Recent efforts have resulted in the completion of the engineering design, preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, and acquisition of regulatory permits for the dredging/disposal project. This scope of work details anticipated tasks ranging from final project planning through construction management and project closure'. Project closure includes development of a proposed sampling plan for review by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), intended as a mechanism for closure with the RWQCB's 303(d) re- analysis process, as well as field sampling and chemical analyses. The costs for developing the final sampling plan, as well as the actual implementation of the plan, may be eliminated if we are ' Tasks describing project closure are for informational purposes only to aid in project planning, No costs are requested to perform these tasks at this time. www,ancliorgea.com Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 2 able to convince the RWQCB that data collected during construction are sufficient for future characterization purposes. If successful, this approach would save the City considerable funds by eliminating possible duplicate sampling efforts. A meeting to discuss this possibility with RW QCB staff cannot occur until after a contractor is selected and the final dredge plan is developed. Dredging within the Rhine Channel will be much more complicated than other dredging projects completed in the region. The goal of this project is to remove as much contaminated material as possible, meaning the dredge design is ultimately a target or estimate of the work to be completed. The actual effort will be adjusted in the field based on the results of field monitoring and interim sampling efforts. Moreover, the Rhine Channel is very congested with a considerable number of structures that must be worked around, which will significantly increase the opportunity for damage to occur. More than half of the dock structures in the Rhine Channel are in very poor condition and, as such, will likely require special attention during the pile removal/replacement phase to ensure further degradation does not occur. In addition, the contractor will be under close scrutiny for this project by local residents, as well as the POLB managers, to ensure that all procedures are followed properly and that constant communication between the contractor and local residents occurs. For example, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of Long Beach, one mistake by the contractor during disposal at the Port will result in an immediate termination of the disposal agreement and hence the end of the project. Simply put, the goal of the construction management effort is to quickly and confidently address any and all issues that arise on the project in the most efficient manner possible while protecting the City's interests (i.e., minimizing liability) on the project. Typical construction management levels for similar projects range from 10 to 15 percent of the contract value. The target level of effort for this current scope of work is closer to 7 percent because it is assumed that City staff will be able to assist in the management process. The following scope of work is broken down into three distinct phases: 1) construction preparation and stakeholder coordination tasks to occur prior to construction; 2) construction management and field monitoring task to occur during construction; and 3) Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 post- construction coordination tasksz. Estimated costs are provided based on time and materials estimated using assumptions and information gathered from other, recent, dredging projects in the region. If final costs are less than the estimates provided, the City will not be charged for the additional amounts. A final project schedule will be developed after a contractor has been retained by the City to conduct the marine work. Based on the anticipated POLB fill schedule presented in the MCA, dredging will start in early August 2011 and last for a period of 4 months (18 weeks) for the Rhine Channel work and 2 weeks for the other City- managed areas (water areas along Marina Park, the American Legion Yacht Club, and the City's 15th Street Pier. For purposes of this cost estimate, we have assumed 12 -hour work days and a 6 -day work week for the contractor. Anchor QEA's level of effort to support the project will be much less than "full time;' as such, all task items presented herein will be conducted in collaboration with City staff. At the City's discretion, Anchor QEA's participation may be increased or reduced to match project needs. PHASE 1— RHINE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION PREPARATION AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION Task 1: Port of Long Beach Coordination Anchor QEA staff will assist the City in developing and implementing a successful MCA for dredged material placement at the Middle Harbor CDF fill site. Specific tasks will include meeting with POLB and City staff, assisting in the development of an approved fill plan and schedule, working with City attorneys to ensure contractor liability concerns are transferred to the appropriate sections of the contract documents, and coordinating with POLB staff, as needed, to provide project information for regional agency updates (e.g., Dredged Material Management Team and Contaminated Sediments'rask Force meetings). The estimated cost for this task is $12,720. Task 2: Contractor Selection and Pre- Dredge Deliverables Working with City staff, Anchor QEA will lead the contractor solicitation and selection process, including preparing the final contract documents and leading a pre -bid meeting and l Post construction tasks are presented for informational purposes only to assist with project planning. No costs are requested for these tasks at this time. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 4 site walk at the project site and, if needed, at the POLB disposal site. Once bids are received, Anchor QEA will work closely with the City to review and comment on each bid package, compare bid prices between contractors, check references, and assist the City in selecting and negotiating with a dredge contractor. Because of the project's complexity (remediation dredging versus construction or maintenance) and the unique nature of the dredging work, we anticipate a fair level of involvement with the City in this process. Our fn'm is currently working with nearly all available dredge contractors in the region, thus affording us the unique opportunity to have insight on their practices, equipment, and personnel. The nature of the work is very different than with upland construction efforts and close attention must be paid at certain critical junctures of the project. Once a contractor has been selected, Anchor QEA will lead the preparation of agency submittals and review of contractor submittals, including those required to obtain a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the agencies. Specific deliverables for this task include a series of pre - construction submittals, as commonly required for similar dredging and pile replacement projects. Some of these submittals are also required by the various agencies specifically for this project. Submittals include the following: Dredging and disposal workplan. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit this work plan as a detailed pre- construction submittal, which will be reviewed by Anchor QEA acting as the City's engineer. Once Elie contractor has sufficiently revised this work plan and it is judged to be fully consistent with project specifications, Anchor QEA will submit the work plan to the agencies in order to receive NTP for dredging. Projectschedule and worksequence. The contractor will provide a proposed project schedule and work sequence. Anchor QEA will assist the City with review and comment and will then submit the final document to the appropriate agencies for project planning. Pile replacement plan. The contractor will document the procedures, equipment, and schedule for removing and replacing all piles indicated on the contract drawing. This information will be documented in a pile replacement plan, to be reviewed and approved by Anchor QEA, and then submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as a permit compliance measure. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Pre- dredge survey. The City is required to perform a pre - dredge survey of the project site after bid opening, but prior to the start of construction, for use in determining pay quantities with the contractor. Anchor QEA will retain a subcontractor to perform the survey and will coordinate dissemination of this pre - dredge survey to the dredge contractor and to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA.CE). Gahagan and Bryant, Inc., has been included for estimating purposes, because they have performed similar work in the Rhine Channel and, therefore, have all the base maps needed already loaded into their systems. The anticipated cost for this effort is $18,000. Pre- construction eelgrass and Caulerpa survey. Anchor QEA will. retain a certified subcontractor to perform field surveys and will review and submit the data to the respective agencies as required by the USACE, CCC, and RWQCB permits. The services of Mike Anghera and Kimo Morris have been included for estimating purposes, because they performed similar work in the Rhine Channel during the permit application process and are already familiar with the site. The anticipated cost for this effort is $3,000. Final water quality monitoring and reporting plan. A draft document is currently in review at the RWQCB. Once comments are received, the document will be finalized and submitted to all interested parties. Labor associated with this task is actually covered by Anchor QEA's previous scope of work but that deliverable is included here for completeness. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The contractor will provide a draft Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan and Anchor QEA will review and comment on the document. Once the SPCC Plan is revised and is judged to be fully consistent with the contract documents, Anchor QEA will coordinate submittal of the plan to the appropriate agencies as required by the permits. Vessel relocation plan and implementation schedule. The City and Anchor QEA will work with the contractor to develop a vessel relocation plan and implementation schedule for submittal to the CCC as required by the permit. This deliverable will require the most effort to complete. Final construction staging and offloading plan. The contractor will provide a draft document, and Anchor QEA will review and coordinate submittal of the plan to the CCC as required by the permit. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 6 Healch and Safety Plan. The contractor will provide a draft health and safety plan for Anchor QEA's review and comment. The finalized document will be provided to all staff working on the project and will be made available to the City staff and agency representatives visiting the site. The estimated cost for this task is $59,350. Task 3: Pre - Construction Tenant and Stakeholder Coordination Prior to the start of construction, Anchor QEA will provide consistent and ongoing technical support to City staff to assist in preparing for dredging operations. Specific duties will include preparing for and facilitating frequent stakeholder update meetings, updating the City council members as requested, and meetings with individual property owners along the Rhine Channel regarding issues related to vessel relocation, site access, and construction scheduling. Anchor QEA will also assist in pre - construction coordination with other stakeholders, such as Harbor Patrol, local businesses potentially impacted from the project (e.g., Hornblower Crises, Newport Tour operators), local environmental groups like CoastKeeper, regulatory agencies, and concerned harbor citizens. The estimated cost for this task is $23,770. PHASE 2— RHINE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND FIELD MONITORING Task 1: Rhine Channel Construction Management City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Manager, Chris Miller, will be the lead construction manager for the dredging project. Anchor QEA staff will provide ongoing construction management services to assist Mr. Miller for the duration of the project. For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed that, on average, someone will be present on site and working on the project 50 percent of the time the contractor is working. This level of effort may be adjusted upwards or downwards as the project's needs change. The Rhine Channel dredging effort is estimated to take 18 weeks to complete, and the contractor is planning to work 12 -hour days /6 -day weeks. Thus, a full -time effort for one staff person for the Rhine Channel dredging portion of the project would be 1,296 hours (648 hours was used for this estimate). Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page i When Anchor QEA staff members are not present on site, City staff be the primary point of contact for all project responsibilities and Anchor QEA will make sure that qualified representatives can be on -call at any time of the day or night to assist in case an emergency arises. The on -site construction manager will coordinate all contractor activities during the day and resolve issues as they arise. The amount of time required to perform this function is a direct correlation with the experience of the contractor selected and the number of issues (i.e., damages to existing structures, unforeseen changes in site conditions, unexpected debris, etc.) that develop during construction. Typically, the activities performed by the on -site construction manager include the following: • Participating in a pre - construction meeting with the contractor and City staff to review construction requirements, expectations, lines of communication, construction logistics, permit compliance, and other issues relevant to the construction process • Assisting City staff with implementation of the vessel relocation plan • Observing the technical conduct of the contractor's work for overall quality and compliance with the contract documents, approved submittals, and /or applicable technical standards G Meeting with the contractor on regular occasions each day to observe and discuss progress, schedule, and items of concern e Reviewing interim surveys to verify that dredging reaches the proper depths, slopes, and horizontal extents • Tracking dredging rate and proper filling of haul barges • Planning, participating in, and conducting weekly meetings to discuss project progress G Providing day -to -day interpretation of contract requirements and responding to contractor questions and formal Requests for Information (RFIs), including in- the -field resolution of minor issues Performing, or arranging, and overseeing field measurements to determine constructed dimensions and extents, payable quantities, and conformance with project requirements O Facilitating minor field changes to circumvent change orders due to obstructions or other unanticipated conditions Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 8 G Determining progress payment quantities using progress surveys provided by the contractor o Verifying final payment quantities using a post - dredge survey, which is assumed to be performed and provided by our subcontractors a Fulfilling all responsibilities of the engineer as set forth within the contract documents Collecting sediment grab samples, as needed, to assist in making decisions regarding adequacy of dredging G Photographing and videotaping field activities, as needed, to document the construction effort c Installing and monitoring survey markers on selected seawalls to detect whether any measurable deflections of the seawalls are noted during the dredging effort 4 Meeting with local residents and business owners to ensure impacts to vessel passage and business operations are minimized Observing all activities at staging and offloading areas to ensure compliance with applicable permit conditions Reviewing all progress reports and payment requests from the contractor for accuracy and compliance with the contract documents • Responding, as needed, to local resident concerns regarding construction activities • Reviewing and inspecting guide pile replacement activities (and floating dock repairs, if necessary) to ensure compliance with the contract documents, to detect unforeseen conditions that could affect dock stability and function, and to develop specific repair task scopes (if needed) so that contractor efforts and costs are fully controlled • Working with the City and contractor to compile a final punch list of various final items to address or repair before the contractor's work can be considered complete In addition to the on -site construction manager, a team of scientists and engineers will also be involved to provide technical and administrative support throughout the construction effort. Support staff will be based in our Mission Viejo office and will be ready to assist in the field on short notice, whenever needed. The support team will assist with items such as contractor oversight, stakeholder coordination, sediment sampling, surveys and pay volume reviews, scheduling updates, Port construction meetings, and progress report preparation. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 To assist with project coordination and to provide a central location for staff and contractors to work while in the field, Anchor QEA will secure a rental office located adjacent to the Rhine Channel project location. This space will be available for Anchor QEA and City staff to work while on site monitoring the construction activities as well as available for weekly contractor meetings to occur. This task, like the others, will be based on time and materials expenses. As such, the City will not be charged for any down time on the current project when staff can be working on other projects. The estimated cost for this task is $383,955. Of this amount, $272,180 is estimated for labor, with the remainder estimated for subcontractors (guide pile oversight, post - construction bathymetric survey, vessel relocation services, and analytical chemistry) and other direct expenses like Field office rent, boat rental, and field supplies. Using the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Costs of $4 million (without contingency) for the Rhine Channel dredging effort, the labor portion of this task represents 6.8 percent of the total amount, which is almost half of that typically spent on other, similar regional dredging efforts that we have been involved in over the past 5 years. The assumptions used to develop the current estimate represent a realistic "best case" scenario assuming significant involvement by City staff in the management process. Actual conditions may require an increased level of effort once construction commences. Task 2: Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring and Reporting Anchor QEA will be responsible for ensuring permit compliance for all environmental aspects of the project. This effort includes the following: Water quality monitoring and reporting prior to, during, and after construction (includes sample collection, processing, and analytical and physical measurements) according to the draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) submitted to the RWQCB. • Coordinating water quality and sediment monitoring activities with the contractor • Collection and tracking of documents associated with off -site landfill disposal of debris and material determined unsuitable for disposal at the Middle Harbor CDP fill site Working with the contractor to monitor and report air emission information from the construction equipment Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 10 C Assisting the City with the coordination and purchase of emission credits for air quality compliance C Providing written progress reports and preparing presentation materials, as needed, to keep the agencies and City council members apprised of the environmental compliance aspects of the project Ensuring compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (SCEMP), including management of an eelgrass survey conducted by a subcontractor The estimated cost for this task is $112,709. Of this amount, $41,000 is estimated. for labor needed to collect and process samples and the remaining is estimated for chemical analyses and field equipment rental. Task 3: Construction Management for Marina Park /American Legion Dredge Areas This task is intended to cover construction management responsibilities specifically related to dredging and pile replacement at the non -Rhine Channel dredge areas of the project (e.g., water areas along Marina Park, the American Legion Yacht Club, and the City's 15th Street Pier). The level of effort required for this portion of the project is assumed to be similar to that required within the Rhine Channel but is expected to take place over significantly less time (2 weeks) because of the smaller volume of sediment to be removed. This effort is included as a separate task in case the City wants to track the costs separately for internal accounting purposes. The estimated cost for this task is $30,780. PHASE 3 — RHINE CHANNEL POST- CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION TASKS (FUTURE TASKS)3 Task 1: Rhine Channel Sediment Survey Sampling and Analysis Plan Once field activities are completed and the contractor has been released from the site, a sediment survey will be designed and implemented to document for the regulatory agencies the final extent ofsediment removed (and the amount remaining in place) to allow an assessment of the site from a 303(d) improvement standpoint. Two primary items will be 3 As stated above, these tasks are provided for informational purposes only. No costs are requested at this time for Phase 3. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Pape I I included in this survey: 1) a summary of sediment volumes and a detailed survey of the locations from which sediment was removed; and 2) the final concentrations of chemical contaminants in the surface layer of the Rhine Channel. Typically, the RWQCB requires the project sponsor to develop and submit a draft Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and proposed outline for the final survey report for RWQCB review and approval. Once the SAP is approved, sediment core samples are collected and the results are submitted to document the final surface concentrations for the chemicals of concern. This goal of this data is to show that full beneficial uses have been restored to the site and therefore it may be removed from the 303(d) list. Obtaining full removal from the 303(d) list is an ambitious goal for the dredging project because it is infeasible to remove all of the contaminated sediment from along the bulkheads, but lowering the site ranking to a point where it is no longer considered a "toxic hot spot" by the Water Board with imminent regulatory action planned is a much more realistic outcome. Anchor QEA will work with the RWQCB to determine if some or all of these steps can be eliminated in lieu of the sediment data already planned for collection to verify contractor performance during the actual dredging. If the above approach is not successful, Anchor QEA will develop and submit for approval a draft SAP for agency submittal. Although not included in this scope of work, the estimated costs to prepare this document would be approximately $15,000. Task 2: Rhine Channel Sediment Sampling Depending on the outcome of Task 1 of Phase 3, additional sediment core samples may need to be collected at the end of the project to verify the final surface sediment chemical . concentrations within the Rhine Channel. If needed, this task will include mobilizing and collecting sediment core samples from approximately 15 to 20 locations and surface grab samples from up to an additional 10 locations. Samples would be logged and sub - sampled at various intervals to evaluate the potential for residual contamination (metals and pesticides). The estimated number of sampling locations is based on previous work conducted within the Rhine Channel and from similar projects within the region. If needed, the estimated sampling and analysis costs for this task would be approximately $65,000. As with Task 1, this cost is not included in the current budget request. Mr. Chris Miller March 16. 2011 Paee 12 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF COSTS Table l presents our estimated costs for this scope of work. The total cost is estimated at $624,964. Of this amount, almost $164,000 is for subcontractors including almost $100,000 in analytical charges. Another $33,000 is estimated for field equipment and supplies. The remaining $419,000 is estimated for labor between now and the end of the construction period (estimated to be around December 31, 2011). The actual construction management effort (labor only) for the entire project is estimated at $302,960 or, on average, 1.6 full -time employees for a period of 4.2 months. This cost, which represents almost 7 percent of the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Costs for the project, is derived by adding the labor costs for the Rhine Channel work with that for the Marina Park/American Legion work. All other tasks are not included because they represent non- standard costs associated with the regulatory aspects of the project (e.g., water quality and sediment monitoring, air quality compliance, etc.) and are not typical of most construction projects. Table 1 Summary of Estimated Costs Phase /Task Task Description Estimated Cost Rhine Channel Construction Preparation and Phase 1 Stakeholder Coordination Task 1 Port of Long Beach Coordination $12,720 Task 2 Contractor Selection and Pre- Dredge Deliverables $59,350 Task 3. Pre- Construction Tenant and Stakeholder Coordination $25,450 Rhine Channel Construction Management and Field Phase 2 Monitoring - Task 1 Rhine Channel Construction Management $383,955 Task 2 Water Quality and Air Quality Monitoring and Reporting $112,709 Task 3 Construction Management for Newport Channel $30,780 Properties :Rhine Channel Post- Construction Coordination (FUTURE Phase 3 TASKS) Task 1 Rhine Channel Sediment Survey Sampling and Analysis $TBD Plan Task 2 Rhine Channel Sediment Sampling $TBD Tota_CEStimated Cost, $624,964. Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 13 For the labor categories listed in the cost estimate, Steve Cappellino and Dr. Joshua Burnam are included in the principal category. Steve will serve as the project manager, and Dr. Burnam will lead the regulatory requirements. Michael Whelan's time overseeing the engineering work comprises the senior managing labor category. Dr. Jack Malone is the primary staff person in the managing biologist category who will help with the regulatory requirements and air emission tracking. The bulk of labor costs allotted for the senior engineer category, which covers the field hours for Rob Walker, who will serve as the on -site construction manager. The senior CAD designer role will be filled by Greg Howell. Mr. Howell will be responsible for processing daily surveys, calculating the ongoing dredge removal volumes, and locating target sampling locations for sediment analysis. The last labor category with significant quantities of estimated hours is the project coordinator. On this project, three people are included in the project coordinator category. Linnay Trail is a document coordinator who will be responsible for editing and producing all field reports and permit required documents. Brittany Geisler is a project coordinator, who will assist the field staff in preparing their field reports, managing the photograph and video documentation, and project filing. Lastly, Dustin Fellers is a field technician, who will be the lead for all sediment and water quality field sampling. We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time- and - materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Attached to this scope request is a detailed list of assumptions that support our estimated costs. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this important project. if there are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Mr. Chris Miller March 16 2011 Page 14 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used for estimating the sediment confirmational and post construction testing costs: During construction, surface sediment grab samples will be collected on an as- needed basis, once the contractor has cleared each dredge area, to verify that the target material has been removed. For the purpose of this cost estimate, we have assumed a total of 50 grab samples at a cost of $600 /sample for metals and pesticide analyses. It is unclear exactly how many samples may be needed but 50 should provide sufficient coverage for the project area to be dredged. Samples will be delivered on a rushed (I- to 2 -day) turnaround time basis and will be used for making management decisions in the field. During construction, grab samples will be collected from Anchor QEA's vessel and analyzed by Calscience Laboratories, Inc. (Calscience), to achieve the detection limits specified in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan. Calscience was selected for this work, because they have successfully operated in similar roles recently and will guarantee rapid turnaround of the sample data where other laboratories have not been as reliable. o If required following construction, sediment core samples will be collected from 15 to 20 locations using a piston corer deployed from Anchor QEA's sampling vessel.. Sediment grab samples will also be collected from up to 10 additional. locations, also from Anchor QEA's sample vessel. Each sediment core would be sectioned into two sample depths and analyzed for the same analytes, as with the construction monitoring grab samples at the same estimated analytical price. The following assumptions were used for estimating the water quality monitoring task costs: Scope of sampling and analysis based on the draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan submitted to the RWQCB during the permit application process. Dredging will start in August 2011 and will last for a duration of 4 months for the Rhine Channel and 2 weeks for the other City- managed areas, requiring a total of 23 sampling events (pre - dredge, three times a week for the first 2 weeks during dredging and weekly thereafter, and post - dredge). Mr. Chris Miller March 16, 2011 Page 15 Each monitoring event will include two Anchor QEA personnel for safety on the sampling vessel. One person is budgeted at 6 hours per event, and the other is budgeted at 2 hours per event. The boat will be stored on site and will not require additional mobilization. The boat use charges and maintenance fees are included in the field construction management task. Equipment charges include a camera, van Dorn water sampler, and multi -probe YSI meter. Eight chemistry samples (four stations, top and bottom) will be analyzed by Calscience during sampling events: pre- dredge, three times per week for the First 2 weeks during dredging, and post - dredge. Five quality assurance /quality control (QA/QQ chemistry samples will be analyzed for the program (field blank [one sample], equipment blank [one sample], field duplicate [5 percent of total samples = three]). If additional samples are collected for this program, then additional QA/QC samples may be necessary. • Analyses include total and dissolved metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, and organochlorine pesticides. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and tributyltin are not included in the analyte list, as they have not been detected at the site previously. If these were included, the estimated chemistry costs would increase from $64,170 to $96,255. • Five -day turnaround time assumed for all water column chemistry samples. • Reporting includes pre- dredge report, progress report, and final report. In addition, dissolved oxygen and turbidity results will be electronically submitted to the RWQCB at the end of each monitoring day. Additional costs will be incurred if turbidity exceedances are measured during monitoring. If there is an exceedance, permits require that additional water samples be analyzed for the chemical constituents previously listed, totaling $7,440 for the eight samples per event as required by the RWQCB. City ®f Newp®tt Beach NO. BA- 11BA -039a BUDGET AMENDMENT 2010 -11 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues PX from bond proceeds EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: AMOUNT: $624,964.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance To increase expenditure appropriations in the Tidelands Fund to cover costs of the fourth amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for agency coordination and construction management services for the Rhine Channel Dredging Project. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account 230 3605 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance Description Signed: f r f � Financial Approva Administrative Services Director Signed: l ° Admin'WEdive Approval: City Mana er Signed: Amount Debit Credit $624,964.00 ' • Automatic $624,964.00 7 // Date 416111 Date City Council Approval: City Clerk Date Description Division Number 7231 Tidelands - Capital Account Number C4402004 Rhine Channel Dredging Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: f r f � Financial Approva Administrative Services Director Signed: l ° Admin'WEdive Approval: City Mana er Signed: Amount Debit Credit $624,964.00 ' • Automatic $624,964.00 7 // Date 416111 Date City Council Approval: City Clerk Date City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 11BA -039b BUDGET AMENDMENT 2010 -11 AMOUNT: $s2a,9sa.00 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance Iq 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 bond proceeds EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations in the Tidelands Fund to cover costs of the fourth amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Anchor, QEA, L.P. for agency coordination and construction management services for the Rhine Channel Dredqinq Proiect. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account 010 3605 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description General Fund - Fund Balance Description Signed: Signed: Signed: Administrative Services Director Approval: City Manager City Council Approval: City Clerk Amount Debit Credit $624,964.00 * Automatic $624,964.00 V. 67. // Date 416( ,I) Date Date Description Division Number 7014 Misc & Studies Account Number C4402004 Rhine Channel Dredging Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: Signed: Signed: Administrative Services Director Approval: City Manager City Council Approval: City Clerk Amount Debit Credit $624,964.00 * Automatic $624,964.00 V. 67. // Date 416( ,I) Date Date C -YD I AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, LP FOR RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AWEEMENT ( "Amendment No. Three ") is entered into as of this -12-* day of [/GI 0 b&V- 2010, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, LP, a California limited partnership whose address is 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240, Mission Viejo, California 92691 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 14, 2009, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") to develop a Conceptual Design Plan for a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor ( "Project "). B. On November 10, 2009, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work and to increase the total compensation ( "Amendment No. One "). ' C. On June 22, 2010, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two to the Agreement, to increase the scope of work, increase the term of the Agreement to August 30, 2012, and to increase total compensation. D. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Three to reflect additional services not included in the Agreement or prior Amendments, and to increase the total compensation. E. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Section two of the Agreement, as amended shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated September 21, 2010, which is attached hereto as Exhibit `A' and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 2. COMPENSATION The introductory paragraph to Section 4 of the Agreement, as amended, shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the Agreement. Consultant's total amended compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and all prior amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Eight Hundred Two Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty -Eight Dollars and no /100 ($802,288.00) without prior written authorization from City ( "Total Amended Compensation "). 3.1 The Total Amended Compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Three, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Forty -Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Twenty -Eight Dollars and no /100 ($49,828.00), without prior written authorization from City. 3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. Three on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICEOF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: I {?z I v By: Leonie Mulvihill p Assistant City Attorney CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California municipal corporation Date: /c'/ 4-1//b um, Public Works Dept. ATTEST: CONSULTANT: ANCHOR QEA, LP, a California limited partnership Date: Date: r r B j B Y� Y: Leilani I. BroWh Josh Bur m City Clerk General �� ��°� General artner Attachment: Exhibit A — Additional Services to be Performed ANCHOR OEA 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 September 21, 2010 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Department of Public Works 829 Harbor Island Drive . Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Proposed Additional Scope of Work for Further Evaluation of Guide Piles for the Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Project Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., and URS Corporation (the design team) are in the process of developing engineering design documents for the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project in Lower Newport Bay, as described in our Scope of Work letter dated June 11, 2010 (henceforth referred to as our original scope). The 95 percent design was recently submitted to the City of Newport Beach (City) for review, with the final design submittal currently planned for early October. Our original scope was based on our best estimate, at that time, of the effort necessary to adequately document the project details in our design evaluations and deliverables. As our engineering analysis proceeded, we were able to more fully develop our understanding of the conditions in and around the Rhine Channel and our understanding of how these conditions could affect the construction project and its potential overall costs. In particular, we have found that the intended removal and replacement of guide piles has the potential to incur significant project complexities and costs to the City. As a result, we recommend that the City authorize an additional Scope of Work for a more detailed evaluation of the guide piles, as this evaluation may result in a substantial construction cost savings and lessen the potential for unintended damages to occur in the field. As a point of www.anchorqea.com Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 comparison, we have estimated that the effort of guide pile removal and replacement for this project could cost on the order of $500,000, and potential complications due to float or bracket resizing (if necessary) could add further cost — fine - tuning these elements of the design, therefore, could end up saving well more than the additional suggested design tasks would cost. We propose the following additional tasks, which would supplement our currently authorized permitting and design Tasks 1 through 3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK Task 4: Guide Pile Structural Analysis This task was presented in our original scope as an optional item, but was not authorized by the City to limit overall expenditures, in the hope that the effort would not be necessary. The optional task was described as follows in our original scope: Optional Task: Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Piles. We have not included structural analysis of existing guide pile stability in this scope and fee estimate, as it is assumed that all piles will be removed prior to dredging. If, however, the City chooses to leave some or all of the guide piles in place, a structural evaluation of the piles will be required. As discussed under Task 1, we can offer the City the option of conducting a full structural analysis of the guide piles. We estimate that this structural analysis would add approximately $32,000 to our design costs, in addition to the more comprehensive field study of the piles described under Task 1. At this time, however, we are not including such an analysis in our scope, anticipating that our review of the piles will be more cursory and based on visual observations from our swim -by reconnaissance and review of City records. If during the course of our analysis, it becomes evident that a thorough structural analysis of the guide piles appears warranted and would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, then a modification to the scope of work can be discussed. Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 Pape 3 Based on our recent meetings with the City and concerns voiced regarding risks and potential contractor change orders or additional costs, it has been requested that we revisit the effort needed to assess guide piles. As a result of our most recent field evaluations, the design team has determined that dredging generally needs to be offset from private seawalls by a distance of approximately 30 feet to avoid impacting or destabilizing these structures. This offset distance should still allow some dredging beneath the existing docks and behind the pierhead line while providing a high degree of safety against a slope failure. To achieve this offset distance and facilitate dredging, we anticipate removal and replacement of, at a minimum, the outer pierhead guide piles to facilitate dredging operations. These piles would then be replaced with new ones after dredging has been completed. During the preliminary engineering design phases, the City anticipated replacing piles in a like- for -like approach, providing no more or less than what currently exists in the harbor. However, after a more thorough evaluation of current conditions of the site's guide piles and floating structures, we have determined that the existing size of the guide piles may prove to be structurally unsound once 5 to 7 feet of sediment is removed at their base. The stability is of particular concern for guide piles that are 12 -inch square, because according to current standards, their size is not normally used for marine installation. The Rhine Channel is composed of multiple private marinas and docks with a variety of separate dock configurations, guide pile types, and seawalls. There is no particular standard to what currently exists in this basin, as guide piles are a combination of 12 -, 14 -, 16 -, and 18 -inch piles of various geometric cross sections. Piles also vary in their depth of embedment and are located in various soil conditions. In addition, the condition of many of these existing guide piles is poor, particularly the 12 -inch piles. As an initial attempt to understand some of the conditions of these piles, the City authorized impact /echo testing of a 47 guide piles in the harbor to determine pile length and depths of embedment. After evaluating the findings, we have concluded additional analysis would be warranted to more fully document and plan for likely conditions that the contractor will encounter in the field. Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 Page 4 Conducting additional guide pile analysis may enable us to conclude that some piles are suitable for direct like- for -like replacement, rather than resorting to a larger and more costly pile size, which could incur complications when reinstalling through existing docks. We may, for instance, be able to conclude that 12 -inch piles are in fact suitable replacements, rather than the more customary 14 -inch are larger sizes, which could potentially save the City significant material costs and facilitate construction efforts during pile replacement. Thirteen guide pile conditions have been identified as representative of a majority of pile conditions in the Rhine Channel. These 13 conditions are composed of both individual finger slips unattached to other groupings of docks (private docks for one property owner) and groupings of docks (marinas or similar) that should be analyzed as groups and relate to a more efficient use of guide piles. For these basic conditions, we propose to evaluate the following details: • Observe and document with photographs all guide piles in the basin for condition, size, and interface with docks (size of guide roller assemblies, etc.). • Evaluate the stability of the 12 -inch piles due to the dredging effort anticipated. The deepest portion of the dredge prism, as well as locations in the dredge prism that slope to meet existing contours, will be evaluated. Assumptions will be made where and if not all data are available. Where piles are particularly structurally distressed, their values will be discounted for calculation purposes. • Provide calculations to specify guide piles that would meet current acceptable criteria and new dredge prism contours if the existing piles prove to be deficient. • Summarize the conclusions of this study in our final design documentation. Task 5: Dock Condition Survey Based on the City's plan to remove and replace guide piles to facilitate dredging operations, dock condition is an important role in overall constructability and cost. As discussed in our recent meetings, some potential cost impacts could include: • Piles may break at the mudline when being removed. • New piles may not find the same hole or location as the existing locations when being re- driven or jetted and could "wander" laterally, impacting the existing docks and causing damage. Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 • When being removed or replaced, piles could make contact with the existing docks due to the swinging leads of the crane, causing repair or replacement • If new piles are installed of larger cross section, they may not fit in the existing openings of the dock, causing rework of these openings. Since the existing docks are generally quite old, a significant amount of effort, and possible reconstruction, may be necessary in order to accommodate the guide pile repair /replacement. • The stability of the existing docks must be temporarily laterally supported once piles are removed. Potential ways to accomplish this stability must be specified, or the contractor must take the responsibility for the integrity of the existing docks during the pile operations. To mitigate these unknowns and possible cost impacts to the project, we propose to accomplish the following: • Perform a visual observation of the entire length of floating docks around the perimeter of the project area to determine age, condition, and likelihood of survival due to the anticipated construction. Authorization to enter private property and walk these private docks is required before work begins. Based on previous alerts from the City to private property owners, this authorization may be sufficient. We would require some confirmation from the City on this issue before proceeding. • Photograph the conditions observed. Where possible, we will take photographs of the framing within the dock from underneath, without requiring deck removal. • Create a rating system (1 through 5) with associated descriptions to allow the City to classify potential risks to these docks as a result of pile operations. We have not included dock framing calculations in this assessment. • Provide an estimate of potential cost ranges associated with constructing around these docks and potential cost risks from damage or repair needs. These details will be added to project drawings and specifications to reflect specific conditions of piles and floats identified. Task 6: Structural Design of 12 -Inch Piles (if necessary) Current marine design practice typically utilizes 14 -inch, or larger, guide piles. However, depending on the results from the previous two tasks where the efficacy of 12 -inch vs. 14- Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 inch guide piles will be evaluated, it may be advantageous for the City to utilize 12 -inch, rather than 14 -inch or larger, replacement guide piles. The advantages would be that smaller (12 -inch) piles would of course cost less than larger (14 -inch or larger) piles, and installing the 12 -inch replacement guide piles through existing docks and brackets could also prove to be more time- and cost - effective for the contractor, than 14 -inch and larger guide piles. Because 12 -inch piles are not typically used in modern marinas, our team does not have ready -to -use structural detailing available for inclusion in the construction documents. (Such detailed designs are available for 14 -inch and larger piles.) If our analyses demonstrate that 12 -inch piles are adequate for this site, then we will need to develop the requisite structural design detailing for presentation of 12 -inch piles in the construction drawings. If, on the other hand, 12 -inch piles are shown to be inadequate for the project, then this will not be necessary. ESTIMATED COST AND SCHEDULE Table 1 presents our estimated costs for the two recommended tasks described herein. The table also documents the breakdown of estimated costs between URS (who will be conducing the structural engineering calculations and field reconnaissance) and Anchor QEA (who will be incorporating the new findings into design documents). Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 Page 7 Table 1 Summary of Estimated Costs Task Task Description Estimated Cost (U RS) Estimated Cost (Anchor QEA) Total Estimated Cost 4 Guide Pile Structural Analysis $25,048 $2,154 $27,202* 5 Dock Condition Survey $9,924 $4,702 $14,626 6 Structural Design of 12 -Inch Piles (if necessary) $8,000 - $8,000 Total Cost 1 $42,972 $6,856 1 $49,828 * Our originally quoted price for the structural analysis of guide piles was $32,000; with the further information that we have gathered from the design process thus far, we reduced the price of this effort by nearly $5,000. Note that in our efforts on the design work thus far, our work under original Task 3.1 (Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis) totaled $2,500 less than our original budgetary estimate. After applying this surplus to the total cost present in Table 1, a balance of $47,328 would be needed to allow us to complete the additional tasks described in this letter. Alternatively, the City may elect to authorize our total estimate of $49,828, which would effectively leave us with a $2,500 "buffer" in the event of other efforts or items that might arise during the final design stage. We anticipate that these additional design elements will require additional time for development of the final design documents. At the same time, as discussed in our meeting on September 18, the Port of Long Beach's apparent timeframe for sediment disposal at the Middle Harbor project is not anticipated until later in the spring of 2011. Given these factors, we agree that it is appropriate and feasible to shift the completion of final design to November (after having originally been scheduled for early October). We propose to conduct these additional work tasks on a not -to- exceed, time - and - materials basis, as an addition to our existing contract authorization for design and permitting. Mr. Chris Miller September 21, 2010 Paee 8 We appreciate the continuing opportunity to work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this proposed additional scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Michael Whelan, P.E. Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Anchor QEA, L.P. LLo Zo o o _E N o 6 N _ a N U d � Q � O E u o « � E V g a - G $ � U E m z p O O U 0 H a0 � U N N N O - N Bi g O � 0 K ' V r f F � m r 0 ' z �u l r E E 2` N E a s 'a a a o a a a-_ a e, , <,, n a -i�C�_ `� o o 6 m' a` r a a? c m a iz LL LL w 3 3 3 3 w LL LL LL F LL LL__ 3 3 3 3 a a 3 a a r$ F 3 3 3 N 3 $ T a Q ry r Q y ry ry �i ry r m N m N N p m aX y m t° m 3 rc _ a a EE v o = - 2 ; o E n E EEa_ o p o EE m ` u .E E q E E U € c t U a rn 2 o ` o - c° ._ c m v a o c o Z n _ .E U a YS v a n Rp- E u$ °a xE U N mEa b a Z Z.av' D y O CI - pK� SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSION4 SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Second Amendment "), is entered into as of this �ay of . _r 2010, by and between the City of Newport Beach, a California Municipal Corporation and Charter City ( "City"), and Anchor QEA, L.P., a California Limited Partnership whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On July 14, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement "), to initiate environmental analysis ( "CEQA ") and engineering processes for the disposal of contaminated materials from a Lower Newport Bay dredging project into a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site within Newport Harbor. B. On November 10, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement to allow for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") to analyze the potential disposal of contaminated material from non - federal areas (Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion zones) in an upcoming Port of Long Beach CAD ( "First Amendment "). C. City and Consultant desire to enter into this Second Amendment to modify the scope of work to include engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of the cleanup dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of selected Cily- managed properties along the Newport Channel ( "Project "). D. City and Consultant also desire to extend the Agreement's term to August 30, 2012. E. Agreement Section 34 authorizes the City and Consultant to enter into this Second Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the City and Consultant that adequate consideration has been provided and that the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 1. TERM Agreement Section 1 "Term" shall be amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 30'" day of August, 2012, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein." First Amendment Section 1 "Term" shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED The Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" as superseded by Exhibit "A" to the First Amendment incorporated by reference in Section 2 of the First Amendment shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated June 11, 2010, which is attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks from the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Seven Hundred Fifty - Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 001100 Dollars ($752,460.00). 4. INSURANCE Agreement Section 14 shall be amended hereby and the following terms are substituted in their entirety: Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant's bid. 2 1 P a 9 e B. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. C. Coverage Requirements. i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subconsultant's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. 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 $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. iv. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim and in the aggregate. 31Page D. Other Insurance Provisions or Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. ii. Enforcement of Contract Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. iii. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. iv. Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. E. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. F. Additional Insurance. Consuttant 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. 5. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement and First Amendment shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. 4lPage IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: PT c� 14BY' r Lei ani Brown, City Clerk m 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California Municipal Corporation Y Keith Curry, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: A Calif rnia Limited Partnership By: Title: General Partner Print Name: — �s, �,U i [END OF SIGNATURES] Attachment: Exhibit "A" —June 11, 2010 Scope of Services 51 Page 1EX X418 tTAr ANCHOR OEA ` 26300 to Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, Califomia 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 June 11, 2010 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Scope of Work for Final Engineering Evaluation, Design, and Permitting Support for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor W, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with initial planning, alternatives analysis, and environmental impacts evaluation related to Rhine Channel cleanup and Lower Newport Bay (LNB) dredging. Sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as portions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- (USACE -) managed Federal Channel, are suspected of being unsuitable for open -ocean disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site. It is anticipated that these sediments will be accepted for disposal at the Port of Long Beach's Middle Harbor confined disposal facility (CDF) slip fill site. This scope of work details tasks needed to be undertaken to complete the necessary engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of cleanup dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of selected City- managed properties along the adjoining Newport Channel (i.e., Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). Some necessary pre - design work has already been completed under our existing scope of work for pre - design activities associated with a potential confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site in Newport Bay but a few items still remain. Completed pre - engineering tasks include searching City archives for existing information on structures, seawalls, and utilities and reviewing available geotechnical www.anchorqea.com Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 information for the Rhine Channel area. The final engineering and permitting tasks required to complete the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project are detailed below. RHINE CHANNEL FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN TASKS AND ANALYSES Task 1: Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey Under Task 1, Anchor QEA and URS Corporation (a structural engineering firm working as a sub - consultant to Anchor QEA) will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to establish existing conditions to a degree of detail needed for design and analysis efforts. Specific subtasks will include creating an updated base map, investigating seawalls and panels, and investigating guide piles. Task 1.1: Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project Area In preparation for design efforts, this subtask will involve creating an updated, complete bathymetric survey map of the entire Rhine Channel and selected properties along the Newport Channel (i.e., Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). An updated bathymetric survey will be critical for: • Identifying shallow areas within the channel that may need to be dredged • Indicating water depths available for dredging equipment • Indicating mudline elevations for determining dredging volumes The USACE recently (May 2010) completed a survey of open -water portions of the Rhine Channel, which supersedes that previous 2004 survey. Although Anchor QEA plans to use this 2010 survey to prepare a project -wide bathymetry map, it will be necessary to perform additional bathymetric surveys to cover the perimeter of the Rhine Channel and the selected Newport Channel properties. This supplementary survey effort will be performed by Gahagan and Bryant Associates (GBA), a well - established national survey firm with local personnel who performed 2004 survey. Remaining open -water areas will be surveyed by GBA using multi -beam equipment. Because much of the Rhine Channel and nearby properties are occupied by private vessels and docks, a majority of the supplementary survey will be completed by dropping lead lines by hand. Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Task 1.2: Investigation of Seawalls and Panels To date, Anchor QEA has reviewed available City records and as -built plans for information on seawalls and guide piles at the site. Under Task 1.2, we will supplement and "reality - check" our understanding of the existing marine structures within the Rhine Channel and adjoining properties through a structural review to be conducted by URS. This evaluation will include a vessel -based site "swim -by" reconnaissance, during which exposed seawalls, floats, and guide piles will be visually inspected. We will directly measure seawall embedment depths by jet probing at representative locations. A small diameter water jet pipe will be advanced along and in contact with the face of the wall. Once the pipe loses contact with the wall, it is assumed to have reached the bottom of the wall's embedded length. We plan to test the embedded depth at 15 to 20 different seawall locations within the Rhine Channel. Optional Item: Direct Observation of Seawall Tierods. While our swim -by site reconnaissance will include direct observation of seawalls and their condition, as well as allow for observation of evidence of stabilizing tierods where their ends are exposed at the wall face, we will have no way of determining the actual condition of the tierods because they are buried behind the walls. As a result, our design work will use fairly broad and conservative assumptions for the state and load capacity of the tierods. This potential uncertainty will be a key aspect of our design work, because the tierods are an integral part of the seawall stability. Our assumptions could be refined through a set of tierod unearthings, or "test pits," wherein temporary excavations are made behind the seawall in accessible locations to expose and allow visual observation of the tierod conditions. This process would be a fairly intrusive process and could add an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 to the design fee, depending on how many locations are available for such an exercise. At this time, we have not included tierod unearthing in our scope and fee estimate. If during the course of our analysis, it becomes evident that tierod unearthings would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, we will discuss adding this effort to our scope. Mr. Chris Miller tune 11, 2010 Task 1.3: Investigation of Guide Plies The City currently would prefer to remove and replace guide piles as part of the dredge program to better facilitate dredging around the dock structure. The design team will evaluate and qualify the current state and embedment depth of the guide piles to determine the number and locations of guide piles that should be replaced. Our swim -by reconnaissance and a general review of the City's archived records will allow us to develop a general idea of pile conditions. Because these sources of information are limited in their completeness and accuracy, we will conduct a more detailed analysis of the guide piles. Direct testing and evaluation of the piles in the field will be accomplished via impact -echo testing, a non - destructive pile testing method that can be conducted by personnel using specialized hand -held instruments, which allows for estimation of their actual in -place embedded lengths below the mudline. This field testing will enable us to fine -tune and reality-check the actual pile conditions and potentially reduce the number of piles that need to be extracted. Note that because theguide piles are private structures, permission from existing property owners would be required for our personnel to conduct testing from the docks. Task 2: Permitting Under Task 2, Anchor QEA will prepare and submit required resource agency permit applications to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), State Lands Commission (SLC), and USACE Regulatory Division for Rhine Channel and other City- managed areas to be dredged with material targeted for disposal at the Port of Long Beach. Anchor QEA will also assist the City with the Port of Long Beach disposal applications for the Rhine Channel, non -RGP City areas and Federal Lower Newport Bay material. Specific tasks will include attending pre - application meetings with the regulatory agencies, attending meetings with Port staff, preparing agency permit documents, and providing any additional agency requested biological resource information. Meetings with agency staff, as needed, are included in our costs for this task. Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Task 2.1: CCC Coastal Development Permit Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with CCC staff prior to submitting a complete request for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Anchor QEA will prepare a pre - application package for use at these meetings that will comprise the project description, conceptual -level figures, and a summary of the analysis showing compliance with California Coastal Act (CCA) regulations. Based on our discussions with CCC staff, we will initially facilitate a meeting with Mr. Jack Gregg, the Coastal Commission staff member on the Los Angeles Region Contaminated Sediments Task Force (CSTF). Meetings with other CCC staff may be required. Building on information gathered during the previous meetings with the CCC, Anchor QEA would complete the CDP application package and submit it to the CCC. Work associated with this subtask will include completing the required questionnaire and preparing the permit application attachments. One internal draft CDP application package will be provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will then submit the CDP application package to the CCC on behalf of the City, and respond to all questions posed by CCC staff. We will coordinate with City staff to synchronize City Council approval with prompt submission to the CCC. Anchor QEA will also prepare a draft Staff Report (if requested) to accelerate the processing of the permit application and attend the CCC hearing on behalf of the City. Note that the CCC cannot consider an application complete until a final California En vb- onmental QuaB'ty Act (CEQA) document is available. Task 2.2: RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirements Anchor QEA will facilitate at least one pre- application meeting with the RWQCB staff prior to submitting a complete request for a 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirements (WQC/WDR). Following this meeting, we will prepare a draft application for WQC/WDR for review by the City. A draft Confirmatory Sediment Sampling Plan and draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan will also be prepared. Anchor QEA will respond to Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 comments from the City and submit the final permit application to the RWQCB on behalf of the City. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by RWQCB staff. Note that the R WQCB cannot consider an application complete until a final CEQA document is available. Task 2.3: SLC Dredging Lease Because the project involves dredging of submerged tidelands held in trust for the state of California, a SLC dredging lease will be required. Anchor QEA will prepare the necessary application for a dredging lease and will work with the City to negotiate the lease, and will represent the City at the SLC hearing if required. We will prepare a draft request for the dredging lease and provide it to the City for comments. Once comments are incorporated, Anchor QEA will submit the lease application to the SLC on behalf of the City. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by CSLC staff. Based on our experience with other projects involving contaminated sediments, the SLC will likely agree that there are no valuable mineral rights requiring compensation. Task 2.4: USACE Standard Individual Permit Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with USACE Regulatory Division staff. We will again prepare a pre- application package that will comprise the project description, figures, and a summary of the analysis showing compliance with CCA regulations. We will facilitate this meeting with Ms. Cori Farrar of the Los Angeles District Regulatory Program. Anchor QEA will then prepare a complete application for a Standard Individual Permit (SIP), including discussions of alternatives considered; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; necessary Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) information; and a draft public notice. The City will be provided a draft of the application package prior to submittal for review and comment. To further accelerate the processing of this application, we will also prepare a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for use by USACE staff. One internal draft EA will be Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will finalize the EA and submit it to the USACE. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by USACE staff. Current costs do not include any fees due to the agencies for processing permit applications; these fees will be paid directly by the City. Based on available fee calculators (fees will be confirmed by agencies), we estimate permit fees to be as follows: • USACE — $10 (fee for SIP for public agency) • RWQCB — $25,000 (maximum fee) • CCC — $12,500 (application fee plus grading/fill fee) • SLC — $1,525 (application fee plus dredging lease) Cost assumptions for Task 2 and all associated subtasks: • Draft documents submitted to the City will be in electronic form. Final deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies). • Agency meetings will be combined when possible, as to avoid duplication of effort. • Attendance at agency meetings will occur as needed. • . Agency concerns will be reviewed and addressed as necessary, and permits applications revised, if needed, as a result of agency comments. Task 3: Final Engineering Design and Documentation Following our initial structural overview and bathymetric survey performed under Task 1, Anchor QEA will proceed with final engineering analysis and design of the Rhine Channel and City- controlled (non - Regional General Permit) dredging project as well as preparation of construction documents (plans and technical specification) that can be used for soliciting bids. We anticipate that the construction process will be managed by the USACE, and thus, our construction documents will be prepared in a format consistent with USACE project standards. A key aspect of our final engineering evaluation is to evaluate the effects of dredging on seawalls and guide piles at the site, so that the dredge prism can be designed and optimized. Because dredging removes sediment that helps to retain the toe of the seawalls, an offset Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 distance will need to be included in the dredge design so the walls are not destabilized as a result of the work. However, it is in the City's interests to maximize the volume of removed sediments to best achieve overall cleanup goals, and it will be important to determine the relationship between dredging geometry/offset distance and overall seawall stability with as much certainty and detail as possible. While the exact scope and level of effort for these tasks will be somewhat dependent on our findings from Task 1, we anticipate the following subtasks will need to be completed. Task 3.1: Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis The analysis of seawall stability and how it would be affected by dredging requires a thorough understanding not only of the characteristics of the seawalls themselves but also the geotechnical properties of the soils in which the seawalls are situated and which they retain. Any gaps in our understanding of geotechnical site conditions would require the design team to make conservative assumptions about soil properties. In our design experience at Newport Harbor, we have found that seawall stability in the area is generally marginal, and we expect the same to be true at Rhine Channel. Making overly conservative assumptions about the seawall and soil conditions could have significant impacts on our results and could lead to excessive dredging setback distances, excessive costs for possible seawall repairs, or both. It is, therefore, important to the adequacy of our analyses that sufficient geotechnical information be gathered throughout the Rhine Channel —in the "retained" upland areas behind the seawalls and in the offshore areas in front of the seawalls —and to sufficient depths to demonstrate geotechnical conditions below the bottom of the seawall panels. Anchor QEA has reviewed City records and archives and has found relevant geotechnical subsurface data at a few properties adjacent to the Rhine Channel. These data will be critical for our analysis, but because the information is widely separated, and in some cases does not reach a sufficient depth for our design needs, it will be necessary to obtain additional data to develop a sufficiently complete understanding of geotechnical conditions in the project area. Anchor QEA proposes to conduct the following series of geotechnical explorations at locations where no information is currently available, as follows: Mr. Chris Miller June It, 2010 • Five in -water geotechnical borings to depths of 20 feet, using a small, relatively maneuverable mud rotary drilling barge • Two landside borings to depths of 40 feet, using a truck - mounted mud rotary drilling ng • Seven cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to depths of 50 feet, on landside locations, using a truck - mounted CPT rig Boring samples will be obtained at 5 -foot -depth intervals, with some samples submitted to a local geotechnical laboratory for testing of moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg Limits (for fine - grained samples), and soil strength (by triaxial testing). Altogether, we expect that the proposed geotechnical exploration program will require 4 days by an Anchor QEA geotechnical representative and a drilling firm working as a subcontractor to Anchor QEA. We have assumed that it will not be necessary to conduct geotechnical investigations at the Marina Park, American Legion, or 15th Street Pier locations. We understand that a recent 2008 geotechnical evaluation was conducted at the Marina Park site, but we are not aware of any geotechnical information from the American Legion or 15th Street Pier locations. For these sites, we plan to use existing information in combination with appropriately conservative structural assumptions to design a maintenance dredging program that is protective of the existing seawall, floats, guide piles, and timber pier. If, during the course of our analysis, it becomes clear that additional geotechnical information is needed to avoid a significant project impact, then we will discuss with the City the reasons and advantages of adding this element of work to the proposed scope. Our labor under this task includes the following elements: • Field time for an Anchor QEA representative during the entirety of the geotechnical field work, including equipment set -up, demobilization, and oversight of site cleanup • Securing any required permits from the City of Newport Beach, the County, and/or any other public agencies, as necessary • Reviewing available information on utility lines that are present, including coordinating with "DigMert" for a pre - drilling utility locate (includes one site visit to lay out the on -land exploration locations) Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 10 • Packaging and documenting all samples obtained, delivering to our geotechnical laboratory, selecting samples for testing, coordinating the lab tests, and reviewing the laboratory results • Establishing contracts and administrative requirements with subcontractors performing the drilling and laboratory work • Providing a signed, stamped report documenting all geotechnical and structural stability work performed Task 3.2: Analysis of Structural Stability Once geotechnical data has been gathered, Anchor QFA and URS will use geotechnical and structural engineering analysis techniques, such as determination of stability ratios, and two - dimensional (21)) limit equilibrium methods and a finite element modeling, to determine how dredging affects pressures experienced by the seawalls and the potential response and deflection of surrounding ground and seawall elements. These approaches will be used to estimate the current stability level of the seawalls and to define the relationship between dredging prism geometry and the seawall stability, which will allow the design team to develop a protective dredging plan while also meeting the City's Rhine Channel cleanup goals. Analysis will include an assessment of gravity and seismic loads, including possible liquefaction effects. Following completion of our field work and structural and geotechnical stability analysis, a draft report will be prepared that summarizes our findings and conclusions regarding the stability of the seawall and how dredging will be designed to maintain the stability of the walls. As stated for Task 3.1, we have assumed that it will not be necessary to perform a structural stability evaluation for the American Legion site and that existing information can be used to create a sufficiently protective maintenance dredging design. Conservative assumptions will be made regarding the ability of existing site features to withstand removal of sediments during maintenance dredging. If it becomes clear during the design process that additional analysis would be beneficial to the City, then the option for conducting additional studies can be discussed. Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Pape 11 Optional Task: Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Piles. We have not included structural analysis of existing guide pile stability in this scope and fee estimate, as it is assumed that all piles will be removed prior to dredging. If, however, the City chooses to leave some or all of the guide piles in place, a structural evaluation of the piles will be required. As discussed under Task 1, we can offer the City the option of conducting a full structural analysis of the guide piles. We estimate that this structural analysis would add approximately $32,000 to our design costs, in addition to the more comprehensive field study of the piles described under Task 1. At this time, however, we are not including such an analysis in our scope, anticipating that our review of the piles will be more cursory and based on visual observations from our swim -by reconnaissance and review of City records. If during the course of our analysis, it becomes evident that a thorough structural analysis of the guide piles appears warranted and would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, then a modification to the scope of work can be discussed. Task 3.3: Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost Anchor QEA and URS will prepare Draft (65 percent), Draft Final (95 percent level) and Final (100 percent level) design plans, technical specifications, and opinion of probable cost for the construction work. The development of these documents will occur concurrently with the permitting process, and Draft (65 percent) documents will be prepared specifically to support permit applications. Construction plans will depict site bathymetry, existing structures, site conditions and restrictions, required extents and limits of dredging, required side slopes, allowable overdepth limits, allowable equipment mooring areas, and typical cross sections. The plans will include a series of drawings that depict the seawalls, floating docks, and guide piles, incorporating aerial photography that has been obtained from the City, and the results of the bathymetric survey and structural analysis conducted as part of the current scope of work. Technical specifications will include sections for dredging, transport, and disposal of material. Any permit conditions and environmental restrictions known at the time of preparation will also be included in the plans. Specifications will be prepared using USACE standard format. Should the City request that specifications be prepared in another format, Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 12 we may be able to accommodate that request without budget increase if the alternate format is provided early in the design process. A bid schedule will be included as part of the bid package, which will contain our estimate of payable dredging volume quantities for design plans, including allowable overdepth and side slopes. This quantity will also be used in our opinion of probable costs. At this stage, we have made our best estimate of the level of effort that will be necessary to adequately document the project details in this set of deliverables. As our engineering analysis proceeds, we will be able to refine our expectations of this effort. Therefore, after completion of Tasks 1, 3.1, and 3.2, and prior to making significant progress on the construction documents, we will meet with the City to discuss our findings and their effect on the plans and specifications preparation effort. If appropriate, we will refine our overall scope and level of effort at that time to reflect our more refined project understanding. We have assumed that the Draft (65 percent) deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic form only and that the Draft Final (95 percent) and Final (100 percent) deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies). ESTIMATED SCHEDULE A detailed project schedule in the form of a Gantt chart has been created based on the current project status as well as several aggressive assumptions (e.g., assuming that construction bid documents will be released prior to obtaining final permits) and is attached to this scope of work for reference. SUMMARY OF COSTS Table 1 presents our estimated costs for the recommended and presented scope of work, on a task -by -task basis. Our scope description has also presented various optional scope items that the City may elect to undertake. Table 2 summarizes the projected costs of these optional items. We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time- and - materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Our previous engineering- related scope of work for pre - design Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 13 tasks to support the construction of a CAD cell is temporarily on hold pending the disposal option at the Port of Long Beach. As such, the funds authorized for our previous scope of work have been applied to the Rhine Channel effort to advance to the current stage of the project, such that we can now enter into the final design stage. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Table 1 Summary of Estimated Costs for "Base" Tasks Task Task Description Estimated Cost 1 Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey 1.1 Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project Area $30,656 1.2 Investigation of Seawalls and Panels $12,783 1.3 Investigation of Guide Piles $10,000 2 Permitting 2.1 CCCCDP $65,360 2.2 RWQCB401WQC/WDR 2.3 SLC Dredging Lease 2.4 USACE SIP 3 Final Engineering Design and Documentation 3.1 Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis $57,145 3.2 Analysis of Structural Stability $47,720 3.3 Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost $83,796 Total Estimated Cost $307,460 Table 2 Summary of Estimated Costs for "Optional" Tasks Optional Task Item Estimated Cost Direct Observation of Seawall Tie Rods' $20,000 to $30,000 Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Piles' $32,000 Notes: 1 As presented in description for Task 1 2 As presented in description for Task 3.2 Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Michael Whelan, P.E. Anchor QEA, L.P. Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. o, o` u° 0 Ea E 0 u a 3 E B i � a uEu m z° 3 0 o` U O H O Z' u a m 6 N N 0 N O 8 � 0 Q O d _ K q V' U F F E E �u WAI � r E Z' N E E y 0 o a � . . . a . . a m a . . � a - a . . a . . o o a` F;~ 2 9 9 F- LL 4 F LL y c c F E � r if 3 �_ a m o N d d c d d a oc N LL LL a a a a LL LL - d c c LL- LL a d o a 9 ;y a D a LL 3 3 3 3 LL F LL LL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3~ a 3 3 LL m 3 3 3 3~~~~ 3 3 g 3 K 8 d 4 N- c c 4 Q a m¢ a - E W A H C c o 45 z i u a rn D E o E m E E U o j E Q ul d o E C' 2 E c i' `� c- o - .4 E _ - n 0 .T y U _- O U a- o U q E• - y: n a 1 d E U 5 y < in o m v Q `m ,Rdt N S E m N c a E 0 0 0 n d d 8 a a z z a' U Z `v D F F ^n' m m F � m ffi t7 a fi� Ud c9a' S m D - mLL U U d 4t: N N N N N N ry N N ry n n n r1 ry ^t m N N O K � ANCHOR OEA. LLC. 1010 PROJECT COST ESTMATMMr FORM Prop,uVP,ofm Name nnMW.m nI C.1 {neu,n3 L�.,9n WI PvMitt.ny R.vped 6,2712010 Gextop iYtJ98v1 01 IiMne Chanel Nv16wn Peam 307 TM 1 srv^nal Rrra -w rw iV,yr'�e:.•o Sai Wy f 37,43/ Taak 2'. O. ne f M,S" Ta.k 0.11tl01K.:nXa1 En9:wwn,y c4ftM:rq AW A+.Iy.a f 37,1" T.µ 31 Ana ;.43 01 Sift M 51.64Oy f 47,70 T.a83.3 f'4 na, Eotvfl p,.r :canon o: P,M.W UA t f17M RWOCnw,Y O.Ipn.na vrmvnyp..o euap.,nwrasn.lo a. Nu1nOm. Nepere0- `Mw4- B3n9 TY Ta.k TaY TaY Ty Tep TOtw TOW l.Oay Cat Rap 1 2 31 31 3.3 4 1 Dcaar. .:+ "1 ry,'c•:,y..5o 5 1P7 0 M 4 a m 0 0 0 0 0 1" S 16.366 .tro -,^0. ^rho., •a: +,..::: Tinrs, Y ep $ 1a3 20 0 32 50 110 0 0 0 a 0 212 s 38.7% 1.1+•.,;,- Oa: +ql ra 4'no. ,,:.::am,5:. 5 '82 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 f 9.720 ..:1np.. +.V': •y -•. >,va -...:: E 112 ZB 0 t6 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 114 3 16166 a-i'u:— •�..• s +23 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 3 20.aw . 4... "1�...' ^;6 ^',.. ;•', E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .'.,•ni,in I:"ta .... ,. s t5 0 0 M 124 168 0 0 0 0 0 376 S 37224 :;1 !.•w w' s 105 18 40 4 a 112 0 0 0 0 0 180 7 18.900 ' s 0 0 a 0 0 o a a 0 a 0 s o.•::.o:,, ,::.•; � s 91 20 IN 24 24 b 0 0 0 0 a 216 s 17.712 -IM k, 3 82 0 0 a o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 s �5.i 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s „. °� s 7A0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 TOW R M 82 4w 164 214 542 0 0 0 0 0 1462 TOptl I LM t 10.672 S 61360 S 19620 S 25.810 f 69."6 S - { - S { - f f 188.908 AMr H Rap f 126 SWOOraWORb :RYtimct..1 3 1s4 { S - b 21300 $ 13.100 3 - s t s - 3 3 53.000 . +3A S 23898 3 - If - 3 - s - 3 s - S s - s S 23.895 -may D 41.19 iGOO:•n :A I. n4brale.•1; S - s t 33 185 S - s - f s - t - s - 9 3 D.165 m4cnr,ux •.4hrM %+y rtir" S - S 3 1.400 $ - { - s f - f - S - s $ 2400 TOW coY t 42 .295 3 - s 35.586 { 21 500 f 13 100 { - s f - f - { s 112 480 r COi: 3 - i - f -{ - S S - s - s - f t RtleOUy..81.. AD7CbnWlartf8R1 s+••r.3 s 1w s - s 4o s 240 s eoo s s - s - f - a s +.240 iff".l{hrrp) w f 52 { - 3 Iw s w 3 . f - f - s t - 3 3 202 �ctpft LSR'4PO V s 20 S - s 20 s 20 { 80 s - s - s s - 5 s 110 DOa11f7M) ±3' -'O s - s s - 3 -{ - s s - 3 - 3 - f s GA.O. bPrlp.. JtldW R.mM S -{ - s 304 S f - f - 3 - f - s 3 3 360 .e01p9'bISnO s 100 3 s 3 104 s 440 { - s - s - s s s 850 a:unRa.c.,mn s x s - w s So s - s -{ - s - s s s s +w ero s - s s 800 S - f - s - 3 - 3 J - f 7 8w faMNr, ].n1 S - S - 11 Bw S - 3 - 3 - f - s s:uneOe9O. S 90 3 4000 3 - 6 - 3 - 1 3 Is - s -it - f I 16 4090 T9 COY s 4n s 4.Ow S 1.960 s 410 S I.2W S - s - s { - i f 6.092 Rve1 03, s { 3 - S - { { - s 6 ss.ar .m..a awPe4t't.. S .Ims.7y 3 s -s s -t -s -s -{ -s -a s ,fu o 1 6 -13 s - s s 3 s s s TOTAL COSTS 7 534 39 s 65.360 t 57+46 S 47 no s 63.796 5 $ - t - s - { 3 307 460 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 June 22, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644 -3043, cmiller @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Final Engineering Evaluation, Design and Permitting Support for the Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Project ISSUE: Should the City amend the contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. to include preparation of the final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project? RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement ( "PSA ") with Anchor QEA, L.P. to prepare the final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel project, and 2. Approve Budget Amendment #BA for the attached scope of work for $307,460 and for permit fees and air quality mitigation credits for $71,035 from Unappropriated Reserves (Tidelands) to Capital Improvement Project #7231- 64402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). DISCUSSION: Anchor QEA, L.P. is currently assisting the City with initial planning, alternative analysis, and environmental impacts evaluation related to the Rhine Channel cleanup and Lower Newport Bay (LNB) dredging. Sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as portions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers managed Federal Channel, are suspected of being. unsuitable for open -ocean disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site. It is anticipated that these sediments will be accepted for disposal at the Port of Long Beach's (POLE) Middle Harbor confined disposal facility slip fill site. As part of the next step for this project, Anchor QEA has submitted a new scope of work that details ,tasks needed to be undertaken to complete the necessary engineering Anchor PSA for Final Design and PenniBing June 22, 2010 Page 2 evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of cleanup dredging with the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of selected City- managed properties along the adjoining Newport Channel (i.e. Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street public pier). Scope of Services Under the proposed PSA Amendment, Anchor QEA would continue to be retained on a time and materials basis ( for a not -to- exceed amount) to complete the engineering and permitting tasks summarized below and detailed in the scope of services included as Exhibit 2 to the PSA Amendment ?. Task 1: Structural Review and Updated Bathymetry Survey Under a subcontract with URS Corporation (a structural engineering firm) Anchor QEA will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to establish existing conditions to a degree of detail needed for design and analysis efforts. Subtask 1.1: Updated Bathometric Base Map of Complete Project Area This subtask will involve creating an updated, complete bathymetric survey map for the entire Rhine Channel and selected properties along the Newport Channel (i.e. Marina Park, American Legion, and the 15th Street public pier). An updated bathymetric survey will be critical for: • Identifying shallow areas within the channel that may need to be dredged. • Indicating water depths available for dredging equipment. • Indicating mudline elevations for determining dredging volumes. Estimated costs are $30,656. Subtask 1.2: Investigation of Seawalls and Panels This subtask will involve supplementing and "reality checking" the understanding of the existing marine structures within the Rhine Channel and adjoining properties through a structural review to be conducted by URS. This evaluation will include a vessel -based "swim -by" reconnaissance during which exposed seawalls, floats, and guide piles will be visually inspected. Seawall embedment depths at representative locations will also be measured using a jet probe. Estimated costs are $12,783. Subtask 1.3: Investigation ofGuide Piles This subtask will involve direct testing and evaluation of the piles in the field via impact- echo testing, a non - destructive pile testing method that can be conducted by personnel using specialized hand -held instruments which allow for estimation of their actual in- place embedded lengths below the mudline. This field testing will allow Anchor to fine Anchor PSA for Final Design and Penniffing June 22, 2010 Page 3 tune and reality check the actual pile conditions and potentially reduce the number of piles that need to be extracted during dredging. Estimated costs are $10,000. Task 2: Permitting Anchor QEA will prepare and submit required resource agency permit applications. Anchor QEA will also assist the City with the Port of Long Beach disposal applications for the Rhine Channel, Marina Park, American Legion, 15th St. beach and the Federal Lower Newport Bay material. Estimated costs are $65,360. Subtask 2.1: California Coastal Commission — Securing a Coastal Development Permit Subtask 2.2: Regional Water Quality Control Board — Securing Water Quality CertificationiWaste Discharge Requirements Subtask 2.3: State Lands Commission — Securing a Dredging Lease Subtask 2.4: US Army Corps of Engineers — Securing a Standard Individual Permit Note: Permit fees and air quality credits are not included in this Agreement, and will be the City's responsibility. Fees are anticipated to be as follows: • Coastal Commission - $12,500 • Regional Water Quality Control Board - $25,000 • State Lands Commission - $1,525 • Army Corps of Engineers - $10 AQMD air quality mitigation credits - $32,000 (based on current market rate assumptions and other worst case scenarios — final cost may be lower) Task 3: Final Engineering Design and Documentation Anchor QEA will complete final engineering analysis and design of the dredging project as well as preparation of construction documents (plans and technical specifications) that can be used for soliciting bids. A key aspect of the final engineering evaluation is to evaluate the effects of dredging on seawalls and guide piles at the site so that the dredge prism can be designed and optimized. Because dredging removes sediment that helps to retain the toe of the seawalls, an offset distance will need to be included in the dredge design so the walls are not destabilized as a result of the work. Subtask 3.1: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis The analysis of seawall stability and how it would be affected by dredging requires a thorough understanding not only of the characteristics of the seawalls themselves but also of the geotechnical properties of the soils in which the seawalls are situated and Anchor PSA for Final Design and Pennitting June 22, 2010 Page 4 which they retain. Anchor proposes to conduct the following series of geotechnical explorations at locations where no information is available: • Five in -water geotechnical borings to depths of 20 feet, using a small, maneuverable mud rotary drilling barge. • Two landside borings to depths of 40 feet, using a truck - mounted mud rotary drilling rig. • Seven cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to depths of 50 feet, on landside locations, using a truck- mounted CPT rig. Estimated costs are $57,145. Subtask 3.2: Analvsis of Structural Stability Once geotechnical data has been gathered, Anchor and URS will use geotechnical and structural engineering analysis techniques to determine how dredging affects pressures experienced by the seawalls and the potential response and deflection of surrounding ground and seawall elements. These approaches will be used to estimate the current stability level of the seawalls and to define the relationship between dredging prism geometry and the seawall stability, which will allow the design team to develop a protective dredging plan while also meeting the City's Rhine Channel cleanup goals. Analysis will include an assessment of gravity and seismic loads, including possible liquefaction effects. Estimated costs are $47,720. Subtask 3.3: Plans. Specifications and Opinion of Probable Cost Anchor and URS will prepare Draft (65 percent), Draft Final (95 percent) and Final (100 percent level) design plans, technical specifications, and opinion of probable cost for the construction work. Estimated costs are $83,796. Optional Tasks Anchor has identified some optional tasks that could be needed if a further level of detail is required. However, both staff and Anchor believe these optional tasks are not necessary at this time, and that it is best to proceed with the scope of work as described above. The anticipated costs for these optional tasks, should they be necessary, is .$62,000 and would therefore require an additional Amendment to the Agreement. Schedule: Anchor QEA is proposing to immediately begin this work in order to meet the anticipated deadline for the Port of Long Beach disposal opportunity. Our current schedule shows the City being shovel -ready by mid January 2011 assuming the POLB, the driving factor,. is ready to begin construction. AnchorPSA for Final Design and Permuting June 22, 2010 Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The approval of the Professional Services Agreement for final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support does not require environmental review. PUBLIC NOTICE: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). FUNDING AVAILABILITY: The scope of work requires a Budget Amendment of $307,460 for the attached Scope of Work and $71,035 for permit fees and air quality mitigation credits from Unappropriated Reserves (Tidelands) to account CIP #7231- C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). Submitted by: ris Miller Harbor Resources Manager Attachments: 1. Anchor Professional Services Agreement 2. Anchor 4EA Scope of Work SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP PROJECT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Second Amendment "), is entered into as of this _ day of 2010, by and between the City of Newport Beach, -a California Municipal Corporation and Charter City ( "City "), and Anchor QEA, L.P., a California Limited Partnership whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On July 14, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement "), to initiate environmental analysis ( "CEQA ") and engineering processes for the disposal of contaminated materials from a Lower Newport Bay dredging project into a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site within Newport Harbor. B. On November 10, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement to allow for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") to analyze the potential disposal of contaminated material from non - federal areas (Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion zones) in an upcoming Port of Long Beach CAD ( "First Amendment "). C. City and Consultant desire to enter into this Second Amendment to modify the scope of work to include engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of the cleanup dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of selected City- managed properties along the Newport Channel ( "Project "). .D. City and Consultant also desire to extend the Agreement's term to August 30, 2012. E. Agreement Section 34 authorizes the City and Consultant to enter into this Second Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the City and Consultant that adequate consideration has been provided and that the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 1. TERM Agreement Section 1 "Term" shall be amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 30th day of August, 2012, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein." First Amendment Section 1 "Term" shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED The Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" as superseded by Exhibit "A" to the First Amendment incorporated by reference in Section 2 of the First Amendment shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services dated June 11, 2010, which is attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks from the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Seven Hundred Fifty - Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 00 /100 Dollars ($752,460.00). 4. INSURANCE Agreement Section 14 shall be amended hereby and the following terms are substituted in their entirety: Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves. the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant's bid. 2 1Page B. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. C. Coverage Requirements. L Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subconsultant's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) prior to such change. Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. ii, General Liability Covera9e. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. iii. Automobile Liability Coveraae. 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 $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. iv. _ Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim and in the aggregate. 31Page D. Other Insurance Provisions or Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of- recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. fl. Enforcement of Contract Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. iii. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. iv. Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. E, Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. F. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 5. . INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement and First Amendment shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. 41Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY '-Conie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: By: Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California Municipal Corporation Keith Curry, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: A California Limited Partnership By. Title: General Partner Print Name: [END OF SIGNATURES] Attachment: Exhibit "A" June 11, 2010 Scope of Services blPage i ANCHOR. OEA 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.334.9646 June 11, 2010 Mr. Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive . Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Scope of Work for Final Engineering Evaluation, Design, and Permitting Support for Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Dear Mr. Miller: Anchor QEA, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with initial planning, alternatives analysis, and environmental impacts evaluation related to Rhine Channel cleanup and Lower Newport Bay (LNB) dredging. Sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as portions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- (USACE -) managed Federal Channel, are suspected of being unsuitable for open -ocean disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site. It is anticipated that these sediments will be accepted for disposal at the Port of Long Beach's Middle Harbor confined disposal facility (CDF) slip fill site. This scope of work details tasks needed to be undertaken to complete the necessary engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of cleanup dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance . dredging of selected City- managed properties along the adjoining Newport Channel (i.e., Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). Some necessary pre - design work has already been completed under our existing scope of work for pre - design activities associated with a potential confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site in Newport Bay but a few items still remain. Completed pre - engineering tasks include searching City archives for existing information on structures, seawalls, and utilities and reviewing available geotechnical www.anchorgea.com Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 2 information for the Rhine Channel area. The final engineering and permitting tasks required to complete the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project are detailed below. RHINE CHANNEL FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN TASKS AND ANALYSES Task 1: Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey Under Task 1, Anchor QEA and URS Corporation (a structural engineering firm working as a sub - consultant to Anchor QEA) will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to establish existing conditions to a degree of detail needed for design and analysis efforts. Specific subtasks will include creating an updated base map, investigating seawalls and panels, and investigating guide piles. Task 1.1: Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project Area In preparation for design efforts, this subtask will involve creating an updated, complete bathymetric survey map of the entire Rhine Channel and selected properties along the Newport Channel (i.e., Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). An updated bathymetric survey will be critical for: • Identifying shallow areas within the channel that may need to be dredged • Indicating water depths available for dredging equipment • Indicating mudhne elevations for determining dredging volumes The USACE recently (May 2010) completed a survey of open -water portions of the Rhine Channel, which supersedes that previous 2004 survey. Although Anchor QEA plans to use this 2010 survey to prepare a project -wide bathymetry map, it will be necessary to perform additional Bathymetric surveys to cover the perimeter of the Rhine Channel and the selected Newport Channel properties. This supplementary survey effort will be performed by Gahagan and Bryant Associates (GBA), a well- established national survey firm with local personnel who performed 2004 survey. Remaining open -water areas will be surveyed by GBA using multi-beam equipment. Because much of the Rhine Channel and nearby properties are occupied by private vessels' and docks, a majority of the supplementary survey will be completed by dropping lead lines by hand Task 1.2: Investigation of Seawalls and Panels Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 3 To date, Anchor QEA has reviewed available City records and as -built plans for information on seawalls and guide piles at the site. Under Task 1.2, we will supplement and "reality- check" our understanding of the existing marine structures within the Rhine Channel and adjoining properties through a structural review to be conducted by URS. This evaluation will include a vessel -based site "swim -by" reconnaissance, during which exposed seawalls, floats, and guide piles will be visually inspected. We will directly measure seawall embedment depths by jet probing at representative locations. A small diameter water jet pipe will be advanced along and in contact with the face of the wall. Once the pipe loses contact with the wall, it is assumed to have reached the bottom of the wall's embedded length. We plan to test the embedded depth at 15 to 20 different seawall locations within the Rhine Channel., Optional Item: Direct Observation of Seawall Tierods. While our swim -by site reconnaissance will include direct observation of seawalls and their condition, as well as allow for observation of evidence of stabilizing tierods where their ends are exposed at the wall face, we will have no way of determining the actual condition of the tierods because they are buried behind the walls. As a result, our design work will use fairly broad and conservative assumptions for the state and load capacity of the tierods. This potential uncertainty will be a key aspect of our design work, because the tierods are an integral part of the seawall stability. Our assumptions could be refined through a set of tiered unearthings, or "test pits," wherein temporary excavations are made behind the seawall in accessible locations to expose and allow visual observation of the tiered conditions. This process would be a fairly intrusive process and could add an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 to the design fee, depending on how many locations are available for such an exercise. At this time, we have not included tierod unearthing in our scope and fee estimate. If during the course of our analysis, it becomes evident that tiered unearthings would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, we will discuss adding this effort to our scope. Task 1.3: Investigation of Guide Piles 1 Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 4 The City currently would prefer to remove and replace guide piles as part of the dredge program to better facilitate dredging around the dock structure. The design team will evaluate and qualify the current state and embedment depth of the guide piles to determine the number and locations of guide piles that should be replaced. Our swim -by reconnaissance and a general review of the City's archived records will allow us to develop a general idea of pile conditions. Because these sources of information are limited in their completeness and accuracy, we will conduct a more detailed analysis of the guide piles. Direct testing and evaluation of the piles in the field will be accomplished via impact -echo testing, a non - destructive pile testing method that can be conducted by personnel using specialized hand -held instruments, which allows for estimation of their actual in -place embedded lengths below the mudline. This field testing will enable us to fine -tune and reality-check the actual pile conditions and potentially reduce the number of piles that need to be extracted. Note that because the guide piles are private structures, permission from existing property owners would be required for our personnel to conduct testing from the docks. Task 2: Permitting Under Task 2, Anchor QEA will prepare and submit required resource agency permit applications to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), State Lands Commission (SLC), and USACE Regulatory Division for Rhine Channel and other City- managed areas to be dredged with material targeted for disposal at the Port of Long Beach. Anchor QEA will also assist the City with the Port of Long Beach disposal applications for the Rhine Channel, non -RGP City areas and Federal Lower Newport Bay material. Specific tasks will include attending pre - application meetings with the regulatory agencies, attending meetings with Port staff, preparing agency permit documents, and providing any additional agency requested biological resource information. Meetings with agency staff, as needed, are included in our costs for this task. Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Task 2.1: CCC Coastal Development Permit Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre- application meeting with CCC staff prior to submitting a complete request for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Anchor QEA will prepare a pre - application package for use at these meetings that will comprise the project description, conceptual -level figures, and a summary of the analysis showing compliance with California Coastal Act (CCA) regulations. Based on our discussions with CCC staff, we will initially facilitate a meeting with Mr. Jack Gregg, the Coastal Commission staff member on the Los Angeles Region Contaminated Sediments Task Force (CSTF). Meetings with other CCC staff may be required. Building on information gathered during the previous meetings with the CCC, Anchor QEA would complete the CDP application package and submit it to the CCC. Work associated with this subtask will include completing the required questionnaire and preparing the permit application attachments. One internal draft CDP application package will be provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will then submit the CDP application package to the CCC on behalf of the City, and respond to all questions posed by CCC staff. We will coordinate with City staff to synchronize City Council approval with prompt submission to the CCC. Anchor QEA will also prepare a draft Staff Report (if requested) to accelerate the processing of the permit application and attend the CCC hearing on behalf of the City. Note that the CCC cannot consider an application complete until a final California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is available. Task 2.2: RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification /Waste Discharge Requirements Anchor QEA will facilitate at least one pre- application meeting with the RWQCB staff prior to submitting a complete request for a 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirements (WQC/WDR). Following this meeting, we will prepare a draft application for WQC/WDR for review by the City. A draft Confirmatory Sediment Sampling Plan and draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan will also be prepared. Anchor QEA will respond to Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 6 comments from the City and submit the final permit application to the RWQCB on behalf of the City. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by RWQCB staff. Note that the RWQCB cannot consider an application complete until a final CEQA document is available. Task 2.3: SLC Dredging Lease Because the project involves dredging of submerged tidelands held in trust for the state of California, a SLC dredging lease will be required. Anchor QEA will prepare the necessary application for a dredging lease and will work with the City to negotiate the lease, and will represent the City at the SLC hearing if required. We will prepare a draft request for the dredging lease and provide it to the City for comments. Once comments are incorporated, Anchor QEA will submit the lease application to the SLC on behalf of the City. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by CSLC staff. Based on our experience with other projects involving contaminated sediments, the SLC will likely agree that there are no valuable mineral rights requiring compensation. Task 2.4: USACE Standard Individual Permit Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with USACE Regulatory Division staff. We will again prepare a pre - application package that will comprise the project description, figures, and a summary of the analysis showing compliance with CCA regulations. We will facilitate this meeting with Ms. Cori Farrar of the Los Angeles District Regulatory Program. Anchor QEA will then prepare a complete application for a Standard Individual Permit (SIP), including discussions of alternatives considered; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; necessary Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) information; and a draft public notice. The City will be provided a draft of the application package prior to submittal for review and comment. To further accelerate the processing of this application, we will also prepare a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for use by USACE staff. One internal draft EA will be Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 7 provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will finalize the EA and submit it to the USACE. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by USAGE staff. Permit Fees Current costs do not include any fees due to the agencies for processing permit applications; these fees will be paid directly by the City. Based on available fee calculators (fees will be confirmed by agencies), we estimate permit fees to be as follows: • USACE — $10 (fee for SIP for public agency) • RWQCB — $25,000 (maximum fee) • CCC — $12,500 (application fee plus grading/fill fee) • SLC — $1,525 (application fee plus dredging lease) Cost assumptions for Task 2 and all associated subtasks: • Draft documents submitted to the City will be in electronic form. Final deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies). Agency meetings will be combined when possible, as to avoid duplication of effort. • Attendance at agency meetings will occur as needed. • Agency concerns will be reviewed and addressed as necessary, and permits applications revised, if needed, as a result of agency comments. Task 3: Final Engineering Design and Documentation Following our initial structural overview and bathymetric survey performed under Task 1, Anchor QEA will proceed with final engineering analysis and design of the Rhine Channel and City- controlled (non - Regional General Permit) dredging project as well as preparation of construction documents (plans and technical specification) that can be used for soliciting bids. We anticipate that the construction process will be managed by the USACE, and thus, our construction documents will be prepared in a format consistent with USACE project standards. A key aspect of our final engineering evaluation is to evaluate the effects of dredging on seawalls and guide piles at the site, so that the dredge prism can be designed and optimized. Because dredging removes sediment that helps to retain the toe of the seawalls, an offset Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 8 distance will need to be included in the dredge design so the walls are not destabilized as a result of the work. However, it is in the City's interests to maximize the volume of removed sediments to best achieve overall cleanup goals, and it will be important to determine the relationship between dredging geometry /offset distance and overall seawall stability with as much certainty and detail as possible. While the exact scope and level of effort for these tasks will be somewhat dependent on our findings from Task 1, we anticipate the following subtasks will need to be completed. Task 1l: Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis The analysis of seawall stability and how it would be affected by dredging requires a thorough understanding not only of the characteristics of the seawalls themselves but also the geotechnical properties of the soils in which the seawalls are situated and which they retain. Any gaps in our understanding of geotechnical site conditions would require the design team to make conservative assumptions about soil properties. In our design experience at Newport Harbor, we have found that seawall stability in the area, is generally marginal, and we expect the same to be true at Rhine Channel. Making overly conservative assumptions about the seawall and soil conditions could have significant impacts on our results and could lead to excessive dredging setback distances, excessive costs for possible seawall repairs, or both. It is, therefore, important to the adequacy of our analyses that sufficient geotechnical information be gathered throughout the Rhine Channel —in the "retained" upland areas behind the seawalls and in the offshore areas in front of the seawalls —and to sufficient depths to demonstrate geotechnical conditions below the bottom of the seawall panels. Anchor QEA has reviewed City records and archives and has found relevant geotechnical subsurface data at a few properties adjacent to the Rhine Channel. These data will be critical for our analysis, but because the information is widely separated, and in some cases does not reach a sufficient depth for our design needs, it will be necessary to obtain additional data to develop a sufficiently complete understanding of geotechnical conditions in the project area. .Anchor ORA proposes to conduct the following series of geotechnical explorations at locations where no information is currently available, as follows: Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 9 • Five in -water geotechnical borings to depths of 20 feet, using a small, relatively maneuverable mud rotary drilling barge • Two landside borings to depths of 40 feet, using a truck- mounted mud rotary drilling rig • Seven cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to depths of 50 feet, on landside locations, using a truck- mounted CPT rig Boring samples will be obtained at 5- foot -depth intervals, with some samples submitted to a local geotechnical laboratory for testing of moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg Limits (for fine- grained samples), and soil strength (by triaxial testing). Altogether, we exTect that the proposed geotechnical exploration program will require 4 days by an Anchor QEA geotechnical representative and a drilling firm working as a subcontractor to Anchor QEA. We have assumed that it will not be necessary to conduct geotechnical investigations at the Marina Park, American Legion, or 15th Street Pier locations. We understand that a recent 2008 geotechnical evaluation was conducted at the Marina Park site, but we are not aware of any geotechnical information from the American Legion or 15th Street Pier locations. For these sites, we plan to use existing information in combination with appropriately conservative structural assumptions to design a maintenance dredging program that is protective of the existing seawall, floats, guide piles, and timber pier. If, during the course of our analysis, it becomes clear that additional geotechnical information is needed to avoid a significant project impact, then we will discuss with the City the reasons and advantages of adding this element of work to the proposed scope. Our labor under this task includes the following elements: • Field time for an Anchor QEA representative during the entirety of the geotechnical field work, including equipment set -up, demobilization, and oversight of site cleanup • Securing any required permits from the City of Newport Beach, the County, and/or any other public agencies, as necessary • Reviewing available information on utility : lines that are present, including - coordinating with "DigAlert" for a pre - drilling utility locate (includes one site visit to lay out the on -land exploration locations) Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 10 • Packaging and documenting all samples obtained, delivering to our geotechnical laboratory, selecting samples for testing, coordinating the lab tests, and reviewing the laboratory results • Establishing contracts and administrative requirements with subcontractors performing the drilling and laboratory work • Providing a signed, stamped report documenting all geotechnical and structural stability work performed Task 3.2: Analysis of Structural Stability Once geotechnical data has been gathered, Anchor QEA and URS will use geotechnical and structural engineering analysis techniques, such as determination of stability ratios, and two - dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium methods and a finite element modeling, to determine how dredging affects pressures experienced by the seawalls and the potential response and deflection of surrounding ground and seawall elements. These approaches will be used to estimate the current stability level of the seawalls and to define the relationship between dredging prism geometry and the seawall stability, which will allow the design team to develop a protective dredging plan while also meeting the City's Rhine Channel cleanup goals. Analysis will include an assessment of gravity and seismic loads, including possible liquefaction effects. Following completion of our field work and structural and geotedmical stability analysis, a draft report will be prepared that summarizes our findings and conclusions regarding the stability of the seawall and how dredging will be designed to maintain the stability of the walls. - As stated for Task 3.1, we have assumed that it will not be necessary to perform a structural stability evaluation for the American Legion site and that existing information can be used to create a sufficiently protective maintenance dredging design. Conservative assumptions will be made regarding the ability of existing site features to withstand removal of sediments during maintenance dredging. If it becomes clear during the design process that additional analysis would be beneficial to the City, then the option for conducting additional studies can be discussed. Mr. Chris Miller - June 11, 2010 Page 11 Optional Task Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Files. We have not included structural analysis of existing guide pile stability in this scope and fee estimate, as it is assumed that all piles will be removed prior to dredging. If, however, the City chooses to leave some or all of the guide piles in place, a structural evaluation of the piles will be required. As discussed under Task 1, we can offer the City the option of conducting a full structural analysis of the guide piles. We estimate that this structural analysis would add approximately $32,000 to our design costs, in addition to the more comprehensive field study of the piles described under Task 1. At this time, however, we are not including such an analysis in our scope, anticipating that our review of the piles will be more cursory and based on visual observations from our swim -by reconnaissance and review of City records. If during the course of our analysis, it becomes evident that a thorough structural analysis of the guide piles appears warranted and would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, then a modification to the scope of work can be discussed. Task 3.3: Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost Anchor QEA and URS will prepare Draft (65 percent), Draft Final (95 percent level) and Final (100 percent level) design plans, technical specifications, and opinion of probable cost for the construction work. The development of these documents will occur concurrently with the permitting process, and Draft (65 percent) documents will be prepared specifically to support permit applications. Construction plans will depict site bathymetriy, existing structures, site conditions and restrictions, required extents and limits of dredging, required side slopes, allowable overdepth limits, allowable equipment mooring areas, and typical cross sections. The plans will include a series of drawings that depict the seawalls, floating docks, and guide piles, incorporating aerial photography that has been obtained from the City, and the results of the bathymetric survey and structural analysis conducted as part of the current scope of work. Technical specifications will include sections for dredging, transport, and disposal of material. Any permit conditions and environmental restrictions known at the time of preparation will also be included in the plans. Specifications will be prepared using USACE standard format. Should the City request that specifications be prepared in another format, Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 12 we may be able to accommodate that request without budget increase if the alternate format is provided early in the design process. A bid schedule will be included as part of the bid package, which will contain our estimate of payable dredging volume quantities for design plans, including allowable overdepth and side slopes. This quantity will also be used in our opinion of probable costs. At this stage, we have made our best estimate of the level of effort that will be necessary to adequately document the project details in this set of deliverables. As our engineering analysis proceeds, we will be able to refine our expectations of this effort. Therefore, after completion of Tasks 1, 3. 1, and 3.2, and prior to making significant progress on the construction documents, we will meet with the City to discuss our findings and their effect on the plans and specifications preparation effort. If appropriate, we will refine our overall scope and level of effort at that time to reflect our more refined project understanding. We have assumed that the Draft (65 percent) deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic form only and that the Draft Final (95 percent) and Final (100 percent) deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies). ESTIMATED SCHEDULE A detailed project schedule in the form of a Gantt chart has been created based on the current project status as well as several aggressive assumptions (e.g., assuming that construction bid documents will be released prior to obtaining final permits) and is attached to this scope of work for reference. SUMMARY OF COSTS Table 1 presents our estimated costs for the recommended and presented scope of work, on a task -by -task basis. Our scope description has also presented various optional scope items that the City may elect to undertake. Table 2 summarizes the projected costs of these optional items. We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time- and - materials basis, as has been done for our work to date. Our previous engineering- related scope of work for pre - design 1 Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 13 tasks to support the construction of a CAD cell is temporarily on.hold pending the disposal option at the Port of Long Beach. As such, the funds authorized for our previous scope of work have been applied to the Rhine Channel effort to advance to the current stage of the project, such that we can now enter into the final design stage. Throughout the conduct of these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all invoices. Table i Summary of Estimated Costs for "Base" Tasks Task Task Description Estimated Cost 1 Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey 1.1 Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project Area $30,656 1.2 Investigation of Seawalls and Panels $12,783 1.3 Investigation of Guide Piles $10,000 2 Permitting 2.1 CCC CDP $65,360 2.2 RWQCB 401 WQC/WDR 2.3 SLC Dredging Lease 2.4 USACE SIP 3 Final Engineering Design and Documentation 3.1 Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis $57,145 3.2 Analysis of Structural Stability $47,720 3.3 Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost $83,796 Total Estimated Cost $307,460 Table 2 Summary of Estimated Costs for "Optional' Tasks Optional Task Item Estimated Cost Direct Observation of Seawall Tie Rods' $20,000 to $30,000 Structural Analysis of Existing Guide PileS2 $32,000 Notes: 1 As presented in description for Task 1 2 As presented in description for Task 3.2 Mr. Chris Miller June 11, 2010 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity work with the City on this important project. If there are any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Michael Whelan, P.E. Steve Cappellino Anchor QEA, L.P. Anchor QEA, L.P. SWUpeubwnimh eWliyin -- --- -- --- --- __J .. ------ -------- ------ gyiaNBW P.m F.WM M,H.d ....... ... . 0, Aqmt- - va wa: --- ww igm 1p Twkl.sftm*nmIR*vlawmdUpd�stn�, ". Baeyel RWID. T..WWI, l0daq * MdWIMO. rue a)mj tNdKd,--... tu; w6 wam Fir fwm UO3A Gealnh.Wnl Exm.U... I We Wmo ceM Tk&3-COmtmMm Dmuments DM Parletl Confhuatbt% IMU. DWIm. -!i;- W-V 1 ;, . Ell . I . - of ...... cwAwiTMw1r;m Maw .. ....... . .. taw -.Twwfii� - - t - 42 1 a . wc -------- ijW '-W' COMY-TO699 - -- ----- ---- -- .. qiw --- --- - ------------ -- — ir7 70aii M izelimdi . .. ........ sod 4rl W 4 3 dIon, c W W W=07 N I Q I WO can .—Aikiv --.— ............ .... ... . . ... ...... . .... nff—. ni Waage PR',WTf6- -Vifi ...... ....... -- ----- a 1 u9"y(kzInIcrEnom,smRwlwPoftd I setIlInvo . ......... ---------- - - ppam MImITWO T M n IMMO - --------- -------- - W&iv- 0777-77777777777==�� 12WWWO: Tu-A"llwwlo I "mift In hod Teak PnnnM summary ^ Exl .ITMM DM.din. RaWmn" hewAPWadkh.". WtFfifflIJlO S'At milwoon. PrWdS.rn.M P." ANCHOR OEA, LLC. 2010 PROJECT COST ESTIMATING FORM ProposaVProjea Name + '°R�yt8ptl 66TTF2A9fi4 Teak 1 1 S - - TaTsak e 3k.1 Task 3.1 i Task 32 47�'u' af aO"ti'{sep�q�r Mgr o Rf$e$nVa,'w)JYeUaar re-nfI (� tlO 3PI�e O g drYyty mtl0 eii0 ng p 5of u e Pro Jeur .n". e R tC` h aaynnles l Nev+port 8 €xaf Gs $ S S t C6n$$A 57 k 272 Rhine Channel nel- Desig Eo A Number Prepare Metal, rmagng -AQ Budget revised 527- 10,x1ex n and . ` P • _ e ung fla S 1 qaE OCnlidl'v'h In one {:P.' "bfe,COet_,.,;; ..$ ' Rate Task Task Tank Task Task Task Total Total Labor Cel odes Rata 1 2 3.1 3.2 3.3 q Hours Dollars Principal CMlEngr /LA:PIaN$d ;.�"`� 0 96 4 8 38 0 0 0 0 p SrM aging ArialYWOM/EngdLAlPlanlSa S,' 144 S 28,36$ Managing Analys9CM /6npr /La/Phm/S7 5 (' QD 0 32 50 110 0 0 0 0 D 212 S 38,796 Senior AlmlYnulCMtf-ngr/INPIanISn e7 %23 26 00 76 00 0 0 0 0 0 D 60 $ 9,720 Stag 3 AnalVstCM/Engnt>✓Plan/Srx s ,ry 2¢* 0 160 p 72 0 0 0 0 D 114 S 16,188 Staff 2AnelystlCMiGngr /LfvPlanlSa t' p 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 160 S 20,000 Stefi1 AnalysVCM/EngrXA/ ,nGd 5 ,a� -iOF. 0 0 0 724 78$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ Senior' CAD Designer 1 ` L''� 78 q0 4 8 0 376 § 37,224 CAD Designer `"' "`G'�,St'2? 0- 0 g 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 180 S 18,900 Prop" 000nV0#t0rtPCIPA) .e 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 S - a,8$, - 20 104 24 24 44 0 0 0 0 D 216 $ 17,712 Project Coordinator lAmnnU *%'�` "O2 "" Te 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p D 0 3 dlnidan )$�- .:x" ,8, National Expert COneulant s'y %'.� 3 " 0 0 0 p p 0 o a 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 $ o _ Total Hours 82 400 tat 214 542 0 0 0 0 0 7,482 Total Labor $ 10,672 $ 61,360 $ 19,620 $ 25,810 $ 88,446 $ - $ - $ . S $ g 186 906 Avere eHourl Rate $ 128 Subronsukants $ 16,400 $ • $ - $ 21,500 $ 13.10 $ $ - $ - g - § $ 53,000 CBA'a ymaf<(+;buxuaYalj r<`'d ' $ 23,895 $ $ - $ - g $ - $ - 5 - S S xWap�dlrglrJ:zlig2l�r e) g $ - $ 33,165 $ $ $ - $ - $ $ S 23,895 r ql i,b`ararerY(TflD3/ f' $ $ $ 2,400 s " $ 33,185 zy wmnear :� f rn $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ S - $ $ $ 2.400 $ $ $ $ g $ $ $ S $ $ ✓Total Cost 8 42,295 $ $ 35,5$5 $ 21,500 $ 13,100 $ - $ - S - g - 3 S 112,460 Markup .:11:0°.$::.`: $ - $ - it - S $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ S roebies CADICAD/Computer r ($rhr ($l ) , $ 160 $ - $ 40 $ 240 $ 800 $ _ g $ $ - g S 1,240 Mileage (WOO) a 050 " $ 52 $ $ 100 $ 50 $ . $ _ S - IS _ $ _ $ S 202 Opies {E/COpy) 5�,1rt'ItlO�p $ 20 $ $ 20 $ 20 $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - g $ 110 Anchor beat($(day) ry ,j$pp S - S g - g g g $ $ g _ g g Faxes($Jlaz) "1,05„ ,0 . S - $ -- $ $ $ _ $ $ - $ _ g _ g $ Outside Expanses - - �' £a�-._.. $ $ - $ 300 $ $ $ $ g - $ $ $ 300 P, $ 100 $ - $ 50 $ 100 $ 400 $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ $ 650 IS 60 $ _ S 50 S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S $ 100 $ _ $ - $ 800 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 600 nh $a g . $ - - $ 800 $ $ _ It $ - $ - $ - $ $ 806 Mlst$ ;5 xe $ 90 IS 4.000 $ - S $ _ $ _ g $ _ g $ 4,090 oteI Coat $ '472 $ 4,OW S 1,960 S 410 $ 1,250 $ .1$ - S - $ Markup rAV"IbtlV$ x $ S - $ - g $ g _ g _ $ - 3 - 8 g Held Equipmentand Supplies Summary S - $ $ _ $ $ 5 $ _ $ - $ - $ 5 _ Mark- Vie.' 'bt s`r .. $ $ - $ - 5 $ $ _ 8 $ $ $ TOTAL COSTS $ 53,439.5 65,360 $ 57,145 $ 47.720 $ 83,796 $ - $ - $ - S - $ $ 307,460 City of Newport Beach BUDGET AMENDMENT 2009 -10 -ECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues PX from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: NO. BA- 10BA -054 AMOUNT: $37e,as5.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment No. 2 to the professional services agreement with Anchor QEA Inc. for preparation of final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Project. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount Fund Account Description Debit Credit 230 3605 Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance $378,495.00 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account Description EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Division Number 7231 Tidelands Capital Account Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project $378,495.00 Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Automatic Syatem Entry. Signed: Financial App al: Administrative Services Director Date Signed: Administrative Approval: City Manager Date Signed: City Council Approval: City Clerk Date i Notice toFormed from City 0do, Fri61dIt0 Fr16/C /t0 _. -otke b Proseed tram City _ - -- -- - ] Task I- Stmdural Review and Updated Survey 111,1i Rf LdItO Tue &AI10' 25 days al�Task 1- Structural Revew am Updated Survey 3 Sm up aolSOmmM a ad acMdme had and, odaya ..". Tue &t 5110 17 Task 3.3- Cem4uctlen Documents _.a _... Banymed. sarvay 10 days Wed 5116110 To. WN0 Taek"- COnsuuGlen DOcuments 5.... SlmcNml-Call Rewnnamance to me. Wed&lSill TO N2110 6.._ Seawill embedmanmeMM1 me..nr.m.ni IB days VJed WISC1 Tue52pft0, Due 8 10i 1 Go&01. eralual to an, Wwra lto Tue f6fill Wnd&MWlO: 8- ' -Task 3.1- Geotahnical Explorations 21 days Fri 61,1110 Fit 71MO Wed SMdI01 Task 3.1- 6eotechnkal EgdorMlons 9 Set upeubmnlr.., and ushmJa led xwk State Fr[ W910 Thu 6/17110 Thu919/10 Monikill 10 Panel l.a milimary) 1. Jaye Fri.N. IDm Wl lit, Toe WIN10 11— GgWerl ulillb tattle 2tlaya Fn 5110 /W Man H21110- —24 - 1W perteM final suunfir ly G kwk1,ll field wmk 4data Tue Sil Fri 625/10'. 13 Gro2stll L.boralory bating 5days Mon6RB/10 Fd72,10''. Tue 11118/10'. 14 Task 3.2- Analysis or Structural Shblliy 05drys th.12110 Th. MAN. '. Sdaye Task J3- Analyslse151ruaNral8dbllly Agenda Item No. 15 June 22, 2010 F'15 Gealeahneal analysis W onal Sand seawll 12dayz Mon Ill To. Sul of y.. 18.... Slmtrund moves INaeawel sbbiAry 25 days Fri DL10 Thu WWI0 — 17 Task 3.3- Cem4uctlen Documents 35Jrya Fri T2Lt0 Tue IDIN10 Taek"- COnsuuGlen DOcuments 1B- OS percent draft submibl 25 Wye Fn ylW10 Thu fill 19 OR review 3days Fri02W10 Due 8 10i 20 Meet b da.. mmmenb 1day Md BOW10 Wnd&MWlO: 21 95Jrst Ontleubmibl Neil Thu all Wed SMdI01 22 City review 3days Thu919/10 Monikill 23- Meet W dumu mmmenta lit, Toe WIN10 Taw WIN10! —24 - 1W perteM final suunfir 15 mon, Wed 91 10 Tue 1015110'. 25 -1 Bid PnbO 30Jayz WW Until Tue 11118/10'. Bid limlod 26.... Foa ddidirenbwe Bid BOCamerm Sdaye Wed 105110 1.10112110''.. 2/ Bid penotl Wdeam WSJ 1M 3110 Tue 112 /10 28 Bid attain, and awmd 5days Was! 11M 0/10 Too IIII RAC'. 2B 'COnshmmin May, WSJ 122110 Tue 1111111 6enetNNan 3O a,cNotal 10 aye Wed 12,111 0 Tua 12/14110.. — 31 Submgde 20 days wktl 1211511 Into "I Ill _33 _.- Mahliaarron 20mya Wetl 1211511 Ties 1/11111 1., W _ . I.M. Bred9in0 have rue to 111 Tue to 1111., . Initlam Emdaine 34 .CECIL BT days Tueeryll Wed WSS/1' CEOA 35 "NO SC eenshesk to CM 3tlaya Tue &1/10 Thu &y10 38 MNDWClearinghouse 10ry Man 617110 Men 62 /10 3T PN' llawaif151MN0 3.a., Tu..to Wed TP/tO -40 Revew and rezpantl W COmmen6 7d., Thu Nityl FnT /16/10 -' 141 CibAdaPta MNDend MMRP Iay Tu,7127 110 Tue 767/10 - 93 Cry Film NOD effi County 1day Wed72A10 Wed 720110 - -C3 OEON Appeel Fri 23 days Th. S15I10 P1BVIIO 44 Permits IlSdayb Mona 10 Tue 11130110 - Permits 45 Prepare applications 30 us, Mon 67 110 Fri 7116110 —� r applications _48 Cantarm. Coastal Commtssicn B3aye Wed 7=11. Fri 1111811 Data, .1. Ca lCmme-lon 47 BubmR CCCAp(Ap5ona730 Bey COmpleteneae Review Wdays Wed 72011 Th. B2Wl' _ 48 - Hymnal Period 85 days Fili Wi Fn 11119MO'. 49 -1 US Army Corps of Eadmi Revs. Period 120 does Sar 7/1fi10 Sat 11113110'. W vol Wafer Dualy Gaited Board royeaw Period 90 drys Wed 728110 Mon 1nkleal. fil CA Sons Lena Cammbeen Renaw Period 90 days Wed 72BM0 Mon 1025M0 53 Al permAS In hand 7days Mon 112LtO Tue t Ill '- Il moral in hand `. DRAFT Task O Progress r Summary ^ External T la e?a"r.�'Y±fil _' Deal Rhine Channel Poll Schedule Bet. Po6Thent 'Olt ......... Milestone ♦ Prated Summary External Milestone ® Page 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR CONFINED AQUATIC DISOSAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR ENGINEERING PRE - DESIGN TASKS AND CEQA COMPLIANCE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "First Amendment "), is entered into as of this _L00 day of 2009, by and between the City of Newport Beach, a California Municipal Corporation and Charter City ( "City "), and Anchor QEA, L.P., a California Limited Partnership whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On July 14, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement "), to initiate environmental analysis (CEQA) and engineering for the disposal of contaminated materials from a Lower Newport Bay dredging project into a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site within Newport Harbor ( "Project "). B. City and Consultant desire to enter into this First Amendment to allow the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") that will analyze the potential disposal of contaminated material from non - federal areas (Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion zones) in an upcoming Port of Long Beach CAD. C. City and Consultant also desire to clarify various provisions within the Agreement and to extend the Agreement's term to August 30, 2011. D. Agreement Section 34 authorizes the City and Consultant to enter into this First Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the City and Consultant that adequate consideration has been provided and that the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 1. TERM Agreement Section 1 "Term" shall be amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 30th day of August, 2011, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein." 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED The Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference in Section 2 shall be replaced by the Scope of Services dated November 5, 2009, which is attached to this First Amendment as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks from the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Four Hundred Forty - Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($445,000). 4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By: David R. Hunt City Attorney ATTEST: By: � Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF EWPORT ACH, A Calif a Munici a Corporation By ;M1 ward Selich, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: A CZa( Li ed Partnership By: porate Officer) Title: fa,'" - Print Name: 5-��e CoA--PPQA-A'0 (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachment: Exhibit "A" — November 5, 2009 Scope of Services 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Four Hundred Forty - Five Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($445,000). 4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: By:_ ALA 4 "` Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF�dEWPORT��ACH, A Calif �jp a Munici a Corporation tawara seucn, mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: A Cali a Li ed Partnership By: (06rporate Officer) Title: 9-1'� Print Name: S4-p- re- ckPpj� -e o (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachment: Exhibit "A" — November 5, 2009 Scope of Services CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOV 10 2009 November 10, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043 cmiller(a)newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Engineering and Environmental Tasks Associated with Dredging and Disposal for a Lower Newport Bay Dredging Project in Newport Harbor ISSUE: Harbor Resources is submitting an update on the Lower Newport Bay dredging project which includes a rare potential opportunity to'dispose all of the contaminated material from the non- federal channels in a Port of Long Beach fill project. Should the City amend the contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. to include environmental work for Port of Long Beach disposal while also focusing on other disposal solutions as a contingency plan? RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement ( "PSA ") with Anchor QEA, L.P. to prepare an MND and EIR for two options for the contaminated disposal component of a Lower Newport Bay dredging project, and; 2. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA- taking $50,000 in un- appropriated Tidelands Fund Balance and assigning these funds to Capital Improvement Project #7231- C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). DISCUSSION: In July 2009, the City Council approved a contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. for $395,000 to perform the engineering and environmental work for the contaminated disposal component of the Lower Newport Bay dredging project. At that time, the City's disposal options focused on a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site within Newport Harbor. Shortly thereafter, an unexpected opportunity for placing Newport Beach's non - federal contaminated material in a large fill site planned for the Port of Long Beach ( "POLB ") has potentially become available to the City, but requires an "approved" project be ready for submittal to Port officials very quickly. At this point, the City is considering the Rhine Channel dredging footprint to be from the outside of the floats on one side of the channel to the outside of the floats on the other side of the channel. It is not the City's intent to dredge within the individual property lines of each marina because of the complexities involved with some of the surrounding bulkheads, and because these waterways are the upland property owner's responsibility. However, as the project progresses, it is likely that these property owners may -' Anchor QEA Amendment No. 1 November 10, 2009 Page 2 have an opportunity to work with the City to take full advantage of the dredging economies of scale It is onticip�.iteo that these plans and ideas will evolve during the permitting process. Anchor QEA L.P. believes that CEQA requirements for the City's use of the POLB Confined Disposal Facility (CDF or Port fill) as a disposal site can be met with a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND "). They propose to complete an MND on this limited project by June 2010, a timeline that will allow the City to meet POLB's schedule. The MND would analyze disposal of the contaminants in the non - federal channels (i.e. Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion areas) while the Army Corps of Engineers would prepare an Environmental Assessment for the federal channel contaminant disposal. Despite the appeal of the POLB fill site option, the City must also be prepared to respond to a situation where some or none of the material is accepted by the POLB and a CAD (or other alternate disposal method) is needed either in whole or combination with the POLB fill site. Thus, staff is recommending that the originally approved EIR work continue until such time that the POLB site becomes a certainty for contaminant disposal. In essence, the City will be going down two parallel tracks at the same time: 1) MND for Long Beach disposal; and 2) EIR for Newport Beach disposal. Although this may seem redundant in some respects, much of the information gathered in the initial stages for both paths will be beneficial for the project, and it might also help the City with future projects. The attached amendment to the PSA includes preparation of the MND for the POLB disposal, and also further clarifies the EIR tasks in the original proposal. Environmental Review: The approval of the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for environmental (CEQA) and engineering work does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item). Financial Availability: The revised scope of work adds $50,000 for preparation of the MND. Staff is requesting that $50,000 be transferred from the un- appropriated Tidelands Fund balance to account #7231- C4402001. Prepared by: Submitted by: �r tY "W ris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: First Amendment to PSA Exhibit 2: Budget Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR CONFINED AQUATIC DISOSAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR ENGINEERING PRE - DESIGN TASKS AND CEQA COMPLIANCE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "First Amendment "), is entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the City of Newport Beach, a California Municipal Corporation and Charter City ( "City "), and Anchor QEA, L.P., a California Limited Partnership whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On July 14, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement "), to initiate environmental analysis (CEQA) and engineering for the disposal of contaminated materials from a Lower Newport Bay dredging project into a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site within Newport Harbor ( "Project "). B. City and Consultant desire to enter into this First Amendment to allow the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") that will analyze the potential disposal of contaminated material from non - federal areas (Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion zones) in an upcoming Port of Long Beach CAD. C. City and Consultant also desire to clarify various provisions within the Agreement and to extend the Agreement's term to August 30, 2011. D. Agreement Section 34 authorizes the City and Consultant to enter into this First Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the City and Consultant that adequate consideration has been provided and that the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 1. TERM Agreement Section 1' "Term shall be amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 30th day of August, 2011, unless terminated earlier asset forth herein." 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED The Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by. reference . in Section 2 shall be replaced by the Scope of Services dated November 5, 2009, which is attached to this First Amendment as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks from the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Four Hundred Forty - Five Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($445,000). 4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By: David R. Hunt City Attorney ATTEST: By: Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A California Municipal Corporation By: Edward Selich, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: A California Limited Partnership By: (Corporate Officer) Title: Print Name: (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachment: Exhibit "A° — November 5, 2009 Scope of Services ANCHOR. OEA,�` �— 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 42S Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.347.2781, November 5, 2009 Chris Miller Manager, Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Exhibit A Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site/Non- Federal Dredging Areas Scope of Work and Budget for Engineering Pre - design Tasks and CEQA Compliance Dear Chris: Based on our recent telephone conversations and subsequent meetings with City Planning staff on July 31, October 16, and November 3, 2009, we have prepared the following modified scope of work to document the requested changes to the subject project for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site/Non- Federal Dredging Areas engineering pre- design and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. These modifications are required to document recent changes in project direction as they relate to a potentially new option for contaminated sediment disposal at the Port of Long Beach. Also attached is a revised project schedule and budget to reflect the revised tasks. TASK 1: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES Prior to the start of the actual engineering design for a CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay or for dredging any of the non - Federal areas, there are numerous pre - design engineering tasks and analyses that must be performed. This information is important to complete the initial phases of the CEQA process (e.g., selection of the preferred alternative and to provide information to assist in conducting impact analyses such as dredge footprint and equipment needs) and future engineering design. This information will also be valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could dictate or limit aspects of the design. Engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed www.anchorgea.com Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Paget } construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. As such, the costs for the engineering design (preparation of construction plans and specifications) are not included in the current scope of work. The sub -tasks below will be performed in parallel with the preparation of CEQA documents. Subtask 1.1: Review of Existing Literature Existing information provided by the City will be reviewed in detail by the design team and will focus on identifying key elements necessary for design, such as maps and as -built plans for existing harbor structures; information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell construction; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical characterizations of sediments in Lower Newport Bay (LNB). The existing bathymetric information from the City and the USACE will also be reviewed to determine if there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a supplemental survey is needed. Responsibility for conducting surveys within the non - Federal areas of LNB (e.g., Rhine Channel) falls upon the City and are not included in this scope of work. All data collected during this subtask will be loaded into our CADD and GIS systems for use in preparing site figures and during the actual design phases. Task Deliverable: Base maps showing project location, site bathymetry, existing conditions, land uses, potentially impacted resources, utilities, and anticipated dredge areas. Subtask 1.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area There are documented underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within LNB that Anchor QEA will research and record on any future design drawings for the project. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will need to be precisely identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. This information will be obtained by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City personnel to discuss their knowledge of the locations of utilities in Newport Bay and to review their as- built drawings. As with Subtask 1. 1, this information will be loaded into our CADD and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks as well as selecting the preferred alternative. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 J Page 3 Task Deliverable: Data layers for internal Anchor QEA use in building the site base maps. Subtask 1.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research and Layout If, during CAD cell construction, the City chooses to pump the sediment over Balboa Peninsula, a large portion of the hydraulic pipeline will need to be routed over land, from a point near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost - effective upland pipeline route will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes disruption to local traffic and avoids esdsting structural features and utility lines, among other factors. Anchor QEA will work closely with the City's Public Works Department to discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with each option. Alternately, if a pipeline route is selected through LNB, a similar process will be required to select potential routes and associated potential impact areas for evaluation during the CEQA process. Anchor QEA will evaluate both potential options for the project. Task Deliverable: Data layers for internal Anchor QEA use in building the site base maps. Subtask 1.4: CAD and Non - Federal Dredging Area Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential to create unstable conditions due to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, based on information provided by the City, Anchor QEA will identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures within or near the planned non - Federal dredging areas and CAD cell locations to determine if precautionary measures (such as dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work includes reviewing as -built drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging or CAD cell locations as well as conducting field surveys to verify the current condition of the structures. The information gathered during this step will aid in selecting a preferred location for the CAD cell, if that is the alternative selected. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 4 In addition to the structural evaluation of the CAD cell, data on potential removal depths adjacent to the bulkheads within the Rhine Channel will also be critical for forecasting future design efforts to the non - Federal dredging areas. This information can be gathered by measuring the depth to the native sand layer within various areas of the Rhine Channel to compare target removal depths from the center of the channel with that for the outside perimeter along the bulkheads. This will be accomplished in the field using a hand corer from a small boat. Task Deliverable: Data layers for internal Anchor QEA use in building the site base maps and information regarding construction requirements /equipment to be used in conducting the CEQA evaluation. Subtask 1.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a series of USACE - developed computer models (or other suitable models) will be used to provide an estimate of environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling) and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough modeling) within the CAD cell. The Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE) will be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral spreading distance from the point of dumping. Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model (developed by Reible, et al.) will also be run to predict the ability of surficial capping material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to maintain environmental protectiveness. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 5 Included in this subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap design. In addition to providing vital engineering design information, this data will also assist in comparing potential CAD site impacts to other alternatives as well as preferred site selection based on site conditions (e.g., water depth, currents, etc.). Some of the models performed during this subtask will be conducted by Everest International Consultants, operating as a subconsultant to Anchor QEA. Task Deliverable: Model results showing probable construction requirements for use in preparing the project description for the CEQA evaluation. � � Subtask 1.6: Preliminary CAD /Non - Federal Dredging Production Rates `' Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes, and dredging equipment, preliminary production rates will be calculated to provide estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate will then be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal activities to identify optimal construction sequences and will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates based on varying conditions (described below) for use in alternative selection and/or CAD cell positioning. Task Deliverable: Preliminary dredging production rates affecting probable construction requirements for use in preparing the project description for the CEQA evaluation. Subtask 1.7: Development of Preliminary CAD Cell /Non - Federal Dredging Construction Unit Costs Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 6 rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction- related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks such as optimal CAD cell location. A formal cost estimate will be developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling quantities have been finalized. The cost for developing the formal engineer's cost estimate is not included in the current scope of work. Task Deliverable: Cost analysis tables. Subtask 1.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies Most of the navigational channels within LNB are maintained by the USACE and any dredging within those areas will be its responsibility. Close coordination with USACE staff will be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (e.g., the USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other entities (Port of Long Beach, regulatory agencies, etc.) related to potential disposal alternatives will also be conducted to gauge potential, unforeseen concerns early in the design process. This approach would lead to a corrected course of action early on, and avoids delays later in the review process. Task Deliverable: No formal deliverables will be produced as a result of this task. TASK 2: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT PREPARATION The following details our approach to CEQA documentation. Please note that associated costs to prepare and submit applications and obtain all necessary permits for the proposed construction project have not been included in the current scope of work. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 7 Construction of a CAD and the non - Federal dredging activities require environmental review under both state (CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) guidelines. The City would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program ( USACE) would act as the lead NEPA agency. Anchor QEA will prepare the CEQA documentation with the understanding of the requirements of future permit applications. These construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). For this project, the USACE would be the lead agency for RHA and CWA Section 404 permits, as well as associated consultations for Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project as either a City project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance (O &M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), have used essentially the same permitting strategy for developing similar CAD sites in Southern California and thus have experience with review and approval of CAD site development. Both the USACE Regulatory Division and the O &M program will prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) to meet their own NEPA requirements for the non - Federal dredging and Federal dredging, respectively. Additionally, at this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLC) dredging lease will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the Federal channel areas. Initially, the City intended to prepare an EIR that evaluated a range of sediment disposal options including port fill and the construction of a CAD cell in LNB, although a port fill was not at that time available and would need to be dropped as a reasonable alternative. Recently, a potential opportunity for disposing of contaminated sediments at .a port fill Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 8 within the Port of Long Beach has become available, but requires immediate permitting and engineering attention. As such, the current plan is to prepare, in parallel with the EIR; an MND that focuses on non - Federal dredging areas only and disposal of the material within a POLB fill site. The goal is for both CEQA processes to proceed in parallel until such time that one becomes the obvious path forward. The parallel preparation of the EIR and MND is broken down into the following logical steps. Please note that tasks below group several steps into logical sub -tasks and that the Gantt chart provides further task -by -task detail. Subtask 2.1: Harbor -wide Contaminated Sediment Management Alternatives Analysis Document Prior to the preparation of the EIR, Anchor QEA will prepare a detailed, alternatives analysis document which focuses on the requirements of each alternative in terms of cost, technical/logistical issues, environmental impacts, and regulatory feasibility. This document will be provided to the City for the City's determination of which alternatives to include in the EIR. The alternatives analysis will also evaluate and select the preferred location of a CAD cell in LNB for analysis in the EIR. The analysis completed as part of task 2.1 will be referenced and included as a technical appendix to the EIR. The EIR will describe, in detail, the rationale for any alternatives that were considered but eliminated, and make extensive use of the task 2.1 deliverable. Alternatives to be considered in the subtask 2.1 deliverable are: 1. Upland Landfill Disposal 2. On -site Sediment Treatment Facility (cement stabilization and sand separation) 3. Long Beach CAD Placement in the energy island borrow pits 4. Future Port Fill only (subject of the MND) 5. Alternative CAD site locations in LNB Task Deliverable: Alternatives analysis document describing the full range of alternatives available to the City for disposal of non - Federal dredge material (including potential locations for a CAD cell in LNB). This document will identify the alternatives for CEQA analyses, and will be a technical appendix to the EIR. �l `< } Mr. Chris Miller November5,2009 � Page 9 Subtask 2.2: EIR Project Description, Table of Contents, Range of Alternatives, Preparation of an NOP, and Scoping Meeting Following the completion of subtask 2. 1, the EIR would be initiated with a CEQA kick -off meeting with City staff to develop and review the Project Description (PD), the table of contents for the EIR, and review and approval of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. Anchor QEA staff would prepare the draft PD, table of contents, a proposed range of alternatives, and IS/NOP for City approval. AQEA is proceeding with the plan to prepare an eventual focused EIR. Our expectation is the IS (prepared for the MND in parallel with these activities) will identify certain areas of CEQA analyses that can be "scoped out" of the future EIR. Following approval of these items, Anchor QEA will prepare the NOP for the City's approval. Anchor QEA will prepare a sufficient number of copies of the NOP to mail to the interested parties as required under CEQA. The City will provide Anchor QEA with stamped envelopes addressed to the interested parties which Anchor QEA will stuff and place in the mail. The City will be responsible for publishing the NOP. Anchor QEA will assist the City with the scoping meeting, including preparing displays and setting up the room. The City will be responsible for providing the meeting locale and the reporter, and for conducting the meeting. Anchor QEA staff will be present to answer questions or provide detail in response to questions. We would anticipate the scoping meeting to be a well attended large public forum, with substantial amounts of comments resulting from it to incorporate into the draft EIR. Anchor QEA understands the concerns of the City and the residents related to the range of alternatives. In crafting these alternatives, we will rely on our professional judgment and expertise, public input, and the results of Anchor QEA's previously completed Feasibility Study (FS) and our alternatives analysis report prepared under Task 2.1 to help determine which alternatives are carried forward for co -equal analysis, and which are discussed as not carried forward based on failing to meet the project objectives or obvious significant impacts. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 10 Task Deliverables: The following deliverables (draft and final format) will be submitted under this task: project description, EIR table of contents, and Initial Study/Notice of Preparation. Subtask 2.3: Conduct Biological and Technical Studies, Prepare Draft and Final EIR This step includes all necessary biological and technical documentation to complete the internal draft EIR (as well as inform the MND). The document will be prepared in full consideration of the City of Newport Beach's needs and precedents, all relevant CEQA statutes, as well as the future needs of other agencies for their permitting needs, e.g., the Corps, Coastal Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SA- RWQCB). The alternatives analysis will also meet the requirements of the Corps of Engineers 404(b)(1) alternatives analyses. Anchor QEA will incorporate the public comments received during the scoping process and prepare an internal administrative draft EIR. Anchor QEA will consider impacts related to the agreed range of alternatives developed in Subtask 2.1, and will also include draft needed mitigation measures and a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP), proposed best management practices (BMPs), and Water Quality Plans. Anchor QEA, in compliance with CEQA requirements, will analyze the following environmental elements: • Aesthetics • Air and Noise • Transportation • Biological Resources • Water Quality, including hydrology and chemistry • Cultural Resources • Safety/Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset • Land Use and Utilities • Geology and soils, including soil chemistry • Recreation and public facilities Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 11 Please note that any impact area "scoped out" as part of the Initial Study process would not be included in the EIR. Because an IS has not yet been prepared, our scope and budget presumes preparing technical information for all of the above listed sections. Alternatives carried forward for "co- equal" analyses will be carefully and methodically discussed. Special attention will be paid to cost, logistics, environmental protectiveness, construction related impacts (e.g. water quality), and long -term operation. All CEQA biological and technical information will be prepared in -house with the exception of our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant, Manco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site. Anchor QEA will submit the document to the City for review, and then incorporate any City comments received, prepare the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on the draft (as described in subtask 2.2). We will also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) with the draft EIR. Anchor QEA will prepare 60 hard copies of the public draft EIR, as well as posting the draft to the project website. Anchor QEA's production budget assumes that all technical appendices to the draft and final EIR will be attached as CDs. Anchor QEA will then review comments received during this stage, prepare a response to comments, and finalize the document including preparation of the findings and management of the administrative processes required to file the document. Our current schedule and budget are based on responses to comments and edits to the draft that can be accomplished based on the information prepared to date, e.g. responses and edits do not require addition of new alternatives after the publication of the draft, or new technical studies not previously considered. If, for example, the City requests new alternatives be developed and included, new technical studies are requested, and/or the document needs to be re- circulated in draft form, additional funds will be required. Task Deliverables: 5 hard copies of the administrative draft; 60 hard copies of the draft and 5 copies of the final EIR document. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Pape 12 Subtask 2.4: Prepare Draft and Final MND In parallel to the tasks above, Anchor QEA will initiate an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for dredging and transport of all non - Federal contaminated sediments to the POLB Middle Harbor slip fill. Non - Federal contaminated material refers to the Rhine Channel and the Regional general Permit (RGP) 54 exclusion areas. This task will be conducted in parallel with Subtasks 2.1 to 2.3 above. This step is necessary to meet the aggressive planning schedule for potential use of the POLB fill site. This task also includes preparing the required public notices and management of administrative tasks. We will prepare an administrative draft IS, incorporate all City comments in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, and attend the hearing on the IS /MND. As with the EIR review process described in Subtask 2.3, depending on the number and diversity of comments received, or any requested additional studies, we may require additional funds to complete the MND. Our estimated cost for the MND tasks is $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: Assistance and management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including the preparation of mailings and notices; stamped, addressed envelopes will be provided by the City; the City will publish the notices in the newspaper and record the MND with the County Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND G Attendance at Council hearings on the MND, as needed Agency coordination, as needed Task Deliverables: 5 hard copies and 10 CDs each of the administrative draft MND; 60 hard copies of the draft MND, and 5 copies of the final MND (all technical appendices will be attached to the IS /MND as CDs). Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 13 TASK 3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings, and Other Project Coordination Task 3 provides funds for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meetings conducted through the end of 2010. While Anchor QEA will attend all meetings regardless of the number required for this project, this commitment is based on our recent work developing the Port Hueneme CAD cell where the meetings included approximately 2 City meetings per month, up to 2 stakeholder meetings per month and up to 1 agency meeting per month. These are in addition to the more formal scoping meetings and council updates. As part of the public outreach meetings, Anchor QEA will attend up to three formalized public workshops on the project and we have included the costs for those meetings into our budget request. These meetings would be separate from the CEQA process. As has occurred thus far, we propose that the City and Anchor QEA continue to target key stakeholder groups individually with separate, focused meetings. Anchor QEA will set up and manage a Lower Newport Bay dredging website and use that forum to post and distribute all CEQA related materials. The advantage of setting up the website early in the process is that citizens would become accustomed to viewing the site for information; when construction begins and public notices become important to safety and public information, this site will be an invaluable resource. Task Deliverables: Meeting notes; LNB dredging website. SCHEDULE AND BUDGET The overall effect of the requested changes (MND and EIR preparation in tandem and advance alternatives analysis for the CAD) on the project schedule and budget vary. The revised estimated budget ($445,000) is $50,000 higher than our previous estimate to reflect the addition of the MND deliverables listed in Subtask 2.4 and the increased production costs of the MIND and EIR. A summary of our costs is provided in Table 1. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 14 The overall impact on the project schedule is mixed. While the accelerated MND path will result in an approved project by fall of 2010, the full EIR path will likely not be completed until sometime in early 2011. This is later than previously estimated because of the delays in getting the project initiated as the City decides on the appropriate path forward. The attached schedule details the anticipated work window for each of the steps and subtasks. Please note that should the MND path be taken forward to conclusion, the agency permits step would be advanced. We hope this info sufficiently and accurately details the discussions that we had regarding the requested changes. If we have missed anything, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. Josh Burnam at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Steve Cappellino Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P. Mr. Chris Miller November 5, 2009 Page 15 Table 1: Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work Task Estimated Cost Task 1 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES Review of Existing Literature and Task 1.1 $25,000 Additional Research Locate and Record All Utility Crossings Task 1.2 $5,000 within CAD Area Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Task 1.3 $20,000 Research /Sand Placement Locations CAD and City Dredge Areas Structural Task 1.4 $22,000 Offsets or Protection Evaluation Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Task 1.5 $30,000 Protectiveness for CAD Cell Task 1.6 Preliminary Production Rates $4,000 Development of Preliminary Task 1.7 $10,000 Construction Unit Costs Task 1.8 Coordination with USACE and Other $12,000 Agencies Task 1 Estimated Costs $128,000 Task 2 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Harbor -wide Contaminated Sediment Task 2.1 $69,000 Management Alternatives Analysis Project Description, Table of Contents, Task 2.2 Range of Alternatives, Preparation of $42,000 an NOP, and Conduct Scoping Meeting Conduct Biological and Technical Task 2.3 $130,000 Studies, Prepare Draft and Final EIR Task 2.4 Prepare Draft and Final MIND $45,000 Task 2 Estimated Costs $275,000 Task MEETING TASKS Task 3.1 Agency Coordination &outreach $32,000 Task 3 Estimated Costs $32,000 Grand Total for Tasks 1 -3 $445,000 10 I B Task Name • I Duration 1 Mer,ApA = May _ 2010 211 -Jun. Jet P "T Oct INyou✓O ce Jan7Febi MOriA�r iMay�JUn JN Ayy�Sep Otl WOViOac J. °niFa� MO Apr MOy�uT- n AA LAA�.50p Ott =N Dec 1 Project Seeping and Preparation of Almmadlvev Analyses Raped 166 days 2 Pradesign studios 120days Pm4csign studies ' '3 Early rubvaclt and agency consullatfol 90 day. F ----------- 1 Early outmech and agency cane ultmlon 4 Palpate Allvnativm Analysis Document 30 days r_s Prepare Alterr iw. Analysis Document 6 P'rolect FnNronmantal RUVivw - - "- - � _ " - 341 EOy"s Q l� EIR 301 days I 1 EIR - -�e ""COmpladO Pmjda gd.ctlpllon antl OroH IJOP .. 14 dogs 1 , 1y29 _ o 8 DiologieN and Tochnical Sheen as novdad I 60 days J8l loglcol and Tanhnl[Ol Stutllas as n0otlotl PPPPPP 10 Raviuo NOP and Mail NOP I 45 tlays Rovis� NOPand MalINOP 11 �� Seeping Meeting 11 do" j �copinl Meeting 12 Prepare Admin Draft 90 day. i I--- "- -(,Prepare Admin Draft �lil J_ ..__ -. ... ... _., __.... .. __ _... .... 13 13 City awiaw of admin draft 30 tlays 1 �� City review al odrai draft I id �� Respond to Ciry cvntmv to 21 tlays � �_ Respond to City momenta 15-i j Prepare Public Draft 30 days - Prepare Public Ora fl 16 SeM tdolica of C's mplasoNPUbi i's lt No9w 01 AV01bblhy (toy i and NVtica of COmplalloMubllsh Notice a /Awilrblllty R CirMate OmX and LOMYCI MOVIinp � btlays Public Comment Period a� 5 18 Response to Comment. 30 tlays Rfsponao to Commands 1 19 _ ._.. 1 ... _ _ .. __ __ __ .._.. .._ _ ..�.. .... _., - Ga 1ballOnalFjelEIR _ - dadyn 1 I ion al Final EIR L1-La i6cal' 20 }ic� Adopt Findings and MMRP )tlays 1 t dopt Finding. and MMRP 2t �u Giy aPp oee lEV piofad _._... )days I I LPr01c[I Approved 22 ia� city files N011co of OntOr tattoo ]tleyu i � I _ CIty, IIIVO NOtica of Determination ____. � -�MND � " "� ��' ....... . _... _.. ..... 166 Jaya .. I 24 i,.�i __ _ _._._._.. _ . — .. _.._a _.. _ .. _._ Bailag wl and Ta[hniml Studies oe needed __ ___ ..._.. I SS days +i �Ballogi[al antl Technical SlutllOO as needed 25 Study kind I 65 days - -`L Prepare adminlatmtlia draft Initial Study 26 -�� 4 v61tyPaoWei d- .6.keWX "' _ IT tlays ;J, f� City review of adminlstrenhot tlmX 1 2] "— Pina4ml eal$IUtlYlO eX MNO -� � "— tO deYS Flnalice Initial Sludyllfraft MNO 281 - -_ _.. _.._. N.5.11 o Ndopl MNO� ldoy I1N04ca to Adapt MNp � 29 Public rwiaw I 30 tlays .11P.H. o rlvw 30 LlN council mPravva pr0loG 1 14 day. aciy council oppravoo projod 31 N01 CO of Denomination 5tloyai 1 �IWife. of Denomination 32 ' —. -... Sd daY filin ._ ...- g podod v4th County C ciM " _ - I "" 36 day. t Pi i I_, 30 Jay filing period with County Clark j 1 Proj.d:.CN6 CAD vs EIRb[ Task L !� Persons I Summary Exlvmal Tasks ` ~� - - - "� Deadline � Date:. Wed fl /dNg Split .. Miioalonr © Project Summary E iarr of Warfare ,y9 Page CP j of Newport Beach NO. BA- 10BA -019 AMOUNT: $50,000.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment No. 1 to the professional services agreement with Anchor QEA Inc. for enineering and environmental tasks associated with dredging and disposal for a Lower Bay dredging project in Newport Harbor. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account 230 3605 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account EXPENDITUREAPPROPRIATIONS (3603) Division Account Division Account Division Account Division Account Signed: Signed: Si a ne d: Amount Description Debit Credit Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance $50,000.00 " Description Description Number 7231 Tidelands Capital Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project Number Number Number Number Number Number Financial Approval: Director City Council Approval: City Clerk $50,000.00 // 6 e Date Date BUDGET AMENDMENT 2009 -10 )ECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations PX from additional estimated revenues from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: NO. BA- 10BA -019 AMOUNT: $50,000.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment No. 1 to the professional services agreement with Anchor QEA Inc. for enineering and environmental tasks associated with dredging and disposal for a Lower Bay dredging project in Newport Harbor. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account 230 3605 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account EXPENDITUREAPPROPRIATIONS (3603) Division Account Division Account Division Account Division Account Signed: Signed: Si a ne d: Amount Description Debit Credit Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance $50,000.00 " Description Description Number 7231 Tidelands Capital Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project Number Number Number Number Number Number Financial Approval: Director City Council Approval: City Clerk $50,000.00 // 6 e Date Date # • c qwt� PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR ENGINEERING PRE - DESIGN TASKS & CEQA COMPLIANCE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this ) " day of IAI , 2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipa Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, L.P. a California Limited Partnership, whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "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 and construct a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site (CAD) to contain the contaminated sediment within Newport Harbor. City has conducted a Feasibility Study, developed a Dredge Material Management Plan and implemented the Sampling & Analysis Plan. C. City desires to engage Consultant to initiate the environmental (CEQA) and engineering processes ( "Project"). D. City recognizes that future CEQA and engineering work will be necessary once major decisions are made in the coming months. E. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. F. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Steve Cappellino. G. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31St day of December, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 0 0 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31$� day of December, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included in Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($395,000) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: 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. 6 • • B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and /or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated STEVE CAPPELLINO to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION. CHRIS MILLER shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: 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. 3 0 8. STANDARD OF CARE 0 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or 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, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any ld 0 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. 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 A • 0 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. D. Coverage Requirements. i. Workers' Compensation Coveraqe. 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. 2 0 • 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. 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 7 M • 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 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 0 19. P 21. CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel. 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. OPINION OF COST [Optional: Only use if an opinion of costs is called for in the scope of work] 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. 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 0 0 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. 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. 10 0 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: Attn: Chris Miller Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA, 92663 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: Steve Cappellino 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: 949 - 347 -2780 Fax: 949 - 347 -2781 28. TERMINATION In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, 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. 11 0 0 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. 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 12 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFIC F THE CITY ATONEY: By: PCs V' David R. Hunt City Attorney ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPOF' T BEACH, A MurYicbal Cora ration By: EdWarcTSel Mayor CONSUL A By: '7 Corporate Officer) Title:___ PL�A e -r Print Name: Shue (2(vFPeA, ,c, (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates 13 kzANCHOR OEA 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.347.2781 June 25, 2009 Chris Miller Manager, Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 0 Attachment A Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site Scope of Work and Budget Request for Engineering Pre - design Tasks and CEQA Compliance Dear Mr. Miller: As a follow up to our recent conversations about moving forward with the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site development process, this letter presents our proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and cost estimate for several engineering pre - design tasks and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process steps necessary to formally initiate the project. Our SOW is broken down into two main categories: CEQA and engineering pre- design. Within each category, we have identified several proposed tasks for immediate initiation along with our associated estimated costs for each item. Also within each of these categories, we have provided an estimate of future scope and budget items for the City of Newport Beach's (City's) internal planning needs. Using the attached flow chart as a visual tool for highlighting the expected development process for permitting and designing the CAD site, the shaded bar reflects the current step in the process. While data is still being collected to determine some of the key features of the project (i.e., final contaminated sediment volume to be managed and potential transportation routes and methods for excavating the CAD cell and placing the clean sand on or near the adjacent City beaches), several engineering related tasks must be initiated immediately so that the permitting process may commence. www.anchorqea.com • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 2 Thus, the goal for this phase of the project is to: a) begin collecting engineering - related data needed to support CEQA efforts, including information related to the potential for groundwater influence, preliminary cap design, and potential construction techniques; and b) begin the CEQA process, including preparing the project description and Initial Study (IS), evaluating the option of conducting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) versus a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and conducting public outreach meetings to gauge initial public concerns. The following details our proposed SOW for each of these items. Estimated costs are described within each task and summarized in Table 1. As a reminder, while the CAD site is an integral part of the overall Lower Newport Bay (LNB) sediment management solution, the current engineering tasks only focus on the design and permitting of the actual CAD cell itself. Future phases of the project will need to consider engineering design for the non - project contaminated dredge areas planned for CAD disposal like the Rhine Channel. The CEQA effort contained in the current proposal does, however, include both dredging of non - project contaminated areas and construction/filling of the CAD cell. TASK 1: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT PREPARATION Construction of a CAD cell within the City requires environmental review under both state (CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) guidelines. The City would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Regulatory Program would act as the lead NEPA agency. The aforementioned construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). The USACE would be the lead agency for RHA and CWA Section 404 permits as well as associated consultations for Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 0 Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project either as a City project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance (O&M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), use essentially the same methodology as that proposed here and have experience with review and approval of CAD site development. The decision to prepare an MND or EIR is primarily based on whether significant impacts remain after mitigation. If significant impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced, the City is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Based on expected construction methodology, knowledge of the level of sediment contamination in the harbor, and extensive experience with CAD site development, project elements including excavation of a CAD cell, placement of clean excavated sands on City beaches, and placement and capping of contaminated sediments within the CAD cell are not anticipated to produce any significant environmental impacts. The alternative (i.e., landfill disposal of the dredged material) would entail potentially significant impacts to air and traffic due to the vast number of truck trips (more than 50,000) involved. The USACE is expected to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, which is equivalent to the City preparing an MND. While no significant impacts are foreseen with in -water CAD cell construction, and therefore an MND should be available as a CEQA document, the City may choose to pursue an EIR. The final decision to prepare an MND or EIR would occur once the CEQA IS is completed. At this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLQ dredging lease will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the federal channel areas. In order to achieve the endpoint of a successful CEQA document for the proposed project, Anchor QEA, L.P. (Anchor QEA), proposes the following SOW and options. Please note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor r 0 Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 QEA, and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. Subtask 1.1: Project Description and Initial Study Subtask 1.1 involves preparation of the Project Description (PD) and internal administrative draft IS checklist. The preparation of the PD and IS represents the initial checkpoint for the decision on whether to prepare an MND or EIR. Following completion of the PD and IS, Anchor QEA and City staff would meet and review the findings and make a decision on whether to pursue an MND or EIR. Subtask 1. 1, therefore, includes conducting a project kick -off, preparing the PD, and preparing an internal administrative draft IS. When the internal administrative draft IS has been completed, the City would decide whether to pursue Subtask 1.2a or 1.2b below (MND or EIR). Provided work is initiated in July of 2009, we would anticipate having the internal draft IS completed by October of 2009. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please also note that this task includes our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant, iLanco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site. Subtask 1.1 estimated costs are $115,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of the PD and IS consistent with CEQA guidelines • Attendance at meetings with City staff, as needed • • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an MND for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with finalizing the IS and preparation of the MND, including all required public notices and administrative tasks. We would incorporate all City comments in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, conduct a hearing on the IS/MND, prepare responses to comments, and prepare the final IS/MND. While a hearing on a draft MND is not required, Anchor QEA recommends and has included a public meeting at the time of the draft MND. Our estimated costs for Task 1.2a includes scope up to and including the preparation of the public draft IS /MND and conducting the hearing. Once comments are received, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft, prepare the final MND, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate filing of the final IS /MND around June of 2010. Subtask 1.2a estimated costs are $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND • Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed • Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an EIR for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with preparing the EIR, including all required public notice and administrative tasks. Anchor QEA would assist the City in managing a public scoping meeting, including public notice of the project, set -up and management of the meeting, and recording the proceedings for the administrative record. Following the scoping process, Anchor QEA would prepare an internal administrative draft EIR (estimated completion is February of 2010, provided the work is initiated in July of 2009). • • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 6 Following this step, Anchor QEA would incorporate any City comments received, prepare the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on the draft. We would also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) with the EIR. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please again note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor, QEA and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. At the time of the mailing of the notice of completion of the public draft EIR, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft EIR, prepare the final EIR, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate final approval of the EIR around November of 2010. Subtask 1.2b estimated costs are $120,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks Preparation of an administrative and public draft EIR Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings, and Other Project Coordination Subtask 1.3 is required regardless of the EIR/MND option selected above and provides funds for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency • • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 7 coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meeting. As part of the process of achieving a public and agency consensus in favor of constructing the CAD cell, Anchor QEA suggests conducting up to three additional formalized public workshops on the project. The City and Anchor QEA would continue to target key stakeholder groups individually with separate, focused meetings. We would also facilitate a thorough and comprehensive process of agency outreach and education leading up to the eventual permit applications. Subtask 1.3 estimated costs are $32,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Attendance at up to 15 additional meetings • Inclusion of mileage and other meeting material costs, as required Estimated Future Costs for California Environmental Quality Act and Agency Permitting Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate that the remaining costs to finish the CEQA documentation process and initiate and conduct the multi- agency permitting process to be as follows. MM C+ption. If an MND is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $15,000 and $30,000 to finalize the MND. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary, or: EIR Cation If an EIR is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $50,000 and $75,000 to finalize the EIR. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary. These costs (summarized in Table 2) would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Preparation of all required agency permit applications and supporting documents for the USACE, CCC, CSLC, and SARWQCB is estimated to require approximately $125,000. This effort includes preparing application support documents and a 0 • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 8 Biological Assessment (BA)/EFH report, finalizing of any MMRPs, and preparing a draft USACE Regulatory EA in support of issuance of the USACE permit. This fee would also include necessary additional agency meetings. Thus, estimated potential additional permitting costs might range between $140,000 and $200,000. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. TASK 2: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES Prior to the start of the actual design and engineering of the CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay, there are numerous pre - design engineering tasks and analyses that can be performed using available data. These tasks and analyses are critical for the initial phases of the CEQA process. Actual engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. In addition to assisting the development of the CEQA tasks identified in Task 1, this information will be valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could dictate or limit aspects of the design. The following describes our proposed initial subtasks. Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research The existing information Anchor QEA has been provided by the City will need to be reviewed in detail by the design team. This review will focus on identifying key elements necessary for design, such as maps and as -built plans for existing harbor structures; information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell construction area; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical characterizations of sediments in Newport Bay (as may be needed to perform modeling or engineering calculations). A review of the existing bathymetric information will also be preformed in order to evaluate whether there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a supplemental survey is needed. Additionally, time will be spent researching additional studies or reports that may exist and have yet to be identified to prevent unnecessary time and efforts for redoing design analyses or tasks. All this information will be loaded into our • • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 9 CADD and GIS systems for use during the actual design phases. Subtask 2.1 estimated costs are $25,000. Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area We are aware there are underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within Lower Newport Bay. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. We can obtain this information by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City personnel to discuss their knowledge about the utilities in Newport Bay and to review their as -built drawings. As with Subtask 2.1, this information would all be loaded into our CADD and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks. Subtask 2.2 estimated costs are $5,000. Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research /Sand Placement Locations A large portion of the hydraulic pipeline may potentially be routed over land, from a point near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost - effective upland pipeline route will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes disruption to local traffic and avoids existing structural features and utility lines, among other factors. Anchor QEA would work closely with the City's Public Works Department to discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with each option. In addition, past and ongoing studies of the local coastal processes will be reviewed to aid in selecting potential placement locations for sand excavated from the CAD cell. Suitable, potential beach placement areas will be identified and used during meetings with representatives from the City's Public Works Department to identify potential routing locations. Because of their extensive southern California coastal modeling expertise and past working relationship with Anchor QEA on the recently completed Port Hueneme CAD site, Mr. David Cannon and Dr. Ying Poon from Everest International Consultants (Everest) will assist Anchor QEA with this task. The goal with this approach is to try and reuse as much Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 10 work from the successful Port Hueneme project as a way to maintain a familiar development process with the agencies and conserve funds. Subtask 2.3 estimated costs are $20,000. Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential for creating unstable conditions due to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, it is necessary to identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures within or near the planned dredging areas to determine if precautionary measures (such as dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work would include reviewing as -built drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging as well as conducting field surveys to verify the current condition of the structures. Subtask 2.4 estimated costs are $22,000. Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a series of USAGE- developed computer models can be used to provide an estimate of environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling) and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough modeling) within the CAD cell. The Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE) can be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral spreading distance from the point of dumping. Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model (developed by Reible et al.) would be beneficial for predicting the ability of surficial capping material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to maintain environmental protectiveness. 0 0 Mr. Chris Miller June 25,2009 Page 11 Included in this Subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap design. Everest staff will assist with this task as well for the same reasons mentioned under Subtask 2.3. Subtask 2.5 estimated costs are $30,000. Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes, and dredging equipment, a preliminary production rate can be estimated to provide estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate can in turn be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal recreational activities (i.e., summer sailing programs, regattas, outrigger canoes, etc.) to identify optimal construction sequences. This information will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates based on varying conditions (described below). Subtask 2.6 estimated costs are $4,000. Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction- related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. A formal cost estimate will be developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling quantities have been finalized. Subtask 2.7 estimated costs are $10,000. • 0 Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 12 Subtask 2.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies The navigational channel within Lower Newport Bay is maintained by the USACE and any dredging within that area will be their responsibility. Early discussions with the USACE will be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (i.e., the USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other agencies related to engineering design features will also be critical to gauge potential, unforeseen, concerns early in the design process as that they may be corrected immediately, and delays may be avoided later in the review process. Subtask 2.8 estimated costs are $12,000. Estimated Future Costs for Engineering Design The above pre - design tasks will advance the scope and schedule of the 30% design effort for the CAD cell significantly. Additional discussions need to occur between the City and USACE to refine an approach for completing a consolidated design package for Lower Newport Bay. At a minimum, the City will be responsible for all design activities for the CAD cell, which forms the basis for this engineering scope of work. As such, estimated costs to complete this process once all the pre - design tasks are finished have been summarized below in Table 2 and total approximately $25,000 to $50,000. In addition to the final design steps for the CAD, it is possible that more in -depth studies of the sand placement area(s) may need to be conducted. The details of this work, if needed, would likely become evident after the public comment period, but could include coastal modeling studies to predict where sand placed on the beach during CAD excavation might ultimately be transported. These costs would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Further, this value does not include the collection of any additional site data within the CAD cell footprint (e.g., groundwater probes), if determined that it is needed, or design services for contaminated sediment dredging within any of the Federal channel areas, Rhine Channel or other City areas. Placeholders for some of these items have been added to Table 2 to highlight their potential need, but it is too early to estimate potential costs. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. ! i Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 13 PROPOSED SCHEDULE Upon receiving approval to proceed, we estimate that the tasks described in this proposal will be completed within approximately 4 months, provided that the City, Anchor QEA, and USACE continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material and stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay. Our schedule is dependent on timely resolution of key issues that arise. The proposed 4 -month duration allows the project to maintain the overall development schedule depicted in the attached figure. COST SUMMARY We propose that Anchor QEA be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to- exceed amount per task) to complete the two main tasks described above. Table 1 summarizes our estimated costs for each item, broken down by subtask and task. Table 2 summarizes potential future tasks (late fall of 2009 or early winter 2010) that will likely be needed to finalize the permitting and engineering design tasks for the CAD once the currently scoped tasks have been completed. Billing rates for Anchor QEA staff as well as our proposed sub - consultants (Everest and iLanco) are attached to this scope of work. As a reminder, other design tasks will be required as part of the overall LNB sediment management process which are not addressed in the current proposal. For example, engineering design for sediment removal, CAD disposal and associated seawall protection within the Rhine Channel will be needed prior to that phase of the project being constructed. Similarly, engineering design for potential contaminated sediment dredging outside of the Federal project area in other areas of LNB will also be needed to allow for disposal of that material into the CAD cell. The current work (for example Subtask 2.4), however, will be beneficial for implementing these additional phases of the project and will result in significant cost savings to the City by addressing items like the CAD cell design and permitting up front. 0 • Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 14 Table i Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Task 1.1 Project Description $115,000 Task 1.2a MND Option $40,000 Task 1.2b EIR Option $120,000 Task 1.3 Miscellaneous Meetings $32,000 Task 1 Estimated Costs $187,000 to $267,000 Task 2 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS Task 2.1 Review Existing Literature and $25,000 Additional Research Task 2.2 Locate and Record All Utility $5,000 Crossings within CAD Area Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Task 2.3 Research /Sand Placement $20,000 Locations Task 2.4 Structural Offsets or Protection $22,000 Evaluation Preliminary Modeling of Task 2.5 Environmental Protectiveness for $30,000 CAD Cell Task 2.6 Preliminary Production Rates $4,000 Task 2.7 Development of Preliminary $10,000 Construction Unit Costs Task 2.8 Coordination with USACE and $12,000 Other Agencies Task 2 Estimated Costs 1 $128,000 Grand Total for Tasks 1 and 2 1 $315,000 to $395,000 • i Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 15 Table 2 Estimated Costs for Potential Future Scopes of Work Needed to Complete CAD Site Permitting and Design (Late Fall /Early Winter) Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Permit applications and supporting documents $125,000 Finalize MND Option $15,000 to $30,000 Finalize EIR Option $50,000 to $75,000 Task 2 ENGINEERING TASKS Complete 30 percent, 90 percent, and Final D Design of CAD Cell $25,000 to $50,000 Possibly conduct additional modeling to finalize sand placement location on beach TBD As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for continued services with this very important project. If you have any questions about our proposed approach or estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, Steve Cappellino Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P. Initiate agency consultation process to alert them of - - -- potential project Hold public workshops to describe project and solicit feedback Collect sediment cores for geotechnical and chemical analyses at potential CAD site in West Lido Anchorage area Visual observations of sediment cores suggest "clean" beach - suitable material Initiate CEQA process Ongoing agency coordination Prepare draft CEQA document and submit permit applications Public and agency review Yes No Collect cores from alternat locations in North and sou anchorage areas Yes Visual observations of sedim cores suggest "clean" beac suitable material Initiate 30 percent engineering design Coordination meeting with USACE engineers Review available site data Yes CCo.11,ect, to determine if additional information is needed No Prepare 30 percent plans and specifications City of Newport Beach and USACE internal review 0 Anchor QEA, LLC 2009 STANDARD BILLING RATES Professional Level Hourly Rates 0 Attachment B Principal............................................................................ ............................... ...........................$190 Senior Project Manager .................................................... ............................... ...........................$177 ProjectManager ............................................................... ............................... ...........................$157 Senior Engineer /LA/Planner /Scientist/Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$137 Staff Engineer /LA/ Planner / Scientist / Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$120 Staff Engineer/LA/Planner/ Scientist / Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$110 Staff 1 Engineer /LA/ Planner / Scientist / Analyst ................................................ ............................$99 FieldTechnician ............................................................................................... ............................$80 SeniorDesigner / CAD ....................................................................................... ............................$99 Designer /CAD .................................................................................................. ............................$89 ProjectCoordinator .......................................................................................... ............................$79 Special Hourly Rates All work by a testifying expert ............................ ............................1.5 times professional level rate EXPENSE BILLING RATES Expense Rates Diving Services (per day) .......................................................... ............................... Project Specific CAD /GIS/Modeling (per hour).... ....... ................... -- ............................................................ $10.00 Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) ....................................................... ............................... $3 -6 /sf Photocopies(per copy) ..................................................... ............................... ..........................$0.10 Faxes(per page)... ........................................................ - ....................................................... ... $1.00 Mileage (per mile) ...................................................... ............................... Current Federal Standard FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES Subcontracts/ subconsultants ........................................................................ ............................... 10% Travel and other direct costs ........................................................................ ............................... 10% Fieldequipment & supplies ......................................................................... ............................... 10% r 0 Everest International Consultants, Inc. Rate Schedule Everest International Consultants, Inc. will provide professional services at the following rates beginning January 1, 2008. Staff Category Hourly Rate Principal Engineer $170 Senior Engineer /Scientist III $157 Senior Engineer /Scientist II $145 Senior Engineer/Scientist 1 $123 Engineer/Scientist $113 Assistant Engineer $99 Staff Engineer $86 Technician /CAD Operator $75 Clerical $49 Other Direct Costs Unit Rate Plotting $0.25/ea. Bond $1.10 /ea. Vellums $1.60 /s.f. Mylars $2.70 /s.f. Corwina/Binding 8.5 x 11 Mw copy $0.10 /ea. 11 x 17 Mw copy $0.25/ea. 8.5 x 11 color copy $1.10 /ea. 11 x 17 color copy $2.20 /ea. Binding (Reports) $2.50 /ea. Transportation Personal Car (Mileage) $0.585 /mile Other Project Related Expenses Other expenses are invoiced at cost without mark up. Subconsultant Services Subconsultants are invoiced at cost plus an agreed mark up. A& EVEREST Name • r iLANCO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC., WBE /SBE 2009 Billing Rate Rate Lora Granovsky $120/hour CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 16 July 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002 d kiff(Dcity. newoort- beach. ca. us Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043 cm i I lerOcity. newDort- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for Environmental (CEQA) and Engineering Tasks Associated with a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport Harbor ISSUE: In recent years, the City has been preparing for a major Lower Bay dredging project which is needed to maintain proper depths in the harbor's channels. Several steps to help achieve this goal have already been taken, including: 1) Authorizing NewFields consultants to complete comprehensive sediment testing, 2) Authorizing Anchor QEA consultants to prepare a feasibility study for a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site to dispose the contaminated sediments in Newport Harbor, and 3) Authorizing Anchor QEA to perform preliminary geotechnical work at the proposed CAD site. The next step in this process is to begin the environmental (CEQA) and engineering work to design and eventually construct the CAD site. Should the City contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. to perform the initial CEQA and engineering design work for a CAD site in Newport Harbor? RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. to conduct initial CEQA and engineering design work for a CAD in Newport Harbor, and; 2. Approve Budget Amendment #BA -- appropriating $395,000 from unappropriated reserves (tidelands) to Capital Improvement Project #7231- C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). DISCUSSION: In an effort to dredge the Lower Bay, the City is currently performing a comprehensive sediment analysis of the entire harbor. NewFields LLC is assisting with this effort and they expect to have most of their findings compete by summer 2009. These tests are critical because they will help determine the disposal locations of the sediment, whether at the federally approved disposal site 4.5 miles off shore (LA -3) or at a CAD site located in the Lower Bay. To clarify, a CAD site is a large pit that is created below the floor of the harbor into which the contaminated material is placed. Then, a thick (about 4 -8') layer of clean sand is laid over the contaminated material PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 2 therefore forming a permanent cap that will forever be sealed. This type of solution has been tested and approved by the regulatory agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, California Coastal Commission, Regional Board, others) in other harbors (including most recently Port Hueneme in Ventura County), so it may be a preferred solution for Newport Harbor. At this point, it is still unknown how many cubic yards (cy) of material will need to be placed in the CAD site, but we are expecting a range between 200,000 and 500,000 cy. Alternatives Considered As previously mentioned, Anchor QEA completed a feasibility study which examined all the possible solutions to dispose the contaminated material. The full feasibility report may be found on the City's website at: http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.usAowerbaydredging.htmI Click on "Lower Bay CAD Conceptual Plan." The Feasibility Study's disposal options are briefly described below. 1 — On -Site Sediment Treatment Facility. The treatment of contaminated sediments typically consists of one or more physical and/or chemical processes aimed at removing or rendering inert the target chemicals of concern. Cement based stabilization is a process where additive (e.g. cement, lime, or kiln dust) are mixed into the contaminated dredged material after it has been removed from the water and placed in a mixing barge or on -shore containment area. Another method of on -site sediment treatment is sand separation which is a process where the relatively clean sand faction is mechanically separated from the fine -grained contaminated material to produce two products: beach suitable sand and contaminated fine grained material for landfill disposal. The pros and cons of each method are summarized below. Management Alternative Pros Cons Cement -Based Stabilization • Cost effective • Lack of recipients for treated • Treats metals and organics material • Agency approved process • Unclear agency support • Removes material from • Upland treatment site water • Multiple re- handling • Adjacent land impacts significant • Slow 1,000 cy per day) Sand Separation • Process is cost effective • Process not refined • Can remove metals and • Unclear agency support for organics material reuse • Removes material from the • Still requires disposal of fine water grained material • Creates beneficial product • Requires adjacent land for treatment facility PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 3 2 — Future Port Fill. A second potential option for disposal of contaminated dredged material would be to contribute the sediment to a current or future fill project within the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach via barge transport. Management Alternative Pros Cons Future Port Fill • Cost effective • Limited duration of • Agency approved availability; highly schedule management approach dependent • Removes material from the • Uncertain schedule for water permits and authorizations • May not be able to accept all material requiring disposal . Liability transfer agreement with port will be required • Does not provide a guaranteed solution for the City 3 — Upland Landfill Disposal. A third potential option would be to transport the material via trucks to an upland landfill. However, this option is usually considered for projects with 10,000 cy or less. Due to the salinity in sea water, the agencies usually require the use of private landfills which is costly. Management Alternative Pros Cons Upland Landfill Disposal • Removes material from the • Very expensive, >$100 /cy water • Not supported by agencies • No schedule constraints . Local landfills will not accept the material • Significant adjacent land and community impacts including air and traffic 4 — Long Beach CAD Site. A fourth potential option would be to use an existing Long Beach CAD site which has only been permitted as a pilot project to date. In other words, the Long Beach CAD site is not currently permitted for additional disposal events and the City of Long Beach is not actively promoting its use. PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 4 Management Alternative Pros Cons Long Beach CAD Site • Cost effective compared to • Not yet permitted by the City upland disposal of Long Beach • Can accept all material • Approximately 20 mile round • Could possibly tie to another trip for each barge disposal project for cap material event • Use Port Hueneme as • Not supported by LA County example for permitting and environmental advocates 4 — Lower Newport Bay CAD Site. A fifth, and possibly the most feasible option, is constructing a CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay. This process involves mechanically dredging contaminated sediment from around the Bay and placing the material inside the cell. Once completed, the cell would be capped with clean, sandy dredged material to isolate the sediment from the overlying water. Reusing clean dredged material from the bay would eliminate the costs for harvesting cap material and would also provide an in -bay beneficial use for the clean sands. Most of the material excavated from the cell could be pumped to the beach or barged and dropped in the nearshore zone and used as nourishment material. Lower Newport Bay • Cost effective compared to . Local community will be CAD Site upland disposal impacted in terms of • Can accept all material at aesthetics and disruption to once navigation • City controls schedule and • Temporary displacement of process some boaters • Use Port Hueneme as • General concern over example for permitting and disposing of contaminated design sediments in the bay • Cell excavation could provide material for beach nourishment Geotechnical Evaluation The next step in this process was to conduct a geotechnical study of the material where the CAD site would be created in Newport Harbor. The location chosen was the area in the Newport Channel, in the open water space, between Via Lido Soud and the Balboa Peninsula. (See Exhibit 1) This area was chosen because: 1. Most of the contaminated material is located in this area; 2. It is not in the main navigational channel — if it was, navigation would be impacted to a greater extent AND it would be at greater risk for an unintentional fill during a large storm event, where sediment traveling from the San Diego Creek watershed would pass close to it. 3. It is close to the Rhine Channel, which also contains sediment which must be removed. An alternative site considered is near the bay area east of the Balboa Pavilion / Fun Zone area. PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 5 The results of the geotechnical study may be found on the City's website at: http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /lowerbaydredaing.html Click on "CAD Geotechnical Report." To briefly summarize, the geotech report found very clean, sandy material below about -8 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to -50 MLLW. This is the material that will need to be excavated in order to create room for the contaminated material. This clean material will either be pumped across Balboa Blvd. into the nearshore zone or barged out of the harbor and dropped in the nearshore zone (this will be determined later). CAD CEQA and Engineering The current proposal under Council consideration is for Anchor QEA to begin the environmental (CEQA) process and to begin the engineering for the CAD site. As one can imagine, these tasks are complex and require much coordination among staff and the various resource agencies. In addition, the City will need to make critical decisions on some key issues before this phase can be complete. Therefore, Anchor QEA is proposing to work with the information that they have available now to move the project forward while also coordinating with the US Army Corps of Engineers who is responsible for dredging the federal channels. This proposal will use current information and will account for approximately two thirds of the effort needed. In late 2009, Anchor QEA will return with another proposal to finalize this effort after these critical decisions have been made. One decision that must be made within the next month or so is whether the City desires a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CAD. Both reports have merit, but the decision to go one way or another will affect the costs and timing of the overall project. Therefore, this proposal suggests two paths that the consultant could take depending on that decision later this summer. Another decision that must be made is whether to hydraulically pump material from the CAD site across Balboa Blvd into the nearshore zone or to barge it out of the harbor and drop in the nearshore zone. This is also a critical decision and one that will be made after both options have been carefully vetted by the consultant and the City. There are pros and cons to each alternative that center around cost, time and public impact. Each will be fully analyzed before making a decision. The Proposal - CEQA The attached proposal details the various tasks which are summarized below. The full proposal is included in Exhibit 2. Anchor QEA is proposing to be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to -exceed amount per task) to complete the CEQA and engineering tasks below. Subtask 1.1: Proiect Description and Initial Study This task involves preparation of the Project Description and internal administrative draft Initial Study checklist which represent the initial checkpoint for the decision on whether to prepare an MND or an EIR. An air quality sub - consultant, iLanco, Inc., will assist with this task. Estimated costs are $115,000. PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 6 Subtask 1.2a: Mitislated Negative Declaration Option If an MND is chosen, this task involves finalizing the Initial Study and preparation of the MND including all required public notices and administrative tasks. Estimated costs are $40,000. Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option If an EIR is chosen, this task involves preparing the EIR including all required public notice and administrative tasks. Estimated costs are $120,000. Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings, and Other Project Coordination This task is required regardless of the MND /EIR option selected and provides funds for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meetings. Estimated costs are $32,000. This is task that City staff will play a significant role. We recognize the concern that adjacent residents, especially on Lido Isle, will have about the CAD. While all of our research shows that CADs are safe, they are unfamiliar to the west coast (except for Port Hueneme) and pose a vexing question for us all — is it safer, less expensive, and less environmentally impactful to bury and contain the existing contaminated sediment than to truck it away, dispose of it elsewhere, and make it someone else's problem? CEQA Cost Summary For this initial CEQA work, the costs could range between $187,000 to $267,000 depending on the MND /EIR option chosen. Future CEQA Costs As stated above, in later part of 2009, Anchor will submit another proposal to complete the CEQA and agency permitting tasks. This additional cost will be between $140,000 to $200,000 depending on the MND /EIR option chosen. The Proposal — Engineering Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research This task involves review of existing information and will focus on identifying key elements necessary for design such as maps, as -built plans for existing structures, wind, waves, currents, bathymetric information etc... Estimated costs are $25,000. Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD area This task involves indentifying all utility crossings which need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with a dredging design. Estimated costs are $5,000. Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research / Sand Placement Location PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 7 This task involves investigating the option of hydraulically placing the clean sand from the CAD construction in the nearshore zone via pipes across Balboa Blvd. The option of barging the material out of the harbor will also be considered. The sub - consultant Everest International Consultants will assist with this task. Estimated costs are $20,000. Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets of Protection Evaluation This task identifies and reviews the position, layout and general condition of structures within or near the planned dredging areas because of the potential that dredging will create unstable conditions due to the massive removal of earth pressures. Estimated costs are $22,000. Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell This task involves computer modeling to help design the CAD site and to simulate sediment re- suspension and loss of particulates during their descent in the water column into the CAD. Also, this modeling will simulate the required cap requirements to ensure the material under the cap will not escape. Estimates costs are $30,000. Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates This task identifies preliminary dredging production rates which can be used to provide estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. Estimated costs are $4,000. Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs This task will use the existing information mentioned above to prepare a preliminary construction unit cost, including mobilization, dredging and disposal unit rates, structural protection if necessary, and capping material placement. This is necessary to assist the City in making critical, construction related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. Estimated costs are $10,000. Subtask 2.8: Coordination with US Army Corps and Other A-gencies This task involves meetings with the Corps and other agencies related to engineering and design features which are critical to gauge potential unforeseen concerns early in the design phase. Estimated costs are $12,000. Future Enaineerina Costs As stated above, in the later part of 2009, Anchor will submit another proposal to complete the engineering tasks. This additional cost will be between $25,000 to $50,000 depending on various factors. SUMMARY The total costs from the tasks above as well as future anticipated costs are: Current Proposal: $315,000 to $395,000 Future Proposal: $165,000 to $250,000 PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 8 Projected Total CEQA and Engineering Costs at end of project: — $480,000 to $645,000 Anchor QEA is proposing to immediately begin this work in order to coordinate with the Corps schedule for dredging the entire Lower Bay. This proposal is based on Anchor QEA's expertise in successfully negotiating agency approval for a CAD site in Port Hueneme to accommodate more than 300,000 cubic yards of material. The City also feels that Anchor's experience with similar CAD projects, as well as their in -depth knowledge of Newport Harbor via several key projects in the area (US Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Bay, Rhine Channel Feasibility Study, Balboa Marina, Lido Anchorage, DeAnza Bayside Marina, Blurock Property, and more) provides an ideal partnership to provide this environmental and engineering project. An added benefit of designing and constructing a CAD site is that the CAD creates a location for disposal of the Rhine Channel contaminated material in the near future. In fact, this would significantly reduce the overall future cost for the Rhine Channel, therefore making the project more manageable. Environmental Review: The approval of the Professional Services Agreement for Environmental (CEQA) and engineering work does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item). Fiscal Impact: Previous staff reports have discussed how the CAD fits into the context of a larger Lower Newport Bay dredging project. In short, having a site for disposal of contaminated materials opens the door for the US Army Corps to do its $24 -25 million project. Today, the dredging project itself is the Corps' obligation — but we also know that securing the federal funding for the dredging project is a huge challenge. Lower Newport Bay -- Dredging Project (2010 -2012) Estimated Expenses and Estimated Fund Sources Assumes 1.4 million cubic yards @ $18 /cubic yard Expense lest) Sediment Testing $ 350,000 CAD Analysis $ 50,000 CAD Engineering/Design $ 350,000 Permitting/CEOA/NEPA $ 400,D00 CAD - Construction, Use, Cap Dredging Totals $ 400,000 $ 750,000 Sources of Funds lest) City Funds (for CAD) $ 400,000 $ 600,000 Federal Funds $ 150,000 Totals $ 400,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 In recent years, the City has stepped up by telling the Corps that we would be willing to participate in funding the larger project by taking responsibility for the CAD site — meaning PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 9 permitting, engineering, and construction. It is not an inexpensive endeavor, and even today the cost is uncertain given that we do not know yet how much sediment must go to a CAD site versus to LA -3 or to beach disposal. Obviously, we hope to maximize the material going to LA- 3 or to our beaches and minimize the amount going to the CAD site. Given the high priority that the Council and community place on this dredging project — a project that arguably none of us will ever have to see or do again in our lifetimes, given that most of the Harbor has not been dredged in its 70+ years of existence — we believe that we must push forward with the CAD site's engineering and CEQA work (as well as possible alternatives to the CAD, such as the cement -based stabilization option) now. With $1.78 million in the President's Budget as submitted to Congress for the Lower Bay dredging, and with Senator Feinstein asking for a "congressionally add" of another $14 million to the Corps for the federal fiscal year (FY 10), the time is now. Approving this now requires amending the just- adopted FY 2009 -10 City Budget. Staff considered asking Council to adopt a placeholder in the FY 2009 -10 Capital Improvement Plan, but the City Manager asked that we instead bring a final action and contract forward when it was ready to go with a budget amendment, given the uncertainty of the pricing and scope months ago. Therefore, this item includes a budget amendment of $395,000 from Unappropriated Reserves (Tidelands) to account CIP #7231- C4402001. The benefits of this expenditure and cost recovery options are significant for this expense. This expense meets our obligations to the Corps to assist them as they (hopefully) move forward with their dredging project. They could not do the job without this assistance. As to cost recovery, given the one -time expense of this project, and given its importance to harbor users, staff will propose recovering the cost of the CAD (permitting /CEQA, engineering /design, and construction) from harbor users, in part or in whole. Prepared by: Submitted by: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager D Kiff, Assistaffi City Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: CAD Site Location Exhibit 2: Anchor QEA CEQA and Engineering Proposal PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks July 14, 2009 Page 10 Exhibit 1 CAD Site Location ZyP ANCHOR OEA 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.347.2781 June 25, 2009 Manager, Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site Scope of Work and Budget Request for Engineering Pre - design Tasks and CEQA Compliance Dear Mr. Miller: As a follow up to our recent conversations about moving forward with the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site development process, this letter presents our proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and cost estimate for several engineering pre - design tasks and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process steps necessary to formally initiate the project. Our SOW is broken down into two main categories: CEQA and engineering pre - design. Within each category, we have identified several proposed tasks for immediate initiation along with our associated estimated costs for each item. Also within each of these categories, we have provided an estimate of future scope and budget items for the City of Newport Beach's (City's) internal planning needs. Using the attached flow chart as a visual tool for highlighting the expected development process for permitting and designing the CAD site, the shaded bar reflects the current step in the process. While data is still being collected to determine some of the key features of the project (i.e., final contaminated sediment volume to be managed and potential transportation routes and methods for excavating the CAD cell and placing the clean sand on or near the adjacent City beaches), several engineering related tasks must be initiated immediately so that the permitting process may commence. www.anchorqea.com Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 20D9 Page 2 Thus, the goal for this phase of the project is to: a) begin collecting engineering - related data needed to support CEQA efforts, including information related to the potential for groundwater influence, preliminary cap design, and potential construction techniques; and b) begin the CEQA process, including preparing the project description and Initial Study (IS), evaluating the option of conducting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) versus a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and conducting public outreach meetings to gauge initial public concerns. The following details our proposed SOW for each of these items. Estimated costs are described within each task and summarized in Table 1. As a reminder, while the CAD site is an integral part of the overall Lower Newport Bay (LNB) sediment management solution, the current engineering tasks only focus on the design and permitting of the actual CAD cell itself. Future phases of the project will need to consider engineering design for the non - project contaminated dredge areas planned for CAD disposal like the Rhine Channel, The CEQA effort contained in the current proposal does, however, include both dredging of non - project contaminated areas and construction/filling of the CAD cell. TASK 1: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT PREPARATION Construction of a CAD cell within the City requires environmental review under both state (CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPAj) guidelines. The City would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Regulatory Program would act as the lead NEPA agency. The aforementioned construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). The USACE would be the lead agency for RHA and CWA Section 404 permits as well as associated consultations for Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 3 The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project either as a City project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance (O&M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), use essentially the same methodology as that proposed here and have experience with review and approval of CAD site development. The decision to prepare an MND or EIR is primarily based on whether significant impacts remain after mitigation. If significant impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced, the City is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Based on expected construction methodology, knowledge of the level of sediment contamination in the harbor, and extensive experience with CAD site development, project elements including excavation of a CAD cell, placement of clean excavated sands on City beaches, and placement and capping of contaminated sediments within the CAD cell are not anticipated to produce any significant environmental impacts. The alternative (i.e., landfill disposal of the dredged material) would entail potentially significant impacts to air and traffic due to the vast number of truck trips (more than 50,000) involved. The USACE is expected to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, which is equivalent to the City preparing an MND. While no significant impacts are foreseen with in -water CAD cell construction, and therefore an MND should be available as a CEQA document, the City may choose to pursue an EIR. The final decision to prepare an MND or EIR would occur once the CEQA IS is completed. At this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLC) dredging lease will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the federal channel areas. In order to achieve the endpoint of a successful CEQA document for the proposed project, Anchor QUA, L.P. (Anchor QEA), proposes the following SOW and options. Please note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 4 QEA, and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. Subtask 1.1: Project Description and Initial Study Subtask 1.1 involves preparation of the Project Description (PD) and internal administrative draft IS checklist. The preparation of the PD and IS represents the initial checkpoint for the decision on whether to prepare an MND or EIR. Following completion of the PD and IS, Anchor QEA and City staff would meet and review the findings and make a decision on whether to pursue an MND or EIR. Subtask 1. 1, therefore, includes conducting a project kick -off, preparing the PD, and preparing an internal administrative draft IS. When the internal administrative draft IS has been completed, the City would decide whether to pursue Subtask 1.2a or 1.2b below (MND or EIR). Provided work is initiated in July of 2009, we would anticipate having the internal draft IS completed by October of 2009. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please also note that this task includes our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant, iLanco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site. Subtask 1.1 estimated costs are $115,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of the PD and IS consistent with CEQA guidelines • Attendance at meetings with City staff, as needed Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 5 Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an MND for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with finalizing the IS and preparation of the MND, including all required public notices and administrative tasks. We would incorporate all City comments in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, conduct a hearing on the IS/MND, prepare responses to comments, and prepare the final IS /MND. While a hearing on a draft MND is not required, Anchor QEA recommends and has included a public meeting at the time of the draft MND. Our estimated costs for Task 1.2a includes scope up to and including the preparation of the public draft IS/MND and conducting the hearing. Once comments are received, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft, prepare the final MND, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate filing of the final IS/MND around June of 2010. Subtask 1.2a estimated costs are $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND • Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed • Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an EIR for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with preparing the EIR, including all required public notice and administrative tasks. Anchor QEA would assist the City in managing a public scoping meeting, including public notice of the project, set -up and management of the meeting, and recording the proceedings for the administrative record. Following the scoping process, Anchor QEA would prepare an internal administrative draft EIR (estimated completion is February of 2010, provided the work is initiated in July of 2009). Mr. Chris Miller lune25,2009 Page 6 Following this step, Anchor QEA would incorporate any City comments received, prepare the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on the draft. We would also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) with the EIR. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please again note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor, QEA and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. At the time of the mailing of the notice of completion of the public draft EIR, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft EIR, prepare the final EIR, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate final approval of the EIR around November of 2010. Subtask 1.2b estimated costs are $120,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of an administrative and public draft EIR • Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed • Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings, and Other Project Coordination Subtask 1.3 is required regardless of the EIR/MND option selected above and provides funds for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 7 coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meeting. As part of the process of achieving a public and agency consensus in favor of constructing the CAD cell, Anchor QEA suggests conducting up to three additional formalized public workshops on the project. The City and Anchor QEA would continue to target key stakeholder groups individually with separate, focused meetings. We would also facilitate a thorough and comprehensive process of agency outreach and education leading up to the eventual permit applications. Subtask 1.3 estimated costs are $32,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Attendance at up to 15 additional meetings • Inclusion of mileage and other meeting material costs, as required Estimated Future Costs for California Environmental Quality Act and Agency Permitting Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate that the remaining costs to finish the CEQA documentation process and initiate and conduct the multi- agency permitting process to be as follows. MND Gption If an MND is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $15,000 and $30,000 to finalize the MND. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary, or: EIR QRt ion. If an EIR is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $50,000 and $75,000 to finalize the EIR. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary. These costs (summarized in Table 2) would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Preparation of all required agency permit applications and supporting documents for the USACE, CCC, CSLC, and SARWQCB is estimated to require approximately $125,000. This effort includes preparing application support documents and a Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 8 Biological Assessment (BA)/EFH report, finalizing of any MMRPs, and preparing a draft USACE Regulatory EA in support of issuance of the USACE permit. This fee would also include necessary additional agency meetings. Thus, estimated potential additional permitting costs might range between $140,000 and $200,000. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. TASK 2: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES Prior to the start of the actual design and engineering of the CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay, there are numerous pre -design engineering tasks and analyses that can be performed using available data. These tasks and analyses are critical for the initial phases of the CEQA process. Actual engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. In addition to assisting the development of the CEQA tasks identified in Task 1, this information will be valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could dictate or limit aspects of the design. The following describes our proposed initial subtasks. Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research The existing information Anchor QEA has been provided by the City will need to be reviewed in detail by the design team. This review will focus on identifying key elements necessary for design, such as maps and as -built plans for existing harbor structures; information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell construction area; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical characterizations of sediments in Newport Bay (as may be needed to perform modeling or engineering calculations). A review of the existing bathymetric information will also be preformed in order to evaluate whether there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a supplemental survey is needed. Additionally, time will be spent researching additional studies or reports that may exist and have yet to be identified to prevent unnecessary time and efforts for redoing design analyses or tasks. All this information will be loaded into our Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 9 CADD and GIS systems for use during the actual design phases. Subtask 2.1 estimated costs are $25,000. Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area We are aware there are underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within Lower Newport Bay. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. We can obtain this information by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City personnel to discuss their knowledge about the utilities in Newport Bay and to review their as -built drawings. As with Subtask 2. 1, this information would all be loaded into our CADD and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks. Subtask 2.2 estimated costs are $5,000. Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research /Sand Placement Locations A large portion of the hydraulic pipeline may potentially be routed over land, from a point near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost - effective upland pipeline route will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes disruption to local traffic and avoids existing structural features and utility lines, among other factors. Anchor QEA would work closely with the City's Public Works Department to discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with each option. In addition, past and ongoing studies of the local coastal processes will be reviewed to aid in selecting potential placement locations for sand excavated from the CAD cell. Suitable, potential beach placement areas will be identified and used during meetings with representatives from the City's Public Works Department to identify potential routing locations. Because of their extensive southern California coastal modeling expertise and past working relationship with Anchor QEA on the recently completed Port Hueneme CAD site, Mr. David Cannon and Dr. Ying Poon from Everest International Consultants (Everest) will assist Anchor QEA with this task. The goal with this approach is to try and reuse as much Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 10 work from the successful Port Hueneme project as a way to maintain a familiar development process with the agencies and conserve funds. Subtask 2.3 estimated costs are $20,000. Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential for creating unstable conditions due to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, it is necessary to identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures within or near the planned dredging areas to determine if precautionary measures (such as dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work would include reviewing as-built drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging as well as conducting field surveys to verify the current condition of the structures. Subtask 2.4 estimated costs are $22,000. Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a series of USACE- developed computer models can be used to provide an estimate of environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling) and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough modeling) within the CAD cell. The Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE) can be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral spreading distance from the point of dumping. Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model (developed by Reible et al.) would be beneficial for predicting the ability of surficial capping material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to maintain environmental protectiveness. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 11 Included in this subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap design. Everest staff will assist with this task as well for the same reasons mentioned under Subtask 2.3. Subtask 2.5 estimated costs are $30,000. Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes, and dredging equipment, a preliminary production rate can be estimated to provide estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate can in turn be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal recreational activities (i.e., summer sailing programs, regattas, outrigger canoes, etc.) to identify optimal construction sequences. This information will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates based on varying conditions (described below). Subtask 2.6 estimated costs are $4,000. Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction - related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. A formal cost estimate will be developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling quantities have been finalized. Subtask 2.7 estimated costs are $10,000. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 12 Subtask 2.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies The navigational channel within Lower Newport Bay is maintained by the USACE and any dredging within that area will be their responsibility. Early discussions with the USACE will be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (i.e., the USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other agencies related to engineering design features will also be critical to gauge potential, unforeseen, concerns early in the design process as that they may be corrected immediately, and delays may be avoided later in the review process. Subtask 2.8 estimated costs are $12,000. Estimated Future Costs for Engineering Design The above pre - design tasks will advance the scope and schedule of the 30% design effort for the CAD cell significantly. Additional discussions need to occur between the City and USACE to refine an approach for completing a consolidated design package for Lower Newport Bay. At a minimum, the City will be responsible for all design activities for the CAD cell, which forms the basis for this engineering scope of work. As such, estimated costs to complete this process once all the pre -design tasks are finished have been summarized below in Table 2 and total approximately $25,000 to $50,000. In addition to the final design steps for the CAD, it is possible that more in -depth studies of the sand placement area(s) may need to be conducted. The details of this work, if needed, would likely become evident after the public comment period, but could include coastal modeling studies to predict where sand placed on the beach during CAD excavation might ultimately be transported. These costs would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Further, this value does not include the collection of any additional site data within the CAD cell footprint (e.g., groundwater probes), if determined that it is needed, or design services for contaminated sediment dredging within any of the Federal channel areas, Rhine Channel or other City areas. Placeholders for some of these items have been added to Table 2 to highlight their potential need, but it is too early to estimate potential costs. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 13 PROPOSED SCHEDULE Upon receiving approval to proceed, we estimate that the tasks described in this proposal will be completed within approximately 4 months, provided that the City, Anchor QEA, and USACE continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material and stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay. Our schedule is dependent on timely resolution of key issues that arise. The proposed 4 -month duration allows the project to maintain the overall development schedule depicted in the attached figure. COST SUMMARY We propose that Anchor QEA be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to- exceed amount per task) to complete the two main tasks described above. Table 1 summarizes our estimated costs for each item, broken down by subtask and task. Table 2 summarizes potential future tasks (late fall of 2009 or early winter 2010) that will likely be needed to finalize the permitting and engineering design tasks for the CAD once the currently scoped tasks have been completed. Billing rates for Anchor QEA staff as well as our proposed sub - consultants (Everest and iLanco) are attached to this scope of work. As a reminder, other design tasks will be required as part of the overall LNB sediment management process which are not addressed in the current proposal. For example, engineering design for sediment removal, CAD disposal and associated seawall protection within the Rhine Channel will be needed prior to that phase of the project being constructed. Similarly, engineering design for potential contaminated sediment dredging outside of the Federal project area in other areas of LNB will also be needed to allow for disposal of that material into the CAD cell. The current work (for example Subtask 2.4), however, will be beneficial for implementing these additional phases of the project and will result in significant cost savings to the City by addressing items like the CAD cell design and permitting up front. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 20D9 Page 14 Table 1 Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEO A DOCUMENT PREPARATION Task 1.1 Project Description $115,000 Task 1.2a MND Option $40,000 Task 1.2b EIR Option $120,000 Task 1.3 Miscellaneous Meetings $32,000 Task 1 Estimated Costs $187,000 to $267,000 Task 2 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS Task 2.1 Review Existing Literature and $25,000 Additional Research Task 2.2 Locate and Record All Utility $5,000 Crossings within CAD Area Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Task 2.3 Research /Sand Placement $20,000 Locations Task 2.4 Structural Offsets or Protection $22,000 Evaluation Preliminary Modeling of Task 2.5 Environmental Protectiveness for $30,000 CAD Cell Task 2.6 Preliminary Production Rates $4,000 Task 2.7 Development of Preliminary $101000 Construction Unit Costs Task 2.8 Coordination with USACE and $12,000 Other Agencies Task 2 Estimated Costs $128,000 Grand Total for Tasks 1 and 2 $315,000 to $395,000 Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 15 Table 2 Estimated Costs for Potential Future Scopes of Work Needed to Complete CAD Site Permitting and Design (Late Fall /Early Winter) Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Permit applications and supporting documents $125,000 Finalize MND Option $15,000 to $30,000 Finalize EIR Option $50,000 to $75,000 Task 2 ENGINEERING TASKS Complete 30 percent, 90 percent, and Final Design of CAD Cell $25,000 to $50,000 Possibly conduct additional modeling to finalize sand placement location on beach TBD As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for continued services with this very important project. If you have any questions about our proposed approach or estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, <S Steve Cappellino Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P. ANCHOR - Targetamest for t"mitoronto O.e.. bid wceage pepsanto, mate CAD Site Development DeClslon Process tz ronsdudmn. dc.) assume cool heard stolen contains me mgWed. Lower N Newport CAD Site Feasibility Stud QEA mawraNe wagc mmmenls en mtehsd. am UlUtCE racewm eNDo Y dY Y �! suddempojedwim hddateagengconsuestion oommitment to minote CAD, Collect sediment cores for geotachnical Potatoes to seat them of - - - - - -- and chemical analyses at potential CAD potential project site In West Udo Anchorage area Visual obsernadom of sediment No Collect cores from alternate cores suggest'c]ean" beach- locations in North and South suitable material anchorage areas Yes Yes Visual observations of sedimem No cores ssegest -clean- beach - aunablematerlal Inidate CEQA process Inmate 30 percent englgeeNng design ongoingagenry Caortlinatlon meeting coordination with USAGE engineers Hold public workshops to describe project and .............. R.1a. available site data Yes todetermineifaddidonal Colkn and analyze selicNfeedback Information is needed etltlitlonalfleW daG No Prepare draft CEQ Prepare 30 percent plans domment and submit and speelficallons permltapph.tlons Q L Publkentl egenN City of tle ortheach E review and USAGE Inte rne] revew reAs o CertlfYCEQAdaormentl N RespoM b comments and ebteln all ngcusary he". 100 percent = permits and approaeN and prepare Anal plans and specifications ° a forcomdruttion CEQAdocoment a °n Target data to prepare bid padrge and hire contractor' 0 "s a E 3 n M CAD - confined squire - disposal CEQA- California Environments] Quality An USAGE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ANCHOR - Targetamest for t"mitoronto O.e.. bid wceage pepsanto, mate CAD Site Development DeClslon Process tz ronsdudmn. dc.) assume cool heard stolen contains me mgWed. Lower N Newport CAD Site Feasibility Stud QEA mawraNe wagc mmmenls en mtehsd. am UlUtCE racewm eNDo Y dY Y �! suddempojedwim Anchor QEA, LLC 2009 STANDARD BILLING RATES Professional Level Hourly Rates Principal....................................................................................................... ............................... $190 SeniorProject Manager .................................................... ............................... ...........................$177 ProjectManager ............................................................... ............................... ...........................$157 Senior Engineer /LA/ Planner / Scientist / Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$137 Staff 3 Engineer /LA/Pl anner / Scientist / Analyst ................ .:............................. ...........................$120 Staff 2 Engineer/LA/Planner/Scientist/Analyst... ................................................... ................... $110 Staff 1 Engineer /LA/ Planner / Scientist / Analyst ................................................ ............................$99 FieldTechnician ............................................................................................... ............................$80 SeniorDesigner/ CAD ....................................................................................... ............................$99 Designer/ CAD .................................................................................................. ............................$89 ProjectCoordinator .......................................................................................... ............................$79 Special Hourly Rates All work by a testifying expert ............................ ............................1.5 times professional level rate EXPENSE BILLING RATES Expense Rates Diving Services (per day) ................ CAD /GIS/Modeling (per hour) ....... Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) Photocopies (per copy) ..................•• Faxes (per page) .............................. Mileage (per mile) ........................... ........................ ........................ Project Specific ................................ ............................... $10.00 ........................................ ............................... $3 -6 /sf .............. ............................... I............. $0.10 ............................ I ..... ......................... $1.00 ........... ............................... Current Federal Standard FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES Subcontracts/ subconsultants ........................................................................ ............................... 10% Travel and other direct costs ........................................................................ ............................... 10% Fieldequipment & supplies ......................................................................... ............................... 10% Everest International Consultants, Inc. Rate Schedule Everest International Consultants, Inc. will provide professional services at the following rates beginning January 1, 2008. Staff Cateaory Hourly Rate Principal Engineer $170 Senior Engineer /Scientist III $157 Senior Engineer /Scientist II $145 Senior Engineer /Scientist 1 $123 Engineer /Scientist $113 Assistant Engineer $99 Staff Engineer $86 Technician /CAD Operator $75 Clerical $49 Other Direct Costs Unit Rate Plottina $0.25 /ea. Bond $1.10 1s.f. Vellums $1.60 1s.f. Mylars $2.70 /s.f. CODvina /Bindin 8.5 x 11 b &w copy $0.10 /ea. 11 x 17 b &w copy $0.25 /ea. 8.5 x 11 color copy $1.10 /ea. 11 x 17 color copy $2.20 /ea. Binding (Reports) $2.50 /ea. Transportation Personal Car (Mileage) $0.585 /mile Other Project Related Expenses Other expenses are invoiced at cost without mark up. Subconsultant Services Subconsultants are invoiced at cost plus an agreed mark up. EVEREST Name iLANCO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC., WBE /SBE 2009 Billing Rate Rate Lora Granovsky $120/hour PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR ENGINEERING PRE - DESIGN TASKS & CEQA COMPLIANCE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this _ day of 2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and ANCHOR QEA, L.P. a California Limited Partnership, whose address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 ( "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 and construct a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site (CAD) to contain the contaminated sediment within Newport Harbor. City has conducted a Feasibility Study, developed a Dredge Material Management Plan and implemented the Sampling & Analysis Plan. C. City desires to engage Consultant to initiate the environmental (CEQA) and engineering processes ("Project'). D. City recognizes that future CEQA and engineering work will be necessary once major decisions are made in the coming months. E. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. F. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Steve Cappellino. G. 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, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31st day of December, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included in Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to -exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($395,000) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: 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. 2 B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated STEVE CAPPELLINO to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION. CHRIS MILLER shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: 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. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, firies, 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 the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or 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, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any CI 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. A. Cettiflcates 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 5 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. D. Coverage Requirements. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. 11 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. 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 7 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-fve 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 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 I0 CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST [Optional: Only use if an opinion of costs is called for in the scope of work] 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 M 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 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. 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. 10 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: Attn: Chris Miller Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA, 92663 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: Steve Cappellino 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: 949 - 347 -2780 Fax: 949 -347 -2781 28. TERMINATION In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2). calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, 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. 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 12 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFIC OF THE CITY A17 RNEY: By; at, or" David R. Hunt City Attorney ATTEST: In Leilani Brown, City Clerk Attachments: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation Bv: Edward Selich Mayor CONSULTANT: By: (Corporate Officer) Title: Print Name: (Financial Officer) Print Name: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates 13 kzANCHOR OEA . y" 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Phone 949.347.2780 Fax 949.347.2781 June 25, 2009 Chris Miller Manager, Harbor Resources Division City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Attachment A Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site Scope of Work and Budget Request for Engineering Pre -design Tasks and CEQA Compliance Dear Mr. Miller: As a follow up to our recent conversations about moving forward with the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site development process, this letter presents our proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and cost estimate for several engineering pre - design tasks and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process steps necessary to formally initiate the project. Our SOW is broken down into two main categories: CEQA and engineering pre - design. Within each category, we have identified several proposed tasks for immediate initiation along with our associated estimated costs for each item. Also within each of these categories, we have provided an estimate of future scope and budget items for the City of Newport Beach's (City's) internal planning needs. Using the attached flow chart as a visual tool for highlighting the expected development process for permitting and designing the CAD site, the shaded bar reflects the current step in the process. While data is still being collected to determine some of the key features of the project (i.e., final contaminated sediment volume to be managed and potential transportation routes and methods for excavating the CAD cell and placing the clean sand on or near the adjacent City beaches), several engineering related tasks must be initiated immediately so that the permitting process may commence. www.anchorqea.com Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 2 Thus, the goal for this phase of the project is to: a) begin collecting engineering - related data needed to support CEQA efforts, including information related to the potential for groundwater influence, preliminary cap design, and potential construction techniques; and b) begin the CEQA process, including preparing the project description and Initial Study (IS), evaluating the option of conducting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) versus a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and conducting public outreach meetings to gauge initial public concerns. The following details our proposed SOW for each of these items. Estimated costs are described within each task and summarized in Table 1. As a reminder, while the CAD site is an integral part of the overall Lower Newport Bay (LNB) sediment management solution, the current engineering tasks only focus on the design and permitting of the actual CAD cell itself. Future phases of the project will need to consider engineering design for the non - project contaminated dredge areas planned for CAD disposal like the Rhine Channel, The CEQA effort contained in the current proposal does, however, include both dredging of non - project contaminated areas and construction/filling of the CAD cell. TASK 1: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT PREPARATION Construction of a CAD cell within the City requires environmental review under both state (CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPAj) guidelines. The City would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Regulatory Program would act as the lead NEPA agency. The aforementioned construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). The USACE would be the lead agency for RHA and CWA Section 404 permits as well as associated consultations for Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 3 The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project either as a City project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance (O&M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), use essentially the same methodology as that proposed here and have experience with review and approval of CAD site development. The decision to prepare an MND or EIR is primarily based on whether significant impacts remain after mitigation. If significant impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced, the City is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Based on expected construction methodology, knowledge of the level of sediment contamination in the harbor, and extensive experience with CAD site development, project elements including excavation of a CAD cell, placement of clean excavated sands on City beaches, and placement and capping of contaminated sediments within the CAD cell are not anticipated to produce any significant environmental impacts. The alternative (i.e., landfill disposal of the dredged material) would entail potentially significant impacts to air and traffic due to the vast number of truck trips (more than 50,000) involved. The USACE is expected to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, which is equivalent to the City preparing an MND. While no significant impacts are foreseen with in -water CAD cell construction, and therefore an MND should be available as a CEQA document, the City may choose to pursue an EIR. The final decision to prepare an MND or EIR would occur once the CEQA IS is completed. At this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLC) dredging lease will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the federal channel areas. In order to achieve the endpoint of a successful CEQA document for the proposed project, Anchor QEA, L.P. (Anchor QEA), proposes the following SOW and options. Please note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 4 QEA, and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. Subtask 1.1: Project Description and Initial Study Subtask 1.1 involves preparation of the Project Description (PD) and internal administrative draft IS checklist. The preparation of the PD and IS represents the initial checkpoint for the decision on whether to prepare an MND or EIR. Following completion of the PD and IS, Anchor QEA and City staff would meet and review the findings and make a decision on whether to pursue an MND or EIR. Subtask 1. 1, therefore, includes conducting a project kick -off, preparing the PD, and preparing an internal administrative draft IS. When the internal administrative draft IS has been completed, the City would decide whether to pursue Subtask 1.2a or 1.2b below (MND or EIR). Provided work is initiated in July of 2009, we would anticipate having the internal draft IS completed by October of 2009. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please also note that this task includes our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant, iLanco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site. Subtask 1.1 estimated costs are $115,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of the PD and IS consistent with CEQA guidelines • Attendance at meetings with City staff, as needed Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 5 Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an MND for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with finalizing the IS and preparation of the MND, including all required public notices and administrative tasks. We would incorporate all City comments in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, conduct a hearing on the IS /MND, prepare responses to comments, and prepare the final IS /MND. While a hearing on a draft MND is not required, Anchor QEA recommends and has included a public meeting at the time of the draft MND. Our estimated costs for Task 1.2a includes scope up to and including the preparation of the public draft IS /MND and conducting the hearing. Once comments are received, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft, prepare the final MND, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate filing of the final IS /MND around June of 2010. Subtask 1.2a estimated costs are $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND • Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed • Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an EIR for the proposed project, Anchor QEA would proceed with preparing the EIR, including all required public notice and administrative tasks. Anchor QEA would assist the City in managing a public scoping meeting, including public notice of the project, set -up and management of the meeting, and recording the proceedings for the administrative record. Following the scoping process, Anchor QEA would prepare an internal administrative draft EIR (estimated completion is February of 2010, provided the work is initiated in July of 2009). Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Following this step, Anchor QEA would incorporate any City comments received, prepare the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on the draft. We would also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) with the EIR. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required from the City. Please again note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor, QEA and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material. At the time of the mailing of the notice of completion of the public draft EIR, we would request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft EIR, prepare the final EIR, and initiate the permit process. We would anticipate final approval of the EIR around November of 2010. Subtask 1.2b estimated costs are $120,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other required tasks • Preparation of an administrative and public draft EIR • Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed • Agency coordination, as needed Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings, and Other Project Coordination Subtask 1.3 is required regardless of the EIR/MND option selected above and provides funds for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meeting. As part of the process of achieving a public and agency consensus in favor of constructing the CAD cell, Anchor QEA suggests conducting up to three additional formalized public workshops on the project. The City and Anchor QEA would continue to target key stakeholder groups individually with separate, focused meetings. We would also facilitate a thorough and comprehensive process of agency outreach and education leading up to the eventual permit applications. Subtask 1.3 estimated costs are $32,000. This cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: • Attendance at up to 15 additional meetings • Inclusion of mileage and other meeting material costs, as required Estimated Future Costs for California Environmental Quality AM and Agency Permitting Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate that the remaining costs to finish the CEQA documentation process and initiate and conduct the multi- agency permitting process to be as follows. MM ption If an MND is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $15,000 and $30,000 to finalize the MND. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary, or: EIR Clption If an EIR is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment, we project an additional need of between $50,000 and $75,000 to finalize the EIR. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed necessary. These costs (summarized in Table 2) would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Preparation of all required agency permit applications and supporting documents for the USACE, CCC, CSLC, and SARWQCB is estimated to require approximately $125,000. This effort includes preparing application support documents and a Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 8 Biological Assessment (BA)/EFH report, finalizing of any MMRPs, and preparing a draft USACE Regulatory EA in support of issuance of the USACE permit. This fee would also include necessary additional agency meetings. Thus, estimated potential additional permitting costs might range between $140,000 and $200,000. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. TASK 2: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES Prior to the start of the actual design and engineering of the CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay, there are numerous pre- design engineering tasks and analyses that can be performed using available data. These tasks and analyses are critical for the initial phases of the CEQA process. Actual engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. In addition to assisting the development of the CEQA tasks identified in Task 1, this information will be valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could dictate or limit aspects of the design. The following describes our proposed initial subtasks. Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research The erdsting information Anchor QEA has been provided by the City will need to be reviewed in detail by the design team. This review will focus on identifying key elements necessary for design, such as maps and as-built plans for existing harbor structures; information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell construction area; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical characterizations of sediments in Newport Bay (as may be needed to perform modeling or engineering calculations). A review of the existing bathymetric information will also be preformed in order to evaluate whether there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a supplemental survey is needed. Additionally, time will be spent researching additional studies or reports that may exist and have yet to be identified to prevent unnecessary time and efforts for redoing design analyses or tasks. All this information will be loaded into our Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 9 CADD and GIS systems for use during the actual design phases. Subtask 2.1 estimated costs are $25,000. Subtask 2.2: locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area We are aware there are underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within Lower Newport Bay. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. We can obtain this information by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City personnel to discuss their knowledge about the utilities in Newport Bay and to review their as -built drawings. As with Subtask 2. 1, this information would all be loaded into our CARD and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks. Subtask 2.2 estimated costs are $5,000. Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research /Sand Placement Locations A large portion of the hydraulic pipeline may potentially be routed over land, from a point near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost- effective upland pipeline route will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes disruption to local traffic and avoids existing structural features and utility lines, among other factors. Anchor QEA would work closely with the City's Public Works Department to discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with each option. In addition, past and ongoing studies of the local coastal processes will be reviewed to aid in selecting potential placement locations for sand excavated from the CAD cell. Suitable, potential beach placement areas will be identified and used during meetings with representatives from the City's Public Works Department to identify potential routing locations. Because of their extensive southern California coastal modeling expertise and past working relationship with Anchor QEA on the recently completed Port Hueneme CAD site, Mr. David Cannon and Dr. Ying Poon from Everest International Consultants (Everest) will assist Anchor QEA with this task. The goal with this approach is to try and reuse as much Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 10 work from the successful Port Hueneme project as a way to maintain a familiar development process with the agencies and conserve funds. Subtask 2.3 estimated costs are $20,000. Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential for creating unstable conditions due to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, it is necessary to identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures within or near the planned dredging areas to determine if precautionary measures (such as dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work would include reviewing as -built drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging as well as conducting field surveys to verify the current condition of the structures. Subtask 2.4 estimated costs are $22,000. Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a series of USACE - developed computer models can be used to provide an estimate of environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling) and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough modeling) within the CAD cell. The Short -term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE) can be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral spreading distance from the point of dumping. Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model (developed by Reible et al.) would be beneficial for predicting the ability of surficial capping material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to maintain environmental protectiveness. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 11 Included in this subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap design. Everest staff will assist with this task as well for the same reasons mentioned under Subtask 2.3. Subtask 2.5 estimated costs are $30,000. Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes, and dredging equipment, a preliminary production rate can be estimated to provide estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate can in turn be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal recreational activities (i.e., summer sailing programs, regattas, outrigger canoes, etc.) to identify optimal construction sequences. This information will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates based on varying conditions (described below). Subtask 2.6 estimated costs are $4,000. Subtask 23: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction - related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. A formal cost estimate will be developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling quantities have been finalized. Subtask 2.7 estimated costs are $10,000. Mr. Chris Miller June 25,2009 Page 12 Subtask 2.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies The navigational channel within Lower Newport Bay is maintained by the USACE and any dredging within that area will be their responsibility. Early discussions with the USACE will be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (i.e., the USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other agencies related to engineering design features will also be critical to gauge potential, unforeseen, concerns early in the design process as that they may be corrected immediately, and delays may be avoided later in the review process. Subtask 2.8 estimated costs are $12,000. Estimated Future Costs for Engineering Design The above pre - design tasks will advance the scope and schedule of the 30% design effort for the CAD cell significantly. Additional discussions need to occur between the City and USACE to refine an approach for completing a consolidated design package for Lower Newport Bay. At a minimum, the City will be responsible for all design activities for the CAD cell, which forms the basis for this engineering scope of work. As such, estimated costs to complete this process once all the pre - design tasks are finished have been summarized below in Table 2 and total approximately $25,000 to $50,000. In addition to the final design steps for the CAD, it is possible that more in -depth studies of the sand placement area(s) may need to be conducted. The details of this work, if needed, would likely become evident after the public comment period, but could include coastal modeling studies to predict where sand placed on the beach during CAD excavation might ultimately be transported. These costs would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work. Further, this value does not include the collection of any additional site data within the CAD cell footprint (e.g., groundwater probes), if determined that it is needed, or design services for contaminated sediment dredging within any of the Federal channel areas, Rhine Channel or other City areas. Placeholders for some of these items have been added to Table 2 to highlight their potential need, but it is too early to estimate potential costs. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 13 PROPOSED SCHEDULE Upon receiving approval to proceed, we estimate that the tasks described in this proposal will be completed within approximately 4 months, provided that the City, Anchor QEA, and USACE continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material and stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay. Our schedule is dependent on timely resolution of key issues that arise. The proposed 4 -month duration allows the project to maintain the overall development schedule depicted in the attached figure. COST SUMMARY We propose that Anchor QEA be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to- exceed amount per task) to complete the two main tasks described above. Table 1 summarizes our estimated costs for each item, broken down by subtask and task. Table 2 summarizes potential future tasks (late fall of 2009 or early winter 2010) that will likely be needed to finalize the permitting and engineering design tasks for the CAD once the currently scoped tasks have been completed. Billing rates for Anchor QEA staff as well as our proposed sub - consultants (Everest and iLanco) are attached to this scope of work. As a reminder, other design tasks will be required as part of the overall LNB sediment management process which are not addressed in the current proposal. For example, engineering design for sediment removal, CAD disposal and associated seawall protection within the Rhine Channel will be needed prior to that phase of the project being constructed. Similarly, engineering design for potential contaminated sediment dredging outside of the Federal project area in other areas of LNB will also be needed to allow for disposal of that material into the CAD cell. The current work (for example Subtask 2.4), however, will be beneficial for implementing these additional phases of the project and will result in significant cost savings to the City by addressing items like the CAD cell design and permitting up front. Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 14 Table 1 Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Task 1.1 Project Description $115,000 Task 1.2a MND Option $40,000 Task 1.26 EIR Option $120,000 Task 1.3 Miscellaneous Meetings $32,000 Task 1 Estimated Costs $187,000 to $267,000 Task 2 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS Task 2.1 Review Existing Literature and $25,000 Additional Research Task 2.2 Locate and Record All Utility $5,000 Crossings within CAD Area Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Task 2.3 Research /Sand Placement $20,000 Locations Task 2.4 Structural Offsets or Protection $22,000 Evaluation Preliminary Modeling of Task 2.5 Environmental Protectiveness for $30,000 CAD Cell Task 2.6 Preliminary Production Rates $4,000 Task 2.7 Development of Preliminary $10,000 Construction Unit Costs Task 2.8 Coordination with USACE and $12,000 Other Agencies Task 2 Estimated Costs $128,000 Grand Total for Tasks 1 and 2 $315,000 to $395,000 Mr. Chris Miller June 25, 2009 Page 15 Table 2 Estimated Costs for Potential Future Scopes of Work Needed to Complete CAD Site Permitting and Design (Late Fall /Early Winter) Task Estimated Cost Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION Permit applications and supporting documents $125,000 Finalize MND Option, $15,000 to $30,000 Finalize EIR Option $50,000 to $75,000 Task 2 ENGINEERING TASKS Complete 30 percent, 90 percent, and Final D Design of CAD Cell $25,000 to $50,000 Possibly conduct additional modeling to finalize sand placement location on beach TBD As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for continued services with this very important project. if you have any questions about our proposed approach or estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 347 -2780. Sincerely, 4S L Steve Cappellino Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P. Initiate agency consultation process to alert them of - - -- potential project Collect sediment cores for geotechnical and chemical analyses at potential CAD site in West Lido Anchorage area Visual observations of sediment No cores suggest "clean" beach - suitable material Yes • • • Yes Initiate CEQA process Ongoing agency coordination Hold public workshops to describe project and -- - - - - -- solicit feedback Prepare draft CEQA document and submit permit applications Public and agency review Collect cores from alternat locations in North and Sou anchorage areas Visual observations of sedim cores suggest "clean" beac suitable material Initiate 30 percent engineering design Coordination meeting with USACE engineers Review available site data Yes Collect to determine if additional addition information is needed No Prepare 30 percent plans and specifications City of Newport Beach and USACE internal review Attachment Anchor QEA, L[C 2009 STANDARD BILLING RATES Professional Level Hourly Rates Pdu6pul.......--.....~.................................~~.. $190 Senior Project Manager .............................................................................................................. $l77 ProjectManager ......................................................................................................................... $l5? Senior ..............—._^.---~...... $137 Stuff3 .................. ....................................................... $l%8 Staff ...~~.~.........................$llO Staff ..............—...~.~.._~~.... $99 FieldTechnician ........................... :............................................................................................... $80 Senior_.........'-~~~....~........~~~...—~-._.....$99 ............~.—...,.........~............~.~~—~.....$89 Specia I Hourly Rates 8|vvudcbru expert ........................................................ l.5times professional level rate EXPENSE BILLING RATES � Expense Rates Diving Services (per day) ......................................................................................... Project Specific (per hour) ............................................................................................... $l0JX) Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) ...................................................................................... $3^6/mf Photocopies(per copy) .............................................................................................................. $VJO Faxes(per page) .................................................................................. ..................................... $1J0 FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES ............~..~~.......~.....~......~...lV%� Travel and other direct costs .—.~...~..~..~.~~......~.~........~._-...~l0% Fieldequipment & supplies ........................................................................................................ l0% Everest International Consultants, Inc. Rate Schedule Everest International Consultants, Inc. will provide professional services at the following rates beginning January 1, 2008. Staff Category Hourly Rate Principal Engineer $170 Senior Engineer/Scientist III $157 Senior Engineer /Scientist II $145 Senior EngineerlScientist 1 $123 Engineer/Scientist $113 Assistant Engineer $99 Staff Engineer $86 Technician /CAD Operator $75 Clerical $49 Other Direct Costs Unit Rate Plotting $0.251ea. Bond $1.10 /s.f. Vellums $1.6010. Mylars $2.70 1s.f. CoyMna/Binding 8.5 x 11 b &w copy $0.10 /ea. 11 x 17 b&w copy $0.251ea. 8.5 x 11 color copy $1.10 /ea. 11 x 17 color copy $2.20 /ea. Binding (Reports) $2.50 /ea. Transportation Personal Car (Mileage) $0.5851mile Other Project Related Expenses Other expenses are invoiced at cost without mark up. Subconsultent Services Suboonsultants are invoiced at cost plus an agreed mark up. EVEREST Name iLANCO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC., WBE /SBE 2009 Billing Rate Rate Lora Granovsky $120/hour "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED: I' 11n 7-1+oci RECEIVED John F. Skinner, M.D. 1724 Highland Drive 21119 JUL 13 PM 9: 37 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 650 -5588 lskinnenndOaol corn aF CITY OF N -VPORT TEA H July 8, 2009 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Lower Newport Bay Dredging - Support for the CAD Option Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the Council: I have been briefed on the various options for dredging Lower Newport Bay and I am writing to urge your support for the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) option. It appears to be safe and environmentally sound as well as being the least expensive option. I believe it is the logical choice when compared to upland disposal or barging the toxic sediments a long distance from the Bay, both of which are more costly and are accompanied with significant environmental impacts. Sincerely, ckSner City of Newport Beach BUDGET AMENDMENT 2009 -10 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues X from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following NO. BA- 10BA -001 AMOUNT: $395,000.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance M IL AGENDA No To increase expenditure appropriations from Tidelands fund balance to the Newport Harbor Dredging Project ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount Fund Account Description Debit Credit 231 3605 Tidelands - Fund Balance $395.000 00 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account Description EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Division Number 7231 Tidelands - Capital Projects Account Number C4402001 Newport Harbor Dredging Project $395,000 00 Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Automatic S Signed Signed Signed Financial Approval Admin ministratroe Services Director ity Manager City Council Approval City Clerk Date G 3 ev 0 D e Date