HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - Dredging Permit RenewalCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 8
March 8, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office ! Harbor Resources Division
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
dkiff(a)city. newport- beach.ca.us
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3041
trossmiller(a_)city .newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Dredging Permit Renewal —Approval of a Professional Services
Agreement with Weston Solutions for Analytical Services for
Renewal of Regional General Permit 54
ISSUE:
Should the City of Newport Beach enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Weston Solutions, Inc. for analytical services to examine the quality of sediments
proposed to be dredged under a renewed Regional General Permit 54?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions, Inc. of Carlsbad,
California for analytical services for the renewal of Regional General Permit 54 at a
contract price not -to- exceed $350,000 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
For approximately the past three decades, the City of Newport Beach has maintained a
Regional General Permit (RGP) that provides a relatively streamlined process for
permitting dredging and dock maintenance projects between the bulkhead and project
lines.
A Regional General Permit is a programmatic permit that allows the City to issue
individual dredging and dock maintenance permits to tidelands permittees following
acquisition of relatively simple letters of permission from the Army Corps of Engineers
RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 2
and the California Coastal Commission. The Regional General Permit is limited in
scope to those projects that require dredging of less than 500 cubic yards for beach
disposal of good quality sand or dredging of up to 1,000 cubic yards of silts and clays
and disposal of that material at the LA -3 disposal site. Most residential pier dredging
needs and many commercial pier dredging needs fall within this range.
To qualify for a Regional General Permit an applicant is required to analyze
representative samples from the proposed dredging area according to the Green Book
protocol, established by EPA and the Corps of Engineers, for ocean disposal of dredged
material. The analyses are very complex and involve examining the chemical quality of
sediments for many organic and inorganic constituents, evaluating the physical make-
up of the sediments and evaluating the biological impacts through bioassay and
bioaccumulation studies.
This proposed Professional Services Agreement will provide for the completion of all the
necessary analyses to submit the application for the renewal of the RGP. Once
approved by the Resources Agencies, the RGP is typically valid for five years. The
current RGP 54 will expire on July 24, 2005. The proposed timeline for completion of
work under this agreement was developed to coincide with the anticipated permanent
designation of LA -3 as an approved dredged material disposal site.
The Professional Services Proposal and Selection Process
Four firms were invited to submit proposals to provide the analytical services necessary
to apply for the renewal of RGP 54 and all four firms responded:
1. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
2. Kinetic Laboratories / Toxscan, Inc.
3. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences
4. Weston Solutions Inc.
A selection panel made up of City of Newport Beach / Harbor Resources staff and
County of Orange / Coastal Engineering staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals
according to fixed qualifications based criteria and scored the individual proposals. The
Weston Solutions Inc. proposal was scored the highest by all raters and is
recommended for selection.
Staff has successfully negotiated a fee of not -to- exceed $350,000 ($349,793 including
optional items that may be required by the Regulatory Agencies during Sampling and
Analysis Plan negotiations). The agreement was negotiated as a not -to- exceed amount
since we intend to ask the Regulatory Agencies to reduce the number of chemical
analyses required since many constituents have never been found to exceed standards
in decades of sampling and analysis.
2
RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 3
The Scope of Services
The scope of services includes but is not limited to:
• Review previous sampling and analysis plans and data sets prepared for earlier
RGP applications and other local projects for maintenance dredging in Newport
Bay.
• Prepare and negotiate the requirements of a 2005 sampling and analysis plan.
• Mobilize and demobilize field equipment for sediment sampling.
• Based on previous RGP efforts it is anticipated that sediment sampling will be
required at twelve (12) stations.
• LA -3 permanent designation efforts will not be complete in time for preparation of
the SAP; therefore, reference site samples should be collected for both LA -2 and
LA -3 disposal sites.
• Sediment cores should be collected at prescribed tidal elevations at each
sampling station. The following elevations along the transect are recommended
for sampling: +8, +4, +2, 0, -4 and -8 MLLW.
• Sediment cores of at least two feet in length should be taken with a hand auger
for land stations or a push core deployed from a small boat or by diver for
subtidal samples. Vibracore sampling has not been required in the past;
however, optional costs should be provided if this sampling method is required as
a result of SAP negotiations.
• Each of the 72 samples (or number required in approved SAP) should be
analyzed for total solids, total organic carbon and particle size.
• Determine a compositing plan that would allow the City to receive a partial RGP if
certain areas become problematic.
• Perform Green Book tiered analyses.
• Utilize the tiered approach to evaluate the feasibility of ocean disposal of
sediments of appropriate grain size. Historically, DDT and trace element
concentrations and amphipod survival have been problematic in some areas. If
ocean disposal criteria are not met at the tier 3 level, then propose an optional
tier 4 level analysis.
• Prepare a comprehensive report on the results of the sampling, analyses and
compliance with ocean disposal criteria.
• Assist the City in reviewing the report and results with the Regulatory Agencies.
• Present conclusions of the study to City Council, Harbor Commission and
community groups
Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 —
Class 4 — Minor Alterations to Land — Section g exempts maintenance dredging where
disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal regulatory agencies.
3
RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 4
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Funding Availability: Funds are available as a line -item in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 CIP
Budget, Account Number 2371- C2370721.
Alternatives: Do not renew the Regional General Permit.
Prepared by: AW 'f Submitted by:
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Professional Services Agreement
Attachment A: Scope of Services
Attachment B: Pricing
Notice of Exemption
M
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
Weston Solutions, Inc.
For
Analytical Services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of
, 2005, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and MEC Analytical Systems- Weston Solutions
an environmental services corporation whose address is 2433 Impala Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008 ( "Consultant'), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing
under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its
business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of
California and the Charter of City.
B. City is planning to renew its Regional General Permit for small project
dredging which provides assistance to local property owners in obtaining
permission to perform maintenance dredging between the pierhead and
project lines under RGP -54. This permit will expire on July 24, 2005 and the
City desires to provide continuous assistance to the property owners by
avoiding any lapse in permitting authority.
C. City desires to retain the services of an analytical services consultant
to prepare a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); assist in negotiating the
approval of the SAP; collect samples; perform the necessary analyses;
prepare a technical report describing the results of the analyses; and assist
the City in presenting the report to the regulatory agencies for approval
( "Project').
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background,
certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this
Agreement.
E. The principal member[s] of Consultant for purposes of Project shall
be Jack Q. Word, Ph.D.
F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has
reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of
Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional
services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
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 _ day of , 2005, unless terminated earlier
as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope
of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of
Services at its sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this
Agreement and the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent
and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by
C ity.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However,
in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project,
each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all
delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten
(10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly
causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such
requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for
unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant
shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under
the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to-
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the
Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in
accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and
subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Three Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($350,000.00) without additional
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the
term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the
work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall
include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief
description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the
Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an
hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures.
City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after
approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in
advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be
limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred
by Consultant:
A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of
any of the services that Consultant agrees to render
pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in
advance by City and awarded in accordance with this
Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments
specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.
4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work
performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used
herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to
be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is
not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of
this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall
be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set
forth in Exhibit B.
4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when
payments made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided
r
for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City
has accepted the final work under this Agreement.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at
all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has
designated Jack Word, Ph.D. to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall
not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in
Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project
without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -
key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written
request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the
necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as
contemplated by this Agreement.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Division.
Tom Rossmiller shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the
authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator
or his /her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters
pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under
this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable:
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such
materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's
work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction
company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the
required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other
reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards
to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under
Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses
the professional and technical personnel required to perform the
services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all
services in a manner commensurate with community professional
standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and
experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any
contractual relationship with City.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall
obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals
of whatsoever nature that are legally required of Consultant to
practice its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants
to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in
effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any
and all licenses, permits, insurance and other approvals that are
legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant
shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the
term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant
be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in
default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or
the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or
disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty
performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions,
officers, agents and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties ")
from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims
for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation,
attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature
whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise
from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work performed
or services provided under this Agreement (including, without limitation,
9
defects in workmanship or materials and /or design defects [if the design
originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities
conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors
and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly
or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or
all of them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to
require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim
arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified
Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any
award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this
Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless
of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not
act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by
the Consultant.
1 0. 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
1 J
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 maintair) at
its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of
liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form
satisfactory to City.
A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of
insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the
insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of
performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of
insurance shall be kept on file with City's at all times during the
term of this Agreement.
B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on
its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.
C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance
Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of
California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher)
and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance
with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise
approved by the City's Risk Manager.
D. Coverage Requirements.
i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall
maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance
with the laws of the State of California. In addition,
Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly
maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employers
Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State
of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any
notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers'
Compensation policies must be received by City at least
thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of
non - payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its
officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising
from work performed by Consultant for City.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall
maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount
not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence
for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage,
including without limitation, contractual liability. If
commercial general liability insurance or other form with a
general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed
under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be
at least twice the required occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall
maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and
property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising
out of or in connection with work to be performed under this
Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one
million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each
occurrence.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance.
Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions
insurance, which covers the services to be performed in
connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of
one million dollars ($1,000,000).
E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability
insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific
language:
The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials,
employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as
additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as
respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials,
employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims,
losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the
Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any
insurance maintained by City, including any self- insured
retention City may have, shall be considered excess
insurance only and not contributory with the insurance
provided hereunder.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional
insured as though a separate policy had been written for
each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the
insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its
elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers.
V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the
policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in
limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days
(10 calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium)
written notice has been received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and
timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or
resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain,
at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance,
which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper
protection and prosecution of the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred
contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale,
assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and
outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general
partner orjoint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a
partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in
changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or
more of the voting power or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the
assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete
the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants
authorized by City to perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit
A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions
of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any
contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create
any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any
monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by
law. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided
under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred,
contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other
writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be
prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and
subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall
become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to
use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to
Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense,
provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to
be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of
completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete
Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at
City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, Further, any and all
liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under
this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against
Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless
City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant
written consent for such changes.
18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the
engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees
that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out
of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone
authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or
readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or
duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by
others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized,
in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to
indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the
modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be
submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file
format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission
requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file
of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in
the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be
kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of
information.
20. OPINION OF COST
Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents
his /her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general
guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor
and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant
does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to
contractor bids or actual cost to City.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including
costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or
copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings
and specifications provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
c
23
24.
25.
26.
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to
be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete
and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this
Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to
City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable.
Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make
transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business
hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents,
proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
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.
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or
professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City
greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or
omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design,
construction and /or restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant.
Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other
sections of this Agreement.
CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
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
e
persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be
materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2)
prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions
that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.
If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the
Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for
immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall
indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages
resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section.
27. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of
this Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and
conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the
third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, first -class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All
notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be
addressed to City at:
Attention: Tom Rossmiller
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
Phone: 949 - 644 -3041
Fax: 949 - 723 -0589
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attention: Jack Word, Ph.D.
MEC Weston
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 931 -8081 or (360) 582 -1758
Fax: (760) 931 -1580 or (360) 582 -1679
28. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that
party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If
such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if
more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the
i�
default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due
performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of
default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to
cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement
forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by
giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the
event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for
services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective
date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On
the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports,
Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the
performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form.
29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes,
ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities,
including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or
hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall
conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules,
regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the
Project Administrator and City.
30. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained
herein, whether of the same or a different character.
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every
kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary
negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
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. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
34. SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or
otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect.
35. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all
matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement
shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange.
36. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall
not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
in
Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
0
Jack Q. Word
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Rev: 08- 30 -04 /da
F:\ users \c at \shared \cathywolco tt \westonps a
�i
,j
Lil
Attachment A — Statement of Work
i
J
J
I
1
J
J
ry
Proposal forAnalytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
R. Introduction /Project understanding
The City of Newport Beach (City) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional
services in support of submittal of the permit application to the Regulatory Agencies (the
Agencies) for renewal of Regional General Permit (RGP) Number 54 (expiring 24 July 2005)
pertaining to navigational dredging in Newport Bay, California. The principal services required
j by the City of Newport Beach to support this submittal include preparing and negotiating the
approval of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); collection and analysis of sediment samples;
preparation of the technical report(s); and assisting the City in presenting the results to the
regulatory agencies for approval of dredged material disposal or beneficial use options. The
MEC Analytical Systems - Weston Solutions (MEC - Weston) team brings over 29 years of
experience in sediment evaluation, watershed science, and permitting process to the City of
Newport Beach to provide these technical services.
The MEC - Weston team will be led by principal scientists Dr. Jack Word, Dr. David Moore and
Lisa Kay who have developed a high level of trust with local and regional agencies and have a
well established reputation for producing high quality data upon which responsive and
'-"
scientifically defensible decisions ca- be made. T hi s rapport facnt t at2d SUCC2SSlul
negotiations
during the City of Newport Beach's previous dredging program when technical issues were
j raised regarding DDT availability from sediment and the increased toxicity induced by
J confounding factors (sediment grain size,or ammonia). Our team's interaction with the Agencies
permitted the project to move forward by addressing these issues in a sound, scientific manner.
I
B. Scope of Services
The MEC - Weston team has developed a sampling strategy that supports the City's RGP 54
application, is built upon scientific rigor, and is responsive to potential issues that may develop.
Our sampling strategy takes advantage of our previous knowledge of Newport Bay sediment
i and the tiered evaluation process to design a cost effective and scientifically defensible
dredging program. For example, using "decompositing" strategy, areas which exhibit toxicity or
unusual chemistry can be selectively isolated and inspected for additional toxicity source
identification as needed. Additionally, collection of sediment /soil from +8 It is above the high tide
line and has not been characterized by previous in -bay sampling programs. This may require
more extensive testing to establish toxicant profiling and addressing Confounding Factor issues
associated with acclimation of land -based soils to aquatic sediment. Also, Tier I exclusion for
some areas may allow which can reduced sampling and analysis as well as reduce the time for
Agency decisions. We also anticipate that Agencies may require that the area within Bayside
l Village Marina be inspected using a more concentrated sampling plan.
J The specific scope of services requested by the City in their RFP includes but is not limited to
the 15 bulleted items. The following paragraphs respond specifically to these bulleted items as
Jwell as indicating potential issues or other items that might need to be addressed.
1. Rev%ew previous sampling and analysis plans and data sets prepared for earlier RGP
applications and other local projects for maintenance dredging in Ne wport Bay.
Newport Bay has been extensively and intensively studied by numerous organizations over the
past 5 years. Studies have included:
• Areas in Lower and Upper Newport Bay, including Lido Island, Linda Isle, Balboa
Island, Bayside Village Marina
• The disposal sites off Newport Bay (LA -3 and LA -2)
Page 1 of 13
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
• Adjacent wetland environments
• Watershed studies of San Diego Creek
• Associated TMDLs for nutrients, sediment and pesticides, restoration projects within
Newport Bay
. Studies of the relationships of fish and invertebrates to Newport Bay sediments
For this task, we will review pertinent technical reports produced by consultant groups including
MEC- Weston, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and the
J USEPA. We will then review all of the SAPS that have been produced over the past 5 years
related to dredging programs conducted for the City of Newport Beach, private organizations or
the USACE. This review will lay the background work for developing a strategic sampling and
J analysis plan.
2. Prepare and negotiate the requirements of 200412005 sampling and analysis plan.
MEC- Weston has performed many of the previous studies for private, local and federal
government agencies producing sampling and analyses plans that have been well received.
i These SAPs addressed potential issues proactively based on our understanding of the broader
j issues as well as the technical requirements needed to address dredging issues. The SAP for
the upcoming permit will be complete and will address issues related to dredging and other
potential concerns that may be raised by the Agencies as well. Likely issues for consideration
j include the availability of chlorinated pesticides to bioassay test organisms (DDT, dieldrin and
chlordane), the difficulties of testing soils with marine organisms, and the influence of
confounding factors on the survival of test organisms (e.g. sediment coarseness, sulfides,
and/or ammonia). Proactively addressing these issues in the SAP will help to expedite the
�J permitting process, since there will be fewer undefined areas of concern when the work is
completed.
3. Mobilize and demobilize field equipment for sedirnent sampling.
MEC- Weston continuously mobilizes and demobilizes for sampling activities throughout the
continental United States as well as outlying island chains in the Pacific (e.g., Hawaii and
Guam). We have multiples sets of equipment and personnel strategically positioned on the west
coast in Carlsbad and Tiburon, California and Port Gamble, Washington. While we are most
likely to mobilize sampling activities out of Carlsbad for work to be conducted in Newport Beach,
we have back -up equipment and personnel that can be mobilized from either of the other
locations to meet project schedules. Because of the nearly continuous need for mobilizing
? equipment for sampling efforts we have incorporated a strong preventative maintenance and
replacement program that maintains our equipment in top condition. Personnel are rotated
through various field project deployments in order to assure that the experience and condition of
crews is maintained at the highest level. Mobilization from any of our locations can occur
without incurring added expenses because of the location of our sampling equipment or
personnel.
4. Based on previous RGP efforts it is anticipated that sediment sampling will be required
at twelve (12) stations.
In 1999, MBC Applied Environmental Systems sampled at 12 locations in Newport Harbor. In
the year 2000, MEC Analytical Systems collected and analyzed sediment samples from 4 areas
within Newport Harbor (Upper Newport Bay, Linda Isle, Balboa Island West and Lido Island
West) with a total of 23 sampling sites representing the 4 areas (Appendix C). The Area 4
Page 2of13
Proposal for Analytical Services for PGP -54 Renewal
composite of 5 stations (West Balboa Island) had no chemical exceedences or adverse
biological responses; Area 1 composite with 7 stations (Lido Island West) had detectable levels
of DDT in sediment but no adverse biological effects. Areas 2 (6 stations at Linda Isle) and Area
3 (5 stations in Upper Newport Bay) composites were characterized by elevations of DDT and
PAH in sediment but only Area 3 had adverse biological effects. All sediments from areas 1, 2
and 4 were considered acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at LA -3. Additional studies by
MEC- Weston in Area 3 reduced the area of unacceptable contamination to a single location
within Bayside Village's Marina, with the remaining sediment being reclassified as acceptable
_i
for disposal at LA3.
—f Based on these previous assessments, we propose to sample the following twelve
sites /transects: four off Lido Island (MEC 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC
4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle (MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport
Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5).
5. LA -3 permanent designation efforts will not be complete i„ tsre for prepa; atron of the
SAP; therefore, reference site samples should be collected for both LA -2 and LA -3
disposal sites.
Sediment will be collected from the designated locations that serve as references for LA -3 and
LA -2. The sediment will be collected using a modified van Veen grab sampler or pipe dredge.
We understand that the actual disposal site for LA -3 may change during the next designation
process but for the purposes of this proposal the locations of the reference sites are N 330
33.20 ", W 1180 10.80" for LA -2 and N 330 26.00 ", W 117° 55.00" for LA -3.
6.. Sediment cores should be collected at prescribed tidal elevations at each sampling
a station. The following elevations along each transect are recommended for sampling., f8
+4, t2, 0, -4, and -8 ftMLLW..
The alternative sampling design proposed in the RFP calls for the collection of 2 ft long cores at
_ each of 6 transact locations per station ( +8, +4, +2, 0, -4 and -8 ft MLLW) using a hand -held
auger for land based sampling and a push core for in water sampling. The locations for the land
based sampling will be determined by measuring the heigYt relative to the tidally corrected
water surface by using a stadia rod located at the bottom of the boat and visibly marking the
tidally corrected +4 and +8 ft MLLW elevations. Personnel on shore will use the stadia to
-i determine the location on shore for these two elevations and then hand -auger at least 2 ft into
the beach face. We anticipate that the +8 ft MLLW elevation will be just above the high tide
mark, near the shore side face of piers or berths.
7. Sediment cores of at least two feet in length should be take; w;t,`, a hard held auger
for land stations or a push core deployed from a small boat of by diver for subtidal
samples. Vibratory sampling has not been required in the Past; however, optional costs
should be pro vided if this sampling method is required as a result of SAP negotiations.
The proposed sampling design outlined above is a refinernent of sampling desions from
previous sampling efforts and allows for the identification of potential contaminant sources from
adjacent land in addition to contaminant concentrations that may only be associated with the in-
water bay environment. We propose to collect sufficient sediment for bioassay, chemistry, and
bioaccumulation determinations on composites of all transact samples at each station location
(see Table 2 -1). We will also archive sufficient individual transect- station sediment to analyze
the chemistry and provide toxicity assessments of these portiors of the composite depending on
test results. It is not anticipated that sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be required for
i
Page 3 of 13
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
individual transect stations based on past test results, but if sediment chemistry indicates a
potential need for further assessment we propose to resample only those locations and transect
stations that appear to require this testing during a subsequent sampling effort.
MEC- Weston is well known for its vibracore capabilities as detailed in the Experience and
Capabilities section. While we agree that 2 ft long cores will not require this method of sampling,
we will provide a daily cost estimate as an option.
8. Each of the 72 samples (or number required in appro ved SAP) should be analyzed for
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size.
All of the individual samples will be analyzed for the conventional sediment characteristics of
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size. In addition, archived samples will be
_ j maintained in the dark at 4 °C to accommodate additional chemistry or toxicity analyses which
may be required should unacceptable contaminant levels or toxicity be identified in any sample
composite.
3. Determine a compositing plan that would allow the City to receive o po,'tial RGP if
certain areas become problematic.
We propose to sample twelve locations under the basic program; four off Lido Island (MEC 1 -1,
1 -2, 1 -4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC 4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle
(MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5). Samples were not
placed inside Bayside Village (MEC 3 -1 or 3 -2) due to the determination that areas within this
marina were unacceptable for unconfined ocean disposal during the past dredged material
assessment. These stations will not be included as a part of the Area 3 composite but can be
sampled as an option based on negotiations between the Agencies and the City of Newport
-' Beach.
Results from past studies In Newport Bay Indicate that sediments from the proposed sampling
stations will be deemed acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at either LA2 or LA3.
However, there is a potential for unexpected results because of the addition of the new test
7 location at +8 ft MLLW specified by the sampling design in the RFP. To our knowledge, this
_f transect position has not been sampled in the past; there is a high potential for bioassay failures
due to testing soils which have not been acclimated to marine conditions. Additionally, the
sampling design calls for samples to be made on transect lines and requires sampling within the
J upper two ft of the sediment surface at each of these locations. This latter aspect is more likely
to detect shoreline contamination derived from land -based operations and may add unknown
complexity to the waterborne contamination issues under examination. Therefore, the MEC-
Weston team has developed a sampling plan that promotes analytical flexibility.
I Our compositing strategy for stations and generalized test types are indicated in Table 2 -1 and
J summarized below. Yellow highlights in columns or rows indicate optional strategies of testing to
address potential issues with acclimation or where past history indicates a potential for
unacceptable adverse effects. The proposed basic program (not highlighted) is designed to
group stations from each of the areas into compositing sequences that are not expected to have
adverse effects; the optional strategies are designed to evaluate sites that could potentially have
an adverse effect that was either noted in earlier investigations or that are expected to have
adverse effects related to the confounding factor of acclimation.
Page 4 of 13
i
i
_i
I
Proposal forAnalytical Services for RCP -54 Renewal
Basic Sampling: Collect and composite sediment from transect stations for each of
the general areas (Lido Island West, Balboa island West, Linda We, and Upper
Newport Bay) that have historically been acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal.
• Optional Sampling: Archive of sediment from Bayside Village that has a recent
history of unacceptable conditions for unconfined ocean disposal. Analysis of this
sediment will be considered should the Agencies and the City establish a need for
analysis.
• Archive Sediments: Sediment at each transect station will be archived in order to:
1) Perform additional chemistry on each of the individual samples within a
composite, if necessary.
2) Provide sufficient sediment to perform bioassays on each station, if
necessary
3) Perform bioaccumulation assessment, if necessary. This would be an
optional task that might be wise depending on negotiation's with Agencies
and the City of Newport Beach.
• Upland Composites: There is a special concern for the upland sediment/soil
collected from the +8 ft MLLW stations within each area that are not acclimated to
marine conditions. Sediment acclimation prior to biological testing may be required
for successful bioassay evaluations.
Table 2 -1. Designation Of Station Transects, Tidal _Elevations For Stations On Transect
And Types Of Samples That Will Be Collected.
TL _T1
_�tauon
Acclimation
lComposite Chemistry,
1 -2
Comp1
Toxicity and
Comp
Composite Toxicity,
1 4
Chemistry
1( +8)
Composite Bioaccumulation,
1 -5
,
Bioaccumulation?
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
2-1
'Comp2
Acclimation
Toxicity and
Comp
I Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
�2 -2
Chemistry
2 ( +S)
Composite Bioaccumulation,
2 5
Bioaccumulation?
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
Acclimation
Composite Chemistry,
mp 3,
Toxicityarid
Comp
Composite Toxicity,
Chemistry
3 ( +S)
Composite Bioaccumulation,
R4-5
(Bioaccumulation?
Archival of individual samples for chem(stryand toxicity
4
Acclimation
Toxicity and
Comp
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
Imp
Chemistry
Bioaccumulation?
4( +S)
Composite Bioaccumulation,
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
31 j
Acclimation
Comp
site Chemistry,
Comp
Toxicity and
Bay
ComposlteToxicity,
3-2
Bay
Chem(stry
( +8)
Composite B(oaccumulation,
Bioaccumulation
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity.
Comp = Composite
Page 5 of 13
7
'9
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
In summary, sediment or soils will be collected at each site in sufficient quantity to create
composites that will permit analyses of sediment/soil contaminants, sediment and suspended
solids toxicity testing, accommodate the potential option for bioaccumulation testing, and
archival of sediment/soil. Archival of sediment/soils will permit chemical analyses and toxicity
testing of the individual composites, if necessary, to address potential adverse effects or
concentrations observed in the composite testing. The compositing scheme will include an
upland composite for each of the areas that will be archived for potential toxicity testing. If
biological testing is warranted for the upland composites, it should be noted that MEC- Weston
has specialized expertise in acclimation procedures used for sediment/soil acclimation to fully
marine conditions before toxicity testing commences. This ensures accurate test results without
introduced confounding factors which would bias test results. Samples will also be collected as
an option at MEC stations 3 -1 and 3 -2 in Bayside Village Marina in sufficient quantity to be
tested for chemistry, toxicity testing and bioaccumulation potential, assuming these areas will be
tested under RGP 54. In all cases, sufficient sediment will be collected to examine individual
station chemistry and sediment and suspended phase toxicity testing assuming that a
composite showed unacceptable effects. This overall strategy permits a "decompositing"
sequencing to segregate effects that may be due to one or two stations rather than fail the entire
composite.
1a Utilize the tiered approach to evaluate the feasibility of ocean disposal of sediment of
appropriate grain size. Historically, DDT and trace element concentrations and amphipod
survival have been problematic -"7 some areas. if ocea^ d.sposal criteria are nct fret at
the tier 3level, then propose an optional tier 4level analysis.
J
The tiered approach to sediment evaluations determines the acceptability of unconfined
—; disposal of dredged material in the ocean. This procedure is governed by the Ocean Disposal
Testing Manual as modified by regional guidance. Under Tier 1, there is a provision for
maintenance dredging projects authorizing disposal at open ocean sites provided that historical
data indicate that the sediment meet the following criteria:
• The sediment has historically been free of contaminants of concern
• The sediment has historically been acceptable for ocean disposal
J • There are no indications of spills or the recent sources of contaminants of concern
• Sediment is primarily sand
The west sides of Lido Island, Balboa Island, and the area around Linda isle are potential
candidates for this type of Tier 1 exclusion. Based on previous studies (MEC 2001, MEC 2002,
i MEC 2003), Upper Newport Bay especially the area near Bayside Village would not meet these
exclusion criteria. We propose exploring the potential option of documenting Tier 1 exclusion for
the first three areas with the Agencies. This may be an acceptable solution for these areas (less
the +8 It MLLW stations). We believe that pursuing a Tier 1 exclusion during this permit renewal
J will set a precedent, allowing the City to exclude these areas from future dredging assessments
during each dredging cycle. This effort requires a Tier 1 evaluation to document the history of
the sites and why the agencies should grant an exclusion and what future sampling events
might be required to continue ongoing surveillance. One of these surveillance items could
J include a portion of the following Tier 2 -3 evaluation of sediment chemistry and
bioassay /bioaccumulation within the proposed composites. We would suggest that a chemical
surveillance assessment could be established during every other dredging cycle with full Tier 3
during the alternate cycle.
i
Page 6 of 13
Proposal forAnalyfical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
The summary of Tier 2 chemistry and Tier 3 biological testing to be performed on each of the
composites and the volume of sediment required from each station is contained in Table 2 -2.
Samples of sediment from each of the 72 locations (plus 2 optional sites) will be analyzed for
conventional sediment characteristics (grain size, total organic carbon and percent moisture)
and will be archived for potential additional chemistry and toxicity testing. These archived
sediment materials will be stored in the dark, at 4_2 °C.
Generally between 10.5 and 13 L of sediment is required from each station to accommodate the
sampling analysis plan that we are proposing. This is equivalent to 4 -5 cores that are 2 ft in
length from each of the stations that are proposed or a total of 360 cores. Sufficient sediment
will be collected to produce a sediment composite representing each area and the area
composites for the upland +8 ft MLLW samples for the basic and extended chemistry list,
bioassay testing and archival. Those areas that require full analytical chemistry and biological
testing will be sampled to provide sufficient sediment for all analyses (a total of 30L of sediment
is required). The majority of the sediment volume is required for bioaccumulation testing, and
bioaccumulation characterization will only be performed on samples collected within areas that
show adverse effects. Therefore, we expect to collect this volume of sediment for the
characterization of the composited areas, but will not archive this amount of sediment at
individual stations. However, these stations /areas may require resampling to isolate any area
demonstrating unacceptable results. Sediment for bioaccumulation testing for the upland +8 ft
composite set of stations is optional depending on negotiations with Agencies and the City of
Newport Beach. The additional costs and time to perform this sampling and analyses are
included as an option that would be implemented during the regular sampling program,
assuming it will be required.
The chemistry analyses that will be performed are presented in Table 2 -2 and include additional
conventionals (ammonia, dissolved sulfides), 10 heavy metals, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and organotins. The toxicity
tests to be performed include sediment testing using the Solid Phase (SP) with amphipods (A)
and mysids (M) and the Suspended Particulate Phase (SPP) with larval bivalves (B), juvenile
fish (F), and mysids. Sediment that will be test for Bioaccumulation Potential (BP) will be
examined using both clams (C) and worms (W). The species to be selected for each of these
biological tests include an amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius), mysid (Americamysis bahia),
larval bivalve (Mytilus galloprovincialis), juvenile fish (Menidia beryllina), clam (Macoma nasuta),
and a worm (Nephtys caecoides). The reasons for selection of these species are as follows:
• Amphipod — E. estuarius was selected because it is an infaunal burrowing test
organism that is tolerant to grain size and salinity differences. It has also been used
successfully on earlier projects for this area.
— Mysid — A. bahia was selected as a test organism based on historical use of this
species in Newport Beach samples as well as nationally for testing SP samples and
because it can also be used to test the effect of the SPP samples. It is possible that
—' a polychaete may be required by the Agencies. If so, either Neanthes
arenaceodentata or Nephtys caecoides will be used.
• Larval bivalve — M. galloprovincialis was selected as a test organism because it is
typically one of the more reliable larval tests and can be used over longer periods of
time. If we are outside of the testing window for this species we would propose using
the echinoderm, Stron_gylocentrotus purpuratus.
Page 7 of 13
�K
I
t
I
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
• Juvenile fish — M. beryllina is a standard test organism that has been used for the
City of Newport Beach as well as nationally. It is a reasonable surrogate species for
water column atherinid fish that are commonly encountered in Newport Bay.
• The clam M. nasuta and the worm N. caecoides were selected for evaluating the BP
of sediment contaminants because they have been used in the past in Newport Bay
and are capable of being tested together in the same tank, thus reducing the volume
of sediment that would have to be collected for this phase of testing.
Page 8 of 13
i
3
Qi
ryrye.
`L
,
QL
i
D
I�
m
J •�
i
! m
J
I
i
1
C
R
O
Q
r
ZZ
ai
S
Z
G
0
1
O
.mIt
.
y
Q
QrI rz
rz
b
y
a
y
m
y
U
C
Q
N
N
N
O U
a
i
y
U
f4
y T E
F c3 U
.-.
X
X
X
O
iS
X
a
X
X
`✓
��
X
�(
� vl
X
`_' �
N
N
N
N
2
Cl
vl N
N
c
X
✓;
� ..a
X
X
��
X
X
N '"
Y,
Y,
�1�.,
a
��
o
X
X��
.�✓C
X
X
^ o
,,.�
X
?C
M �C
� X
✓v�
�"
Y.'
� �
X
X
N '.
X
N
�`
N
� �
X
N .^.
V
Y.
Y.
�
� o
X
X
X
X
I A
C,
° v,
✓�
X
n�
N�
C
I
O
N}
72
EE
L
ti
may„
V
cc
� r I
+
G
U
L)
U
`r
4
v
`r 4
p
J
p
U
%
m
c%;
:J
Io
I a'
N
U)
0-
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
_ Tier 4 Optional Confounding Factor Analysis
Historically, there are areas within Newport Bay that have shown elevated toxicity to marine
amphipods as a result of potential exposure to DDT and its degradation products. MEC- Weston
- (Dr. Jack Word and David Moore) were both participants on the Pellston Sediment Quality
Guidelines Review. A major chapter in that book is on Confounding Factor (CF) Analysis and
the S.T.A.R.R. process developed by Word et al., in Press. In that chapter, the authors describe
a process for working through CF issues and demonstrating the presence or absence of factors
that increase mortality in testing programs that are unrelated to chemicals of potential ecological
concern. That process requires evaluating the Selection of appropriate species, use of
appropriate Testing procedures, Accounting for the influence of potential CF's, Removal of the
CF and testing, and Replacement of the CF with additional testing. This process is driven by
answers to a series of questions, requiring yes /no answers that then lead to additional questions
and responses. The outcome of those questions presumptively identifies the CF which then
becomes the subject of Tier 4 testing programs. Using this procedure we have been successful
interacting with the Agencies, developing acceptable testing programs whose results are
acceptable for pre- arranged interpretation. As the authors of this process, MEC - Weston is
uniquely qualified to perform 'these types of analyses and Interpretations.
The presence of DDT in sediments of the southern California area is an issue that has
historically been a potential problem for Newport Bay. DDT and its derivatives are found
regularly in sediments as a result of their persistence in the environment and the historical use
j agricultural applications. DDT has been identified as a chemical of potential ecological concern
_! for TMDL development for the Newport Bay watershed. There have also recently been
associations of toxicity to amphipods with detected concentrations of DDT in sediment from
upper Newport Bay. MEC - Weston has examined the relationships of sediment containing DDT
to responses with amphipods from multiple locations on the west coast of the U.S. The
responses that were observed in Newport Bay are much greater than the responses that have
been observed at other locations, indicating a potential for CF influences or the presence of
unmeasured contaminants that are present in association with the DDT contaminants to have
an added effect. A CF analysis indicates 1) that either the population of amphipods used for the
Newport Bay sediment testing program was more sensitive; 2) that the DDT in sediment was
not the cause but a co- occurring factor related to the actual cause of the toxicity; or 3) that a CF
is the direct cause of the toxicity and that the DDT concentrations are coincident with but not the
cause of the toxicity. Each of these attributes can be examined under a Tier 4 testing scenario.
We propose to address several issues. First, there is a distinct possibility that the organisms
that were used in these tests were naturally stressed by being captured in low salinity
environments during the winter and before a new cohort had recruited into the collection locality.
We propose to address this issue by acclimating the test organisms to test conditions in a
slower manner consistent with ASTM recommendations (3% salinity /day and 2 °C
i temperature /day from collection conditions) and then test a subset of samples with organisms
that are acclimated with this process and those that are handled using standard adjustments.
Reference toxicant exposures and responses to the sediment should be greater with the
standard rather than the slower ASTM method. For the second issue we propose to sample the
sediment for additional contaminants of potential ecological concern that have been implicated
in toxicity to water column test organisms (organophosphates and pyrethrins). The third issue to
be addressed, potential CFs, will examine the potential influence of sediment acclimation on the
production of ammonia and its influence on survival of the test organisms. In this test, we will
examine the potential increase of ammonia and its resultant toxicity on test organisms while
sediment is becoming fully marine. In two of these scenario's (1 and 3) the resulting toxicity is
Page 10 of 13
Proposal for AnaVicai Services for PGP -54 Renewal
attributable to factors other than those that control disposal of dredged material and the results
can be used to demonstrate compliance with the rules regulating unconfined ocean disposal. In
the second case the cause of the toxicity may be identified as a chemical that is currently not
being monitored in sediment and we may end up adding this contaminant to the list of chemicals
that are examined under chemical characterization.
i
11. Prepare a comprehensive report on the results of the sampling, analyses and
compliance with ocean disposal criteria.
1 Once all data has been validated and analyzed MEC will prepare and submit a Draft Report
_ which summarizes the field work, laboratory work, and technical findings. The Draft Report will
be submitted to the City of Newport Beach within 30 days following completion of the tissue
chemistry analysis from the bioaccumulation tests. Based on review and comments from the
City and the Agencies, MEC - Weston will prepare and submit a Final Report which will be
J
subject to final approval by the City prior to distribution. The report will include:
• An introduction with a brief history and background of the proposed dredging areas
• Color site plans showing locations of proposed dredging, disposal, reference, and
control sites
• Referenced testing methods and protocols
• Tabulated chemical, physical, and biological testing results
• Review of Quality Assurance /Quality Control performance
• Graphic core logs and visual sediment descriptions
• Narrative description of field procedures
• Narrative record of agency meeting, communications, and approvals
j Conclusions regarding suitability of dredged material for disposal
MEC - Weston is well recognized for preparing comprehensive and easily interpreted reports.
This not only applies to final documentation of test results but to all of our technical documents
and presentations made to a wide variety of potential audiences. The success of the past
dredge assessment program was based not only on the quality of the draft and final reports but
also on interim assessments and discussions with Agency and City personnel and our staff
helped maintain the project on schedule even while addressing issues that developed during
testing. Our attention to detail and the internal review practices that our organization relies on
assure our clients that they will receive the highest quality reports.
12 Assist the City in reviewing the report and results with the Regulatory Agencies.
One of the highest values of the MEC - Weston Team is based on our abilities to work with
j Regulatory Agencies. Our organizations interactions with Agency personnel on daily project
activities and our national recognition for understanding complex issues of biological responses
to all types of stress distinguishes our group from all others. This level of interaction will be
Jprovided by Dr. Jack Q. Word from our Sequim, Washington office and Dr. David W. Moore and
Ms. Lisa M Kay from our Carlsbad, California office. All three are nationally recognized for
dredged material or watershed issues and while they work throughout the country will closely
interface with each other, the City of Newport Beach and the Agencies.
Page 11 of 13
4 ^n
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
13. Provide 10 copies of the report to the City.
We will provide the City of Newport Beach with 10 copies of our report.
14. Confer with City staff as needed to complete the above services.
Our team members are available to confer with City staff throughout the course of this project.
jWe will work closely with your staff to ensure we answer all your questions and deliver your
project on time and within the prescribed budget.
1 15. Present conclusions of the study to.City Council, harbor Commission, community
groups, etc.; if needed (an extra compensation item).
MEC- Weston team members have experience presenting study results /reports to both lay and
professional audiences. These include local governments and boards, community and
stakeholder groups, scientists attending technical symposia, local media, and the public at
large.
C. Project Schedule
The table on the next page demonstrates the start date, major task mileposts, and completion
date for this project. It should be noted that the total time frame can be adjusted by performing
certain tasks at the same time that are presented in series on the table. The most likely location
-� for project schedule reductions would be to perform the Tier 1 exclusion evaluation and the
SAP /QAP preparation in parallel. If the Tier 1 exclusion is successful the amount and types of
sampling could be reduced significantly requiring modifications to the SAP /QAP before
negotiating these plans with the Agencies. However, if they are both performed at the same
time the savings could be as much as a four week reduction in the entire program.
I
Our key staff have all committed to managing their workload to meet the demands of this
' project. They are prepared to deliver this project on time and within the proposed budget. For
more information on their availability and proposed hours on this project, please refer to section
F (Study Team).
Page 12 of 13
O
J I
N
�n
N
N
�
N
tO
N
N..
ttl
�
1
m
N
N
`
ro
c
ro.
N
N
I
q
_N
�
N
�
m
�
N
_
C
L
'
c.
m
O
a'
L
N
�
m
m
{
N
a
m
o
N
P d
O
C
22
m'
t5
3
m.O
9
O
a•'�
V
N
L
d
O
U C
_
9
m
£
b
`
� c
m.z
O
m O
N
p N
' O9. =:D
'O' O^'
0 0.0
6Z•�
N d.�
0.'O V
C L 6 U mC 9
d C O
L C
O.,
C y
a
o
E
M
1
m
°I C.n
m E
a mo9pp
.
m ;
H 3� '6 O
m .0 Q O
4 iVJ t
m
Of
m 3 E
¢
O
5
4
16 16
`w
n_
z
J I
T-N .
Attachment B — mcing
I
=f
3q_
mV�
cOo
E E
Eta
E
E
I
Z e�
Cl °
i
=f
3q_
mV�
cOo
E E
Eta
E
E
I
Z e�
Cl °
s
°
E
/n
r
z
0
J
E
-Ell
-I
s
°
E
/n
r
z
0
J
E
s
°
E
/n
r
z
0
J
i
Y
oz
» »
n
a
T
�i��6U
�w
ay.w c��~�3
w °f
_C2'e9
fVOi�a
Vm�V'.- is_n °5maiVa,o
:oc
U
1
YQ
Ij
»
p i
a
J
Q
z
0
z
0
U
I r/
n
a
T
�i��6U
�w
ay.w c��~�3
w °f
_C2'e9
fVOi�a
Vm�V'.- is_n °5maiVa,o
J
Q
z
0
z
0
U
I r/
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
X Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR:
Name of Project: Beach Resoration Dredging (Blanket Permit)
Project Location: Newport Bay, Netitport Beach
Specific:
Project Location -City: Newport Beach Project Location - County: Orange
Project Description: The project consists of dredging certain location in lower Newport Bay, and placing
dredge spoil on beaches for sand replenishment when appropriate, or disposal at an authorized off -shore disposal
location.
Exempt Status: (check one)
D Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1);15268);
D Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
7 Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c);
X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. 15304 —Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land:
Section g exempts maintenance dredging where disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal
regulatory agencies.
D Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
D General Rule (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt: The project is m2imennnrp. rl ed ing where the r n'1 is to he deposited in
areas alithnri7erl h_y alplirahla state and federal enr'Pc
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of NPwrort Rearh
Date of Appoval:
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Harbor Resources Division
Contact PerS Title: Narhor RPCnnrcP_ c Manao
Signatur Te1.No. 9491644- 200 Date: /` /`Oj
�G