HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-181 4
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN
ENGINEERING DESIGN & PERMITTING
AMENDMENT NO . 9 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, INC., AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
This is an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (AGREEMENT)
dated April 27 , 1999 , between Applied Technology and Management, Inc . (CONSULTANT) and
Indian River County (COUNTY) . This amendment addresses changes in "Section III — Scope of
Services" and "Section V — Compensation".
Amendment Description
This Amendment includes the following changes to "Section III — Scope of Services'
The CONSULTANT shall complete the modified scope of services items in accordance with
tasks described in Exhibit "A"
This Amendment includes the following changes to "Section V — Compensation" :
Section V is being revised in response to Section III changes . The charges associated with the change
in project scope are in accordance with Exhibit "A". The Section of the original AGREEMENT
entitled "Section V- Compensation" shall be revised to include compensation due to
CONSULTANT as outlined in Exhibit "A".
This AGREEMENT is hereby amended as specifically set forth herein. All other sections of
the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect, and are incorporated herein.
This Amendment No . 9 to the AGREEMENT regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed by the laws of the State of Florida.
1
In witness whereof the parties have executed this Amendment this 1 0th day of
.Ligu,s2004 .
Applied Technology & Management, Inc . Indian River County, Florida
2770 NW 43rd Street, Suite B 003 ' 1,Board of Court �omniis40� '
Gainesville, Fl 32606 - 7419
B
Arthur R . Neu ergg,' '� 1 :17 rp , '
Michael Jenkins, Ph . D . , P . E . rolio-B_ 4Gi ,•
Coastal Engineering Team Leader BCC Approved : us
Au t ,fi�,�d+ l'
g 4 ,,a
WITNESS •
Atte 1
WITNES-S : Jeffery K. Barton, Clerk of Court
_ _
iuorporate seat is acceptable in
glace of v-Atnesses ) PPROVED :
tomy A ministrator
J eph A . Baird
A
S TO FORM
UFFICIEby 0-0E . FNTY ATTORNEY
Indian River County Approved Date
Administration G �
Budget 7/�!
Legal
Risk Management
�T2lro
Public Works
71
Coastal Eng.
2
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND PROJECT COSTS .
3
SCOPE OF WORK
Indian River County Beach Preservation Projects
Development of No -Impact Design and
Permit Authorizations for Sector 7
INTRODUCTION
Following submittal of the Joint Coastal Permit Application fort he Indian River County
Sector 7 Beach Preservation Plan , the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
( FDEP) determined that the proposed project impacts to nearshore hardbottom were not
consistent with current FDEP policy. Further coordination with the FDEP resulted in the
development of a no-impact design which would in principle be consistent with FDEP
policy and eligible for permitting .
Efforts detailed herein provide for the tasks required to develop the no-impact design to a
level sufficient for submittal to the regulatory agencies and the additional coordination
required for the permit review process of this new alternative .
TASK 1 SECTOR 7 DATA COLLECTON
Beach and offshore profile data will be collected at intermediate locations within Sector
7 . Profiles will be taken at a roughly 250 foot longshore spacing between FDEP
monuments R- 102 and R- 105 and at a roughly 500 foot longshore spacing between R-
100 and R- 102 and between R- 105 and R- 107 (20 profile lines total ) . This data will be
collected in conjunction with the County-wide profile data collection effort scheduled for
late summer 2004 . Aerial photography of Sector 7 will also be acquired as part of this
task . This data will provide a comprehensive assessment of the Sector 7 current
physical conditions that are required as input for the evaluation and analysis of the no-
impact design .
TASK 2 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
This task includes additional analysis and modeling efforts required to fully develop the
no-impact design , optimize project performance , and provide assurance to the regulatory
agencies of the potential for impacts due to the project.
Task 2 . 1 Develop Final Design Template
Design c ross s ections w ill b e d eveloped u sing t he results of t he 2 004 p rofile s urvey.
Placed volumes will be optimized based on an evaluation of profile equilibration . Design
profiles will be developed to avoid direct and secondary coverage of nearshore
hardbottom resources .
Task 2 .2 Project Performance Modeling and Reporting
Further evaluation of impacts to nearshore hardbottom will be required in support of this
project. Impacts to hardbottom represent the most significant issue to project permitting
and design . ATM will assess the performance of the project and impacts to hardbottom
based a comprehensive modeling effort. The GENESIS shoreline model will provide a
basis for the study. Given the limited output of this model , an additional algorithm will be
used to project the beach profile from the predicted shoreline position in the cross-shore
direction . Equilibrium profile theory will be used to calculate this cross-shore profile
projection . The time dependent toe of fill will be evaluated based on the intersection of
the projected profile with the existing bottom topography. Additional analysis will be
conducted to ensure that the toe of fill predictions are in line with the anticipated
volumetric performance of the shoreline . The resulting composite model will be used to
evaluate the time-dependent coverage of nearshore hardbottom within the project area .
Both primary and secondary coverage mechanisms will be considered . Project
alternatives that minimize hardbottom coverage will be included within the analysis .
Task 2 .3 Scan and Rectify 2004 Aerials
Upon acquisition , the 2004 aerials will be rectified for use in plan development and
determination of hardbottom location .
Task 2 .4 Reassess Nearshore Hardbottom Resource Impacts
Acceptance of the no-impact design by the regulatory agencies is contingent on an
adequate assessment of the nearshore hardbottom resources and the potential impacts
of the project to these resources . Based on the modeling of the project performance ,
impacts to nearshore hardbottom resources will be minimized through modification of the
project fill plan . This analysis will include an assessment of the ephemeral nature of the
nearshore hardbottom .
Task 2 . 5 Revise Project Cost Estimates
Based on the results of the project performance modeling , project costs will be revised
and updated . This task will include a re-evaluation of the renourishment interval for
project cost optimization .
Task 2 . 6 Prepare Final Design Letter Report
A letter report detailing the results of Task 2 . 1 through Task 2 . 5 will be developed and
submitted to the County for review. Following comment from the County this report will
be included within the permit application modification package provided to the regulatory
agencies .
TASK 3 MODIFICATION , PROCESSING , AND ACQUISITION OF JOINT
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR SECTOR 7
ATM will develop a modification to the JCP permit application currently under review by
the FDEP based on the no-impact design . ATM will assemble and maintain , in
chronological order, all letters and reports applicable to the Project Permit
Correspondence for the County. ATM shall continue telephone and written
communication with the State of Florida , Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ) ,
USACE Jacksonville District and County sufficient to coordinate agency review of the
Joint Coastal Permit Application modification .
Task 3 . 1 Permit Processing/Coordination with Indian River County and FDEP
Staff
It is anticipated that significant coordination will be required with the County and the
various regulatory agencies . This task includes one meeting with FDEP staff ( in
Tallahassee) .
Task 3 .2 Prepare and Submit Permit Application Modification
Based on the additional analysis and modeling detailed within Task 2 . 1 to Task 2 . 6 a
modification of the permit application will be developed and provided to the FDEP for
review and comment .
Task 3 .3 Respond to FDEP Request for Additional Information
Based on the changed design , it is anticipated that FDEP staff will raise a number of
new questions and issues regarding the project. These will be provided to the County in
terms of a Request for Additional Information ( RAI ) . ATM will review the RAI comments
with County staff and prepare a response . Cost estimates for this task are based on an
expected labor hour level of effort , as it is not possible at this juncture to ascertain how
many questions will be asked , or the in -depth nature of the information requests
contained in the Request for Additional Information . The level of comment by state
agencies may be excessive due to unforeseen issues and changes in the rules and
policies of these agencies and the resulting need for additional information .
Task 3 .4 Respond to FDEP Second Request for Additional Information
Based on previous experience with project permitting and the numerous issues
associated with nearshore hardbottom , a second Request for Additional Information
( RAI ) based on the no- impact design is anticipated . ATM shall expeditiously review and
respond to the initial Notice of Incompleteness (also referenced herein as RAI ) by first
reviewing the RAI items with County staff. Thereafter, the items will be discussed with
DEP technical staff as necessary, item priority will be established , and the necessary
written and/or graphical information to adequately respond to the RAI will be prepared .
Assuming no additional field data acquisition is required and no numerical or analytical
model simulations are necessary to prepare the response , ATM will respond to this RAI
within 30 days of receipt from DEP . This timeframe shall include preparation of a draft
response and review/modification of the draft with County staff prior to submittal to the
DEP . Additional field data and/or numerical model simulations are not considered as a
component of the scope of work associated with this task unless otherwise specifically
stated herein . Such services will be dependent upon agency requirements and will
require that ATM prepare a separate scope of work and fee proposal for County
approval prior to initiating such work .
TASK 4 COORDINATION AND PERMIT PROCESSING - USACE
Task 4 . 1 JCP Coordination with USACE
Adoption of the no-impact alternative will require further submission of documentation
and coordination with the Corps of Engineers ( USACE ) and other overseeing federal
regulatory agencies . It is anticipated that one additional Request for Additional
Information ( RAI ) will be required as part of the federal permitting process . ATM will
review the RAI comments with County staff and prepare a response . Cost estimates for
this task are based on an expected labor hour level of effort, as it is not possible at this
juncture to ascertain how many questions will be asked , or the in-depth nature of the
information requests contained in the Request for Additional Information ,
Task 4 .2 Alternative Inclusion in EIS Documentation
ATM will prepare documentation regarding the no-impact alternative suitable for
inclusion within the Sector 7 EIS . ATM will coordinate with the pertinent federal
regulatory agencies regarding the no-impact alternative inclusion within the EIS .
FUTURE TASKS
Tasks delineated within this Scope of Work address issues regarding the design and
permitting of the Sector 7 project . Post-permit tasks including the development of plans ,
specifications , and pre-construction monitoring requirements are not included within this
scope .
Indian River County Beach Restoration Project -
Sector 7
(No-Impact Design and Permitting)
i
f
ATM ATM Other
Management fee Direct Costs
Task Description and Breakdown Morgan & Total on ATM Total (ODC's) & Total Task
US Imaging Eklund Subcontractor Subcontractors Labor Equipment Budget
Task 1 Sector 7 Data Collection
1 . 1 Beach and Offshore Profile Surve Summer 2004 10 000 10 000
1 .2 Aerial Photo rah $500 870 3 $ 11 , 730
Total Cost - Task 1 2 475 $2,475 124 870 700 $4169
$2,475 $101000 $129475 $624 $1 ,740 $1 ,060 $15,899
Task 2 Sector 7 Design and Anal sin
2. 1 Develo Final Desi n Tem late $0 0
2 . 2 Post-Pro'ect Performance Modelingand Reporting 0 0 $7010 $360 $7, 370
2 .3 Scan and Partifu 2004 aerials 0 0 $0 0 17 800 700 $ 18 . 50
2 .4 Reassess Nearshore Hardbottom Resource Impacts 0 3 550 $3, 550 $ 178 1 710 150 5
588
2 . 5 Revise Project Cost Estimates 0 $0 $0 0 $2 480 $230 2 710
2 . 6 Pre are Final Design Letter Report $0 0 0 0 2 120 230 $2 ,350
Total Cost - Task 2 $0 $0 so 0 $4960 400 $51360
$0 $39550 $3,550 $178 $36,080 $2,070 $419878
Task 3 Modification, Processing & Ac uisition of Joint Coastal Construction Permits for Sector 7
3 . 1 Permit Processin /Coordination w/IRC & FDEP 0 0 $0 0 4 840 600 5 440
3 .2 Prepare & Submit Permit A lication Modification 0 0 0 0 $4 740 1 600 $5 740
3. 3 Res and to FDEP Req , est for Additional Information 0 0
3 .4 Res and to FDEP Second Request for Additional Information 0 $0 9 650 880 $ 10, 530
Total Cost - Task 3 0 so 0 0 $7020 480 7 500
$0 $0 $0 $0 $34,250 $2,960 $379210
Task 4 Coordination and Permit Processing - USACE
4 . 1 JCP Coordination w/USACE 0
4.2 Alternative Inclusion in EIS Document 0 0 $0 $0 $ 1 , 940 $300 2 240
Total Task 4 $ so 0 930 8001 730
$0 $0 $0 $0 $25870 $1 , 100 $3,970
Total Cost -
$2,475 $131550 $169025 m $801 $740940 1 $7, 190 1 $98,956