HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Dredging Regional General Permit Renewal & Sediment TestingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 12
January 25, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
949 - 644 -3043 or cmiller @newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: DREDGING REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL AND SEDIMENT
TESTING — APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
NEWFIELDS
ISSUE
Renewal of the City's Regional General Permit (RGP -54) for dredging requires analytical
services to examine the quality of sediments proposed to be dredged as required by the
regulating agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with NewFields for sediment analytical services for
the renewal of the City's RGP -54 at a contract price of $112,500, and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
For approximately the past thirty years, the City of Newport Beach has maintained an RGP -54
permit that provides a relatively streamlined process for permitting dredging and dock
maintenance projects between the Bulkhead and Project Lines for the City's residential and
commercial permittees. (See Exhibit A.)
The RGP -54 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 and the California Coastal Commission. This
permit is limited in scope to those projects that require dredging, up to 1,000 cubic yards of
either good quality sand for beach replenishment, or poor quality silts and clays for disposal at
the EPA's designated LA -3 site which is located about 4.5 miles from the entrance channel.
To qualify for the RGP -54, an applicant is required to analyze representative samples from the
proposed dredge area according to the "Green Book" protocol established by the 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. The RGP -54 permit is renewed every
five years, and this testing process is quite costly.
NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing
January 25, 2011
Page 2
The RGP -54 permit is due for renewal in November 2011 and would require sediment
evaluations as soon as possible to support this renewal. However, the City and the Corps
recently completed an extensive sediment investigation in support of the upcoming Lower Bay
dredging project, and many of the areas assessed border areas included in the RGP -54
program. Furthermore, the City is hoping the Corps will be dredging the Lower Bay in the near
future potentially affecting sediment characteristics in the Lower Bay. The City has been
discussing options with the regulatory agencies that would allow taking advantage of the
recently collected Lower Bay testing data as well as the current and historic knowledge
regarding the distribution of contaminants in the Bay. This strategy, if approved, will save
considerable amounts of money and will delay a full testing program for another two to three
years. (As a point of reference, the previous testing effort for the RGP -54 in 2005 cost about
$400,000.)
Based on discussions with the Corps, the maximum time that sediment data would be
considered acceptable for characterization is five years. Because the Lower Bay sampling was
conducted in Spring 2009, the City is proposing to extend the current RGP -54 for 2.5 years to
March 2014. Following the Lower Bay dredging program which is anticipated to be in 2011 -12,
the City would propose to conduct a full Tier III evaluation on all RGP -54 areas for the 2014
RGP -54 renewal effort.
Selection Process
Recently, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the City's website and also sent the
RFP to four consulting firms: 1) Anchor, QEA, 2) Moffatt and Nichol, 3) NewFields and 4)
Weston Solutions. Only these four firms responded. The RFP selection process was based
upon a 'most qualified firm' criteria which included project understanding, demonstrated
knowledge of conditions in Newport Harbor, expertise of the project team on similar projects,
and capability to perform within the proposed project schedule. The fee schedules for these
proposals were submitted in separate sealed envelopes.
The proposal review team consisted of three City and one County personnel who have a
knowledge of these projects and are well versed in technical presentations. A rating /scoring
scale was developed, and the group also met to reconfirm their evaluations. To the credit of the
four firms who responded, the scoring between all of them was extremely close, as each firm
did an excellent job of responding to the RFP.
Scope of Services
The NewFields team was selected by the review team's scoring system as the most qualified
consultant for renewing the City's RGP -54. NewFields brings over 30 years of experience of
working on complex sediment related issues and over 10 years of experience on sediment
related issues in the Newport Beach area. NewFields' staff have conducted the suitability
studies for the two previous RGP -54 renewals, and they have recently completed the Lower
Newport Dredged Material Management Plan for the Lower Bay project, one of the most
comprehensive sediment evaluation programs in the harbor. These large scale programs, as
well as several projects in specific portions of the harbor (West Lido Channel, Marina Park,
American Legion Marina, Bayside Village Marina, and Balboa Marina) have allowed NewFields
to gain a thorough understanding of sediment characteristics within Newport Harbor.
NewFields' Scope of Services is summarized below
NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing
January 25, 2011
Page 3
Task 1. Data Evaluation and Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP): This
process involves preparing a SAP for the Dredged Material Management Team's (DMMT)
review and approval. Previous data will be summarized to determine the level of effort needed
for the renewal. Maps will be created and any chemical thresholds that will be used to determine
if Tier III testing is needed will be defined - an important step before physically collecting the
data.
Task 2. Field Sampling: Once the DMMT approves the SAP, field sampling will occur via a
vessel using a vibracore sampler.
Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis: Chemical analysis will be conducted on 1) all
study composites, 2) on the sample areas that were not sampled in the previous Lower Bay
sample efforts, and 3) on possibly some additional stations depending on the requirements of
the DMMT. Composites will be analyzed for sediment grain size, total organic carbon, and a
suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
and organotins. Results of the analytical chemistry will be compared with concentrations
observed in the previous RGP -54 investigation in 2005. Tier III toxicity tests will evaluate the
potential for biological effects at the disposal site in both the benthic community and the water
column as required by the Ocean Testing Manual.
Task 4. Bioaccumulation Testing: Bioaccumulation testing will be conducted with
composites that show an increase in bioaccumulable contaminants of potential concern relative
to the 2005 RGP -54 samples. (The EPA and Corps require this evaluation when the
contaminants in sediment have the potential to enter the food chain.)
Task 5. Reporting
Task 6. Technical Support for Agency Review
Proposed Fees
Upon selection of NewFields as the most qualified consultant, City staff reviewed their proposed
fees and compared them to the fees proposed by the next two firms in the ranking. At the
conclusion of staff's review, it was found that NewFields proposed hours and rates are
consistent with the current market place. NewFields has proposed to perform the above scope
of work on a time and materials basis at the listed hourly rates (Exhibit B of the attached PSA)
at a cost not to exceed $112,500.
Upon approval of this Professional Services Agreement, NewFields will immediately start
preparing a SAP for review by the DMMT. at their February meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly or indirectly.
NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing
January 25, 2011
Page 4
PUBLIC NOTICE
The agenda item was 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
There are sufficient funds available in the following Capital Improvement Program account:
Account Description Account Number Amount
Newport Harbor Dredging Permit 7231- C4401001 $298,000
The cost for this program will be offset by the RGP -54 application fee that the pier permittee
pays to the City. On November 9, 2010, the City Council approved a cost of services study for
harbor related fees, and the RGP -54 dredging fee is now $1,640 (increased from $500).
Prepared by:
Submitted
Y
,-14
Clkrs Miller to G. Badum
Harbor Resources Manager P blic Works Director
Attachments: A — RGP -54 Project Boundaries
B — Professional Services Agreement with NewFields
NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing
January 25, 2011
Page 5
Exhibit A
RGP -54 Project Boundaries
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC FOR
RGP -54 LOWER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT EVALUATIONS
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ( "Agreement') is made
and entered into as of this day of , 2011, by and between the
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and
NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company ( "Consultant'),
whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2000, Atlanta, GA 30309 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 perform sediment evaluation in support of the Regional
General Permit (RGP) 54 Program.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to provide sediment evaluations in Lower
Newport Bay for RGP 54 ( "Project').
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be William
Gardiner.
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 December 31, 2012 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 ( "Work" or
"Services "). The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its
sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement and the
Services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure
by Consultant to perform the Services in a diligent and timely manner may result in
termination of this Agreement by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to
causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such
delay in the Services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide
notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance
in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days
after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project
Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable
time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's
control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the
circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in
accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's
compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all
reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred Twelve
Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars and no /100 ($112,500.00) without prior written
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this
Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name
of the person who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services
performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it
relates, the date the Services were performed, the number of hours spent
on all . Work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any
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:
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 2
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.
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 William Gardiner to be its Project
Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any
personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project
without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its
personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of City.
Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Harbor
Resources Manager, Chris Miller or his designee, 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:
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 3
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such
materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's
Work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other Services through City's reproduction
company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the
required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other
reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new
facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the Services required by this
Agreement, and that it will perform all Services in a manner
commensurate with community professional standards. All Services shall
be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By
delivery of completed Work, Consultant certifies that the Work conforms to
the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and
local laws and the professional standard of care.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and
expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of
whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its
profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business
license during the term of this Agreement.
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
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 4
(individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner
relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, any Work performed or Services provided under this Agreement including,
without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or
activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors
and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors,
suppliers, subconsultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any
of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant
to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be
construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the
terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless
of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a
limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and
Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting
the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by
statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's
employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the
responsibility for and control over the means of performing the Work, provided that
Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this
Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of
the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only
that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the Services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project
Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Work
to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
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.
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 5
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, 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 contract
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.
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.
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 6
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 one million dollars ($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 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
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 7
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.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be provided
under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out
without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an
assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued
and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or
joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -
venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of
Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -
five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the Work outlined
in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform Work on this
Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts
and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any
contractual relationship, between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation
on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such
subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary
of any Work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care
between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the
Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned,
transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced
(hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 8
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. 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.
19. 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.
20. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Work to be performed
under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with
respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services, expenditures and
disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any
longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall
allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such
records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection
of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
21. 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
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 9
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.
22. 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.
23. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project.
24. 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.
25. 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 Manager.
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949- 644 -3043
Fax: 949 - 723 -0387
All notices, demands; requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed
to Consultant at:
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 10
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed
to Consultant at:
Attention: William Gardiner
Newfields Companies, LLC
4729 NE View Drive
Port Gamble, WA 98364
Phone: 360- 297 -6040
Mobile: 360- 204 -1286
26. CLAIMS
The Consultant and the City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing
requirements set forth in the Contract and Contract documents, the Consultant shall be
required to file any claim the Consultant may have against the City in strict conformance
with the Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 900 et seq.).
27. 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.
28. 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.
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 11
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
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.
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY A California municipal corporation
Date: 1.114 Date:
B'
Leonie Mulvihill
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
By:
Michael F
Mayor
Henn
CONSULTANT: NEWFIELDS
COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company
Date:
By:
Ginger L. Hicks
Chief Operating Officer
Date:
By:
Deborah B
Treasurer
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Schwall
Newfields Companies, LLC Page 13
EXHIBIT A
INEWFILI -- is x
October 5, 2010
Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Division
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Chris,
NewFields is pleased to provide a proposal for conducting the sediment evaluations for
the RGP -54 renewal in 2011. As requested in the Request for Proposals, we have
included three (3) copies of the technical proposal, as well as a fee schedule in a
separate, sealed envelope.
NewFields brings together a team that has extensive. experience in Lower Newport Bay
and is familiar with the RGP -54 program. NewFields is prepared to assist the City in
developing an approach to the 2011 renewal that utilizes the extensive database
compiled by recent studies performed by NewFields and.others to minimize the level of
effort required for this renewal cycle. We understand the schedule requirements for
the RGP -54 renewal and have developed a program that will allow for a continuation of
the permit, without interruption.
We look forward to working with the City and the Dredged Material Management Team
to continue to move sediment - related issues forwards in Lower Newport Bay.
Please let me know if you any questions or concerns regarding this proposal..
Sincerely,
Proposal for Analytical Services for RCP -54 Renewal
A. Introduction
The City of Newport Beach (City) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional
services in support of a 2.5 year extension of the existing Regional General Permit (RGP) 54
pertaining to dredging within the pier -head line in Newport Bay, California. The principal
services required by the City of Newport Beach are to develop a cost - effective approach that
minimizes scope by maximizing the use of existing data; to prepare and negotiate the approval
of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); collect and analyze sediment samples; prepare technical
report(s); and assist the City in presenting the results to the regulatory agencies for suitability
determination for both ocean disposal or nearshore placement options.
The NewFields team brings over 30 years of experience of working on complex sediment -
related issues and over 10 years of experience working on sediment - related issues in the
Newport Beach area. NewFields' staff have conducted the suitability studies for the two
previous RGP -54 renewals and we have recently completed the Lower Newport Dredged
Material Management Plan for the Federal Channels, one of the most comprehensive
sediment - evaluation programs in Lower Newport Bay. These large -scale programs, as well as
several projects in specific portions of the Harbor (West Lido Channel, Marina Park, American
Legion Marina, Bayside Village Marina, and Balboa Marina) have allowed us to gain a thorough
understanding of sediment characteristics with on Lower Newport Bay. This regional
understanding of sediment characteristics within Lower Newport Bay combined with national
and international sediment expertise make NewFields highly qualified to assist the City with the
RGP -54 renewal.
The NewFields team will be led by principal scientists Dr. Jack Word and Mr. William Gardiner
who have developed a high level of trust with local and regional agencies and have a well
established reputation for producing high quality data upon which responsive and scientifically
defensible decisions can be made. This rapport facilitated successful negotiations during the
City of Newport Beach's previous dredging programs when technical issues were raised
regarding the site - specific conditions within Newport Bay. These included increased apparent
toxicity due to fine grain sediment in lower Newport Bay and DDT and mercury availability from
sediment. Our team's interaction with the Agencies has allowed projects to.move forward by
addressing these issues in a sound, scientific manner.
E_l B. Experience
1 NewFields' scientists have been conducting sediment evaluations in the Newport Beach area
for over 10 years and nationally for over 30 years. The NewFields' team strives to combine the
best available science with a consensus -based approach drawing upon years of working with
r clients and regulatory agencies. The following project descriptions provide examples of our
.i experience in conducting sediment evaluations, our development and use of best available
science to move projects. forward, .and our experience in working with regulatory agencies to
gain suitability determinations. The NewFields staff :have conducted- these projects as
NewFields; or as Weston. Solutions or MEC Analytical Systems.
Page 1 of 15
Fill
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Lower Newport Bay Dredged Material Management Program - Federal
Channels
Client: City of Newport Beach and USACE -LA
Contact: Chris Miller and Larry Smith
NewFields worked with the City and USACE to provide technical consulting services in support
of the dredging program. NewFields developed a sampling and analysis strategy to take
advantage of the existing data previously collected by the City. Study areas were defined in part
by those defined in the USACE Federal Channels program, with modifications made based on
information collected in the previous surveys conducted by NewFields in the federal channels
` -t and RGP -54 surveys.
Chemical testing of.the sediment samples showed some areas of the Bay to have elevated
mercury or DDT. However, using program modifications developed in previous programs (using
an amphipod tolerant of fine - grained sediments; using site - specific *DDT multipliers; ensuring
that deeper sand layers were thoroughly sampled), no benthic or water column toxicity was
found that would preclude offshore disposal, and tissue residues were considered to be
acceptable compared to FDA action levels and critical body residue levels. All sediment met the
OTM criteria of suitability. NewFields continues to provide technical guidance to the City and
USACE regarding the observed mercury concentrations and their influence on sediment
management decisions.
Page 2 of 15
I
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Sampling and Analysis of Sediments Supporting the RGP -54 Permit
Client: City of Newport Beach
Contact: Chris Miller and Tom Rossmiller
I
In 2005, NewEields conducted the sampling in the same four areas and stations evaluated in
2000. As found in 2000, some areas were found to have unacceptable amphipod toxicity using
Eohaustorius estuarius. However, it was also noted that sediment in Lower Newport Bay is
dominated by very fine clay (<2 pm diameter). Previous investigations by NewEields had shown
that the clay fraction can influence the outcome of the amphipod tests conducted with
Eohaustorius estuarius (a test species commonly used in Newport Bay evaluations). Amphipod
tests were subsequently conducted with the fine -grain tolerant amphipod species, Ampelisca
abdita. All tests conducted with A. abdita passed suitability for ocean disposal, with the
exception of West Lido Channel due to mercury concentrations in sediments. A subsequent
investigation found that the mercury was associated with fine - grained surface sediments and
was not present in underlying ancient sands.
These findings have been applied to several projects in Lower Newport Bay and have been
successful in separating out the confounding effects of sediment grain size from toxicity due to
COPCs. The 2005 testing effort also isolated tissue chemistry analyte list to bioaccumulative
COPCs found in sediments. This approach significantly reduced the project costs for the RGP -54
sampling and analysis program from the costs in previous years.
�i
_I
Page 3 of 15
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -S4 Renewal
Dredged Material Evaluation for Douglas Harbor Maritsa, Juneau, Alaska
Client: City and Borough of Juneau
Contact: John Stone
Douglas Harbor, located in Juneau Alaska, is undergoing expansion to accommodate increased
moorage demands. The expansion involves removal of existing moorings, creosote pilings, and
dredged material to return the harbor to its original design depth of -14 ft MLLW. Previous
assessments had determined sediment concentrations above project screening levels for
mercury.
NewFields was contracted to design a program that would to verify the concentrations of
mercury present in the sediment and determine if mercury concentrations are bioavailable and
a potential risk to marine life and human health or merely part of the crustal matrix of the
sediments. NewFields evaluated sediments for total mercury and the more available
methylmercury and conducted laboratory toxicity and bioaccumulation tests to determine
bioaccumulation potential.
Results of biological testing showed that the elevated mercury concentrations in the sediment
j did not produce adverse biological effects on the test species that would preclude unconfined
I disposal of the sediments. The final assessment of human health and ecological risk based on
bioaccumulation of mercury into the tissues of benthic organisms indicated that tissue residues
were below the guidance value provided by the state for, consumption of fish and shellfish.
L'I Similar to issues faced in Lower Newport Bay; mercury concentrations were found to be above
ERM levels, but were not toxic and did not show unacceptable uptake into tissues, relative to the
rl reference site. Through extensive negotiations with regulatory agencies and the Port, sediments
will be dredged and placed at the disposal site. The newly exposed sediment within the marina
� will then be capped with clean sediment.
Li
Page 4 of 15
�.a
I
I
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Dredged Material Evaluation for Marina Park Newport Beach, California
Client: City of Newport Beach Planning Department
Contact: Mark Reader
The City of Newport Beach is converting City -owned
property on Balboa Peninsula into a public park. The
Marina Park project includes the expansion of existing
beach areas and marina facilities and the excavation of
uplands and marine tidelands to create a 28 -slip marina.
Prior to project approval, sediment and soils throughout the
proposed marina complex needed to be tested for suitable
disposal options.
NewFields assisted the City s Planning Department in " ..�w' "
developing a sampling approach that would maximize the ,,
beneficial reuse of project sediments and soils. The Soil Coring at Marina Park
objective of this sampling and analysis program was to
characterize the dredged materials from three dredged material management areas within the
Marina Park project area and to evaluate receiver beaches for grain -size compatibility.
Core samples were collected from the three areas for chemical and biological analysis.
NewFields nationally accredited bioassay laboratory conducted aquatic toxicity testing and
bioaccumulation evaluations. Project sediments were categorized into disposal options based
on criteria from the Inland Testing Manual and RGP -67 for nearshore placement and from the
Ocean Testing Manual for offshore disposal. Finer sediments that would found above the
ancient Bay deposits were found to contain elevated concentrations of mercury with sediments
more distant from the nearshore sands having higher mercury concentrations than the
nearshore sands. Upland sands had very low concentrations of COPCs and were suitable for
either beach nourishment or offshore disposal. Compatibility with candidate receiving beaches
was evaluated usingthe grain size envelope approach.
NewFields prepared the dredged materials portions of the City's EIR and has assisted the City in
responses to comments from regulatory agencies and the public, and continues to support the
City as a technical consultant as this project moves forward.
Page. 5 of 15
J
E. i
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Dredged Material Evaluation for the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement
Client: The Irvine Company
Contact: Dean Kirk
The Irvine Company proposed to replace their
existing dock system in Balboa Marina with a
new 102 slip dock, renovating aging structures
and increasing the open area within the
marina by 0.16 acres. As part of the dock
reconstruction project, the Irvine Company
also proposed to increase the water depths
within the marina and its approaches.
Dredging in Balboa Marina, Newport
NewFields was contracted to develop a strategy to determine the suitability of proposed
dredged material and to conduct studies determine disposal options. The marina was
separated into four study units for evaluation. The boundaries and station locations were
selected based on the physical characteristics of the project site (such as bathymetry, current
flow patterns) and the existing and proposed land uses (such as navigation channels, existing
boat slips, and proposed eelgrass restoration sites). Because the predominant flow from Upper
Newport Bay and San Diego Creek enters the study area from the western end of the marina,
sediments depositing from upper Newport Bay sources are likely to distribute in a west to east
pattern. Based on this. pattern, the project area was divided into an eastern, central, and
western portion. The project area also included the channel adjacent to the marina; therefore
a fourth study unit included channel stations only. Test sediment from the four composites,
reference sediment from the LA -2 and LA -3 reference sites, and where appropriate, control
sediment were analyzed following USEPA and USACE guidelines for ocean disposal.
Chemical analyses of the sediment samples indicated problematic concentrations of DDT
analogs in the samples. Biological testing showed no acute toxicity in the benthic or water
column tests with one exception. Bioaccumulation testing showed uptake of DDT by both
clams and worms. For DDT, EPA uses a standard multiplier of 2.9, since it is believed that DDT
does not reach equilibrium during the 28 -day bioaccumulation test. However, NewFields noted
that the mixture of DDT analogs (DDD, DDE, and DDT) is dominated by DDE and DDD, rather
than DDT. Based on EPA data, DDD and DDE are more readily taken into tissues and a site-
specific multiplier of approximately 2 provides a better estimate of total DDT tissue
concentrations. Based on the site - specific multiplier, the stead -state tissue residue estimates
were below human- health derived thresholds and sediments were found to be suitable for
offshore disposal.
Page 6 of 1.5
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
NewFields 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 extensive knowledge of Newport Bay sediment and the tiered
evaluation process to design a cost effective and scientifically defensible dredging program.
Specific components of NewFields approach for the 2011 RGP -54 permit renewal include the
following study elements:
Page 7 of 15
1
I. Maximizing the Use of Historic Data: NewFields' approach will focus on maximizing the
use of historic data to characterize areas for the RGP -54 renewal. NewFields will
review data from the 2009 Federal Channels sediment investigation, as well as other
applicable sediment investigations, to determine whether additional data is needed for
each RGP area. Historic data collected by NewFields and others within Newport Bay will
be put into a GIS database to provide a spatially- referenced dataset. Data gaps within
-.,
the areas covered by the RGP -54 will be identified. Portions of the RGP near areas
found to be suitable for ocean disposal in 2009 would be considered suitable for ocean
disposal for the RGP -54 extension. For areas where no determination was made in
I'
2009 and for portions of the RGP that are not near sediments characterized in 2009, a
tiered evaluation would be proposed. Tier II sediment chemistry would be conducted
j
to determine whether conditions had changed since the previous RGP investigation in
2005. For those areas where the concentrations of contaminants of potential concern
(COPCs) had increased to biological effects levels, additional Tier III analysis would be
conducted.
2. Sample Areas: Previous sediment investigations for the RGP -54 renewals have had four
Study Areas, with samples within those areas composited to create an analytical sample.
However, since only portions of these areas may have data gaps or areas requiring Tier
III sediment investigations, the study areas may be redefined to group stations by
analysis needed, as well as by geographic region.
f ;
3. DDT Tissue Burdens: Based on observations from sediment investigations that
NewFields has conducted in the Balboa Marina and in the Federal Anchorage, sediment
from some portions of Lower Newport Bay may contain DDT analogs. Generally, when
f
contaminants are observed in sediment, the final determination of suitability is based
!_t
on the bioavailability of the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Bioavailability
is determined, in part, by COPC tissue concentrations from the bioaccumulation tests.
For DDT EPA also uses a standard multiplier of 2.9, since it is believed that DDT does not
reach equilibrium during the 28 -day bioaccumulation test. Recent evaluations of DDT in
sediment from Lower Newport Bay by NewFields indicates that because of the observed
f f
mixture of DDT analogs, a site specific multiplier of approximately 2 provides a better
estimate of total DDT tissue concentrations. If DDT analogs are present in #issues from
the bioaccumulation tests conducted, an assessment of risk will be based on site - specific
l
multipliers:
4. Mercury in Sediment: Some portions of _Lower Newport Bay have mercury
concentrations that exceed the NOAA Median Effects Range (ERM). While there is
Page 7 of 15
1
Proposal for Analytical .Services for RGP -54 Renewal
currently no regulatory threshold for mercury in the Ocean Testing Manual, mercury is
an emerging issue for regulating sediments in Newport Bay. NewFields' approach will
pay particular attention to mercury in sediments and would include proposing using a
Newport Bay site - specific trigger value for testing using an approach similar to the
ERL /ERM approach but with effects data collected in Lower Newport Bay. Alternatively,
an extraction procedure may be proposed that targets bioavailable mercury
concentrations and does not include crustal mercury.
5. Sediment Grain Size: Sediment in Lower Newport Bay is dominated by very fine clay (<2
µm diameter). Previous investigations by NewFields have shown that the clay fraction
can influence the outcome of the amphipod tests conducted with Eohaustorius
estuaries (a test species commonly used in Newport Bay evaluations). Amphipod tests
will be conducted with the fine- grained tolerant species, Ampelisca abdita.
6. Sediment Stratiaraphv in Nearshore Areas: Recent sampling programs that NewFields
has conducted in Lower Newport Bay have shown that more recent finer - grained
sediments overlay the ancient Bay sands. In the nearshore areas, such as those portions
of the channel within the pier -head line, cleaner sands may be more dominant than in
the channels. It is important that samples be representative of the sands that may be
present and that the full project depth is sampled. Some sampling equipment, such as
piston cores or box cores, may not fully sample the underlying sand layers. Vibracore
samplers are the best method to sample the full project depth and appropriately sample
the underlying sand layers.
Description of Tasks:
y Task 1. Data Evaluation and Preparation of a SAP — NewFields will prepare a Sampling and
Analysis Plan that will be submitted to the Dredged Material Management Team (DMMT) for
review and approval. NewFields has performed many of the previous studies for private, local
' and federal government agencies in Lower Newport Bay, producing sampling and analyses
plans that have been well received.
As part of the SAP, data collected in March 2009 would be summarized and used to determine
(.. the level . of effort needed for the 2011 RGP -54 survey. Data would be put into a GIs platform
and maps would be provided for each study area indicating where previous data allow for a
determination to be made and where additional data may be needed., Under this task, any
a revisions of study areas or analytical methods would be proposed. In addition, any chemical
thresholds that will be used to determine whether Tier III testing is needed will be defined. It
' will be important to clearly define these thresholds prior to collecting or analyzing test
sediments. Proactively addressing these issues in the SAP will help to expedite the permitting
i process, since there will be fewer undefined areas of concern when the.work is completed.
t Any meetings or negotiations with the DMMT are included in this task.
Task 2. Field Sampling. - Once the DMMT has approved the SAP; NewFields .will collect
.i sediments using a vibracore sampler. NewFields will conduct sediment sampling aboard the
Early Bird II. The Early Bird lI is a 42' research vessel owned and operated by Seaventures Inc.
Page 8of15
ii
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
of Dana Point, California. Sediment will be collected to project depth (generally -8 ft. MLLW
plus 1 ft.) using an electric vibracore sampler equipped with a pre - cleaned 4 -inch diameter
aluminum tube and a stainless steel cutter head /catcher assembly. A polyethylene liner will be
placed in the core tube for each sample. Liners will not be reused for any samples. The Early
Bird II fitted with the vibracore sampler provides a highly effective and efficient work platform
and was able to successfully collect cores to project depth from over 100 stations in 7 days
during the Federal Channels investigation, with no missed stations.
NewFields would propose to conduct all field sampling in one effort, conducting sediment
chemistry analysis within 2 to 3 weeks; allowing for any required data review and biological
testing to he initiated within the 6 to 8 week holding time required by the OTM. This will
minimize field costs and reduce overall project schedule. Reference sediment will be collected
from the LA -3 Reference Site during the vessel mobilization, reducing program costs.
The total number of stations that will be sampled will depend in part on the Task 1 data
evaluation and subsequent DMMT negotiations. Previous RGP -54 investigations have had
approximately 37 stations in four study areas. The level of effort for this survey is expected to
be similar. Sufficient sediment will be collected from each area to allow possible Tier III toxicity
and bioaccumulation testing; however, testing will be conducted after chemistry analysis is
completed.
Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis — Chemical analysis will be conducted on all study
composites, the reference sediment and for individual samples from areas that did not have
representative samples analyzed in 2009. Limited chemical analysis may be required for some
additional stations depending upon the requirements of the DMMT. Test composites will be
evaluated following USEPA and USACE guidance for dredged material evaluation (the Ocean
Testing Manual and the Inland Testing Manual). Composites will be analyzed for sediment
grain size, TOC, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons .(PAHs), chlorinated pesticides (including 2,4' and 4,4' DDT groups),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB aroclors), and organofins. Analytical Resources Inc. (ARI) of
Tukwila, Washington will perform the chemical analysis. This laboratory has conducted
previous studies in the Newport area and we have a close working relationship with their
chemists.
Results of the analytical chemistry will be compared with concentrations observed in the
l -i previous RGP -54 investigation in 2005 and to effects -based levels. For those areas where the
concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) have increased to biological
effects levels, additional Tier III analysis will,be conducted.
1
f.' Tier III toxicity tests will evaluate the potential for biological effects at the disposal site in both
the benthic community and the water column, as required by the Ocean Testing Manual.
Benthic toxicity will be evaluated using an amphipod (Ampelisca abdito) and `a polychaete worm
(Neanthes arenaceodentata). Water- column testing will be performed with the suspended
particulate phase (SPP) test using larval bivalves (Mytilus sp.), juvenile fish (Menidia beryNlna),
Page 9 of 15
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
and mysids (Americamysis bohia). All proposed species have been successfully used in
previous biological tests in Newport Bay sediments. Ampelisca abdito is an amphipod species
that is tolerant of fine- grained sediments and has been used successfully in Lower Newport Bay
tests since 2005.
Task 4: Bloaccumulation Testing — Bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with composites
that show an increase in bioaccumulable COPC concentration, relative to the 2005 RGP -54
samples. USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPCs in sediment to
is
enter the food chain. In order to evaluate the potential for sediment - associated chemicals to
accumulate in tissues of benthic organisms at the disposal site, 28 -day bioaccumulation tests
will be conducted with the clam, Mocoma nasuto, and the marine worm, Nephtys coecoides.
These two species have been used in previous Lower Newport Bay sediment investigations and
can be tested in one aquarium, reducing the level of effort required for bioaccumulation
testing. During the bioaocumulation test, clams and worms are exposed to test sediments for
28 days. Following the exposure period, the test organisms are held for 24 hours in clean
seawater to void any sediment that may remain in the gut. A native control sediment and LA -3
Reference sediment will be tested concurrent to the test treatments. Tissues from each of the
test treatment and reference replicates will be frozen and sent for chemical analysis at ARL
Tissues from the bloaccumulation tests will be analyzed for chemical residues. It is likely that
the analyte list can be refined following receipt of the sediment chemistry results and would
dramatically reduce analytical costs. Previous investigations have indicated that the primary
COPCs in Lower Newport Bay are DDTs, mercury, and possibly organotins. It is possible that the
analyte list could be limited to this subset of analytes. The results of the chemical analyses for
tissues will be compared to the LA -3 Reference data to determine suitability.
Task 5: Reporting: The final report will include a summary of methods used and any deviations
from the protocols, a summary of all field collection activities, sediment chemistry, toxicity and
j_ bioaccumulation testing data, all raw data, reference - toxicant response, summary of water
quality data, and chain- of-custody forms. A discussion of QA /QC results and their implications
on the test data will also be presented. Both electronic (Adobe PDF) and hardcopy versions of
the report will be provided
NewFields 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
1 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. Our staff helped maintain
r� 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.
Task 6: Technical Support for Agency Review - One of the highest values of the NewFields
t,
team is our ability to serve as a. liaison between our clients and the Regulatory Agencies. Our
-I Page 10 of 15
I
f`
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
interactions with Agency personnel on daily project activities and our national recognition for
understanding complex issues of biological responses to all types of stress distinguishes our
group from all others. This level of interaction will be provided by Mr. William Gardiner and Dr.
Jack Q. Word. Both are nationally recognized for their understanding of dredged material
issues. Mr. Gardiner and Dr. Word will be available to work with the City during this program to
help develop a longer term approach that will assist the City with future renewal efforts. This
task is typically billed as time and materials basis.
C. Study Team
The NewFields team will be led by principal scientists Mr. William Gardiner and Dr. Jack Word
who have developed a high level of trust with City of Newport staff and local and regional
agencies. Both Mr. Gardiner and Dr. Word have successfully facilitated negotiations with the
DMMT and regarding the site - specific conditions within Newport Bay. Mr. Gardiner will serve
as the primarily point of contact for the City and will be available for consultation at any point
during the program. The figure below clearly shows the primary responsibility of each study
team member.
Figure 1. Organizational Structure
Field Coordinator
Mr. Jay Word
NewFields LLC
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Division
Chris Miller
Project Manager
Mr. Bill Gardiner
NewFields LLC
Laboratory Manager
Mr. Brian Hester (Bioassay)
NewFields LLC
Ms. Sue Dunnihoo (Chemistry) .
ARI
Page l i of 15
Technical Advisor
Dr. Jack Word
NewFields LLC
Data Analysis and Reporting
Ms, Susie Watts.
Mr. Bill Gardiner
NewFields LLC
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
The information below provides a brief description of each team member's qualifications for
this project. Please refer to Appendix A for complete resumes for each team member.
NewFields LLC
NewFields LLC is an environmental services firm specializing in marine and aquatic sciences,
providing a diverse range of environmental and toxicological services, our firm provides a
complete range of in -house environmental services including study design, field sampling,
laboratory analyses, quality assurance /quality control, data management, modeling and
statistical analyses, and technical report preparation. Our goal is to use high quality data and
science -based analysis to provide sound and defensible management decisions.
NewFields staff includes specialists in sediment management, marine biology, risk assessment,
and regulatory permitting. NewFields scientists have extensive experience in sediment
management in Southern California, as well as throughout the United States. Our staff includes
nationally and internationally recognized experts in sediment management and benthic ecology
j that have conducted hundreds of environmental surveys and sediment testing programs to
support dredged- material evaluations, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, permit
compliance, and post - construction monitoring. NewFields operates a testing laboratory on the
i shores of Hood Canal, which is used to help in assessing site - specific biota - contaminant
relationships. NewFields laboratory is a NELAP certified laboratory. NewFields focuses on the
dynamic interaction between site - specific environmental factors and the interactions between
potential contaminants of concern and biological resources, which allows for improved
sediment management decisions.
( - Key Staff
Mr. William Gardiner M.S. is a partner at NewFields and an experienced environmental
j scientist with expertise in sediment management, marine, estuarine, and freshwater toxicology
and ecological evaluation, ecology /restoration, and scientific sample collection. He has
conducted numerous environmental evaluations of dredged materials, hazardous waste sites,
petroleum- related compounds, and a variety of contaminant and non- contaminant stressors.
Over the past 10 years, Mr. Gardiner has conducted a number of harbor -wide sediment
investigations throughout Lower Newport Bay, including the RGP -54, renewals in 2000 and
..i 2005, the Dredged Materials Management Program for Federal Channels. in 2009, and
evaluations of Marina Park, Balboa Marina, the West Lido Channel, the American Legion
I Marina, and De Anza Bayside Village Marina, Mr. Gardiner has also conducted a number of
7 ecological evaluations and benthic surveys, including food web modeling, population surveys,
and habitat restoration. Over 21 years, Mr. Gardiner has focused on refining estimates of
contaminant bioavailability, effects, and risk by integrating field and laboratory based site-
specific biological and. chemical data. Through an understanding, of multiple environmental
factors that affect contaminant-receptor pathways, Mr. .Gardiner has been able to separate the
I (. effects of confounding factors from those of site - related chemicals of potential concern.
f. f
Page 12 of 15
1
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Jack Q. Word, Ph.D. is a partner at NewFields and is the Director of the Port Gamble
Environmental Laboratories. Dr. Word is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of
toxicology, sediment management, and benthic ecology. He has pioneered research on
understanding multiple stressors to benthic communities and shoreline organisms. Dr. Word's
research has included evaluation of the effects of contaminants on acute and chronic survival,
bioaccumulation, fecundity, and multi - generational effects on aquatic organisms. He has
directed numerous large -scale sediment investigations including the United Heckathorn RI /FS,
Port of Oakland Dredged Material programs and water quality. monitoring, and Port of
Richmond Deepening Program. Dr. Word has extensive experience in sediment management
and alternatives analysis and has served on an international committee on
alternative /beneficial uses of dredged material. With over 35 years of experience in benthic
ecology and sediment management, Dr. Word has specialized in understanding the complex
interactions of physical and chemical environmental factors to better define contaminant -
related effects and improve sediment management.
Ms. Susie Watts is a partner at NewFields and is experienced in marine environmental studies
and is a specialist in project management, database management, statistical analysis, program
quality assurance, and graphic presentation of data. She is responsible for the design and
implementation of large and complex environmental databases involving physical, chemical,
and biological parameters. These databases have been developed for diverse projects ranging
from deep -ocean remote monitoring to shallow water wetland analysis, and must frequently
jmeet the needs of national government standards. Ms. Watts has experience in all aspects of
environmental monitoring. Her experience includes data analysis of laboratory testing of
l sediments collected in Newport Bay for USACE and the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Watts has
served as project manager for the Southern California Bight Regional Sediment Monitoring
Program, the Port of San Diego Regional Harbor Water Quality Monitoring Program, 301h
water- quality monitoring programs for Orange County Sanitation Districts, and the Central
Coast Long Term Assessment Network (CCLEAN) Program in Monterey, California. Ms Watts
t has developed methods of displaying scientific data that integrate statistical methodology,
modeling, mapping, and animation to explore spatial and temporal relationships among
-i sampling parameters that aid in explaining complex scientific data to abroad audience, both
technical and non- technical.
Mr. Brian Hester is the manager of the marine laboratory at NewFields in Port Gamble,
Washington and has over 11 years of experience in laboratory testing of waters and sediments.
Mr. Hester is has extensive experience in biological testing methods supporting national and
{, regional testing program for sediment, water, and effluents. Mr. Hester manages national and
. [ international dredged - material management programs including sediment programs in the
Southeastern US and Puerto Rico. Mr. Hester specializes in modifying existing methods and
developing testing methods in order to better understand the relationship between receptors
i..� and contaminants of potential concern. Mr. Hester also leads the laboratory certification
program at NewFields.
j Mr. Jay Word serves as the Field Operation Manager for NewFields in Port Gamble. 'Mr. Word
has extensive experience in field operations and logistics including sediment core and grab
7 sampling, water sampling, benthic and midwater trawls, and scientific diving. Mr. Word has
F1 Page 13 of 15
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
developed custom sampling equipment for sampling efforts in the Arctic and in isolated tropical
environments. Mr. Word has served as the Chief Field Scientist for sediment sampling efforts in
Lower Newport Bay, including the RGP -54 renewals in 2000 and 2005, the Dredged Materials
Management Program for Federal Channels in 2009, and evaluations of Balboa Marina and the
West Lido Channel
Ms. Sue Dunnihoo (ARI) is a co- founder of Analytical Resources, Inc. and has over 28 years of
experience in analytical chemistry, with a specialty in GC /MS analysis. Ms Dunnihoo has
directed the chemical analysis for the RGP -54 sediment investigation in 2005, the Federal
Channels investigation in 2009, as well as the sediment evaluations for the Marina Park and
Balboa marinas. She has assisted NewFields in interpreting chemical results and has developed
extraction methods under Newport Beach programs that have helped to remove interferences
in DDT analysis. This has resulted in more accurate reporting and lower overall DDT
concentrations. She is responsible for oversight of client services including Project
Management and Sample Receiving, and serves as a Project Manager to clients requiring
specialized analyses or research and development. Ms. Dunnihoo has overall responsibility for
database administration and data transfer.
D. Project Schedule
1 NewFields has a thorough understanding of the City's timeline for RGP -54 renewal. Where
possible, study elements will be accelerated to allow a timely completion of study objectives.
Within one week of notice to proceed, NewFields will begin to compile previous datasets and
i prepare the SAP. Once the SAP is complete, it will be submitted to the City for review and
approval. Upon approval, the SAP will be submitted to the DMMT agencies. Every effort will be
made to synchronize the delivery schedule with the DMMT meeting schedules. Past SAP
reviews by the DMMT have required 4 to 6 weeks; however, this is dependent upon their staff
availability. Field sampling will occur within 3 weeks from receiving the NTP from the agencies.
�I This schedule is driven in part by the availability of sampling vessels.
Sample processing and chemical analysis will begin immediately following the field sampling.
All chemical analysis will be completed within 2 weeks of the completion of field sampling.
Determination of samples needing biological testing will be made upon receipt of chemistry
results. Biological testing should be complete within '8 weeks of the completion of field
sampling. Data will be reviewed for accuracy and then submitted to the agencies for review.
NewFields will meet with the City and the agencies to determine the appropriate. tissue
chemistry analysis based on the sediment chemistry and bioassay data. This process typically
requires 2 weeks, provided that the agency staff are available for consultation. Once the tissue
analyte list is determined, tissue chemistry will require 4 weeks to complete.
The draft report will be submitted to the City four weeks after validation of the tissue chemistry
data. The draft report be available 26 to 28 weeks after the NTP, provided that the review
periods by the agencies and the City are within the time periods provided above.. NewFields
will provide a final report within 2 weeks of receiving comments from the City. Assuming
Page 14 of 15
t:
f
4.
tF
fl
;...1
li
I�
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
receipt of a NTP soon after November 9, 2010 and all City and agency reviews are performed
expeditiously, the project would be completed by the end of May, 2011.
The timeline can be compressed somewhat by requiring faster turnaround times from the
analytical laboratories. This typically increases the analytical costs. Other portions of the
timeline may occur more quickly if the agency response times are faster than anticipated.
E. Exceptions
We have reviewed the standard Professional Services Agreement provided in your RFP and
hereby certify our ability to execute this agreement and comply with the City's insurance
requirements.
F. Cost Proposal
Our cost proposal is submitted in a separate sealed envelope (as requested in your RFP) and is
therefore not included in this part of the proposal. .
Page 15 of 15
i
NewFields is please to provide a fee schedule for the proposed sediment evaluation in
support of the RGP -54. As indicated in the RFP provided by the City of Newport Beach,
the fee schedule here provides hourly rates, unit costs for sampling, analysis and
evaluation, and a total not -to- exceed fee for the entire program.
Estimated Costs
This section outlines the estimated costs, by task, as described in the technical proposal.
Table 1 provides hourly rates for staff. Table 2 provides unit costs for vessel support,
chemical analysis, and biological testing. Table 3 provides estimated costs by tasks
based on an assumed number of samples and a total not -to- exceed amount for the
entire program.
Table 1. Hourly Rates for NewFields Staff
Technical Director
Jack Q Word
$175
Senior5cientist
Susie Watts
$140
Senior Scientist
Bill Gardiner
$140
Senior Scientist
Meg Pinza
$140
Laboratory Manager
Brian Hester
$100
Scientist It
Cindy Word
$85
Scientist 11
Bridget Gregg
$85
Scientist 11
Jay Word
$90
Scientist I
Collin Ray
$70
Scientist I
Mary Bacon
$70
Laboratory Technician
Hillary Eichler
$45
Laboratory Technician
Julia Levengood
$45
Table 2. Unit Costs for Field and Laboratory Activities
FreidE Sampling = " *'
Vessel and Captain
$1500 per day
Vessel Crew
$1000 per day
Vibracore Rental
$250 per day
Shipment of Samples
$400 per cooler
z 4 Analytical Chemist ti
Sediment
TS/TOC
$48
Grain Size
$90
Total Metals
$187
Butyltins
$260
PAH
$174
CI -Pest
$176
PCB
$134
DDT only
$G3
Hg Only
$38
Tissues
Tissue Homogenization
$19
Lipid
$71
DDT
$155
Hg only
$40
Total Metals
$155
Butyltins
$281
PAH
$185
CI -pest
$179
PCB
$189
Water - Column Test —Larval Bivalve
$1,165
Water - Column Test - Fish
$1,275
Water.Column Test - Mysid Shrimp
$1,175
Benthic Test - Amphipod
$995
Benthic Test - Polychaete
$1,050
Bioaccumulation Test with Clam and Worm
$2,200
Estimated Costs by Program Task:
The total not -to exceed cost estimate is based on costs associated with six program
tasks, as outlined in the technical proposal. The actual scope of the program will be
developed as part of Task 1 and will require DMMT approval. As such the actual costs
for each task may differ from those presented on Table 3. However, the estimated costs
by task are based on several analytical scenarios and the total not -to- exceed cost is
expected to support the eventual program. The total estimated not -to- exceed cost for
all activities associated with the RGP -54 renewal is $112,500.
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task
Task $ k
figµ Costf�oTask
Task 1, Data Evaluation and Preparation of a SAP
$12,500
Task 2. Field Sampling
$24,000
Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis
$35,000
Task 4: Bioaccumulation Testing
$20,000
Task 5: Reporting
$16,000
Task 6: Technical Support for Agency Review
$5,000
Total Not to Exceed Amount
$112,500
Incidentals:
Incidentals.are included in the hourly rates and fixed rate unit costs and will not be
billed separately.
NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing
January 25, 2011
Page 5
Exhibit A
RGP -54 Project Boundaries
IL,