HomeMy WebLinkAboutDuck Pond Pt to Horton Pt Benefits Analysis Jan 1998Proposal to Provide
Benefits Analysis,
Duck Pond Point
to Horton Point
Submitted to:
Town of Southold
January 15, 1998
URSGreiner
In Association with
The Greeley-Polhemus Group
URSGreiner
URS Greiner, Inc.
Mack Centre II
One Mack Centre Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652-3909
Telephone: (201) 262-7000
Facsimile: (201) 262-9199
Offices in Principal Cities Nationwide
January 14, 1998
Ms. Betty Neville
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Benefit Analysis, Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
Dear Ms. Neville:
URS Greiner, in association with the Greeley Polhemus Group, is pleased to submit our proposal and
qualifications for the Duck Pond Point to Horton Point Benefits Analysis. As demonstrated by our staff
qualifications and our project experience, URS Greiner is uniquely qualified to complete ail aspects of the
study. In specific response to the selection criteria we offer the following:
1. Our exceptional experience in conducting coastal benefit studies along the coast of Long Island over the
past 15 years.
2. A staff which has demonstrated their expertise in numerous completed projects.
3. An analysis procedure which has been tailored to provide results directly applicable to optimization and
plan selection.
4. A work plan which cost effectively applies the latest technology.
5. The resources of one of the largest Architect/Engineering firms in the nation, with a documented history
of completing projects on time, and on budget.
As you review this package we hope you agree that our experience and technical approach will provide an
exceptional value to the Town. We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal end we look forward
to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
URS Greiner, Inc.
Michael G. Cannon
Project Manager
cc: T. MacAllen
V. Polhemus
MGC:pec
Table of Contents
1. Bidder's Information
2. Proposal
a. Work Plan - Overall Approach
- Schedule
- Specific Products
b. Total Proposed Cost
3. Information on the Individuals
- Name and Title
- Project Role
- Technical qualifications/experience
- Years with URSG
4. Projects and Experience
5. References for Projects
- Name of Organization
- Mailing Address
- Contact Person
- Telephone Number
- Project Title
6. Evidence of Financial Stability
7. Subcontractor Information
6ngner
Bidder's Information
Prime Contractor:
URS Greiner, Inc.
Mack Centre II
Mack Centre Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Michael G. Cannon
(201) 262-7000
Subconsultant:
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc.
105 South High Street
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382
Phillip R. Hopkins
(610) 692-2224
Proposal
Introduction to URS Greiner
URS Greiner, Inc. (URSG), is one of the nation's largest multi-disciplinary
professional services organizations dedicated to developing and implementing
creative solutions to a wide range of environmental and infrastructure problems.
URS Greiner ranks as the 19th largest design firm and lhe fifth largest
transportation engineering firm in the United States. The firm employs
approximately 3,000 engineers, architects, planners, environmental scientists,
construction specialists, technicians, and support personnel in a network of over
60 offices throughout the US and abroad. Local offices can draw upon the
resources of this extensive network as needed to meet any combination of
specialized project requirements. When necessary, URSG can pool the resources
of multiple offices to meet the requirements of large, complex, multifaceted
programs.
URSG's Paramus, New Jersey office provides a staff of more than 125
personnel, and if necessary, can draw from the additional 250 professionals
employed by our nearby New York office.
Combined with direct access to a national network of diversified expertise,
URSG is able to provide our clients with specialized services. We assign those
individuals best suited to the unique features of each project. This customized,
personal service results in a quality project at a competitive price.
Proposal (Page 2)
Work Plan
Overall Avvroach
The basic approach of the study will be to:
a) collect and review available information
b) conduct field data collection
c) Evaluate existing condition damage and resource values
d) Project future damage and resource values assuming no action
e) Project future damage and resource values for various alternatives
f) Compare the value of resources with and without each alternative to identify
Specific techniques have been identified to evaluate each major resource. The
selection of techniques considered how to attain a synergy with ongoing studies
on the South Shore of Long Island. These concurrent efforts for the Corps of
Engineers reformulation study include a building inventory and a recreation
survey. For physical development such as land, buildings and infrnstmcture, life
cycle damage simulations are considered the appropriate technique. When
compared to probability weighted techniques, simulations allow a more refined
assessment of variations in storm patterns and structure rebuilding limitations.
Tax revenue impacts will be evaluated based on assessed values and tax rates.
Adjustments will be made for future development, damage or acquisition.
The assessment of recreation benefits will utilize contingent valuation method
(CVM) techniques. This direct measurement approach is considered the most
appropriate technique to identify differences in future recreation values. In order
to avoid double counting habitat and/or damage reduction values, the recreation
assessment will be limited to the value people place on the actual 'use' of the
resource. 'Existence' values associated with the continued presence of the
resource will not be considered. Survey respondents frequently incorporate
habitat and storm protection values into an 'existence value', resulting in double
counting of benefits. This approach is consistent with current Corps of
Engineer's policy which no longer recognizes extreme values for recreation
studies. The valuation of natural resources will utilize benefit transfer
techniques to provide the most cost effective results.
These procedures provide a technically sound, cost effective approach to meet
the project objectives. More detailed descriptions of the data collection and
analysis techniques are provided in the following sections.
TASK 1.0 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
1.1 Site Inventory
URS Greiner will collect and review existing data applicable to the project. The
existing data, particularly the Historic Shoreline Assessment and the
Environmental Inventory, will be evaluated to ensure compatibility between the
Proposal (Page 3)
various study components. Issues such as maintaining consistent baselines and
reach delineations for measuring shoreline change or storm erosion must be
resolved at the initiation of the inventory.
One of the most critical items of data necessary for a successful project is the
availability of base mapping which meets the necessary accuracy requirements.
It is assumed that a three way license agreement will be signed by Suffolk
County, the Town of Southold and URS Greiner. The license agreement will
allow us to utilize Suffolk County's existing ARCINFO database which contains
tax and property boundary information. Additional topographic maps t~om the
NYS DOT may also be utilized to support the on-site inventory.
Specific properties within the study area will be identified and a database of
owners, mailing addresses and property values will be developed. Depending
on compatibility with available ARCINFO files, it is anticipated that the data file
will consist of a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet with dynamic linkages to the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS). This data format will allow use of an extensive SAS
library of storm damage assessment algorithms developed for COE studies at
Fire Island to Montauk Point and the community of Bayville. It will also allow
use of risk simulation routines developed using the ~RISK add in to Lotus 123.
Before conducting a field inventory of development, proper~y and structure
setback data will be measured f~om the base maps. The measurements will
reflect distances t~om both the shoreline end the Erosion Hazard Line for use in
erosion damage risk calculations and the evaluation ofrebnllding limitations.
Based on available topographic data, areas subject to potential flood or wave
damages will be identified. A 'windshield' site inventory will be conducted in
these areas to identify important damage parameters for each structure. Among
these important factors, available only through a site inspection, are the first
floor, lowest opening and ground elevations, the type of foundation and
construction material, and the presence and condition of protective features such
extended or armoured foundations. ~he buildings will be categorized according
to the appropriate flood, wave, and erosion damage relationship to be applied in
the analysis phase.
Based on current zoning regalations and recent development patterns, the
potential development in the next 10 years will be projected. The value of this
new development and potential damages will be assessed and incorporated into
the benefit analysis. This item is discussed further under task 1.3.
1.2 Expected Conditions
Institutional factors having a significant impact on new construction or the
reconstruction of storm damage buildings will be identified. Experience has
shown that the most critical institutional factors are the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Proposal (Page 4)
Act and FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements. In cases of severe erosion of
small parcels, septic regulations may limit the use or reoccupancy of' a structure.
1.3 Estimate Expected Tax Revenue
As part of the site inventory the study team will identify the tax parcels currently
located within the study area, including those that would be affected by erosion
during the next 10 years under the No-Action alternative. We would then
detenuine the current assessed value of each parcel, including the value of both
structures and land. The current tax rates would then be applied to the assessed
value to estimate the current annual real property tax revenues being generated
within the study area. The project team would then examine the Town of
Southold's current budget, and talk with its Finance Director, to identify other
types of local government revenues being generated fi.om within the study area.
The current assessment ratio would be used to convert the assessed values to
market values. The estimates of market values, including recent trends in the
value of shorefi.ont parcels, would be confirmed by examining recent real estate
transaction data within the study area, including contacts with local realtors.
Our team would then estimate the type, location, and magnitude of future
development expected to occur within the study area over the next 10 years.
This would be ascertained by contacting knowledgeable local officials, such as
the building inspector, director of economic development, and county planners
to obtain their insights about the development potential within the study area,
including: potential changes in zoning, infrastructure, and the existence of
development proposals. Future real property tax revenues in the study area
would be generated fi.om two sources: l) the increase, in real terms, of the value
of land and structures currently present; and 2) new development, occurring
either on currently undeveloped parcels, or as higher intensity uses that replace
current, low-intensity uses. Conversely, the value of real property, and tax
revenues, could decline as the value of shorefront parcels declines due to
continuing erosion. Finally, we would estimate the annual changes in tax
revenues within the study area over the next l0 years by estimating future
development patterns.
1.4 Recreational Use
Various recreation valuation techniques were considered for application to the
study area Since any assessment of recreation use value is directly proportional
to the number of users, the importance of quantifying the number and type of
users can not be understated. Various sources contacted during the North Shore
Reconnaissance study indicated that there was no recreation usage data available
for the study area. A direct measurement approach known as the Contingent
Value Method (CVM) has been selected as the appropriate technique to obtain
data on both usage characteristics and value of the recreation resource. In CVM
surveys users are directly questioned as to their usage characteristics and their
Willingness To Pay (WTP) under existing alternative conditions. In order to
Proposal (Page 5)
obtain a reasonable and representative s~nple while maintain the study schedule,
surveys will be conducted for four days, beginning at Memorial Day. Weather
and schedules permitting, this will include surveys on two weekday and two
weekend days.
Visual observations information regarding the total number of users will also be.
collected to be used in conjunction with attendance statistics derived from the
survey. If there is significant variation in the frequency of use between survey
respondents, the sample will be weighted for 'trip bias', the statistical tendency
to over sample frequent users. WTP results will be ranked to determine the
proportion of users WTP different amounts for each condition. This 'sample
distribution' will then be used to construct simulated demand for each condition.
The total value of the resource is the calculated by integrating the area under the
demand curve.
The key to any CVM survey is careful questionnaire design and accurate and
unbiased description of the conditions to be evaluated. The project team's
experience in collecting over 5000 CVM surveys provides the necessary
experience and insight to construct a questionnaire which avoids potential bias
or double counting. Since UPS Greiner is also designing a concurrent recreation
CVM survey for the Fire Island to Montank Point reformulation study, the town
will benefit from improved efficiencies associated with economies of scale.
1.5 Habitat Inventory
In order to achieve the most efficient assessment of habitat value and benefits,
URS Greiner has selected the Greeley Polhemus Group as our specialty
subcontractor. Shoreline habitats can provide a number of different types of
benefits, with a unique mix generated by each type of habitat. Tidal wetlands
may generate the following benefits: 1) recreation (e.g., fishing, bird watching,
nature walks); 2) agricultural production; 3) shoreline protection by acting as
buffers that reduce storm surges and reduce erosion; 4) flood storage; 5) salinity
balance; 6) provision of wildiife habitats and maintaining species diversity; 7)
nutrient capture by serving pollutant sinks; and 8) aesthetics. The first two of
these are direct outputs, while the remainder are indirect outputs; while all of
them are use values. Other habitats, such a dune system, provide a different mix
of benefits, especially protection from erosion.
It is difficult to assign monetmy values to the benefits of natural resource
because omen there is no market price as it is not being bought and sold on the
open market. Even if a market value exists, it may not include ail of the benefits
being generated by the resource. This under-valuing occurs for two reasons: 1)
some benefits are externalities that are not included in the resource's price; or 2)
the resource generates a significant amount of non-use or non-market values.
Shorefront parcels containing coastal wetlands usually have a market price
(S/acre) as they are desirable locations that are being continually bought and
sold, but this price may not include all of the benefits of the wetlands present
Proposal (Page 6)
pm
on a parcel. In other words, the market price for a coastal wetland is likely to
include its direct outputs (benefits 1 and 2 above), but may not consider the
indirect outputs (benefits 3 through 8). Finally, there can be non-use values,
such as option and existence values, for a resource that are not considered. For
example, people assign value (i.e., are willing to pay) to a natural resource in
order to l) retain the option to use it at a future time; and 2) ensure it s existence
even if they won't use it.
The study team will first determine the types of benefits produced by each type
of habitat identified by the Environmental Inventory. This will be done by
performing a literature search of recent applicable studies that have calculated
the benefits of coastal resources. We will then describe the following
components for each individual benefit: 1) the type of output, use, or function
provided: 2) a brief synopsis of the process or cause/effect relationship that
generates the benefit; 3) identify the indicators or parameters that can be used to
measure the benefit's magnitude, quality, and distribution; and 4) current market
price if one exists. The description of benefits by habitat type will be presented
in a matrix format to facilitate comparisons by habitat and benefit type. This
format will also will also minimize the chance of double counting benefits, as
we can easily delineate the natural habitat values that exclude recreation and
property values.
The team will also use the literature search to obtain estimates of the total
economic value of coastal habitats from recent applicable studies. Data sources
will include journal articles, contacts with the NYS DOS, the Corps of
Engineers, local planning agencies, and other federal agencies. We will use a
"benefits transfer" method to identify estimates of the total economic value of
the benefits of coastal habitats and transfer them to Southold if they are
applicable. Transferable benefit estimates will be determined by applying the
following criteria: 1) done in a similar setting O.e., the middle Atlantic and New
England states, and ideally on Long Island) so that comparable weather, wave,
climatic, littoral, land cover, geologic, and recreation conditions apply; 2)
methodology applied, with an emphasis on studies employing the use of the
contingent value method; 3) date of study, with more recent studies preferred;
and 4) inclusion of all relevant use values and desirably non-use values. We
will select the most applicable estimates of the total value of benefits for each
type of habitat in S/acre, and if the data permits, allocate the total benefit value
across the individual benefits.
At the same time the team will examine recent and current data on real estate
transactions within the study area, along with tax assessment records, to
determine the current market values for land only. We will examine recent sales
of comparable (e.g., size, location, zoning, etc.) shorefront parcels with and
without coastal wetlands to attempt to determine the extent to which the
presence of coastal wetlands affects the price of land. At a minimum, this
analysis will yield the current land costs within the study area. Knowing the
Proposal (Page 7)
value of the land will enable us to determine if the total benefit estimates for
habitat types include an allowance for land cost.
The study team will compare the total benefit estimate for each habitat to the
recreational benefit estimate prepared above in Task 1.4; logically a habitat's
total benefit value must be greater than the value of the recreational and
agricultural benefits it provides. We will then subtract from the total benefit
estimate the value of the recreational, protection, aesthetic, and other benefits,
and land costs if required, to an-ire at the natural habitat value of each habitat
type. We will then multiply this value by the number of acres of each habitat
type present in the study area to determine the total natural habitat value. We
assume that the Environmental Inventory will include a table presenting the total
number of acres of each habitat type present in the study along with a map
showing the location of individual habitats.
Changes in future habitat value will be calculated by first determining the
changes in the amount and type of habitat in the study area over the 10 year
period under each alternative. URS will then derive the net changes in habitat
composition over this period (i.e., acres of coastal wetlands converted to beach
due to continuing erosion) and multiply these changes by the appropriate natural
habitat values to calculate the change in natural habitat value. The changes in
the composition of natural habitat present in the study over the next I 0 years will
be described for each alternative.
1.6 Storm Intensity and Damage Correlation
The relationship between storm events and damage must be established In order
to develop damage estimates for any erosion or storm condition. This analysis
will utilize generalized damaged functions developed in prior studies.
It is essential to recognize that damage t~om wave attack, erosion and inundation
must not be aggregated since a smacture destroyed by wave impacts will not
suffer additional damages.
The analysis of inundation will use Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) rate
review data to calculate structure and content damage to standard one- and two-
story residential stmcmre configurations. These include colonial, cape cod,
ranch, bungalow, two-family, duplex and multifamily style structures. These
functions do not include items not covered by flood insurance such as cars or
landscaping. Evacuations and other non-physical costs may be calculated using
the Fire Island to Montauk Point (FIMP) emergency cost damage functions.
URS Greiner maintains a library of additional damage relationships which may
be applied to any structures which do not meet the standard FIA configurations.
Stage vs. frequency relationships may be obtained from Flood Insurance Studies
or the Empirical Simulation Models currently being conducted by the Coastal
Engineering Research Center (CERC).
Proposal (Page 8)
The analysis of erosion damage will utilize relationships of percent damage vs
undermining developed for the Long Beach NY Study. It is assumed that the
Historic Shoreline Analysis will not provide data on wave or wave nmup vs.
frequency relationships. Accordingly the wave damage analysis will be based
on depth limited waves and the appropriate still water elevations. Wave
damages will consider total failure when the wave forces exceed a certain
threshold. The appropriate threshold will be selected from prior structural
analyses conducted for the FIMP, Long Beach NY, or Seabright NJ studies.
TASK 2.0 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The analysis of potential damages will be based on life cycle simulation
techniques which reflect the random nature of storm events. In addition to the
purely random analyses, the simulations will consider the specifically requested
scenarios of a series of major storms in the first 5 years, and a series of major
storms in the last 5 years.
As noted in the RFP, the project area is potentially subject to a variety of storm
conditions. Uncertainty and variability in shoreline change, storm erosion and
flood stage combine with the inherently random nature of storm events to
produce a wide range of potential damages. The current analysis will use Monte
Carlo simulation techniques to allow these uncertainties to interact
independently. As described in COE guidance on risk-based techniques, there
are three basic components to the analysis.
The first component is the storm event, categorized as the "source" of damage.
Each simulation will use a life-cycle approach in which the severity of a storm
in any analysis period is selected using a randomly generated exceedance
probability. Each iteration of the simulation alters the timing and severity of
storms, allowing the analysis to reflect comple~ interactions such as rebuilding
limitations or management activities.
For each storm event, the analysis will then evaluate the second analysis
component; "exposure" of property to damage from inundation or storm attack.
The general technique applied to each simulation is that a "look-up function"
identifies the mean erosion and/or flood stage associated with the "source"
storm. Adjustments may then made to reflect both uncertainty in mean values
and life-cycle impacts such as shoreline change, or sea level rise. This portion
of the analysis is the link between the economic analysis and the physical
process occurring.
The third component of the simulation is to determine the "response" of
buildings to flooding or erosion. The technique utilizes depth damage curves to
relate "exposure," measured as flood stage or erosion distance, to the expected
damage. Life-cycle adjustments are then applied to reflect limitations in
rebuilding al~r prior events and economic discounting to base year conditions.
Proposal (Page 9)
While the analysis will consider wave attack, erosion and inundation damage at
each structure, only the controlling or critical damage will be reported on an
individual structure basis. Within a damage reach, only the total value of
damage from inundation, wave attach and erosion will be reported. Experience
has shown that limiting the number of data values collected is essential to
simulation efficiency. This data from each iteration must be collected, stored
and subsequently analyzed, and some simulations have required up to 10,000
life cycle iterations to achieve precise results. Accordingly it is advisable to
eliminate data which is not utilized in the decision process.
Similarly, the mapping of damage limits will only consider damage mechanisms
applicable to alocation. For example, areas of high bluffs will not delineate the
limits of flood damage. The delineation will depict the anticipated impact zone
from one specific storm exceedance interval, such as the ten or one hundred year
event.
TASK 3.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Evaluate Damage Reduction Through Property Acquisition
The estimate of damage reduction for property acquisition will be based on the
results of task 2.1. The No Action damages for important properties will be
identified and these damages will be assumed to represent thex damage
reduction. Some theories of property aquisition suggest that the present value
of future damage is reflected in the aquisition price of properties. This will be
investigated by comparing the assessed value of the target property to nearby,
though less damage prone properties. Information from task 1.5 will be used to
estimate associated habitat values.
A table of values for the subject properties will be developed t~om value
information collected in Task 1. The location of the specific structures will be
identified on the available base maps. The limits of damage delimited in Task
2 will remain unchanged.
TASK 4.0 THE SAND BYPASSING ALTERNATIVE
4.1 Determine a Method and Evaluate Damage Reduction Through Sand
Bypassing
It is anticipated that the analysis of thc sand bypassing altemative will assume
that filture shoreline change rates are altered in relation to the volume of
bypassed material. The damage reduction analysis will model these alternative
future conditions using procedures developed in Task 2.
TASK 5.0 THE BEACH NOURISHMENT ALTERNATIVE
Proposal (Page 10)
5.1 Determine a Method and Evaluate Damage Reduction Through Beach
Nourishment
The assessment of beach nourishment typically adjusts the setback distances to
reflect the added beach width. The additional beach width also helps maintain
the maximum berm elevation during a storm, reducing the landward impact of
depth limited waves. The analysis will modify the simulation techniques
developed in Task 2 to reflect the available information regarding beach
nourishment design.
TASK 6.0 THE OPTIMAL MITIGATION STRATEGY
6.1 Determine and Evaluate an Optimal Damage Reduction Strategy.
With the exception of the Aqulsition Alternative it is assumed the Town will
provide cost data for each alternatives (e.g., Sand bypassing, and Beach
Nourishment). URS Greiner will calculate the annual net benefits (i.e., gross
benefits less costs) and benefit to cost ratios (BCR's) for the following
conditions analyzed in Tasks 2 through 5:
Assuming an average distribution of storms,
Assuming a series of major storms in the first 5 years,
Assuming a series of major storms in the last 5 years,
In other words, we will estimate the annual net benefits for the three alternatives
and the three alternative storm condilions, (a total of 9 individual net benefit and
BCR calculations). The objective of this task will then be to determine the
combination of alternatives that yield the optimal, or highest level of, net
benefits and the highest rate of return (BCR) under various future storm
scenarios.
TASK 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION AND REVISION
7.1 Draft Report
The Draft Report will present general study background data and will provide
a summary of the analysis techniques, fu order to help maintain the readability
and focus of the report, only pertinent sample calculations will be included.
In accordance with our corporate Quality Assurance program, the document will
be subject to Independent Technical Review and comment prior to submission.
This process helps to ensure that the report is clear and understandable and
identifies gaps in documentation. This results in readable documents with
supportable conclusions. Twelve (12) copies of the draft report will be
submitted to the Town for distribution.
Proposal (Page 11)
7.2 Presentation
During the review period a presentation will be made to the Erosion Work
Group. We envision a relatively informal meeting which presents an overview
of the procedures and findings, followed questions and answers. We will record
the minutes of the meeting and incorporate any comments into the final report.
7.3 Final Report
The final report will incorporate the various comments and concerns regarding
the Draft Submission. Twelve (12) copies of the final report, each with paper
copies of all maps, plus two (2) complete copies on 3.5" floppy disk(s) in
WordPerfect 6.0 will be submitted to the Town. Two (2) additional complete
copies on 3.5" floppy disk(s) and two (2) digital copies of all map products will
also be provided for distribution to the New York Deparanent of State.
Schedule
Our anticipated project schedule is illustrated on the following page.
I ! ! ! ! ! [ I [I [ I [ ] [1 !1 (1 [ ! [ ! rl [! [1 [] I i I ] I I
Town of Southold
Benefit Analysis
Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
Task 1.1 - Site Invento~
Task 1.2 Expected Conditions
Task 1.3 - Estimate Tax Revenue
Task 1.4 - Recreational Use
Task 1.5 - Habitat InventopJ
Task 1.6 - Storm Intensity &Darnage Correlation
Task 2 - The NO ACTION Alternative
Task 3 - The Property Acquisition Altemative
Task 4 - The Sand Bypassing Alternative
Task 5 - The Beach Nourishment Alternative
Task 6 - The Optimal Strategy
Task 7.1 - Draft Repo~
Task 7.2 - Presentation
Task 7.3 - Final Report
Task 1 I - Site Invent0~
Task 1!2 Expected Co!ditions
X Revenue
Task 1.4 - F~ecreational Us!
Task 1..~ - Habitat Inve!tory
..... ~ ~-Ta~kl.~- Storm/nten!ity & E~a-ma~e-L~o-rr~l~t~o~l - --
/
~ 'ask 2 - The I~ ) ACTION Alte!native
! ~ Task 3 * The Proper~ f Acquisition A
I T k4-Th S dE ' Al
~ as e an .fpass~ng terr ative
I ~ Task 5 - The Beach I ~loudshment Al
~ · Task 6 - The )primal Strateg
· I~1 Task 7.1 - Draft Report
· Task ~.2 - PresentatH
~ Task 7.!
emative
3n
3 - Final Re
URS Grelner
Proposal (Page 13)
Bid
S~ecific Produc~
Specific products to be provided by URS Greiner include the Draft and Final
Reports. These reports which will document the study findings, will include the
Map Products discussed previously. The deliverables will be provided on 3.5"
floppy disk(s). Map Products will be provided in either PC based ARC/INFO
binary or export format (.e00), or AutoCAD DXF format. Mapping of damaged
limits for each condition analyzed will depict the anticipated impact zone for a
particular storm event.
Our anticipated total project cost is $49,998 as illustrated on the following page.
! I ! I ! I ! 11 Ir'l I ! [ ! i ! ! ! ! I I I ! I I I ! ! Ir ! I 1 I I I I ! I
BENEFIT ANALYSIS
DUCK POND TO HORTON POINT
SOUTHOLD, NY
JANUARY 15, 1998
URS GREINER COST PROPOSAL
TASK
TOTAL
PROJECT PROJECT ENGINEERING EHVtRONMENTAL GIS/CADD OFFICE/FIELD
PRINCIPAL MANAGER ECONOMIST SCIENTIST SPECIAUST TECHNICIAN ~YPIST
0 4 24
0 2 2
I 20 20
0 2 0
0 4 24
1 4 32
I 4 24
0 2 18
0 4 24
I 8 24
2 12 40
0 $ 10
2 8 16
10 94 272
24 24
0 0
0 0
0 32
8 0
0 0
8 4
4 0
8 0
8 4
0 0
8 4
0 0
8 0
K:',F E E PRO PLS_HOLD\U R SG FE E2.WK4
Information on the Individuals
The URS Greiner Team has the expertise to perform all tasks for the Town of
Southold Duck Pond Point to Horton Point Benefit Analysis. The core team of
specialists is currently working on the US Army Corps of Engineers Fire Island
Inlet to Montank Point Storm Damage Reformulation Study and has well defined
roles and responsibilities.
The Greeley Polhemus Group will be a subconsultant to URS Greiner and will
perform the habitat inventory and estimate of expected tax revenues. Their
expertise in habitat evaluation and wetland issues will cost effectively
complement the URS Greiner staff expertise. SinceURS Greinerhas worked
with the Greeley Polhemus Group in the past on water resource projects, our
team has knowledge of each individuals expertise and is fam'diar with each firms
operating protocol.
Kev oersonnel assiened to this nroiect are as follows:
Serving as Principal-in-Charge is Mr. Thomas MacAllen, P.E., the Vice
President and head of the water resources group at URS Greiner. Mr. MacAllen
is intimately familiar with flood and erosion control projects having served as
principal-in-charge for numerous projects including the Storm Damage
Protection and Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study, North Shore of
Long Island for the US Army Corps of Engineers. With almost 25 years of
experience in flood protection and erosion control, Mr. MacAllen is well
equipped to ensure adequate project staffing and timely submittal of
deliverables.
Mr. Michael Cannon will serve as project manager. Mr. Cannon has
specialized in the economics of flood and erosion control projects and has served
as project manager on numerous economic benefit studies for coastal flooding
and erosion control projects. With expertise in hydraulics, economics and risk
management, Mr. Cannon will be able to guide the project to its completion in
smooth and organized fashion. Having directed the economic analysis for the
following storm damage and erosion control projects on Long Island, Mr.
Cannon is intimately familiar with benefit studies performed as part of flood and
erosion control projects:
Storm Damage Protection and Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance
Study, North Shore of Long Island;
Breach Contingency Plan, South Shore of Long Island;
Westhampton Interim Plan for Storm Damage Protection, Westhampton,
NY;
Fire Island Interim, Fire Island, NY;
Long Beach Storm Damage Protection Plan, Long Beach, NY.
Mr. Cannon will be the point of contact and will direct the project staff.
Information on the Individuals (Page 2)
Dr. Charles Yoe, Ph.D. and Mr. Theodore J. Hogan will provide quality
assurance and quality control for all project work. Dr. Yoe will ensure the
adequacy and accuracy of all economic related tasks and Mr. Hogan will ensure
that all environmental tasks meet project requirements. Dr. Yoe has extensive
experience in the economics of water resource projects including coastal flood
and erosion control projects. Mr. Hogan has vast experience in the
environmental studies including wetland mitigation and environmental
assessments.
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, P.E. and Mr. Adam Slutsky, P.E. will perform storm
damage assessment and benefit analyses for this project. Ms. Phelan is
experienced in Economic Analysis of water resource projects and has extensive
knowledge of storm damage assessment techniques and FIA claims data. Her
knowledge of structural damage relationships is particularly critical in the
analysis of structural stability in locations subject to storm erosion and wave
impacts. Mr. Slutsky is also experienced in Economic Analysis of water
resource projects and has extensive knowledge of storm damage assessment
techniques and FIA claims data. His knowledge of analysis techniques used for
the North Shore of Long Island Storm Damage Protection and Beach Erosion
Control Recormalssance Study is particularly critical.
Mr. Michael Cannon and Mr. Adam Slutsky will perform the recreation benefit
analysis. These two individuals have worked together before and have
performed recreation benefit analyses utilizing contingent value methods
(CVM). Field work for the project will include CVM surveys and inventory of
structures in the project area. The field work will be performed by Andrew
Campbell who has performed surveys and field inventory for other storm and
erosion protection projects in the past.
Dr. Stephen Jones, Ph.D. will perform the habitat assessment. Dr. Jones has
conducted numerous ecological investigations and has published numerous
articles in leading ecological and biological journals. He is currently
coordinating an interagency HEP team to select evaluation species that will be
used to assess project impacts and develop mitigation plans for the US Army
Corps of Engineers Raritan Bay-Sandy Hook Bay combined Flood Control and
shore Protection Project.
Mr. Phillip Hopkins will conduct the tax revenue portion of the study. Mr.
Hopkins is experienced in economic and social impact studies, regional
economics, fiscal impact assessment, benefit-cost economics, engineering
economics, land use planning and statistical analysis. He is also well versed in
the economic analysis of water resource related projects.
Ms. Karen Adams and Mr. Onsy Moawad will act together in coordinating the
GIS/Mapping pordon of this project. Both individuals have worked on the New
York City Water Main Mapping Project and the Newark, NJ mapping project
which are shown in the attached SF255 block 8 forms. As head of URS
Information on the Individuals (Page 3)
Greiner's Paramus office GIS department, Ms. Adams is intimately familiar with
mapping issues and standards. Mr. Moawad also worked extensively on the
Green Brook Flood Control Project and is familiar with mapping of structures,
flood plains, erosion hazard areas and property limits.
The entire project team shown in the attached organization chart consists of
economists, engineers, environmental and GIS specialists who are thoroughly
familiar with the benefit analysis associated with storm and erosion control
projects. In addition to the past experience of the project team, many of the
individuals will be performing similar tasks concurrently as part of the Fire
Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study for the US Army Corps of
Engineers. An organization chart and full resumes for the entire project staff
follows this section.
ll r-! rl Ir1 ~ !~ ri !-1 1-1 E1 !~1 r-1 n ir1 r-! 1-1 !~1 !-1 ! i
Town of Southold
Benefits Analysis
Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
Principal-in-Charge
Thomas C. MacAllen. P.E., P.P.
Project Manager
Michael G. Cannon
I
QA/QC
Charles E. Yoe, Ph.D.
Theodore J. Hogan
Storm Damage & Benefits
Jennifer Phelan, P.E.
Adam Slut~ky, P.E.
Recreation Benefits
Michael G. Cannon
Adam Slutsky, P.E.
Habitat Assessment
Stephen M. Jones, Ph.D.
Tax Consequences
Phillip R. Hopkins
Field Inventory/Survey
Andrew S. Campbell
GIS/CADD
Karen M. Adams
Onsy Moawad
on3~m'l.~dr
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Project
a. Name & Title:
THOMAS C. MacALLEN, P.E., P.P.
Vice President
b. Project Assignment:
Project Principal
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 24 With Other Firms 1
e. Education:
Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
MSCE / 1977 / Civil Engineering
BS / 1972 / Civil Engineering
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
1979 / Professional Engineer
1980 / Professional Planner
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. MacAllen is the managing Vice President of the URS Greiner Water Resoume
Study and Design Group. His participation ensures the commitment of resources
necessary to meet study milestones. Representative water resource studies include:
Economic Evaluation of Coastal Flooding along South Shore of Long Island,
Suffolk County, NY. Project Manager - Elements included windshield survey of
nearly 50,000 structures and conducting 1,500 damage surveys. Results were evaluated
using computer aided analysis to appraise existing condition damages. Conducted site
inspections and structural stability analyses to establish building failure modes specific
to the study area.
Feasibility and GDM, Level Investigations for Atlantic Coast of New Jersey,
Sections I & II. Project Manager - Responsible for plan formulation and report
preparation for erosion control plans for 21 miles of New Jersey's coastline extending
from Sea Bright to Manasquan Inlet.
Economic Analysis for Reconnaissance and Feasibility Level Study of Beach
Erosion Control. Principle-in-charge. Responsible for alternatives development along
Atlantic Coast of Long Island from East Rockaway Inlet to Jones Inlet (Long Beach
Island).
Green Brook Flood Control Project, New Jersey. Project Manager - Preliminary and
pre-construction design of flood control measures (floodwalls, levees, dams, channel
improvements, gated closure structure, & pump stations), cost estimates, and complete
economic analysis utilizing EAD. Optimized over 30 interior drainage sites using a
combination of HEC-1 and INTDRA integrated with EAD. Supervised initial stages of
P.E.D. Effort including: HTRW assessment (development of Limited Health & Safety
plan, site inspections, title & deed search, and report preparation), preparation of boring
plan for closure structure design, coordination with raikoads, detailed analysis of non-
structural plans in FDM area, collection of utility and bridge as-built data and
incorporation into Intergraph CADD file, & aerial flight & ground control survey for
mapping all but the FDM files.
Passaic River Damage Study, New Jersey. Project Manager - Managed windshield
survey of 50,000 structures throughout Passaic River floodplains. Included creating a
database, with ultimate creation of SID files, statistical sampling techniques, over 3,300
damage interviews, and development of depth-damage functions. Principal for effort
to update this data to present conditions and price levels.
Facility Study Overpeck Creek Flood Control Project, Englewood, NJ. Project
Engineer. Studied economic viability of flood control measures for Overpeck Creek
fi.om Englewood, NJ to its mouth. Project alternatives included channel widening and
alterations to the gates on the existing tidal barrier.
Reconnaissance Study of Flood Control Alternatives for Peters Brook, Somerville,
NJ. Project Manager- Directed hydraulic analysis of existing & improved conditions.
Formulated project alternatives including channel improvements, local protection works
and non-structural alternatives and conducted complete benefit cost analysis.
Stream Bank Erosion Reconnaissance Reports, Kaaterskill Creek & Schoharie
Creek, New York State. Project Manager - Evaluated various alternatives to provide
localized stream bank stabilization under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act.
New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Economic Analysis Study.
Project Manager - Studied economic justification and continued funding of ongoing
Drift Removal program; included estimating drift related shipping damage, lost
recreational experience, and increased costs of shoreline maintenance.
Lock ltaven Flood Control for ACOE, Baltimore District. Project Manager - Led
development of plans & specs, & Title 2 services for elements including: 16,000 LF of
levee, 600 LF of flood wall, gated closure stmctures (2 raikoad & 1 roadway) &
numerous drainage ouffalls.
Helen Kramer Supeffund Site, Mantua, NJ for ACOE Kansas City District. Task
Leader for evaluation of floodway and stream relocation plans for landfill closure;
included design of several drainage structures and channel realignment.
ltydrologic Investigation of the Susquehanna River Basin above Binghamton, NY
for ACOE, Baltimore District. Project Manager - HEC- 1 modeling using seven river
gages and 15 rainfall stations. Model was calibrated against historical data and then
used to produce discharges for the standard project flood.
Feasibility Study of Flood Control Alternative Panorama Plaza, New York for
Buffalo District. Project Manager - Developed flood flow frequency curves using Log
Pearson analysis & transferred flows to site using HEC-I. Evaluated a number of
channel improvement alternatives with HEC-II for Irondequainte Creek & Allen Creek.
Raritan - Passaic Diversion Project, New Jersey for NJDEPE. Project Engineer for
design, including 88 MGD raw water pumping station and intake structure to transfer
water from the Raritan River Basin to the Passaic River Basin.
Bridge Scour Investigations - Somerset, Middlesex and ltunterdon Counties, New
Jersey. Project Manager for Phase I bridge scour investigations conducted for N.J.
DOT for 151 bridges including 7 bridges located within the Green Brook Project Area,
as well as several additional bridges within the Raritan River Basin.
O:',P RO POSA L~O934073~255FO R M'.R ESU M ES~tA CA L L EN W~D STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Project
a. Name & Title:
MICHAEL G. CANNON
Storm Damage Analyst
b. Project Assignment:
Project Manager
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm ]8 With Other Firms 0
e. Education:
Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BS / 1979 / Hydrology
1984 / Statistical Analysis Systems
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
None
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. Cannon has over eighteen years o£ experience in the supervision and performance
o£flood risk and economic assessments for storm damage reduction, erosion and flood
control projects. He has demonstrated the ability to provide complete economic
analyses including all documentation necessary. Relevant examples include:
Passaic River Basin Flood Damage Study, New Jersey & New York, for ACOE.
As Engineering Economist, performed structure inventory and flood damage
assessment. Assisted in the development of Structure Valuation and Flood Damage
Assessment Guidelines, sample size requirements, and depth vs. damage relationships.
Implemented data base management and statistical analysis procedures which were
linked to SID files. Supervised statistical update procedures for the General
Reevaluation Report.
South Shore of Long Island Breach Contingency Plan, ACOE. Principal Economist
for the analysis of benefits associated with accelerated closure of future breaches in the
South Shore barrier system. The analysis integrated both traditional and risk-based
concepts to reflect highly uncertain conditions.
Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet Interim Protection Plan, ACOE. Project
Manager for the analysis of benefits for plans to provide limited protection to the
communities along both Fire Island and Great South Bay. This project requires
preliminary assessment o£ the authorized plan benefits as well as the more limited,
interim plan. The analysis incorporates risk and uncertainty into both the failure of
shorefront structures and inundation along Great South Bay.
IWR Report 95-R-9, ACOE. Project Manager and author for the Procedural
Guidelines for Estimating Residential & Business Structure Value for Use in Flood
Damage Estimations. This report, sponsored by the Flood Mitigation Work Unit as part
of the COE Planning Methodologies Research Program, documents techniques to adjust
structure values developed through alternative estimating techniques.
North Shore of Long Island Reconnaissance Study for NY ACOE. Project Manager
for the formulation and economic assessment of tidal flood control and interior drainage
features, as well as the HTRW assessment.
South Shore of Staten Island Reconnaissance Study for NY ACOE. Project
Engineer for the formulation and economic assessment of tidal flood control and interior
drainage features, as well as the HTRW assessment.
Green Brook Flood Control Project, NJ, for New York District DOE. Supervised
economic evaluations and optimization of line of protection elements and over 30
interior drainage systems including considerations for risk of coincidental flooding
impacts on Expected Annual Damages. Directed the economic analysis of an a~ay of
detention dams and channelimpmvement alternatives for the upper reaches of the Green
Brook Sub-Basin. Incorporating risk and uncertainty principles in the expected annual
flood damage and benefit computations to evaluate the impacts of changes in discharge,
rating curves, inter-basin diversions and mitigation of induced damages.
Winooski River Reconnaissance Study, Montpelier, VT. Project Manager for the
analysis which combined Tax Assessment, flood audit and FIA rate review data to
develop and calibmte stage vs. damage estimates. Utilized EAD to evaluate open water
and ice jam mitigation flood contxol alternatives.
Sea Bright to Ocean Township and Asbury Park to Manasquan, NJ, Beach
Erosion Control Studies, for NY ACOE. Principal Economist, responsible for
development of s~a'ucture inventory guidelines, flood damage assessment guidelines,
interview sampling procedures, damage functions development, stage vs. damage
calculations, EAD analyses, and preparation of Economic and Plan Formulation
portions of Feasibility Reports and General Design Memorandum.
Long Beach, NY, Reconnaissance and Feasibility Studies for ACOE. Principal
Economist to evaluate storm protection for a nine-mile beach fill and dune system.
Responsible for developing data collection and sampling standards, plan formulation,
economic analysis and preparation of the main text and economic appendix.
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Hurricane Protection Study for NY ACOE.
Project Economist responsible for development of study methodology, coordination and
review of field work, development of estimating guidelines, EAD analyses and
reevaluation reports. From the Long Island project office, supervised field staff
conducting a complete inventory of 50,000 buildings and over 1,500 detailed damage
surveys.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay Reconnaissance & Feasibility Studies for NY
ACOE. Project Economist to evaluate tidal flood control and erosion control for twenty
miles of coast with numerous tidal creeks and inlets. Project Manager for Feasibility
Study formulation of storm damage reduction and interior drainage at Port Monmouth.
West Hampton Beach, NY, Interim Protection for NY ACOE. As Principal
Economist, evaluated flood control and other economic benefits of stabiliz'mg barrier
beach against repetition of the 1992 breach which resulted in the formation of a new
inlet to Moriches Bay.
O:,,PROPOSAL~.SOUTHOLD~255FORM'~C~ESUMES~CANNON WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
I"1ri ri ri n f-1ri [1 i[ I ri ri ri ri fl
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consu]tants Anticipated for this Project
[ ] [ i ! I I I
a. Name & Title:
THEODORE J. HOGAN
Environmental Scientist
b. Project Assignment:
Environmental Scientist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 3 With Other Firms 23
e. Education: Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BS / 1970 / Biology
MS / 1981 / Water Resources Management
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
NA
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. Hogan is a senior environmental scientist with extensive experience in
environmental permitting, wetlands and ecological restoration, mitigation design,
wetland delineations, wetlands mitigation construction management, and site
monitoring. He has coordinated the permitting of multi disciplinary and complex
projects through the mgnlatory process. He is responsible for supervision and quality
control of all environmental studies, reports, permit applications, and environmental
designs. Key projects include:
Maryland Route 100, Howard County, Maryland: Project Manager for the
environmental permitting for this highway design project. Conducted a wetlands
delineation for seven wetland areas within the corridor. Conducted an agency field
review for obtaining a jurisdictional wetland determination. Provided quality control
for the wetland delineation report. Project Manager for the on-going design ora 4.0-
acre wetlands mitigation project to be constructed within and adjacent to the Deep
Run floodplain.
Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Anne Arundel County, Maryland:
Managed environmental elements of open-end contract. Managed the completion of
a wetlands management plan for the entire airport, including a wetland delineation,
mapping of the wetlands on AutoCADDTM, identification of potential mitigation sites,
and preparation of a general vegetation map for the airport. Participated in and
provided overall project management and quality control for a forest stand delineation
(FSD) for the airport, including approximately 750 acres of forest. Presented the
findings of the FSD to the Department of Natural Resources for approval and
discussed elements of a Forest Conservation Plan. Provided overall project
management and quality control for the design of a stream restoration project that
accomplishes the main objective of protecting V. vo utility pipes that have been
exposed due to stream bed erosion while incorporating stream restoration design
elements utilizing the Rosgen geomorphologic classification system. Prepared a Joint
Pannit Application for the expansion of an existing stormwater management detention
basin, involving a temporary impact to emergent wetlands within the basin.
Obtained a Letter of Authorization from the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources and a Nationwide Permit approval from the Corps of Engineers.
Biles Island Wetland Mitigation, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: Senior
environmental scientist responsible for conslmction phase services for thc
. development of a 20-acre tidal wetland mitigation project for the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation. Project involved the construction of approximately 18
acres of emergent and scrub-shrub tidal wetlands, a tidal entrance channel off Biles
Creek, and approximately two acres of upland plantings. Responsible for
coordination with the Corps of Engineers, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, the grading and planting contractors, and the Client. Also
responsible for designing the site layout for the long-term monitoring program.
Martin State Airport, Baltimore County, Maryland: Project supervisor for
environmental investigations and environmental documentation several projects at the
airport, including an environmental assessment for a mnway safety area extension,
permitting for removal of a trench drain system, wetland delineations, an
environmental overview for a proposed new hangar, and an environmental assessment
for development of the midfield area. Also included identification of storm drain
ouffall structures and wetland mitigation planning utilizing stormwater runoff.
U.S. Route 31 Location Design Study and Environmental Impact Statement,
Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegany Counties, Michigan: Senior environmental
scientist and technical writer for the preparation of an Environmental impact
Statement for a proposed 26-mile upgrade to U.S. Route 31 in western Michigan
involv'mg three counties and several townships and municipalities. Managed the
comparison of environmental and social impacts for several proposed highway
alternatives on both new and existing alignments, managed land use mapping,
including wetland and forest identification and delineation, managed a wetland
functional assessment for over 40 wetlands in three major watersheds, and conducted
wetland mitigation planning for the replacement of up to 72 acres of wetlands
impacted by the project, managed the preparation of sections of the environmental
impact statement, and participated in agency scoping meetings and public meetings.
O:'~ROPOSAL~}934073',255FOIEMXRESUMES~OGAN ¥¢PD STANDARD FORM 2S$ (REV. 11 ~92)
ir ! I ! [ I Ir 1 Ir ! [ 1 [- 1 [ I [ ! g I [ ! ir I [ ! F'I f~! ! I f I I I I I
7. Brief Resume of Kay Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Project
a. Name &Title:
JENNIFER PHELAN, P.E.
Engineering Economist
b. Project Assignment:
Engineering Economist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 8 With Other Firms
e. Education: Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BSC / 1989 / Civil Engineering
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
1994 / Professional Engineer
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Ms. Phelan is experienced in Economic Analysis of water resource projects and has
extensive knowledge of storm damage assessment techniques and FIA claims data.
Her knowledge of structural damage relationships is particularly critical in the
analysis of structural stability in locations subject to storm erosion and wave impacts.
Her unique blend of experience in both structural and economic damage assessments
ensure the most appropriate application of wave and erosion damage functions.
Post-Disaster Damage Assessment Project, Nationwide for FEMA. Structural
Damage Analyst - Performed field investigations and analyzed effects of storm-
induced damage on sm~ctures. Assisted in the writing of Flood Damage Assessment
Report. Investigations were conducted immediately after major storms in North and
South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Long Island and Delaware. Rather than
focusing on the total cost of damage, this project identified the nature, extent and
specific forces associated with damage to individual structures.
Green Brook Flood Control Project, New Jersey, ACOE. Economist, performed
annual damage calculations, tabulated results and assisted in the optimization of
project clements. Utilized risk-based assessments to update benefits and to assess
design reliability.
Benefit Update, New York Harbor Drift Removal Project, NY ACOE. Economist
for the benefit update. Performed boating use and damage surveys and projections.
Analyzed project benefits and prepared documentation reports.
New Jersey Water Quality and Pollution Data Inventory for Philadelphia
District Corps of Engineers. Research Analyst - Developed a menu-dtivcn
application program for the computerized storage and retrieval of data. Collected data
from local, state and governmental agencies as well as several privately owned firms.
Coastal Structural Damages for Philadelphia ACOE. Research Analyst for
evaluation, calculation and documentation of how structures are damaged during
coastal events. Developed generalized wave and erosion damage algorithms
applicable to various types of coastal construction.
Flood Insurance Claims Analysis, Harvey Cedars, NJ. Economist, correlating
flood insurance claims data to several physical characteristics in Harvey Cedars, New
Jersey. This project for FEMA included physical inspections, a windshield survey
and statistical analysis of the relationship between damage and physical
characteristics including elevation, setback, construction type, etc.
Long Beach, NY Hurricane Protection Feasibility Study, ACOE. As Economist,
performed calculations of equivalent annual damage and project benefits. The
analysis considered wave and erosion impacts as well as inundation due to
overtopping of the berm/dune complex or high stages in Reynolds Channel.
Home Builders Guide to Coastal Construction for FEMA: As Engineering
Analyst, coordinated the design recommendations for various building components
(foundations, roofs, etc.) for this national design guidance manual. The project will
establish building design dctuils and improved construction techniques which will
minimize damage in future coastal storms.
IWR Report 95-R-9 - Procedural Guidelines for Estimating Residential and
Business Structure Value for Use in Flood Damage Estimations. Author and
Analyst of this document which clearly describes both the valuation theories and
analysis techniques applicable to NED benefit analyses. As part of this effort, Ms.
Phelan also researched current COE and Flood Insurance Administration valuation
practices from around the country.
Fire Island Inlet to Morlches Inlet Interkn Project. As Structural Damage Analyst,
was responsible to integrate the effects of erosion on the stability of pile-supported
stxuctures. On Fire Island, building failure ofien occurs when the vertical loss of
supporting soils results in insufficient embedment to resist lateral wave impacts.
O:~PROPOSAL~OUTHOLD~25SFORM~P~b'UM£~PH£L,~N WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11/92)
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Project
a, Name & Title:
ADAM SLUTSKY, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
b. Project Assignment:
Engineering Economist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 4 With Other Firms
e, Education:
Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BS / 1987 /Agricultural Engineering
MS / 1989 / Environmental Engineering
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
1994 / Professional Engineer
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. Slutsky is experienced in Economic Analysis of water resource projects and
has extensive knowledge of storm damage assessment techniques and FIA claims
data. Knowledge of analysis techniques used for the COE North Shore
Reconnaissance Study is particularly critical. Relevant experience includes:
Green Brook Flood Control Project for New York District Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE). Engineering economist for the Green Brook Sub-basin of the
Radtan River performing revsions to cost and benefit analyses. Designed program
to calculate cost of floodproofing, ringwalls and buyouts for various levels of
protection. Performed revisions to interior drainage and benefit analysis resulting
fi.om changes in levee alignment.
Winooski River Reconnaissance Study, NH for New York District ACOE.
Engineering economist responsible for evaluation of Federal interest in providing
flood control for ice induced flood problems along the Winooski River near
Montpelier, Vermont. Performed economic analysis including production of stage
vs. damage curves, calculation of equivalent annual damages and plan comparisons.
Elsmford Benefit Analysis Updating, Elsmsord and Greenburgh, NY for the
New York District ACOE. Project engineer responsible for field survey,
generation of stage-damage curves and analysis of project benefits.
Fire Island Breach Contingency Hah, NY for New York District ACOE. Project
engineer responsible for economic analysis. Performed a risk based economic
analysis of breach occurrence in the barrier island along the south shore of Long
Island. The analysis included calculation of damages based on the random
occurrence of a breach causing storm. Growth of the breach over time was also
simulated to account for various closure scenarios.
North Shore of Long Island, NY Storm Damage Protection and Beach Erosion
Control Reconnaissance Study, New York District ACOE. Project Engineer and
Economist responsible for economic and interior drainage analyses. The study
examined the entire North Shore of Long Island for flood and erosion problems.
Bayville and Asharoken, NY were chosen to represent two critical areas of flood
and erosion problems respectively. A risk based analysis was used to calculate
benefits with uncertainty considered in the stage-damage curves, average annual sea
level rise and erosion rates. A life cycle simulation was used to calculate damages
with storms allowed to occur randomly in any year of the project life.
South Shore of Staten Island Shore Protection and Flood Damage Control
Reconnaissance Study for the NY District ACOE. Project engineer responsible
for risk based benefit analysis of Annadale West area. The analysis included the
simulation of storms and erosion in each year of the project life and included
uncertainty in the modeled erosion rates. Structures which were beyond a specified
rebuilding limit prior to a damaging storm were considered to be rebuilt alter the
storm. These structures could then be damaged by subsequent storms. Structures
which were seaward of the rebuilding limit prior to the storm and were substantially
damaged were not rebuilt and could not accrue subsequent damages.
Passaic River Basin Flood Control, NJ for the New York District ACOE.
Project engineer responsible for the updating and analyzing the passaic river
damage functions. Duties included performing flood damage interviews,
calculating stage damage curves based on these interviews, and comparing new
stage-damage curves with previously determined stage-damage curves. A statistical
analysis of the new and old damage functions was performed to determine which
were the most important factors in determining changes to the damage functions.
West Hampton Beach, NY Limited Reevaluation Report. for the New York
District ACOE Project engineer responsible for the calculation and evaluation of
flood control and other economic benefits of stabilizing barrier beach against
repetition of the 1992 breach which resulted in the formation of a new inlet to
Moriches Bay. Performed field investigations, stage vs. damage and equivalent
annual damage analyses including the effects of projected sea level rise and beach
erosion.
O:~ROPOSAL~SOUTHOLD'~S5FORM~RESUMES~SLLrTSKY.WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
IrI ! I · I · I [-! rl f'! ri ri ri I:t i! ! i ii ! ! i ! i
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated far this Project
! I I !
a. Name & Title:
KAREN M. ADAMS
Senior Project Engineer
b. Project Assignment:
CADD Specialist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 6 With Other Firms 0
e. Education:
Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BM1992/Civil-Environmental Engineering -- GIS
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
None
fl. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Senior Environmental Engineer for Geographic Information System (GIS)-
Engineered projects ranging from planning and environmental to transportation and
design. Advises Quality Control/Quality Assurance for GIS-Engineered sewer
maps in Infiltration/Inflow studies. Supports technical specifications for
GIS/CADD mapping for Corps of Engineers projects. Performs detailed studies and
presentations incorporating engineering specifications, GIS analytical capabilities,
database interaction and metadata technics. Interacts with various state GIS and
engineering organizations in order to keep abreast of trends and technological
advancements. Continues to represent URS as a speaker, moderator and technical
advisor for GIS-related conferences, symposiums and workshops. GIS/GPS contact
for Eastern URS offices. Author of several engineering GIS related publications.
Specific projects and project responsibilities include:
New York City Water Main Mapping, New York: Project Engineer for the
NYCDEP BWSWC city-wide GIS-Engineered mapping project. Responsible for
collection and compilation, implementation, maintenance and modification of
QA/QC procedures for water main and appurtenance information into McDonnell
Douglas GDS CADD systems. Prepares and tracks expenses of project task
production and subcontractor billings. Responsibilities also include recommending
and revising standards, production schedules, technical support, project and user
manuals, maintenance and minutes for progress and technical meetings.
Coordinates project enhancement exceeding original contractual limits; controls
project scope bleed. Oversees staff engineers, technical and field personnel and
project support members in daily activities; schedules weekly and monthly
production goals. Direct liaison to BWSWC project engineer and technical staff.
New York City Drainage and Sewer Mapping Pilot Study, New York: Project
Engineer for NYCDEP Department of Water Quality GIS-Engineered mapping
project. Supports Pilot tasks, such as Needs Assessment interviews, Automated
Document Management systems, conversion of existing sources, construction and
evaluation of pilot versions and standards, Catch Basin investigation for pilot
incorporation and author of the Project Manual draft. Responsibilities include
recommending standards and GIS model specifications and database interaction
based on the conversion of drainage and sewer source materials and procedures.
Direct liaison to client project engineering, management and technical staff.
Sewer and Water System Mapping and Data Conversion (Geographic
Information System), City of Newark: Project Engineer for the City of Newark,
Department of Water and Sewer Utilities, Division of Sewers and Water Supply
city-wide GIS project. Manages system set-up, production and technical review of
water and sewer data conversion and database interaction within the MicrostationTM
andOraclemanvironment. Direct client liaison. Supports compilation and review
of data, standards development, production, modeling, integration of field
investigations, training and report and liaison.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO): Project Engineer for the City of Newark,
Department of Water and Sewer Utilities, Division of Sewers and Water Supply
CSO project. Supports GIS component of sewer data conversion, modeling and
database interaction within the MicrostationTM and OracleTM environment.
Special Skills/Computer Literacy
GIS/En~ineerine: ARC/Info: PC ARC/Info, PC ARCEDIT, PC ARCPLOT, PC
OVERLAY, PC DATA CONVERSION, SML. CADD: AutoCAD, Cadkey,
COGO, DCA, GIS Conversion (ARC), GDS, HEC1, HEC2, Intergraph
Compatibility.
Computer Laneua~es/Svstems: Basic, C (Turbo C), dBase 1V, FORTRAN
(FORTRAN 77), LOTUS (LOTUS 1-2-3), MiniTab, MS/DOS, Pascal (Turbo
Pascal), Quattro (Quattro Pro), SAS, TIGER/Line Census Buman Data Files,
Windows, WordPerfect, XBasic
O:',PROPOSAL~SOUTHOLD',255FORM~RESUMES~ADAMSWPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
f ! [ ! [ i [ ] ! I · ! r I rT ~! f · fl ~1 [ i ! i [ I ! ! ! ! i i i
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Project
a. Name & Title:
ANDREW S. CAMPBELL
Office and Field Technician
b. Project Assignment:
Recreation Survey/Structure Inventory
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 6 With Other Firms 0
e. Education: Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
NA
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
None
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. Campbell dually serves as an Office Technician and Field Investigator for
various economic and environmental engineering projects. He is experienced in
conducting structure inventories, damage surveys and recreation use interviews for
coastal storm damage reduction projects. He is also experienced in linking the field
data collection into GIS database/mapping system.
Specific projects and project responsibilities include:
Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, NY Feasibility Study
for the NY District ACOE: Working from a project office setup in Long Beach,
performed the field inventory of development, including critical storm damage
susceptibility data such as shorefront setback and building size and elevation.
Performed sample surveys to identify the extent and nature of both historic and
potential future damage. Conducted contingent value recreation use surveys to
det~,~dne relationships between with and without beach usage and willingness to
pay, to various indicators such as travel distance and demographics.
Delaware River Basin Water Pollution Plant Construction, New York: Office.
Technician responsible for database tracking of shop drawing processing for two
plants, Grahamsville and Margaretville.
New York City Water Main Mapping Project for New York City DEP: Field
investigator for several aspects on a Water Main Mapping Project for the NYCDEP
Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Collection. Responsible for collection and
compilation for data entry of water main and associated attribute information into
a Geographic Information System (GIS).
Jamaica SSES Sewer and Drainage Mapping Pilot for New York City DEP:
Collected pertinent sewer and drainage information for the needs assessment of the
mapping pilot program.
Jamaica Bay Sewer System Evaluation Study for New York City DEP: Field
Investigator responsible for data collection.
Port Richmond Infiltration/Inflow Study for New York City DEP: Field
Investigator involved in such tasks as smoke tests and door-to-door survey pending
smoke testing investigations. Aided in manual compilation end drafting of field
information onto GIS basemaps.
New, own Creek/Bowery Bay Water Pollution Control Project for New York
City DEP: Field investigator responsible for various data collection tasks and
inspection studies.
O:'~PROPOSAL~SOUTHOLD~255FORMYRESUMES~CAMPBELL.WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, end Individual Consu{tants Anticipated for this Project
a. Name & Title:
KATHLEEN MASSERELLI, AICP
Vice President
b. Project Assignment:
Project Economist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This I~irm 27 With Other Firms 6
e. Education: Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BA / 1964 / Economics
MA / 1970 / Economics
MUP / 1984 / Urban Plaunin[:
f. Active Flegistration: Year First Registered/Discipline
1985/AICP
g, Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Ms. Masserelli is an Economist and regional planner, responsible for analyses
of regional economic impacts. Ms. Masserelli has performed numerous studies
in which revenue estimates have provided the financial basis for both private
and public investment decisions. Project experience includes:
Passaic River Flood Damage Study, for NY ACOE. Responsible for
statistical design and analysis of pilot and full-scale surveys of Passaic River
flood damages designed to obtain total flood damages to structures and interior
contents for residential, commercial and industrial buildings. Evaluated the
accuracy and uncertainty of alternative statistical techniques to develop
generalized flood damage prediction models.
Economic Analyses and Feasibility Studies, Various Locations: Project
Manager for economic analyses and feasibility studies for proposed and
existing bridges, tunnels, toll roms, airports, parking garages, and similar
facilities in Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, New
York, and Hawaii.
Mid-Hudson Bridge, Poughkeepsie, New York. Economic Planner for
alternative methods of providing additional crossing capacity in the vicinity of
the Mid-Hudson Bridge, between Highland and Poughkeepsie, NY, including
environmental, land use, traffic, socioeconomic and demographic impacts,
financial feasibility and structural considerations.
Statistical Analysis Procedures and Data Management Systems for Various
Authorities. Economist for design and implementation of data management
systems and statistical analysis for surveys in the City of Baltimore and on New
Jersey Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, Richmond-Petersburg Tumpike,
Lindenwold Rapid Transit Line operated by the Delaware River Port Authority,
and other projects.
Route 22 Corridor Development Study. Economist/Planner to identify
transportation deficiencies and needs due to economic and land use development
in Putnam and Dutchess Counties for NYSDOT. Evaluated alternatives with
regard to funding, engineering, environmental and community acceptability.
Verrazzano Bridge One-Way Tolls, Triborough Bay and Tunnel Authority.
Economist evaluating economic aspect of Environmental Impact Statement for
Triborough Bay and Tunnel Authority, involving route and toll comparisons,
capacity and safety considerations, and liaison with the Staten Island Community.
Traffic and Earnings Report for TBTA. Principal Economist responsible for
preparation of traffic and earnings reports for nine crossings operated by
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. This study was included in an Official
Statement for a bond sales of over $2 billion.
Proposed Westway Corridor Study. Planner for appraisal of land use master
plan, including assessment of socioeconomic and transportation impacts, for the
proposed Westway corridor, a 4.5-mile stretch along the Hudson River in lower
and mid-Manhattan.
Ecatepec-Piramides Toll Road, Northeast of Mexico City. Project Manager
for traffic and revenue study oft}ds toll road. The road is a public/private venture
to be operated under a concession granted by the Mexican Government to
construct, operate and maintain the toll road. Responsible for managing data
collection effort and developing methodology for forecasting future traffic and
revenue based on analysis of historic and socioeconomic and traffic data, travel
information obtained in surveys designed and conducted for the study.
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
! 1 [ ! g ! I 1 f 1 f ! Ir ! !' ! I ! Ir I g I ! ! ! ! I I
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for this Projeot
I I I I I I I I ! I
a. Name & Title:
ONSY MOAWAD
CAD DESIGNER
b. Project Assignment:
CADD Specialist
c. Name of Firm with which associated:
d. Years experience: With This Firm 4 With Other Firms
e. Education:
Degree(s) / Year / Specialization
BS / 1981 / Civil Engineering
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
NA
g. Other Experience and Qualifications relevant to the proposed project:
Mr. Moawad has over eight years experience in automated and manual GIS
concentrating on Intergraph, AutoCAD, Sot~Desk (DCA) and specific civil
engineering software; ten years experience in Civil Engineering specializing in
concrete and steel structures design, highway and drainage design, sanitary sewer
and water main design; and over ten years experience in surveying and field work.
Green Brook Flood Control Project, New Jersey: Designer utilizing
Microstation Intergraph with civil engineering software (InRoads), and
Microstation 95. Setup drawing sheets, created DTMs (Digital Terrain Models),
created Horizontal and Vertical Alignments; also created cross section and
profile. Performed Earthworks computation (cut and fill quantities). Translated
drawing fries from AutoCad to Microstation and vice-versa.
Passaic River Flood Damage Reduction Study, Great Piece Weir, New Jersey:
Designer utilizing Microstation Intergraph to lay out horizontal alignments and
details of an environmental flow control structure on the Passaic River.
New Jersey Bridge Scour, New Jersey: Designer utilizing Microstation to lay
out existing bridges and boring locations for Stage II bridge scour evaluations
for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
Grahamsville Sewage Treatment Plant, Grahamsville, New York: Designer
for the lay out and completion of structural drawings (plans, sections, and
details) utilizing AutoCad. Also designed foundations, reinforcing steel and
roof framing on AutoCad.
Margaretville Sewage Treatment Plant, Margaretville, New York: Designer
for the lay out and completion of structural drawings (plans, sections, and
details) utilizing AutoCad. Also designed foundations, reinforcing steel and
roof framing on AutoCad.
Road Reconstruction Program, Princeton, New Jersey: Designer who
prepared drainage layouts, both preliminary and final drawings, and detailed
rehabilitation for various roadway systems on AutoCAD.
Schoolhouse Road, Jefferson Township, New Jersey: Designer who
reconstructed existing roadway conditions; collected surveying data and created
DTM; and developed plans, profiles, cross sections and details in AutoCAD and
DCA. Also prepared drainage layout.
Randolph Township M.U.A., Mount Fern Area, New Jersey: Technician
who designed and prepared drawings for two phases of sanitary sewer systems.
Sewer and Water System Mapping and Data Conversion (Geographic
Information System) Newark, New Jersey: Cad Designer responsible for
creation of an up-to-date automated mapping system and relational database.
The project entails creating a geographic information system (GIS) using
Mi .crostation Intergraph for the city's 400 miles of sewer and 500 miles of water
mams and the preparation of an ORACLE database of all sewer and water
system attributes.
O:kPROPO~AL~'~OLrl?HOLD~55FOI°'MX~E~UM£S~'MOAWAD'WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11/92)
Projects and Experience
The URS Greiner Team has performed numerous benefit analyses associated
with storm damage protection and beach erosion control projects. Many of the
methods used in these projects are applicable to this project and will be
employed by the same people who have performed the previous analyses.
Studies along the coast of New Jersey pioneered the use of multiple mechanisms
(inundation, storm erosion and wave attack) with double count avoidance.
Project personnel are currently performing a benefit analysis for the Fire Island
Inlet to Montauk Point Reformulation Study for the New York District Corps of
Engineers. This study includes the entire south shore of Long Island in Suffolk
County.
URS Greiner also performed the benefit analysis for the North Shore of Long
Island Storm Damage Protection and Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance
Study. This study involved examination of flooding and erosion problems on
the North Shore of Long Island in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The benefit
analysis focused ontwo areas where detailed analyses were performed. In each
of these areas the benefit analysis considered tidal flood damage as well as wave
and erosion damages. Specific categories of benefits included public emergency
and evacuation costs, traffic delay costs, beach maintenance costs, road and
utility damages, coastal structure protection damages and building damages.
URS Greiner also performed the benefit analysis for the Breach Contingency
Plan on the South Shore of Long Island. This project initiated by the New York
District Corps of Engineers in response to the breaching of the barrier island at
Westhamptonin 1992. The project examined various scenarios of barrier island
breaching and concluded that it was cost effective to close a breach as quickly
as possible before back bay flooding damages increased as a result of the breach.
An innovative simulation model was developed to simulate breaches occurring
and being closed. Costs were associated with these events and the benefits of
reduced flooding and structure damages was assessed in order to determine the
optimal plan to deal with furore breaches in the barrier island.
On the south shore of Long Island URS Greiner also performed the benefit
analysis associated with the Westhampton Interim Project (Fire Island Inlet to
Montauk Point, New York, Moriches to Shinnecock Reach, Interim Plan for
Storm Damage Protection). This interim project was designed to lessen the
chance of barrier island breaching and to reduce subsequent damages to back
bay areas. The benefit analysis involved calculation of benefits due to reduced
flood damages to structures, reduced public emergency costs and reduced costs
for restoring breaches in the barrier island.
Also on the south shore of Long Island, URS Greiner performed the benefit
analysis for the Fire Island Interim Project (Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,
Long Island, New York, Reach 1 Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet--An
Evaluation of an Interim Plan for Storm Damage Protection). This benefit
analysis included reduced damages to stmctores, reduced emergency restoration
Projects and Experience (Page 2)
costs and increased recreation values. A risk based Monte Carlo simulation to
calculate project benefits. Two general simulation models were developed. The
shoreffont model evaluates structural response for exposure to shoreline change,
storm erosion, sea level rise and storm surge/wave impacts. The non-shorefront
model evaluates inundation damages in response to sea level rise and storm
surges in Great South Bay. Average annual damages are repetitively calculated
and the results are collected and analyzed with the mean result reported as the
annual damage.
URS Greiner recently performed analyses involving recreation benefits for three
projects:
Atlantic Coast of Long Island Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long
Beach Island, NY
Feasibility Report
Atlantic Coast of NJ Sandy Hook to Bamegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control
Project
Asbury Park to Menasquan, NJ Beach Erosion Control Project.
The project teams experience collecting of over 5000 CVM surveys for these
projects provides the necessary experience and insight to construct a
questionnaire which avoids potential bias or double counting. Since URS
Greiner is also designing a concurrent recreation CVM survey for the Fire Island
to Montauk Point reformulation study, the Town will benefit from improved
efficiencies associated with economies of scale.
The Greeley-Polhemus Group has authored numerous manuals for the Institute
for Water Resources. Of particular importance is a manual rifled "Economic and
Environmental Considerations for Incremental Cost Analysis in Mitigation
Planning" which focused on investigating the issues, problems and techniques
relevant to conducting incremental cost analysis for mitigating fish and wildlife
losses resulting from Corps of Engineers water resource projects. This manual
is used by the Corps and by their consultants when conducting environmental
analyses and is the basis of much federal mitigation planning. Another manual
tiffed "Procedures Manual: Approaches for Incorporating Risk & Uncertainty
into Environmental Evaluation" contains state of the art R&U principles to be
applied in environmental studies which are part of federal projects.
The above referenced projects as well as several other relevant projects are
described in more detail in the attached project descriptions.
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this project (List not more than 10 Projects).
== ~ ........ e. Estimated Cost (in thousands)
....... ~ ................ ~ .:~:::~ ........................................................... d. Completion Work for which
~iii!iiiiii~l~i!~ii~ii~iii=:iiii!ii::iiiiiiiiii b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c, Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Sewer and Water System See Below City of Newark 1997 $450 100%
Mapping and Data Conversion Department of Engineering
(Geographic Information 920 Broad Sheet
System) Newark, NJ 07102
Newark, NJ Ref: Babu V~rghese, PM
(201) 733-5942
UPS Czreiner is currently providing professional engineering services to the
City of Newark's $400,000 Sewer and Water Systems Mapping and Data
Conversion project. The project involves the creation of an up-to-date
automated mapping system and relational database.
A significant task will be the development of a geographic information
system (GIS) in Microstation Intergraph format for the City's 400 miles of
sewer and 500 miles of water lines, an~d preparation of a comprehensive
inventory and database, in ORACLE u~ format, of all sewer and water
components.
The GIS will include the addition of attribute information from more than
15,000 field cards as well as the incorporation of some 48,000 service
connections for the water system. In addition to converting paper archives
to digital format, the conlxact calls for the creation of a detailed database in
order to provide efficient sewer and water services for the City's population
of more than 275,000 residents.
During the course of the project, URSG will conduct a needs assessment of
the various map users, prepare detailed cartographic standards, write
customized prog~'a~t~s, prepare a "User's Guide" for the computer model of
the City's sewer system, and conduct formal txaining of city personnel.
The project also includes integration of the storm water sewer system
attribute with the EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the Erie page of this proposal or quotation
O:~PROPO SAL~O934073~255FOR M~PRO J ECTS~NR KGI$.VVPD
STANDARD FORM 266 (REV. 11-92)
f ! ri f'l ri f'-I · I g'~ r~l ~ ~ ~! ~ I~ 1 It'1 ir I ! i I ! I ! i I
8. V~rk by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
::.:~:=:.......::=: . .:.:.:~:o:.:o:'~": ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:~,:~=o :=: *.*.::::::*=~=::: ............... ~ ~:=:~:::~:=:: = ::~: ..... e. Estimated Cost (in thousands)
: ~ ........... ~ ~:::::~::=:.:::~ .............. ~:= d. Completion Work for which
........................ ~ ........ ~..~...~.~ ........ Date (actual Firm was/is
i~iiiii[!i~ii~ii~ii~i~?iiii!i~iiiiiiiiiiii?iii~i b. Nature of Firms's Responsibil~ c. Owners Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
~re Island to Montauk Po~t, See Below U.S. ~y Co~s of Engels 1994 $31,500 100%
~ - Moriches to Sh~necock New York Di~ct
Reach - ~te~ Plan for Store 26 Fed~ Plea
Damage Protection at New York, ~ 10278
Westhampton Beach Ref: C~ Jones, ~oject M~ag~
(212) 264-9077
As a ~s~t of sev~e erosion, Wes~p~n Beach e~efienced a breach in ~temafives were fomented, b~efits were calc~ated for bo~ ~e b~er
· e b~er isled just west of ~e efisfing ~oin field d~ng ~e December isled ~d m~nl~d ~c~es, ~d a decision document prepped.
1992 No~em~. ~s breach severely ~tered ~e hydra, cs of Mofiches E~mive levels of e~s~g d~age to b~er isled s~c~es req~red ~e
Bay, si~fic~fly incre~ing flood d~age d~ng ~bsequem ~o~s. ~ ~ysis to consider ~temafive reb~l~ng scen~os for ~e wi~- ~d
~erg~cy be~ fill o~rafion to close ~e breach w~ completed in 1993, ~out-project conditions.
but addifion~ imefim protection w~ needed to ~ord sufficient time for
developmem of a comprehensive coast~ m~agement pl~ for ~e Sou~ ~ ord~ ~ ~fi~ ~po~t enviroment~ p~eters, M&N completed
Shore orang Isled. ~ investigation of ~e effec~ on Mofiches Bay~nlet of b~er isled
breach~g ~d wave ove~opping by ex~ining bay/inlet circ~afion,
M&N completed a det~led pl~ing s~dy for interim shore protection s~W, ~d resid~ ~es ~der 3 conditions (e~sfing, ~-project ~d
~ong Wes~p~n ~h, ~clu~g t~o~aphic mapping, coast~ s~dies breached) for ~ecific s~ (5 -, 10-, ~d 25 -ye~ even~). ~is effo~
~d ~ono~c ~yses of v~ous improvemem ~temafives. For ~out- re~d pr~afion of a ~o-dimensional finite-element nmefic~ model
and wi~-project con~fio~, M&N completed co~t~ ~dies which ofbayhy&od~ics ~d s~niW.
~clud~ de~l~ nm~c~ mode~ng of waves, water levels ~d shore~ne
processes inclu~ng sto~-induced d~e ~d shore~ne erosion,
development of segment budge~, desi~ of beach no~s~ent using
&edged s~d, desi~ of ~oin field-beach~l ~sifion schemes, det~ed
cost estimates for project elements ~d pr~afion of a moni~fing pl~.
~e study included prelimin~ assessmen~ of~e au~ofized pl~.
~ ~e~er conduc~ a ~eld s~ey of~e retaking b~er isled
s~c~s ~ &e project reach ~d updated e~sfing data ~es for ~e 6,000
s~c~es ~ong ~¢ m~nl~d ~onfing Mofiches Bay. Li~ted d~age
s~eys were conducted to update dep~ vs. d~age ~cfions pre~ously
develo~ by ~G ~ p~ of a comprehensive ~dy of ~e Sou~ Shore.
The updated d~age ~cfions were ~te~ated ~ stage-~e~ency ~d
~h ~e~ency data to generate eq~v~t ~u~ d~ages. As project
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrict/on on ~he Erie page of th/$ proposal or quotation
O;',PROPOSA L',0934073',255 FORM, PRO JECTS~FIR E-MN2.WPD STANDARD FORM 26S (REV. 11-92)
I I ri l'l ri Fl fl I I Ir I I~I Ir I f I I--I I I f' I ! I Y1 I I I I I I
8. V~brk by Firm or Joint-Venturs Members which Best Illusb'ates Current Qualifications Relevant to ~ls Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
i~!iiiiiiii~~iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiliiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiil e. Estimated Cost (in thousands)
~i~i ~iii i d. Completion Work for which
Date (actual Firm was/is
iii~i!ii!i~ii!i! ~i i~ i~ i!i!ii!i!!!!ii!iii!ii!!ii b. Nature of Firrns's Responsibility c. Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
]ndef'mite Delivery Contract for See Below US Army Corps of Engineers 1994 $335 67%
Flood Control Studies within Now York District (fee)
the Passaic River Basin, 80 River Street
NJ and NY Hoboken, NJ
Ref:' Mr. John Wright
(201) 656-4749
A Phase I General Design Memorandum for the Passaic River Basin Main Task Order 4: Desien of the Great Piece Meadows Weir
stem was completed in 1987, recommending a comprehensive flood control URSG developed the preliminary design for the hydraulic structures to
plan including a 40 foot diameter flow diversion tunnel. Subsequent control flood stages andhydro-periods for the preservation ofwetlands in
congressional actions altered the recommended tunnel outlet therefore, a the Central Passaic River Basin.
Design Memorandum was subsequently prepared. URS Greiner, in Joint
Venture provided required input to support this schedule in a timely fashion Several gate types and configurations were considered to balance first costs,
through the following assignments, operation and maintenance costs and reliability in order to yield a cost
effective operationally efficient design. Center line surveys were prepared
Task Order I: Flood Damage Data Acouisition to refine actual structure heights, and a structural and geotechnical analysis
Detailed site inspections and flood damage assessments were performed at were conducted for both the gated concrete portion of the weir and the
300 flood prone structures. Damages were estimated at various flood stages earthen embankment section. The analysis considered sliding, overturning,
up to 15 feet above the main floor evaluation. Structure Invento~ Damage bearing, and seismic loads. Cost estimates were prepared using the M-
(SID) flies were converted to a statistical data base to facilitate an efftcient CACES Gold cost estimating system.
sampling design.
Task Order 5: Procedural Guidelines for Estimatin~ Structure Value
Task Order 2: Analysis of Flood Damage Data A Procedures Manual detailing the use of structure values in determining
In order to verify the current applicability of generalized flood damage National Economic Development benefits is publication at IWR. This
prediction fimctions developed by URSG in 1980, flood damage data manual utilized examples ~om the Passaic River Basin to demonstrate the
collected in Task Order 1 were statistically analyzed and compared to other proper use of structure value as a surrogate to flood damage. Techniques
indicators. The cause of significant variations were evaluated to provide for developing and applying depreciated replacement cost are evaluated.
new or updated damage functions. Results are compared to market data estimates and tests to measure risk
based uncertainties have been developed and explained.
Task Order3: Democ, raohic Characterization of Basin and Flood Plains
Significant demographic indicators such as population and income
distributions were evaluated for both the overall basin and selected flood
plain areas. A GIS program was utilized in conjunction with census block
data to accurately describe development patterns and trends.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet/s subject ~o the restricEon on the t/t/e page of this proposal or quotaEon
O:,,PROPOSAL.~SOUTHOL[7,255FORM,d:)ROJECTS~PASSAiC.',A~D STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Rest Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
Date (actual Firm was/is
~. Ct ~r~ ilii ~ b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility o i Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk See Below US Army Corps of Engineers 1995 $75 35%
Point, Long Island, NY New York District (fee)
Breach Contingency Plan 26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Re~:' Cliff Jones, Project Manager
(212) 264-9077
In December 1992, Pikes Beach in West Hampton suffered a breach in the bm'Tier One of the many unusual aspects of the analysis is that both the rate of breach
island, exposing thousands of strucVzres 'along Moriches Bay to increased flooding, growth and the occurrence of a post-closure storm exceeding the design level are
Following the study, design and contracting procedures of P1 84-99, it took 6 uncertain events, requiring analysis using Monte Carlo simulation techniques.
months before an emergency contract to close the breach could be awarded.
During this time the breach grew from its initial size of 200-300 feet wide at a Simulations were performed which allow probability dis~butioes to be repetitively
depth of 2-5 feet, ultimately reaching a width of over 2500 feet at depths of 12-20 sampled and the uncertain relationships between them to be determined. In this
feet. A more timely response would clearly have reduced the $7,000,000 closure manner uncertain future events are fully considered in the decision and risk
cost. The Breach Contingency Plan was developed to streamline the response to assessment process.
any future breach along the project shoreline, avoiding the increased costs
associated with procedural delays.
Establishing the most cost-effective response plans presented numerous unique
technical challenges including:
Identifying the mostly likely breach locations
Predicting the rate of breach ~owth
Quantifying the impact of breach growth on flood damages
Establishing a standard closure design
Evaluating alternative construction techniques.
The analysis used empirical data to establish individual breach ~owth equations
for Great South Bay, Moriches Bay and Shinnecock Bay. Working as a
subconsultanL URS Grether estimated flood damages to over 37,000 structures
relating hydraulic model results for a range of breach conditions, allowing the
economic impacts to be calculated for a range of response times. The study
established the most appropriate construction procedure for closing a breach for
each of 9 reaches. The benefit cost comparison indicated that the most cost-
effective breach closure technique is to combine the rapid response capability of
trucking inland or stockpiled materials with the high volume capacity of dredging. Closure of West Hampton Breach
If mobilization is delayed, however, the increase in breach size makes dredging the Cost Approximately $7 million
more viable approach.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
h\MARKET~PRINT~F~-BRCH wPn STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
:' ~t ~"~t Date (actual Firm was/is
a, b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c, Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Green Brook See Below U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1997 $310,000 100%
Flood Control Project New York District
Union, Somerset & Middlesex 26 Federal Plaza
Counties, New Jersey New York, New York 10278
Ref.: Bob Greco, Project Manager
(212) 264-9080
URS Greiner provided preliminary design, developed flood control plans, and Interior Drainage Works: A Feature Design memorandum (FDM) is being prepared
prepared the General Re-Evaluation Report (GRR) for the Green Brook sub-basin of for the lower portion of the basin. In this reach, URS Gminer is preparing a detailed
the Raritan River watershed, consisting of 16.5 miles of local protection works, several design of all interior drainage facilities including drainage ditches, stormwater piping,
closure structures, channel modifications and earthen dams. Project elements include: flap gates, inlet and outlet structures, several ponding areas and two major stormwater
levees, floodwalls, channel modifications, flumes, detention reservoirs and interior pumping stations exceeding 200 cfs in capacity. Optimization was also performed for
drainage facilities. Cost estimates were prepared for each alternative and project 25 additional ponding areas throughout the study area. Performance of detailed designs
benefits were evaluated in order to identify the NED Plan components, were tested utilizing the COE HECIFH interior drainage analysis software.
Economic Analysis: In addition to conducting a complete inventory of flood plain Channel Modifications: Improvement plans for the upper watershed consist of six
structures and individual damage assessments at major damage sources, URS Greiner miles of channel modifications, with earthen trapezoidal sections and concrete flumes.
performed a series of distinct benefit analyses for this project. The first analysis A key design issue was balancing flood stages against inducing increased flows
consisted of traditional probability weighted damage and benefit analyses for the line downstream, due to altering the naturally occurring diversion. On Stony Brook, a
of protection. A similar traditional analysis was then applied to each of the 30 interior supercritical concrete flume and stilling basin were fully modeled.
drainage areas. The third analysis consisted of a limited risk and uncertainty
assessment for each of the 60 project reaches. In order to verify the results or' the Detention Reservoirs: Three detention reservoir sites were considered in connection
limited R&U assessments, the more detailed procedures developed by the LA District with this project. Dams evaluated
for the Santa Paula Creek GRR were applied to a sample reach. In response to ranged in size from 25 to 54 t~et high ~
Washington level concerns regarding the impact of R&U on plan selection, an and were 470 to 1,360 feet long. At
additional probability weighted analysis of levee reaches was performed, one site, roller-compacted concrete
was evaluated as a cost-effective
Itydranlic Analysis: A hydraulic analysis was conducted for the Green Brook alternative to an earthen dam. For the
watershed (both with and without project conditions) using HEC-2. A challenging final two dams, up to 20 rock core
facet of the analysis was the use of the split flow option in HEC-2 to model a 6,000 cfs borings were taken per site and a 35%
diversion of water from Green Brook into one of its sub-basins. Effort involved design has been prepared.
matching historic flood marks, calibrating against stream above and below the
diversion and routing flow through city streets. Cost Estimates: Cost estimates were
prepared for the $300 million project
Local Protection Works: Throughout the lower portion of the watershed, over 16.5 using M-CACES GOLD so,ware
miles of levees, floodwalls, closure structures and interior flood control facilities were incorporating the necessary crew
optimized in conjunction with the project based on comparison of costs and benefits make-up and production rates.
for various design levels. URSG designed levee and floodwall sections for use in
preparing a General Reevaluation Report (GRR).
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11 ~92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualificafions Relevant to this Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
i!i!;ii:~ iLl'ill ~i~ d. Completion Work for which
Date (actual Firm was/is
Long Beach Island, NY - See Below U .S. Army Corps o f Engineers 1994 S 313 100%
Feasibility Study: Damage & New York District
Benefit Assessments for Storm 26 Federal Plaza
Damage Reduction and Erosion New York, NY 10278
Control Project Ref: Ina J. Ohrwashel
(212) 264-0154
URS Greiner participated in the preparation of an expanded reconnaissance
and feasibility level study to identify and evaiuate possible solutions to the
ongoing problems associated with the continued erosion of the 9-mile
beachfront on the barrier island of Long Beach Island, New York. L~SG's
role in the project was centered on field inspections, economic analyses and
report preparation. URS Greiner completed a windshield survey of 8,000
structures on the island including buildings, utilities, bulkheads, seawalls,
and roadways to establish a structural database tbr storm damage analysis.
Data was collected from construction plans, aerial mapping, on-site
inspections, and interviews with owners and local officials.
In addition URSG analyzed the oceanfront structures of this barrier island
for erosion, wave att~k and flood damages. Generalized flood damage
relationships for non-oceanfront structures were developed utilizing limited
sampling procedures. Technical writing was provided by URSG in the
preparation of the Reconnaissance Report and the Economic Appendix for
the Feasibility Study.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the fi~fe page of this proposal or quotation
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
8, Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to Iflis Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
~~ ~, ~ e, Estimated Cost (in thousands)
, ' Date(actual Firm was/is
~;? i?,~: b. of Firms's Responsibility Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Reconnaissance Study See Below US Army Corps of Engineers 1998 $785 100%
Port Monmouth, New Jersey New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Ref.: Ina Ohrwashel (212) 264-0154
The Reconnaissance study for Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays evaluated
opportunities for both flood control and shem protection from Sandy Hook
to the mouth of the Raritan River. The CPEFURS Greiner Joint Venture
identified the specific problems and needs of the individual communities.
Six communities were recommended for feasibility level studies to be cost
shared with the State of New Jersey. This reconnaissance portion of the
project incorporated the following services: collecting and analyzing
existing data, evaluating shore protection and flood control alternatives,
establishing interior drainage requirements, performing economic analysis
of storm damage and beach recreation, and preparing Reconnaissance
Feasibility Reports.
Upon approval of the first feasibility Cost Share Agreement, the project
team initiated work on the Port Monmouth Feasibility Study. As part of the ~'~ !
work effort, URSG established a structural database through a complete
windshield survey of 1,100 structures. Data collection efforts included ~56~' ¢::: ~! ~ '
review of aerial mapping and on-site inspections with owners and local
officials.
The feasibility efforts in Port Monmouth included the evaluation of
alternative levee, flood wall, seawall, beachfill, dune, flood proofing and
closure gate alternatives mitigate damages in the area. The HECIFH
analysis of interior drainage was complicated by uncertainty in tidal
tailwater impacts. Risk-based economic assessments considered uncertainty
in tidal surge and structure damage.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on tho title page of this proposal or quotation
F:!0MARKET'tMONMOUTH WPD
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV, 11-92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not more than 10 Projects).
Date (actual Firm was/is
b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c, Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
North Shore of Long Island, See Below U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995 $60,000 50%
New York Storm Damage New York District
Protection and Beach Erosion 26 Federal Plaza
Control Reconnaissance Study New York, NY 10278
Long Island, New York Ref: Tom Pfeiffer
(212) 264-9077
This project provided a comprehensive analysis of the Storm Damage and Erosion
Control problems for 213 ~mles of the Long Island shoreline. URS Greiner, working as
a subconsultant, conducted engineering, environmental, and econotrfic analyses necessary
to focus feasibility level studies to the most critical locations. The project area included
a wide range of shoreline conditions including beaches and dunes, tidal bays and
estuaries, and numerous bluffs. The combination of diverse problems and large
geographic area provides a uniquely complex set of formulation issues.
Afl. er assessing the general problems and needs of the entire North Shore of Long Island,
the study focus shift.ed to formulating implementable solutions to critical problems
identified at Asharoken and Bayville, NY. The development of protection plans for
Asharoken required a careful assessment of the sediment budget and future erosion
trends. Localized annual erosion rates of up to seven ~et per year result fi'om a complex
interaction of natural and manmade effects associated with inlets, groins and a past sand
mining operation. A wave energy flux analysis was conducted to quantify design and
renourishment requirements.
Severe tidal inundation problems in the community of Bayville were evaluated in detail.
This analysis was complicated by the need to maximize shorefront access while avoiding
adverse impacts to the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Working within these
constraints required formulation of a hybrid system of dunes, revetments, bulkheads and
flood walls to provide a comprehensive line of storm protection.
Services provided by the team members include:
preliminary design of levees, floodwalls and closure structures;
interior drainage formulation including ponding, pumping and diversion alternatives;
storm damage assessments using life-cycle analyses of risk and uncertainty; and
assessments of potential HTRW impacts.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
h\MARKET~PRINT~NOSHO2 WPD STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project {List not more than 10 Projects).
i? ~!i~i ~ ~I;I d. Completion Work for which
Date (actual Firm was/is
b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c. Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Total Engineering and See Below U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994 $250,000 50%
Feasibility Analysis Atlantic New York District
Coast of New Jersey, Sandy 26 Federal Plaza
Hook to Barnegat Inlet - Beach New York, NY 10278
Erosion Control Project, Reft Cliff Jones, Project Manager
Sections I & H (212) 264-9077
URS Greiner prepared Feasibility Level Studies and a General Design Memorandum for beach erosion con~'ol along
the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey from Sea Bright to Manasquan Inlet. Services provided by the team include the -
f ollowing:
Prepared Feasibility Reports
· Prepared General Design Memorandum ~;~i . ~ ·
· Conducted Geophysical Analysis ~:
· Conducted Vibracore Sampling _
~ Conducted Remote Sensing Surveys ~~
Prepared Topographic and PlanimeUSc Mapping/Survey ~.
· Performed Windshield Survey of Floodplain and Developed Computerized Data Bank Illll~'~llll
· Conducted Storm Damage Surveys I/~~~
· Performed Economic Analysis
· Conducted 5000 CVM surveys
· Developed willingness to pay bid fanctions for evaluation of recreation benefits
· Performed Project Justification and Optimization
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
h\MARKE~/'~p RI N15TOTA LENG W PO
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV, 11-92)
8. Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not mere than 10 Projects),
~~i' e. Estimated Cost (in thousands)
Date (actual Firm was/is
b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c. Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
Reconnaissance Level Erosion See Below U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995 $50.000 50%
and Damage Protection Study New York District
for the South Shore of Staten 26 Federal Plaza
Island, New York New York, NY 10278
Ref: Joe Forcina, Proj. Manager
(212) 264-9077
URS Gminer, working as a subconsultant, was contracted by the New York Completed the HTRW reconnaissance including recommendations for
District to perform reconnaissance, feasibility and design level studies to intrusive investigations and chemical sample requirements.
provide storm damage protection along the 13-mile south shore of Staten Used the Corps MCACES cost estimating software to develop detailed
Island. The preliminary plans include the selective use of beachfill, dunes, cost estimates of project features.
levees, floodwalls, and drainage improvements. The project includes the Developed a reconnaissance report which identified specific areas of
following services: Federal interest in a storm damage protection project.
Conducted a comprehensive site inspection to establish the existing ~
condition of beach and upland facilities and to inventory affected
buildings and drainage structures.
Established horizontal and vertical control and surveyed beach profile
lines.
Calculated historical and recent shoreline and volumetric changes.
Analyzed coastal processes and developed sediment budgets.
Conducted a detailed environmental site inspection with Corps
personnel to characterize resources and to assess project impacts.
Performed numerical model study of time-dependent, storm-induced
beach and dune recession for existing and design conditions.
Evaluated potential beachfill borrow sources.
Evaluated the hydrology and hydraulics of interior drainage areas using
the HECIFH software. Formulated drainage alternatives including
various pond and pump station configurations.
Performed a complete benefit analysis including reductions in
inundation, wave attack and erosion damage as well as recreation
impacts. The wave damage analysis incorporated risk uncertainty
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
F:\OMARKET~SOSHORE W PO
STANDARD FORM 255 (REV. 11-92)
8, Work by Firm or Joint-Venture Members which Best Illustrates Current Qualifications Relevant to this Project (List not more Wan 10 Projects),
~,~1~11~ e. Estimated Cost (in thousands)
d. Completion Work for which
Date (actual Firm was/is
a. Project Name & Location b. Nature of Firms's Responsibility c. Owner's Name & Address or estimated) Entire Project Responsible
New York City-Wide Water See Below New York City Department of 2000 $9,700 100%
Main Mapping Project Environmental Protection
New York, New York 59-17 Junction Boulevard
Corona, NY 11368
Ref: Wendy Doff
(718) 595-4148
URS Greiner was selected by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection to create
the first-ever computer-based map of the city's water mains, to be completed by the year 2000.
Prior to this project, information on the city's 6,500-plus miles of water lines was recorded on over
6,000 maps of various scales and degrees of accuracy, plus an estimated 50,000 records of changes in
the form of diagrams, field notes and drawings. As part of this data conversion mapping project, URS
Greiner will collect, update and integrate this information, some of which has not been updated in
several decades. The result will be an integrated computerized map atlas and database covering all
lines, valves, hydrants, and other appurtenances.
Using semi-automated edge-matching techniques to create a city-wide,
seamless base map.
With computer-assisted mapping, the DEP will be able to easily access any part of the
system at any scale, giving them a management, operational, record-keeping and
maintenance tool. This coordinated database of information will allow more effective and
efficient management. Future updating will be accomplished more quickly and at less cost,
and when water mains break or other problems arise in the future, water engineers will
quickly be able to identify affected areas and decide what action is needed.
To test production feasibility, URS Greiner evaluated a variety of digital compilation and
conversion techniques, including electronic scanning, and screen and manual digitizing.
Both originals and copies of manascripts were used in the evaluation. The results established
the specifications, conventions and definitions of all the map series and the architecture for
the associated database.
Digital reconfiguralion of Digital reeonfigttration of
distribution information distribution information
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to ~he restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation
O:\PROPOSAL\0934073~PROJECTS\NYCWMM WPD STANDARD FORM 255 {REV. 11 '92)
References
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Project Title
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Project Title
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Project Title
United States Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Tom Pfeiffer
(212) 264-9077
Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study
Moffatt and Nicol Engineers
1629 Thames Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, Maryland 21231
John Headland
(410) 563-7300
North Shore Reconnaissance Study
Coastal Planning and Engineering
2481 Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, Florida
Tom Campbell
(561) 391-8102
Fire Island Interim Protection Project
Evidence of Financial Stability
LAST 5 YEARS
Year Total Income # of Contracts # of Employees
1996 $12,055,000 5,750 3,046
1995 $6,356,000 3,100 1,435
1994 $4,889,000 2,800 1,205
1993 $1,433,000 2,400 1,132
1992 $4,728,000 2,000 1,102
CURRENT YEAR
# of Current Projects
3,425
# of Employees
5,980
I I f I f ! [ ~ f I [ I [ 1 f ! fl f ! I ] f I f ! f ! fl I ! I I I I !
STANDARD 1. Firm Name I Business Address: 2. Year Present Firm Established: 3. Date Prepared:
1904 December 29, 1997
FORM(SF) URS Greiner Consultants, Inc. 4. Specify type of ownership and check below, if applicable:
254 Mack Centre Il, Mack Centre Drive
Paramus, NJ 07652
Architect-Engineer A. Small Business
And Related B, Small Disadvantaned Business
Services
Questionnaire la. Submittal is for [] Parent Compan r [] Branch or Subsidiary Office Q, Woman - Owned Business
5. Name of Parent Company, if any Sa. Former Parent Company Name(s), if any, and Year(s) Established:
Thortec International, Inc./1988; URS Corporation/1964; Broadview Research Corporation/1957. Regional
URS Corporation Predecessor Firms: Greiner Engineering, Inc./1 984; MSR Engineers/1975; Dalton. Dalton. Newport, Inc./1971;
San Francisco, CA Madigan-Praeger/1969; Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury/1950; Madigan-Hyland/1929; J.E. Greiner
Company/1908; Coverdale & Colpitts/1904
6. Names of not more than Two Principals to Contact: Title/Telephone
1) Thomas C. MacAIlen Vice President (201) 262-7000
2) Francis J. Geran Senior Vice President (201) 262-7000
7. Present Offices: City I State I Telephone I No. Personnel Each Office: 7a. Total Personnel 5,736
See attached listing.
8. Personnel by Discipline: (L~st each person onlyonce, byprimaryfunction).
4 Acoustical/Noise Experts 19 Ecologists 117 Hydrogeologists/Geohydrologists 18 Specification WYiters
187 Accountants/Financial Specialists 4 Economists 70 Hydrologists 261 Structural Engineers
410 Administrative and Management 99 Electrical Engineers 12 Industrial Hygienists 102 Surveyers
34 Airport Planners 256 Environmental Engineers 15 Interior Designers 323 Technicians
23 Archaeologists 173 Environmental Scientists 12 Laboratory Operations 85 Technical Editors
186 Architects 24 Estimators 16 Landscape Architects 18 Toxicologists
42 Biologists 2 Fire protection Engineers 68 Marksting/Bus[ness Development 124 Transportation Engineers
361 CADD/Dralters 6 GIS Specialists 118 Mechanical Engineers 11 V~ater Quality Specialists
80 Chemical Engineers 288 Geologists/Geotech. Engineers 89 Planners: Urban/Regional 110 V~rd Processors
59 Chemists/Biochemists 53 Geo-Scientists 4 Policy Analysts/Regulatory Spec. 47._~0 Part-33ms/Temp. Employees
629 Civil Engineers 36 Graphic Artists 17 Procurement Specialists
28 Community Relations Specialists 64 Hazardous Waste Specialists 16 QA/QC Specialists 5,736 Total Personnel
220 Construction Inspectors 23 Health Safety Specialists 30 Sanitary Engineers
161 Const. Managers/Schedulers 2 Historians 34 Seismic/Earthquake Engineers
123 Computer/DP Specialists
9. Summary of Professional Services Fees Received: Ranges of Professional Services
(Insert index Number) Last 5 Years (most recent year first) =ees:
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 INDEX:
1. Less than $100,000
:)irect Federal contract work, including overseas 8 8 8 8 8 2. $1oo,ooo to $250,000
All other domestic work 8 8 8 8 8 3. $250,000 to $500,000
All other foreign work* 8 8 8 8 8 4. $500,000 to $1 million
5. $1 million to $2 million
6. $2 million to $5 million
7. $5 million to $10 million
* Firms interested in foreign work, but without such experience, check here: [] 8. $10 million or greater
STAN
I I I f I I ! ( I I I ( ] ! I I I r ] ! I I I [ ] I I I i I I I I I I ! I
10. Profile of Firm's Project Experience, Last 5 Years
Total Gross Total Gross
Number of Fees Number of Fees Number of Total Gross Fees
Profile Code Projects (in thousands) Profile Code Projects (in thousands) Profile Code Projects (in thousands)
1) 005 508 38,825 11) 058 20 7,335 21) 107 443 16,019
2) 006 617 57,420 12) 076 66 3,141 22) 109 23 14,530
3) 011 770 96,462 13) 079 487 14,771 23) 115 218 9,858
4) 021 376 67,265 14) 087 108 15,467 24) 218 324 8,095
5) 029 897 45,827 15) 089 147 11,863 25) 235 12 21,936
6) 033 450 25,655 16) 092 55 5,234 26) 266 57 137,479
7) 042 169 6,312 17) 095 76 23,496
8) 046 2,012 224,586 18) 096 289 26,776
9) 048 431 14,499 19) 097 89 4,702
10) 052 344 10,407 20) 102 1,340 25,663
11. Project Examples, Last 5 Years
"P", "C", Completion
Profile "JV", Cost of Work Date (Actual
Code or "IE" Project Name and Location Owner Name and Address (in thousands) or Estimated)
011 P 1. Fred Hartman Bridge (Houston Ship Channel) Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District $91,200 1995
033 102 Pl~nnlng, EIS, and main span design for cable- 7721 Washington
062 107 stayed bridge, Baytown to LaPorte, Texas Houston, Texas 77251
033 104 P 2. National Guidelines for the Development of qafional Cooperative Highway Research Program 300 1996
028 114 Wetlands Replacement Areas National Academy of Science (Fee)
Nationwide Washington, D.C.
033 102 P 3. Pendola Point Marsh Development Tampa Port Authority 300 1996
Tampa, Florida Tampa, Florida (Fee)
042 087 P 4. New York Hub Port Study New York City Economic Development Corporation 80 1996
023 092 Feasibility Study for Deepening NY Harbor New York, New York
079 201 New York, New York
107 218
042 089 C 5. New York Harbor Collection and Removal of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 673 1995
092 023 Drift, Indefinite Quantity Contract 2 ('93-'95) ~lew York District
002 Genaral Design Memorandum and Plans & Specs New York, New York
New York and New Jersey
042 023 P 6. Sheepshead Bay Piers New York City Economic Development Corporation 13,000 1994
089 021 Plans & Specs Rehabilitate Piers New York, New York
101 088 Brooklyn, New York
097 069
042 092 P 7. Rehabilitation of 35th Street Pier New York City Economic Development Corporation 8,000 1995
101 097 Brooklyn, New York New York, New York
STANDARD FORM 254 (REV 11-92)
I ! I ! ir I [ ! I' I I 1 I I [ I [ ! [ ! [ ! I ! [ ! I I ! I I I ! i j I I
042 096 P 8. Buffalo Inner Harbor Reconfiguration Empire State Development Corporation 17,000 1997
060 101 Recenfiguratio of harbor, including pier 420 Main street
088 266 protection system, Buffalo, New York Buffalo, New York 14202
042 023 P 9. Daniel Island Terminal at the Port of South Carolina State Ports Authority - Wando Terminal 3,000 1998
101 097 Charleston 400 Long Point Road, Building 448 (fee)
Charleston, South Carolina Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
042 066 P 10. Indian Head Marine Terminal Robinson Terminal Warehouse Corporation 709 1990
Indian Head, MD #2 Duke Slreet (Fee)
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
042 033 P 11. Egg Island Site Evaluation Disney Development Company/Disney Cruise Lines 248 1995
079 Elenthera, Bahamas Celebration, Florida (Bid)
042 066 P 12. Waterfront Facilities for New Cruise Ship Island Dredging, Ltd. Confidential 1996
Port of Call, St. Kit~s, West Indies Basseterre, St. Kitts per client's request
092 101 P 13. Raritan River/Greenbrook Sub-Basin Flood ~U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 310,000 Ongoing
023 102 Control Project Formulation and Pre- New York District
025 104 Engineering Design, Middlesex, Somerset, and qew York, New York
056 114 Union Counties, New Jersey
092 104 C 14. Lockhaven Flood Control Project - Unit 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 37,000 1993
025 Plans & specifications, levees, floodwalls & Baltimore District
closure structures and drainage works Baltimore, Maryland
Lockhaven, Pennsylvania
092 097 JV 15. Atlantic Coast of NJ, Sections 1 & 2, Seabright U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 267,000 1992
023 101 to Manasquan Inlet, A 21 -mile Beach Erosion New York District
092 Control Project. Feas~ility through Plans and New York, New York
Speos.
092 097 P 16. Buckroe Beach to Lighthouse Point City of Hampton 350 1996
023 101 Design & monitoring beach restoration project Department of Parks and Recreation (Fee)
Hampton, Virginia Hampton, Virginia
092 P 17. Sonora Desert Greenbelt Stormwater Mgmt. City of Senttsdale 65,000 1996
056 104 Stormwater mgt., including prelim./fmal design of 3939 Civic Center Boulevard (Fee)
078 114 flood protection measures, Sentrsdale, Arizona ScoOsdale, Arizona 85251
092 102 P 18. Post Disaster Assessment of Building Flood Federal Emergency Management Agency 550 1992
015 Damages - Evaluated building performance Washington, D.C. (Fee)
023 Nationwide
095 066 P 19. Seismic Engineering Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 18,000 1999
015 072 Seismic studies and retrofit designs at military Huntsville Division (fee)
047 101 facilities, Nationwide Huntsville, Alabama 35807
115 079 P 20. Trunk Water Main Design New York City Department of 56,000 1995
023 102 9-mileseclion - 48" diameter Environmental Protection
056 Staten Island, New York New York, New York
STANDARD FORM 254 (REV 11
I[ ! [ I [ I I[ 1 [II F-! [ ! [ ! [ I I' ! [ ! [ I !' ! ! [ ! i I I I
115 023 P 21. Water Systems - Distribution Study - Pipe Norfolk District Corps of Engineers 120 1993
Rehabilitation Evaluation 803 Front Street
Ft. Lee and Ft. A.P. Hill Norfolk, Virginia 23510
115 102 P 22. 3 MG Stout Allen Potable Water Reservoir City of Culorado Springs 210 1993
023 Colorado Springs, Colorado Water Depar~ent (Fee)
Colorado Springs, Colorado
115 023 P 23. Water Supply and Distribution System IJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers 75 1996
Evaluation Norfolk District (Fee)
Fort Eusfis, Virginia Norfolk, Virginia
218 C 24. Fire Island Inlet to Montank Point, Breach Moffatt & Nichul Engineers 25 1995
092 Contingency Plan - Formulation & economic Baltimore, MD - For Army Corps of Engineers (fee)
102 analysis, Long Island, New York New York District
218 C 25. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Moriches to Moffatt & Nichol Engineers 31,500 1994
092 Shlnnecock Reach, Westh~npton Beach Interim Baltimore, MD - For Army Corps of Engineers
102 PI~ - Formulation & ecenomic analysis, Long New York District
Island, New York
218 C 26. Fire Island Inlet to Montank Point, Interim Coastal Planning & Engineering 60,000 1996
092 Storm Damage Reduction Project, Fire Island Boca Raton, FL - For Army Corps of Engineers
102 Iulet to Moriehes Iulet - Formulation & eeonomic New York District
analysis, Long Island, New York
218 104 C 27. North Shore of Long Island Erosion Control Moffatt & Nichol Engineers 60,000 1995
042 114 and Storm Damage Reduction Reconnaissance Baltimore, MI) - For Army Corps of Engineers
092 266 Study - Formulation, levee alignment, interior New York District
drainage, economic analysis, Long Island, NY
218 266 C 28. South Shore of Staten Island Storm Damage Coastal planning & Engineering 50,000 1995
092 Reduction Project - Levee alignment, interior Boca Raton, FL - For Army Corps of Engineers
114 drainage, economic analysis, Staten Island, NY New York District
218 C 29. Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet - Frederic IL Harris 70,000 1995
092 Reconnaissance & Feasibility Studies New York, NY - For Army Corps of Engineers
088 Long Beach, New York New York District
218 042 JV 30. Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay, NJ - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8,000 1997
023 092 Combined Flood Control & Shore Protection New York District
Reconnaissaace and Feasibility Studies, New York, NY
Monmouth County, New Jersey
12. The foregoing is a statement of facts
~ .
Signature: /) ~'~',-~.,~.~.,-'~-/~'~J~,~'~'-~-- Typed Name and Title: Thomas C. UacAllen. Vice President Date: January 1~- 1998
STANDARD FORM 254 (REV 11-92'~
I I I I I I': I I I I I I I I I } I 1 I I I I I ! I I I I [; ~ I I I I I I I I
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for This Project
a. Name & Title: PHILIP R. HOPKINS b. Project Assignment: PLANNER
c. Name of Firm: THE GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP, INC. d. Years Experience: With this Firm: I Other Firms: 18
e. Education: Degree(s)/Year/$pecializatinn f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
MS/1978/City and Regional Planning
BS/1970/Economics
g. Experience and Qualifications Relevant to the Proposed Project:
Mr. Hopkins is experienced in economic and social impact studies, facility siting, regional
economics, fiscal impact assessment, multi-attribute decision-making, benefit-cost analysis,
engineering economics, land use planning, environmental impact assessment, site feasibility
studies, growth management studies, and statistical analysis. Areas include flood control,
navigation, dredging, environmental studies, land use and facility siting and assessments.
He is also well-versed in assessing the land use, economic and social impacts of commercial
developments, energy facilities, transportation, and facilities siting projects; navigation
project planning and evaluation including dredged material disposal, channel deepening,
commodity forecasting, economic analysis. Key projects have included:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Managed a commodity forecasting study for the
Philadelphia District. The study estimated changes in the flows of crude oil, coal,
scrap metal, and iron ore that would occur under alternative channel depths being
considered under the proposed deepening of the Delaware River's main navigation
channel. Interviews were conducted with importers and exporters. The study forecast
commodity flow changes based on changes in the number of vessel trips, changes in
vessel characteristics, changes in utilization, and market conditions. Forecasts were
developed at five-year intervals for a 50-year period.
Intra-coastal Waterway, Southern New Jersey. Principal investigator on an analysis
of the recreational boating benefits that would be produced by a deepening oftbe intra-
coastal waterway in southern New Jersey. Developed a questionnaire which was
administered in the field to determine the change in boat usage produced by a deeper
channel. Recreational boating benefits were then determined based on the change in
usage and changes in unit day values, consistent with Corps "Principles and
Guidelines".
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Managed a benefit-cost analysis for the Philadelphia
District that evaluated a proposed dredging project on the Schuylkill River in
Philadelphia. The study considered increases in recreational usage along the river,
attendance at regattas, and changes in unit day values to estimate the benefits. The
study concluded that the project was not in the public interest because a majority of
the recreational benefits would be private.
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Task manager on the preparation of a Shoreline
Management Plan for the City of Virginia Beach. Using historical data on erosion
rates, and city data on the market value of structures, Mr. Hopkins performed an
economic analysis of different non-engineering beach nourishment plans, comparing
unit nourishment costs to the major, direct benefits. He also presented
recommendations on maintaining public access, identified the preferred nourishment
option, and analyzed different Federal and State programs under which the City could
obtain sand for nourishment. Discussions were held with the Corps in Norfolk to
ensure that the economic analysis was consistent with the Corps methodology.
Port of Salem, New Jersey. Managed a benefit study for a proposed deepening of the
navigation channel for the Port of Salem in New Jersey, including estimates of the
navigational benefits that would be produced by alternative channel depths. Benefits
included lower unit vessel operating costs, and an absolute increase in the amount of
annual tonnage flowing through the port.
State of Delaware. Developed a methodology for use in deciding when to use the
state-owned dredge to deepen channels in the Indian River Bay area. The major issue
was the potential for creating significant private economic benefits to owners of
shorefrnnt property while also producing public navigation and recreational boating
benefits. The method focused on requWmg the state to classify and describe the public
and private benefits from a proposed dredging action, attempt to quantify them were
possible, and compare them to the proposed public cost of the dredging.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Principal investigator on a
project to identify dredge material disposal sites on Long island Sound. Mr. Hopkins
(Continued..)
7. PHILIP R. HOPKINS (CONTINUED)
performed an economic analysis and conducted a series of interviews to estimate the
costs of disposing dredge material at different locations within the Sound.
Cumberland County, NJ. Principal investigator on an environmental assessment of a
proposed upland dredge disposal site. The dredged material would be produced by
selected dredging at shoals in the navigation channel of the Lower Cohansey River.
His analysis looked at land use effects, fiscal impacts on the host municipal
government, social impacts, and compatibility with existing planning and zoning.
Wicomico County, MD. Principal investigator on a study to develop a site selection
process to identify and evaluate potential upland dredge disposal sites in Wicomico
County, MD. He was responsible for developing engineering, economic, land use, and
social criteria that the county would apply in selecting the preferred upland disposal
area.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Managed an evaluation of county and emergency
planning and evaluation programs following a hurricane along the New Jersey and
Delaware coasts. Phone interviews were conducted with County and Municipal
emergency planning coordinators. Program effectiveness was evaluated and program
changes were recommended to the Corps.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Managed a study to estimate flood stage-property
damage curves at non-residentinl properties located along the Lackawaxen River in
northeastern Pennsylvania. The Corps was evaluating design modifications to the
Prompton Lake Dam, which had the potential for changing its downstream flood
protection benefits. Field interviews were used to develop the flood stage-property
damage relationship. The study's results were used by the Corps to estimate the
changes in flood protection benefits occurring under different designs.
Chesapeake Bay Program. Manager of a study for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
(directed by EPA's Subcommittee on Population Growth and Development) that
critically evaluated the literature on the cost of supplying public infrastructure to
different forms and densities of residential development located on the suburban
fringe. The study included a synthesis of the current studies, the development of
conclusions and presentation of recommendations, and an appendix that presented
synopses of the most relevant studies.
Power Plant Siting. Developed methodologies for a number of power plant siting
studies. Many of these employed the nominal group technique and used citizen
advisory groups in identifying consensus goals and objectives, defining criteria, and
then assigning relative importance weights to the criteria. Several of these studies used
a panel of experts and solicited their opinions in developing importance weights and
judgements concerning impact characteristics.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Principal economist on a number of EAs
and EISs prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of
Hydropower Licensing. He estimated the economic benefits of proposed changes and
evaluated the regional economic, land use, recreational, and social impacts pmdured
by dam construction and operation.
NJDEP. Principal planner and project manager on two coastal planning studies. He
managed one study that developed a planning framework for determining the
development potential of coastal locations for energy facility development. He was
the principal planner on a second study that estimated the impacts on tourism
constructing and operating energy facilities in coastal locations.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, VA. Principal economist on an EIS that
evaluated a proposal to pump 60 mgd of water from lake Gaston on the Virginia-North
Carolina border and pipe it 80 miles east to Virginia Beach. He developed levelized
unit cost estimates for the pipeline and throe alternatives, including reverse osmosis.
He updated and extended existing forecasts of consumptive water demand by major
use type within the Roanoke River Basin. He also reviewed and revised water demand
forecasts for Virginia Beach to verify the need for the project.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, NC. Mr. Hopkins estimated the recreational
and power benefits associated with a change in the operation of High Rock Lake as
part of an EA. He determined the value of the annual recreational benefit that would
occur under the proposed rule curve using regression analysis incorporating data on
visitation, weather, and recreational benefits per visitor day.
I~ 1 r~l I~ 1~ i' ! · 1 ! ! I 1 · I I' I lr~l !~ 1 I! ir I i I ! ! I i i I I I ! I
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for This Project
a. Name & Title:
STEVEN M. JONES, PH.D.
c. Name of Firm: THE GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP, INC.
e. Education: Degree(s)/Year/$pecialization
Ph.D./1983/Ecology
MS/1978/Environmental Sciences
BS/1975/Biology
b. Project/lssignment:
PROJECT MANAGER/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
d. Years Experience: With this Firm: 2 Other Firms: 18
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
1992, Senior Ecologist (ESA)
g. Experience and Qualifications Relevant to the Proposed Project:
!:i: i: ::::~: i: :: ::. ::.:..i: :~:~: ~:: ~:::::~ :::~::~:::::~: ::~ ::::~ :::::::::~: :::~::~. ~.:~.i: ::.:::~: ~:. i.~:.~:. ::.i.i. ', i.::.:~. ::.:: :~.~::.i.:~. ~i!,i. i.i i.i.i, !.ii.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i. !. i.i.i.!.i, i i.i.i.iii, iii.
Dr. Jones has 19 years of experience in the environmental field, eight academic and 11 as
a consultant. His areas of expertise include population and community ecology, wetlands,
and statistics. As a Project Manager for GPG, Dr. Jones plans and manages a wide variety
of projects involving ecological systems, including habitat evaluation and restoration;
wetlands assessments and mitigation; multidisciplinary impact statements; environmental
permitting; ecological risk assessment; natural resources damage assessments; and computer
simulation models. Dr. Jones is also responsible for developing costs for a variety of
projects involving natural resources, including habitat restoration, damages to fish and
wildlife, and wetlands mitigation.
He has conducted numerous ecological investigations for Corps of Engineers projects and
has a strong background in statistical and quantitative analyses; he has also developed
numerous environmental monitoring programs and has published articles in leading
ecological and biological journals and has taught undergraduate- and graduate-level college
courses, including a graduate-level course in wetlands offered at West Chester University.
Key project experience includes:
Project manager for review of historical data on dredging and disposal of dredged
material for Toledo Harbor. The objective of this project, which is currently being
conducted for the Buffalo District, is to determine if historical data support the
continuation of open water disposal and to develop a list of parameters for future
testing of sediments.
For the Baltimore District, Dr. Jones served as project manager for a survey of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) in Shallow Creek, an embayment of the
Chesapeake Bay. The objective of the survey was to identify the distribution, density,
and species of SAVs within the 130-acre embayment. Exact locations of the SAV
beds were identitied using GPS. The data obtained from the survey will be used by
Corps planners to locate a new channel that will allow the local watermen to access the
Chesapeake Bay. A quick turn-around was required so the SAVs could be
characterized during the optimal period of the growing season.
As project manager for the Green Brook flood control project in central New Jersey,
Dr. Jones headed a team of ecologists that conducted habitat assessments using Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP), identified potential mitigation sites, and developed
mitigation plans for creation, enhancement, and restoration of habitat impacts that will
result from the Green Brook flood control project.
In Burlington County, New Jersey, Dr. Jones headed a team of ecologists that
characterized cover types and developed a habitat management plan for McGuire Air
Force Base. Elements of the project included an assessment of the functions and
values of all wetlands on the base and measures to enhance or restore wetlands.
Dr. Jones led a project team in a comprehensive review of the literature on the
waterfowl, fmfish, shellfish, and threatened and endangered species of the Chesapeake
Bay. The report generated from this project was used to evaluate options for the
disposal of materials that will be dredged from the deepening of the shipping channel
in the bay.
As a member of the project team that developed a business plan for the Delaware
River Port Authority, Dr. Jones developed the costs for the permitting, construction,
and operation and maintenance for mitigation banks at four sites in South New Jersey.
The costs for the mitigation banks, which total over 500 acres, were used to identify
bonding potential and revenues that could be used by the Port Authority to fund their
share of the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project.
(Continued...}
F I [" 1 I'- I i~-'1 I- 1 !' 1 !' 1 Ir'! I"'--! ir I I~ ! l- I I" ! g ! ! ! IF i ! ! i I ! I
7. STEVEN M. JONES, PH.D. (CONTINUED)
U.S. Steel, Ecological Risk Assessment, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. As manager of
the ecological module for the RFI/CMA work plan, developed and implemented an
innovative approach using amphibian communities to prioritize over 50 areas of
concern on the 3,000-acre Fab'less Hills site. Designed experimental protocol and
conducted statistical analyses to compare areas of concern with background locations.
Results indicate that the presence/absence and minfive abundance of species are a
strong indicator of ecological impacts due to past industrinl uses.
Occidental Chemical and the Olin Corporation. Habitat Restoration, Niagara Falls,
New York. Prepared a habitat restoration and enhancement plan for the 102nd Street
embayment in Niagara Falls. Restoration will re-astablish dense beds of wild celery,
which will provide feeding habitat for muskellunge and waterfowl. Dr. Jones also
developed a cost basis for monetary contribution by the responsible parties to a habitat
restoration fund for the Upper Niagara River. Based on habitat units for a marsh
restoration project, a contribution to the fund would compensate for the loss of three
acres ofriverine habitat in the Niagara River. As a result of recommendatinns by Dr.
Jones, the project sponsors adopted alternative restoration technologies that will allow
a more cost-effective restoration, which will allow greater acreage to be restored.
Occidental Chemical. Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Love Canal, Niagara
Fails, NY. As senior technical consultant, reviewed available data and scientific
literature to estimate injuries to natural resources that may have occurred due to the
release of dioxin from the Love Canal Landfill. Project elements included
development of costs that resulted from the damages. Successfully negotiated a
settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of the Interior.
For the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Dr. Jones managed an
ecological assessment in Monmouth County, New Jersey. As manager of the
ecological tasks for the supplemental feasibility study of Burnt Fly Bog, he participated
in and managed several ecological investigations designed to evaluate the functions
and values of wetlands and evaluate the potential impacts of lead and PCBs on flora
and fauna. Results of the studies were used to evaluate the ecological impacts of
alternative remedial technologies.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Environmental Studies, Pt.
Monmouth, NJ. Lead ecologist for several tasks associated with the Raritan Bay-
Sandy Hook Bay combined Flood Control and Shore Protection Project. Tasks
conducted include preparation of an Environmental Scoping Document in accordance
with NEPA guidelines and selection of potential mitigation sites. Currently in
progress, Dr. Jones is coordinating an interageney HEP team to select evaluation
species that will be used to assess project impacts and develop mitigation plans.
U.S. Army Corps of Enginears, New York District. Marsh Restoration, Central NJ.
Identified tidal marsh restoration projects in the Mid-Atlantic States that involved
eradication of Phragmites and re-established natural marsh vegetation. Conducted
detailed telephone and on-site interviews with technical personnel responsible for
designing and/or implementing projects. Prepared a report summarizing the successes
and failures ofrestoratinn projects.
Ciba-Geigy Corporation. Statistical consultant, Mobile, Alabama. As statisticall
consultant, advises Ciba-Geigy on experimental designs, data analyses, and statistical
protocols for manufacturing sites throughout the United States. Representative
protocols include least squares regression, analysis of variance, analyses of
loguormaIly distributed data, and Monte Carlo simulation.
Rohm and Haas Statistical Analysis, Bristol, PA. Over the past ten years, conducted
a wide range of statistical analyses for 20 years of data on soils and groundwater forl
the Bristol, PA facility. Analyses include analysis of variance with multiple range:
tests, non-parametric tests of trend adjusted for seasonal variation, stepwise
discriminant analyses, principal component analysis, and alternative treatments of
censored data.
Occidental Chemical Corporation. Statistical Analysis, Niagra Falls, NY. Developed
statistical protocols for monitoring ground water quality for the S-Area Landfill, which
is adjacent to the drinking water treatment plant for the City of Niagara Falls, and the
Hyde Park Landfill. The protocols, which were approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
included non-parametric tests for long-term and seasonal rends.
f ! l-! f 1 [ I r'l I~"1 fl f I fl I ! [ ! I ! [ ! fl I 1! ! ! ! I I [ I
7. Brief Resume of Key Persons, Specialists, and Individual Consultants Anticipated for This Project
a. Name & Title: CHARLES E. YOE, PH.D. b. Project Asstgnment: ECONOMIST
THE GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP, INC. d. Years Experience: With this Firm: 7 Other Firms: 20
c. Name of Firm:
e. Education: Degree(s)/Year/$pecialization
BA/1972/Economics
VIS/1977/Master of Policy Sciences; MS/1981/Water Resources Planning
Ph.D./1986/Agriculture and Resource Economics
f. Active Registration: Year First Registered/Discipline
g. Experience and Qualifications Relevant to the Proposed Project:
Dr. Yoe has extensive water resource experience with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
He has held positions as a Research Economist with the Institute for Water Resources (IWR)
and as a project manager for the Baltimore District. His experience in water and related land
resource economics field analysis and research includes economic analyses of: flood control
(structural (regional/reservoir) and nonstructural) in fluvial, coastal, storm water and ice
regimes; storm protection, including weir flow, wave damage, tide, backwater and wind
damage; shoreline erosion including ocean, riverine and bay environments; municipal,
industrial and agricultural water supply (including irrigation systems analysis); groundwater
and well system analysis; deep draR navigation; inland navigation; major rehabilitation of
locks and dams; recreation analysis using unit day values; travel-cost and contingent
valuation methods; commercial fishing for f'm and shell fish; redevelopment (un- or under-
employed labor resources); hydropower; housing economics; life-cycle cost analysis;
earthquake economics; hazardous materials economics; analysis of costs; and, risk and
uncertainty analysis as applied to the foregoing analyses.
Dr. Yoe's experience and knowledge have made him a regular instructor in numerous
courses offered by the Corps of Engineers including their PROSPECT series and IWR
courses. In addition, he is an adjunct faculty member at FEMA's Emergency Management
Institute and regularly contributes to emergency preparedness and mitigation courses for a
variety of natural and man-made hazards. Current work efforts for IWR include
investigating the incorporation of risk and uncertainty analysis in environmental restoration
projects and the development of a plan formulation manual.
Navination: Dr. Yoe's most recent work has included the incorporation of risk and
uncertainty analyses into navigation studies for Galveston, Texas City and Houston, Texas
(1994/5) as well Philadelphia, PA, Wilmington, DE, and Camden, NJ (1995). He has also
directed work on a limited reevaluation report (LYR.) for Port Everglades, FL as well as
conducting a Section 107 (1995) at the same location. In addition, he has designed and
directed a variety of navigation research projects for the COE including: incorporation of
risk and uncertainty into the Corps general equilibrium model (GEM); development of a
methodology for estimating structure condition indices for the 80 largest locks and dams in
the inland waterway system; optimal allocation of the inland watenvay trust fund; estimation
of the probability of inck-related stalls on the inland waterway; the value of recreational use
of the inland locks; risk and uncertainty analysis for the Galveston Bay Area Navigation
Study (1990). Under GPG's recent IWR contract, he assisted in the preparation ora Manual
for Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Corns' Civil Works Planning, including development
of case studies showing application of analysis methods in navigation and flood control
projects. Dr. Yoe has, in the past, developed the navigation planning course and has
recently consulted with IWR on the resurrection of a new navigation course.
His experience on navigation studies as an economist and project manager include the
following studies: Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD (deep draft navigation), Cambridge
Harbor, MD (deep draft, small harbor), Claiborne Harbor, MD (recreational navigation),
Dogwood and Neavitt Harbors, MD (commercial fishing), West Ocean City Harbor, MD
(commercial fishing, recreation), Philadelphia Harbor, PA (deep draft navigation),
Alexandria Harbor, VA (deep draft, small harbor), Rock Hall, MD (commercial fishing and
recreational boating).
Coastal/Shoreline Protection/Streambank Erosion: Drafled EC for economic analysis of
Section 14 projects for Office of the Chief of Engineers (1987), reviewed Section 14 studies
from across the United States for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, conducted economic
analysis for numerous Section 14 studies (1981-1984). Storm Protection, Shoreline Erosion
and Coastal Work included: Atlantic Coast of MD and VA, Ocean City, MD, Assateague
(Continued..)
I !! ! · ! f I r I [ 1 ri fl f'! [ I r-! f'l f II ! [ ! ! ! [ I [ !
7. CHARLES E. YOE, PH.D. (CONTINUED)
Island, West Ocean City Harbor, Virginia Beach, VA, Jacksonville, FL, Galveston, TX,
Baltimore, MD (Baltimore Metropolitan Streams), and Chesapeake Bay Review Study (two
dozen sites in Chesapeake Bay region). Dr. Yoe was an Instructor, Coastal Hazard
Mitigation Course at FEMA's Emergency Management Institute and Consultant to COE on
Coastal Storm Damage and Erosion Manual NED Procedures Manual. Dr. Yoe conducted
benefit-cost analyses of SP, SE and C projects; he pioneered development and use of spatial
data management techniques and developed wave damage models for shoreline
development; he conducted and directed numerous storm damage surveys and researched
beachfront property values and the "transfer" of property values.
Plannin~t: Dr. Yoe served as a Corps' project manager for major projects, including LFPs
at Harrisburg, PA and Wyoming Valley, PA, along with several other smaller projects. Dr.
Yoe participated in the plan formulation process on over 40 other Corps' project ranging
from the Susquehanna River Basin Comprehensive Review Study to continuing authority
programs. As a USASCE economist, Dr. Yoe reviewed continuing authority projects and
basin planning studies for CESPD. Recently Dr. Yoe conducted a nationwide survey of
Corps planners and has authored a comprehensive planning manual for IWR.
Flood Control: Dr. Yoe has a complete and up-to-date familiarity with all COE guidance
and regulations pertaining to flood control planning and analysis. He has participated in the
development and review of the NED Manual for Urban Flood Control (1987-1988, a
revision of same in 1994), has developed an NED Manual for economic analysis of water
resource projects for IWR, developed a methodology for estimating benefits of flood
forecast and warning systems for the Corps, authored a stute-of-the-art risk and uncertainty
analysis for flood control case studies for IWR (1990), and pioneered the use of simulation
in the development of a risk-based analysis of expected annual damages that ultimately
resulted in the methodology used in EC 1105-2-205. Dr. Yoe consults regularly with Corps
personnel around the Nation on matters related to flood damage reduction studies. These
consultations have included the development of cost-effective sampling programs for flood
damage surveys (Wilkes Ban-e, PA and New Orleans, LA) and risk analyses (Baltimore,
Galveston and Los Angeles Districts). In May 1992, he prepared three separate
Supplemental Risk and Uncertainty Analyses for Central and South Florida for Flood
Control and Other Purposes (addendums to Letter Reports S-68, S-82 and S-83 Tailwater
Weirs).
He has conducted economic analyses of numerous Corps flood control projects, including
all aspects of the work such as planning the conduct of the work, estimating time, manpower
and budget for the work and conducting the work. Specific tusks included stage-damage
surveys of residential, commercial, industrial and public properties. Techniques used
included spatial data analysis techniques (now GIS), stratified random sampling, pseudo-
random sampling, and population surveys using a variety of tools familiar to various Corps
Districts including Daprog, DaproglI, Damcal, SID-EAD, and so on. Additional tasks
include estimation of expected annual damages, estimation of future inundation reduction
benefits, estimation of location and intensification benefits, report preparation, response to
review comments and preparation of senior personnel for support of study recommendations
throughout the Corps' review process ( 1974-1990).
A partial list of experience with Corps projects includes the following: Wyoming Valley,
PA (LFP), Atlantic Coast of MD and VA (Storm Protection), Virginia Beach, VA (storm
protection), Reading, PA (LFP), Harrisburg, PA (LFP), Milton, PA (LFP), Conklin and
Kirkwood, NY (LFP), Binghamton, NY (LFP), Susquehanna River Comprehensive Review
Study, Clifton, AZ (nonstructural), Coming and Elmira, NY (LFP), Jersey Shore, PA (LFP),
Colorado Big Thompson, CO (BOR multi-purpose reservoir), Upper Marlboro, MD (LFP),
Metropolitan Baltimore and Gwynns Falls (LFP), Four Mile Run, VA (LFP), Beaverdam
Creek, MD (LFP), Washington, D. C. Flood Control (LFP), Chesapeake Bay
Comprehensive
Study (LFP), and numerous Section 205 projects. Dr. Yoe frequently conducts training on
a variety of topics related to flood control economics.
Water Sunnlv: Economic analysis of water supply alternatives, including: Cowanesque
Reallocation Study, PA (water supply), Parker Lake, OK (agricultural water supply),
Colorado Big Thompson (agricultural water supply, M & I), Chesapeake Bay
Comprehensive Study (low flow augmentation).
Recreation: Economic analysis of recreation projects, including: Four Mile Run, VA
(recreation), Colorado Big Thompson, CO (recreation) Atlantic Coast of MD and VA
(recreation), and preparation of"Establishing a Corps of Engineers Recreation Philosophy"
for IWR (1989-1990).
Economic. Social and Demoeraohic Analysis: Applied and theoretical experience in the
analyses of water and related land resource projects: general economics; microeconomic and
macroeconomic theory; welfare theory; social choice; economics of uncertainty and
information; forecasting; econometric models; econometric and statistical methods and
models; construction, analysis and use of econometric models; mathematical methods and
models; computer programs; experimental economic methods; social indicators; data
analysis.
I ! ! I 1- I Il I I 1 I 1 f 1 I II f'l I 1 I 1 ! ! [ ! 1' I ! I ! ! I ! I
8. Work by firms or joint-venture members which best illustrates current qualifications relevant to this project (list not more than 10 projects).
e. Estimated Cost (in Thousands)
a. Project Name & Location b. Nature of Firm's c. Project Owner's Name & Address & d. Completion
Responsibility Project Manager's Name & Phone Date (actual or Entire Work for Which
Number estimated) Project Firm Was/Is
Responsible
Green Brook Flood Control Project See below U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996 401 401
Haibtat Mitigation, Phases I, II and III New York District
Contact: William Richardson
26 Federal Plaza, 21st Floor, Room 2142
New York, NY 10278-0090
212/264-1275
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. (GPG) led a team of biologists that examined habitat impacts resulting fi.om
flood protection measures in the Green Brook Basin, NJ and developed mitigation plans to compensate for the impacts.
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: To reduce flooding problems faced by local communities, proposed protection measures include levees, floodwalls, channel
· Mitigation Site Selection realignments, dry detention basins, ponding areas and pumping stations. Approximately 137 acres of habitat impacts are
· Environmental Mitigation Planning estimated due to construction activities. The Corps proposes to mitigate for these impacts through creation, restoration
· Cost Estimate/Incremental Cost Analysis and enhancement measures within the project area.
In the ftrst of three assignments, the GPG Team examined 17 potential mitigation sites. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) values were calculated for 12 target wildlife species using
GDI/HEP - a computerized version of the Pennsylvania Modified Habitat Evaluation Procedures (PAMHEP). The GPG Team also obtained tax maps to identify property owners for
all sites and describe the ownership under various categories (private-industrial, private-residential, etc.). This effort provided the District with a baseline habitat value and land use
characterization for the potential mitigation sites.
The objective ora second assignment was to prepare conceptual mitigation plans for each of the 17 previnusly-identified candidate mitigation sites. The GPG Team prepared
up to three plan options per site, as warranted by site location, topography and hydrology. Typically, palustrine emergent and forested wetland designs were prepared whenever possible,
and scrub-shrub designs were employed when site conditions were less favomble. The GPG Team also prepared conceptual level cost estimates for each design. These estimates included
clearing, excavation and earth moving costs along with detailed expenditures for plantings. This effort was completed on a rapid turn-around of six weeks to provide preliminary design
and cost information for a Corps presentation to the public.
In the third assignment, the Team conducted regional screening for 20-25 mitigation sites. The GPG Team conducted initial site screening within the entire Raritan (NJ) River
dminage basin to locate at least 50 sites of suitable size, using existing documents, aerial photographs and the experience gained in the previous two Green Brook projects. All sites were
field-inspected to ground truth the documents and to determine if the sites were indeed suitable. The 50 preliminary sites were jointly examined by the GPG Team and the District for
selection of the best 22 sites. Once these 22 sites were selected, the GPG Team carefully inspected and documented each site, which included: wetlands boundaries, ownership, cover
type, land use, and unique features. Based on the above information, the GPG Team ranked each of the 22 sites along with 17 original sites. The 39 sites will be presented to the local
flood control commission and host counties, which will make the final selection of mitigation sites.
f I f I 1' I f I I' I [ ! I" I [ I f 1 [ I f I f I f I f ! f ! [ I ! ! [ ! !
8. Work by firms or joint-venture members which best illustrates current qualifications relevant to this project (list not more than 10 projects).
e. Estimated Cost (in Thousands)
a. Project Name & Location b. Nature of Firm's c. Project Owner's Name & Address & d. Completion
Responsibility Project Manager's Name & Phone Date (actual or Entire Work for Which
Number estimated) Project Firm Was/Is
Responsible
Assessment of Selected Delaware See below Delaware Estuary Program Science & 1991 49.5 49.5
Estuary Economic and Natural Technical Advisory Comm. through the
Resource Values Delaware River Basin Commission
25 State Police Drive
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Contact: David Pollison
609/883-9500
GPG was selected to develop an economic assessment of all major uses of the Delaware Estuary, including
analysis of the direct and indirect individual and cumulative market economy uses and resources, and the non-market
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: Estuary values including natural resource area values and historic habitat losses. This study initially set out to determine
· National Estuary Program the economic values of the market activities and environmental resources and losses in the Delaware Estuary. The intent
· Environmental Symbiotic Relationships was to use the available data and research literature to estimate the values of the interactive processes and activities that
· Economic Input/Output Analysis depend on and utilize the resources of the Estuary. Not surprisingly, the study revealed a sizable and complex economy.
The Estuary's resources are responsible for billions of dollars of goods and services annually to the market and non-markat
economies of the region.
Details of the region's economic activity were explored through an input-output analysis. The input-output model used was designed to measure the direct and indirect components
of Estuary economic activity to arrive at a total impact that the Estuary plays in the market economy encompassed by the thirteen county Estuary study area. Industries that are directly
related to the Estuary (water users, wastewater dischargers, navigation, fishing, recreation, etc.) were identified and evaluated for their contribution to the regional economy. County
Business Patterns data, collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, were the input to the model Results from the input-output analysis indicate that the Estuary
supported about 123,000 jobs, $4.3 billion in wages and $24.4 billion of outputs (sales) in 1990. This economic activity generated total state tax revenues of $358.5 million and total local
tax revenues of $202.5 million. In terms of a percentage contribution to the regional economy, the Estuary generates approximately 7 percent of the total regional employment. Over
51 percent oftutal regional wages is attributed to the Estuary itself. High-paying manufacturing jobs, especially in the petroleum and chemical industries that rely heavily on the Estuary,
help to explain this broad difference.
Because the petroleum industry is such a significant part of the regional economy (4,300 jobs are directly related to the Estuary), the overall effect of this industry on the Estuary
economy was examined. An estimated 80 industries within the Estuary region were identified as intensive users of petroleum products (over 500 industries could be considered).
Approximately 199,500 jobs are generated by these industries in the Estuary and wages exceeded $6 billion for 1990. This suggests the importance of the Estuary to this industry and
conversely the importance of this industry to the larger economy. The petroleum industry is one example of the importance of the Estuary resources to the regional economy.
Based on estimated quantities of natural resource losses, literature values and additional information from existing Estuary programs in the U.S., estimates are presented of the
values of historic natural resources, potential future losses and replacement costs. The study objective was to calculate the value of many of these systems, including their cumulative
major uses and replacement values, based on available data sources, reports and documents.
References
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Name of Organization
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Phone Number
Delaware Estuary Program Science & Technical Advisory Committee
(through the Delaware River Basin Commission)
25 State Police Drive
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Mr. David Pollison
609/883-9500
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
26 Federal Plaza, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10278-0090
Mr. William Richardson
212/264-1275
Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
Mr. Leigh Skaggs
703/428-9091
Greeley. Polhemus Group, Inc.
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc.
105 South High Street
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19:)82
(610) 692-2224
January13,1998
Mr. Thomas C. MacAllen, P.E., P.P.
Vice President, Water Resources
URS Greiner
Mack Centre II
One Mack Centre Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Dear Mr. MacAllen:
The purpose of this letter is to provide evidence of the financial stability of The Greeley-Polhemus
Group, Inc. (GPG) as requested in item #6 on page BA-10 of the Request for Proposals by the Town of
Southhold, New York to perform a benefits analysis. GPG has been in existence for 15 years, showing
clearly that we are a financially stable consulting finn who will continue to exist during the proposed study
should the URS team be selected. I have attached a copy of GPG's most recent Standard Form 254 which
presents financial information for the last 5 years. GPG has performed approximately individual 100
projects during this period, many of which were individual task orders on several large open-ended contracts.
Section 11 of the SF254 presents some of the major projects we have performed over the last five years. Our
major client has been the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including a number of individual Districts around
the country, and the Corps' Institute for Water Resources. GPG's total income has averaged between $1
million and $2 million over the last five years.
I have attached a copy of GPG's current active projects. The personnel by discipline figures
presented in the SF255 are correct.
Please let me know if the enclosed information meets the requirements of item #6.
Very truly yours,
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc.
Van Dyke Polhemus
President
VDP/mam
Encs.
GPG ACTIVE PROJECTS
January 13, 1998
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Baltimore District COE DACW31-95-D-0021
Fort George G. Meade Low Lif~ Station Intake Fouling
Elkton MD Local Flood Protection and Anacostia Flood Forecast & Warning System
Tobyhanna Residential Flooding Problem
Buffalo District COE DACW49-97-C-0021
Toledo Harbor Ohio, LTMS
New Orleans District COE DACW29-97-D-0019 (Sub to Dames & Moore]
Lower Atchafalaya Basin Reevaluation Study
Lafayette Parish Flood Proof'rog Efforts
Institute for Water Resources (Naviuation~ DACW72-95-D-0003
Risk-Based Analysis for Deep Drait Navigation
Brazos River, Section 216
New York District DACWSI-94-D-0035. Environmental & Cultural Resource Services
Wetland Delineation, Regional Wetland Restoration Assessment, South River
Environmental Scoping/hateragency Meeting - Raritan Bay, Port Monmouth
Research for Shipwrecks - Fire Island - Reach I
Remote Sensing - Fire Island - Reach 2
SC Testing, NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift Project, Arthur Kill, NJ Reach
HTRW SC of NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, Kill VanKull, NY Reach
SC Testing, NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drif~ Project, Arthur Kill, NY Reach
Cultural Resources Survey - Fire Island - Reformulation
BCM
Olin: 102nd Sta'eet Mitigation
Western Sand & Gravel
Occidental Chemical (Oxy Chem'~
Miscellaneous
Mitigation Valuation Model
Fish Damage
Pottstown ERA
U.S. Steel
Phase I Report
NJDEP
Burnt Fly Bog
Sediment Job (sub: Dan Smith)
Conestoea Rovers (CRA)
Miscellaneous OxyChem
Oxy NRDA - Economics
Oxy NRDA - Biological
Wetlands Mitigation Model
NCR (Niagara County Refuse)
Miscellaneous
Berks County (SSM)
(~laude deBotton
Wilap Permit
Edgmont
Four Seasons
Elicon Wetlands
Joyfur Permit
Matrix: Commonwealth
Ciba Geiev
Stats
Goldenbere
Plymouth Melxoplex Project
Levin: Wilson Tract
Standard Chlorine
Wetlands Plan
Rust Environmental
Grows Frog Study
Turkey Hill Survey
2
Shoreline Monitoring, Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
PROTECT DESC~ON
A. Purpose: To monitor beach profiles in the study area and determine existing beach
morpholo~, temporal vamfions in morphology, and quantify cross-shore and alongshore
var/orions. Also, to generate a Re~onal Sediment Budget based on the monitoring data and the
sc/enlifid literature. Data collected for this SHORm' rN'E MONITORAX[G PROGRAM should be
suitable for inclusion in a furore Fig. The study must provide appropr/ate information for the
design and implementation of measures to rniti~te erosion problems in the study area.
B. Background: The Town of Southold is interested in addressing erosion of the shoreline east
of Goldsmith Inlet, in the Duck Pond Point to Horton Point area, and east of Mattituck Lalet. A
number of different miti~tio,/proposals have been developed. The Town of $outhold needs more
precise data on shoreline behavior to sel~-t the most appropriate response to the erosion problems.
C. Geographic Setting: The anm to be monitored is along the shoreline of the Town of Southold,
New York. The we.stem corporate limits of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the 'Town line')
and headlands az Ftonou Point define the shoreline limim of the study area. Between the western
Town Iine and Duck Pond Point the shoreS, ne geology is geneml/y composed of sandy beaches
in front of b/g_h glacial bluffs, with some rocky inre~dal areas. The jerry at Mamimck lnJet,
approximately two m/les ea~ of the Town Line, is the largest shore protection stracmre in the
study area. Bulkheads have been constructed in some are~ between Mattock Inlet and
Goldsmith Inlet for bluff smbiliy~fion. F-q~t of Duck Pond Point the beach is backed by bluffs,
up to 80 feat(+/-) b/gh for a distance of approximarely 1.5 mile~, dropping to les~ than 50 feet
kigh for another mile to Goldsmith Inlet. A iow plain with a wide beach lies on the west side of
the in/et. F.~.v. of Goldsmith inlet is a barrier bar beach for approximately two miles, then rising
in low eroding glac;ml bluffs for another i/:_ mile to a height of 60 feet (+/-) at the headland at
Horton Point.
D. Project Time Frame: Duration of tiffs SItORFiIN'E MONITORING PROGRAM is an
important consideration for conclusions to be drown from the c~ta. It is intended that the
monitoring be carried out over a number of yearn, however work beyond the 1997-1998 budget
cycle w/il be dependent on furore allocations. Bidders shall provide separate bid'pric~ for each
year of a threa year monitoring program, with project years defined ~ follows:
Year 1 - .initiation of conuact to March 31, 1998
Year2 - .April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999
Year 3 - April i, 1999 to March 31, 2000.
Bidders must provide a schedule for completion of the work, including all of the products
discussed below. Toe schedule muax estimate completion ~rnea separately for the full ~-mdy area
from the western Town line to Florton Point, and for the shoreline between Duck Pond Point and
Honon Point, in the event the Town of Southold directs only that area is [o be studied. The Town
of Southold will decide the extent of the study ama prior to si~ing the contract. The successful
bidder will be informed of the Town's decision on the extent of the study area prior to initiating
the work. The overall length of time bidders will need to complete the study shall begin upon
receipt of approved, si~ed copies of the contract from the Town of $outhokL The schedule for
completion of the work will be used as pan of the crimria by which the Town evaluates proposals.
All work must be completed and subrnitred in su.~cient time for Town review prior to the. end of
;he fiscal year, March 31 of the fiscal year covered by the corarac~.
E. Scope of Work:
Year 1:
1.1.0 ~: Upon award the couadctor sh~ll plan a meeting in Southold with
the New York Depaxtment of State and Town of Southold offici.'aln to di%'u~ the work.
1.2.0
E.~mb[ish FLxed 3,[onument~: The contractor s~H ~h monm~on ~ a mfemnc~
~r condu~g pm~e ~eys. ~ch pm~ ~y sh~ be mfe~n~ to ~o monumems
located ~ ~e wkh ~e p~file ~u~, ~cu~ to ~e ~om~e. ~e courior
sh~ pro,de ~e ve~c~ ~d ho~on~ c~inar~ for ~ monument.
For the shore~ne area from the western Town line co Duck Pond Poim - Be~'nnlng ~t
Maxirack Inle:, one profile shall be estab{ished I00 feet west of the western je,'t7 with
additional profiies located every. 500 feet for 4000 f~t to the weax (9 profiles minimum),
after which profiles shall be e.sl~hiished every i000 feet (maxinlnnl) to the we~ lip to the
Town line (7 profiles minimum). Another profile shall be e~tablished i00 fee~, east of the
ca,stern jetty, at Matfituck Inlet., with addhioual profiles lo~r_,yJ every 500 feet for 5500 fee:
to the ~ (12 profiles minimum), after which profiles shall be established eve~ 1000 fee~.
(maximum) for 9000 feet to Duck Pond Point (9 profiles minimum). 'rhi,s makes a total
of 3'7 profiles (minimum) for the shoreline from the we,stern Town line to Duck Pond
Point.
For the shoreline area from Duck Pond Point to Hormn Point - Pm~es shall be located
eve,'3, 1000 f~t or less b¢~nnlng at Duck Pond Point for a diamnc~ of twelve thou.sand
feet east along the shoreLLue to near Pecodic (13 profiIes minimum). Prorates shall then
be lccamd al 5C0 foot spacing or less from Peconic for a dixtanca of twelve thon.~nd five
hundred f~t eastward to the east side of McCabe's Beach (~_5 profile~ mlnlmllm). A. nd
finally, pmfile~ shall be located at 1000 foot spac~.ng or leas from McCmbe's Beach to
Horton Point (2 pro~es minlmUnl). TlliS makt,~ a total Of '-[0 profiles (minimum) for the
study area from Duck Pond Point to Horton Point The total number of pro~es for the
enti~ shoreline area f~nn the wea~m Town line to Hortoa Point would be 76 (minimum)
comprising 37 to the west and 40 to the ~ with one common line al Duck Pond Point.
'Uae proposal shall describe the .type of monuments to be asecL The court-actor ihail
arran~ permission with land owne~ prior to monument placement. Fifz~n pm-ex/sting
monuments established by the Department of Stare between Duck Pond Point and ltorton
Point will be incorporated witi~ the monument ~acing pattern. Prec/se coordinates for
the ex/sting Depa, tment of St~t~ monuments are known. Any monuments lost or dislod~
during the study, including the pre-existing Department of State monuments, shall be
replaced by the corm-actor using the same ma£eHa!~ and techniques as the other contractor
placed monuments, prior to the time the ne.,~ proffie survey is taken.
The bid proposal must include complete descriptions of work plans, schedules and costs
for performing all the work along both the entire shoreline a_nm from the western Town
line to Horton Point, and the limited shoreline from Duck Pond Point to Hortou Point.
1.2.1
~: ~ch of the tmmec-m e~ablizhed by the monumentation shall be surveyed
out to 15 feet below mean Iow water, or to I000 f~t offshore, whichever provides the
longest survey. Transec'~s in bluff areas shsdl beg/n 25 feet landward of the top ed~ of
the bluff. Tramects in dune areas 5hall begin at the base of the landward side of the dune.
Tramecm in bulkheaded a.rea~ shall begdn 25 f~t landward of the top edge of the blurt if
a bluff is present, or on the landward side of the bulkhead, and must include a reading
adjacent to each side of the bulkhead. Readings along transec~ shall be taken at least
eve~ rea f~t and ar slope bre.'~. One complete set of prot-fle surveys shall be made in
in March of 1998.
1.2.2
Po~-Srorm Surveys: Each transect shall be surveyed to the same extent as in item 1.2.1,
Annual Surveys, after a major storm, if it should occur. Prior to conducting the Post-
Storm Surveys the Town of $outhold shall provide wrkmn aotiee to proc~,.-e..d. Where
profile Lines cross bulkheads in front of bluffs, surveys shall begin on the landwaffi side
of the b,,lkhead unless change is nofeeable in the face of the bluff, in which case the
survey shall begin 25 feet landward of the top edge of the bluff. T~ shall be
carried to the full seawar~t extent. Proposals must include a separate bid amount for thi~
item.
1.2.3
~: :-kzsemble a data base of survey profiles raferenc~ to NAD 15)83
Long Island Llmbe.~-'[ horizontal coordinnr~ ~ ,.NrAgrD 1988 vertical COOrdinar,S. Survey
darn cOllec:t~t by the New York D~munent of Sraro_ at fiReen pre-exi~iiu~monuments is
to be incorporamd with the surveys collec-~,ed by the contractor. Make a ~ di%~ram
for each transect, overlaying the prorlle surveys coflec~ed to date. Poxt-Storrn Surveya,
item 1.2.2, must be included in the ~m base and profile dia~o'~arn~. Indicate data
collection daros for survey profiles for each transec~ line borda =-~aphically and by labeling.
Survey profiles shall be compiled ~!ecrronically in the U.S. Army Co~s of Eng~n~m
ISRP format, in x,y)z coordinate dura strucrBre in ,'~ClI, and in di~anm elevation pa/rs
from the monuments in either Qnam-opro 6.0, Paradox 5.0, or F_reel 5 t'o~mat Include
pa~r copie~ of the mrvey profiles az an appendix to the Draft Report, item 1.6. O, below.
SlVf-4
1.3.0
Bathymet'dc Su~ev: A Bar. hymewic Survey shall rte taken in Ma_m~ of-1998, along the
Long f~land Sound 'shoreLine of Southold, New '/'of& near Mart~ruck In.Icr The a_rea to
be surveyed is appmx4marety ~00 ff. x 7003 ff., located along the shore in waters
be,'w~n 3 and ~ ff. de~. The western l~mlt of the 211rvey ~hal] Ii¢ along a line 800 feet
west of the we. stem jerry ar Nran~mck rnlet, vrirh the eas*.~ru limi~; being 7000 f~t to the
east. From the shoreline the survey sha[l extend ~ Ieasr ~00 f~t seaward. Bottom
s~imer~ in the survey area ranges from sand to cobble~ w/fit Alight undulations (see Figure
I': BAT]T~I:E--Z'RIC SLTRVEY AREA, below).
l~gur~ 1: BAT~'Y~.TRIC SURVEY AREA
'tV a r.a~.,iile
S'~f-5
1.3.1
1.4.0
1.5.0
Thirty, slx (36) parallel transects, each WOO R. long and ~ac'-~t 200 fr. apart shall be
surveyed along a shore perpendicular orientation (generally NN~ to SSE) with data
readings taken along these transects at distances not more than 20 ft. apart. Horizontal
coordinates should be referenced to NAD 1983 and the vertical damtu to NAVD 1988.
Survey readings must be made u~ing either a kigh pinion fathometer with appropriate
corrections or survey sled teclmiques. Pomn~i~l error should not exceed +/- 1 ft..
Map of Bathyme~c Survey: Provide a map showing the Bathymetric Survey re.vatts in
Long Lsland state plane coordinates, with contour lines at even 2 ft interml~, survey lines,
amd survey dept/:m recorded (scale 1" = 200'). The map shall be produced in both paper
and distal formats (AutoCAD DXF file format on 3.5" dlskelle). A 3.5" floppy disk of
the dam in New York Sta~ Plane horizontal coordh-~r,,S with depths in f~t, in ASCII, and
x,y,z coordlnare data structu~ in either Q~m _nlrop. ro 6.0 or Ex~,/5 format ~ be prepared
for submission with the draft and final reporu. Maps shall include datutu, coordinate
sysmtu and accuracy information in accordanc~ with the requirements in Appendix I.
Barhyme~c Difference Map: Produce a difference map. ufili~ng the results of the
Barhyme.~c Survey, frem 1.3.0, and the results of the most recen[ hydr%~raph/c survey
available covering the same area available from the National Geodetic Dam Center
(NGDC), Boulder, Colorado. Determine areas of erosion and accretion, subdivide those
areas into smaller area~ of two or ttk~ foot change increments and identify those areas
g~apb, ically on the Map. Provide coordlnare ~stetu hash ma~ along map ed~ ~ well
as delineation of shoreline and cultural features to facilitate ofienmiom Provide a brief
Repor~ with final datutus, map accuracy, and with a quamimrive .~n'nmary of volume
chan~ w/thin the map area. Final map produc~ sh~ll be prodec~ in both paper (1" =
2C0' sca/e) and diem/formam (AutoC.-LD DXI:: file format on 3.5" diskette), with damtu,
coordinar~ system and accuracy information in accordamc~ w/th the .requirements in
Appendix 1.
,:~ff~[~b~l~:~g~: Vertical aer/al pbotog,~pl~y of the shoreline mmdy ama demrrnlned by
the Town of $outhold shall be mlC~l ha the ~pring aq near aq po.~l'blc tO ~ ~5~lrch mrvey,
fr~'m 1.2.1, Azmual Surveys. The photography shall be color, m~reographic, and ar 1:9600
scale. Visible. targets should be placed at the survey monumenm.
Summary of Beach ..Morpholo~: Provide a de~zription of existing con-ditiom including
tetuporal and ~patial changes in morphology, and cro~-shore and alon~hore
morpholo~cal variariom based on the darn collec',ed. Include a map. showing the lomHon
of s/gnifican[ morpbolog/cal features including, but nor limlr, l~j to: the ~.~m and toe of the
bluff, crest and toe of the dune, ~ of the bern(s), butkhead~, jetties, low water step.,
inshore trough, inshore ridge, and offshore bar(s). The map shall be prtxiuced in both
paper (I' = 200' ~ale) and distal forma~ (,~ttoC.-kD DX~ file formaron 3.5' diske=e)
in accurdan~ with the requirements in Appendix 1.
.6.0 ~: Prepare a Draft Report with the following:
a) Monument descr/pfions with horizontal and vertical coordinates, line a~imur/l and
length, and a hi~ory of any monument replacement
b) Method~ used to compile survey ~ara
c) Printed copies of survey profiles
d) gathymeu-ic Survey map, as in item 1.3.1, above.
e) Bathymetric Difference map, as in item 1.3.2, above.
f) A complete set of the Year 1 aerial photos, as in I.¢.0, above.
g) Summary of beach morpholo~m], as in item 1.5.0, above.
Deliver twelve (12) copies of the Draft l~Tor~ to the Town of Southold pr/or to March 31, '
1998.
1.6.1
~.~IllltI~: Tile conlr,actor shall lllake i1 p~t~l/on on fi. ridings of the Dmf-t Report for
Ye2~r 1 of the SHOR~'3'IN'E MONITORING PROGR,-~M to the Town of Sourhold,
Erosion Nfifi~ion Work Group. The rotating shall be held in $outhold Town It:alt prior
to >larch 31, 1998, at a time conven/eat ro members of the Work Group.
1.6.2
Final Report: The contractor w/Il produce a Final R~.--por~ from the Draf~ R~or~,
incorporahng all dam collated rkmugh Year 1 of the SI~OREJJN~ MONITORL-NG
PROGR~-L.¥I, as well as wrkten and ver~al comments received within twO w~ks of the
~. The Final Rt~ it qhal] conrain tile complete copies of a/1 pmducu described
in Year 1: Scope of Work including rut/sets of maps in paper and d/~u/formats.
Twelve copies of the ~ will be delive~d to the Town of $our~old pr/or to April
30, 1998. Two additional digkal cupies of the Report, complete wi~ d/~tal copies of all
map products in accordance with the standards in Appendix l, shall be delivered to the
Town for dhm'oution to the Yew York Deparanenr of State.
7ear 2:
2.1.0 =MlmllI_SRELej~: .%ay monuments lost or dislod=~d prior m Y~ 2 m~eys sh~ll be
p~ mon~u. For ~e shom~e ~m Duck Po~ Po~t m ~o~on P~L~t ~h of ~e
~ ~hed by ~e monum~on s~ll ~ m~ey~ ~ice, our m 15 f~t below
mean iow w~er, or m 10~ f~ ~shom, w~chever pm~ ~e ~ m~ey. One
su~ey s~ ~ ma~ ~ S~tem~r of 1998, ~d one ~ ~h of 1999. ~e shom~e
t~m ~e w~ To~ ~e m D~ Pond ~t s~ ~ m~ey~ once dung N~h of
I999. T~s~ ~ bluff m 5hail ~n ~ f~ ~dw~ of ~e t~ ~ge of ~e binffi
T~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~e ~ of ~ ~dw~ side of ~e dune. T~m
~ bul~ ~ s~ ~ on ~ ~ ~ of~ burred ~d ~clude a ~
ad]a~ m tach si~ of ~e bu~d. ~ a = c~ a bu~ ~ ~nt of a blu~
the >~h m~ey sh~ ~ x i= ~ f~r ~dw~ of ~e mp ~e of ~e bluff, ~d
the September survey shall b%qn landward of the bulkhead if no change is noticeable in
the bluff. Readings along transecu shall be taken every ten f~t amd at slope bnmk&
2.1.1
Post-Storm Surveys: Each transect shall be anweyed to the same extent as in Rem ].2.2,
Annual Surveys, after a major storm, if it should occur. Prior to conducting the Post-
Storm Surveys the Town of Southold shall provide written notice to proceed. Where
profile lines cross bulkheads in front of bluffs surveys shal/begin on the landward side of
the bulldmd unle,~ change is noticeable in the face of the bluff, in which case the survey
shun beg/n 9_5 feet landward of the top edge of the bluff. Transects Shall be carried to th~
full seaward extent. Proposals must include a separate bid amount for this item.
2.1.2
v~im~:l~l~l,~: A&~emble a data base of survey profiles referenced to NAD 1983
Long Island Lambert horizontal coordlna*~ and NAVD 1988 vertical coordimtes. Survey
data collec*~ed during Year l of this study as well as that collected by the New York
Department of State at fift~n pm-existing monuments is to be incorporated with the Year
2 surveys collected by the contractor. Make a separate di%~,alil for each transect,
overlaying the profile surveys collected to date. Post-Storm Surveys, items 1.2.2 and
2.2.2, must be included in the dam base and profile diagrams. Indicate data collection
dates tbr survey protiles for each trans~-t line both g'mpk/cally and by labeling. Survey
profiles shall be compiled electronically in the U.S. Axmy Corps of Engineers IStC~
format, in x,y,z ¢oorrtlnate data structure in ASCII, and in distance elevation pairs frol~
the monuments in either Quattropro 6.0, Paradox 5.0, or Ex~l 5 format. Include paper
copies of the survey profiles as an appendix to the Draft Report, item 2.5.0, below.
2.i.3
~L.R~2~I~: Vertical aerial photography of the shoreline study axes deterrained by
the Town of Southold shall be taken in the spring as near as possible to the March survey
described in item 2.1.0, armual Surveys. The photography shall be color, stereographic,
smd at I:9600 scale. Visible targets should be placed at the survey monuments.
~all~mo~,~ri~: A Bathyme~c Survey x~n be ta~_n in lune of 1998, along the Long
Island Sound shoreline of $outhold, New York, near Goldsmith Inly. The area to be
surveyed is approximamty I000 fL x 10,000 ft., located along the shore be.~v~n
Goldsmith Inlet and Kenney's Road Beach, in wators between 3 and 25 ft. d~p. Tae
bottom i~ sandy with slight undulations and a jeu'y is located at the mout~ of Goldsmith
Inlet (se~ Fibre 2: BATHYM~z,,IC SURVEY AR~, below).
The survey ~hall extend from the west side of the jetty at Goldsmith Ialet to the east side
of the Town Park at Keaney's Beach. Fifty one (51) transects, each I000 fL long and
fL ap~ will be surveyed along a shore pe,Tmdicalar or/earar/on (generally NNW to
with dam readln~ taken along these tr~n.sects at distances not mom than 20 ft.
Horizontal coordinates should be referenced to NAD 1983 and the ve~cal damon to
NAVD !988. Survey readings mu~x be made uhng e;J~er a h/g_h pn~:*~ion fathometer with
approp~ste corre~ons or survey sled techniques. Potential eh'or ~hould not exc~*.~4 +/-
SM4
~a~p~opr]z~e correct/ohs or survey sied ~hnlques. Po{endal eh-or s~%uid'no( exc~-~d +/.
Figure 2: BA~TKIC SI~-I~.V'EY :~RE~
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3.0
2.3.1
2.4.0
Map of Bath.vmet~Sc Survey: l~vide a map showing the Bathymetric Survey results in
Long Island state plane coordinams, with contour Lines at even 2 fz intervals, survey lines,
and survey depths recorded (scale 1' = 200'). The map shall be produced in both paper
and digital tbrma~ (AutoCAD DXF file format on 3.5" diskette). A 3.5' tloppy disk of
the c~ata in New York State Plane horizontal coordinarv~ with depths in fe~ in ASCII, and
x,y,z coordinate dam srructu~ in either Quam~ro 6.0, Paradox 5.0, or Excel 5 format
shall be prepared for subm/ssion with the dral~ and final ~r~. '.M-~S sllall include
datum, coordinare system and aconncy information in accordance with the requkements
in Appendix 1.
Bathmetric Difference Map: Produce a difference map uffli~/ng the results of the
Bathymerric Survey, item 2.2.0, and the results of a similar survey ~ in i996 by the
D~artmeur of Sma, Determine axeas of erosion and accretion, subdivide those areas into
smaller ames of two or three foot Chan~ increments and identify .those areas g-raph/cal/y
on the M. ap. Provide coordimte system bash marks along map edges as well as delineation
of shoreline and o,lmral features to facilitate orientation, l:govide a brief Report wkh fmal
datums, map accuracy, and with a quantitative summary of volume changes within the map
area. Final map products shall be produced in both paper (I' = 200' scale) and distal
formats (AutoC.-LD DX2= file format on 3.5" diskette), with datum, coordinate system and
accuracy information in accordance with the retirements in AppendLx i.
Summary. of Beach Morp. hology: Provide a desc~-ipdon of e:dm. ing conditions including
temporal and rpar/al changes in morphology, and croas-shore and alongshore
morphological var:,~rions based on the cr~ra collected. Include a m~ showing the location
of sigzfilicaur morpholo~:al fonmrm including, bur not limited to: the edge and toe of the
bluff, cre~ and toe of the dune, crest of the berm(s), bulkheads, jetties, 1Ow water step,
inshore mouth, inshore ridge, and offshore bar(s). The map shall be produced in both
paper (1" = 200' scale) and di~ohitI formats (Aar~AD DX2: file formax on 3.5" dixkette)
in accordance with the requ/rements in AiypendL't i.
Correlate Mom. hoiogy with Sediment Si?~,: The Town w/il provide the results of a
Geophysical Invesrigax/on including on shore and off shore sediment analySeS. For thi~
study the contractor shall compare the sediment analyses with [~).Ch mol'!)hology and
describe the relarionsixip betw~n changes in morphology and sediment c~'atenr.
Preliminary_ R~=_'onal Sediment tlu~,,q:. I~pam a Regional Sediment.Budget for the study
area using the results of the survey dam including: the dura coLl~ted by the New York
Depaxrment of State at I5 pre-exSzrlng monument loca~on~, the resu~ of the Year i
.Annual Surveys and Post Storm Surveys (if any), the Year [ Ba~ymeu-ic Survey and
Bathymetric Difference Map, the Year 2 .aamual Surveys and Post Storm Surveys (if any)
and the Year 2 Bathymeu-ic Survey and l~xhymemc Difference Map. Include sand
source, rinks and approxknare ma_sxirudes. Compute quantitieS or quantity rangeS into
and out of the irde~ and adjacent beacheS and bays where possible. Emmate the net
sediment deficit to down drift beaches res'airing from the jetties ar Marfimck inlet and from
the jetty at Goldsmith Inlet and the Birmer and Lockman g-mlns. Estimate the average
annual bypassing required to restore natural sediment tlmasport at the ialem, including
assumptions and uncertainties. Also estimate inputs from west the Town line, around
Duck Pond Point and outputs east of Florton Point.
2.5.0 ~:aiLlgq3~: Prepaxe a Draft Report with the following:
a) Monument descriptions with horizontal and vertical coordinates, llne. a~hm~rh and
lenffth, and a history of any monument replacement
b) Methods used to compile survey mm
c) Printed copies of survey profi/es
d) A complete set of the Year 2 aerial photography
e) Bathymetric Survey maps. Provide one paper copy for each of the 12 Dmf~ Report
copies.
r) A Difference Map, as in item 2.2.2. Provide one paper copy for eac5 ef~te I2 Draft
Report copies.
g) .4. Summary. of Beach Morpholo~'. as ia item 2.3.0, with one paper mT cagy. fnr eaci~
of the 12 Draft Report copies.
h) A CorreCtion of Beach Morphology with Se-~iment content as in item 2..3.1.
i) Preliminary Re~onal Sediment Budget ~ described in imm 2.4.0.
Deliver twelve (12) copies of the Dra~ R~.'~rt to the Town of Sourhold prior to Maxcl~ 3 I,
1999.
2.5.1
~: The contractor sh~II make a presentation on findings of the Dra~ Report for
Year 2 of the SHOt~IIN'E MONITOR~G PROGRgaq m the Town of Southoid,
Erosion M~oation Work Omap. The meting shall be held in Southold Town pr.an pr[or
to March 31, 1999, a~ a time comteaient to membem of the Work Group.
2.5.2
.F_iaal_!~x~: The contractor will produce a Final R~-~x~rt from the Draft Raporr,
incorporating all dg..t~ collected through Year 1 and Year 2 of the SI~Oi~glTN-E
MONiTORI/gG P'R_OGRAM, as well as wr/ixea and verbal comment~ ..~.~ved within Cwo
weeks of the ' ' * ~ 1. Tae F~na! l~port shall co~raln the cmnplem copies
of all products d~ in ~e Year 2: Scc~. of Work including full sets of maps in paper
and distal formats.
Twelve copies of the ~ wi~ be derive-ed to the Town of Southold prior to April
30, 1999.Two additional digital copies of the Rk'port, complete with distal copies of all
map produc:s in aczordaac~ with the ~-aadarc~ ia A .ppendix l, shall be dative.md m the
Town for di.m~ution to the New York Department of State.
?_ar 3:
3.1.0
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2.0
Annual Surveys: .Any monuments lost or dislodged prior to Year 3 surveys shall be
replaced by the contractor, using the same mate~al~ amd t~hniques as the other contractor
placed monuments. For the shoreline from Duck Pond Point to EIorton Point each of the
transects emblished by the monume~rafion shall be surveyed twice, out to I5 feet below
mean low water, or to 1000 feet offshore, whichever provides the largest survey. One
survey shall be made in September of 1999, and one in March of 2000. The shoreline
from the we~em Town line to Duck Pond Point shall be surveyed once du~ug M_ar~h of
2000. Transects in bluff areas shall begin 25 feet landward of the top edge of the bluff.
Transects in dune areas shall begin at the base of the Imudward side of the dune. Transects
in bnlkh~'~d~rl ~ sba/] b~l o11 the ]aIldw~-d side of the bulkhead and ~uc!ude a ~ding
adjac~mt to each side of the bnlkhead. If a ~*a~sect crosses a bulkhead i~ f~mt of a bluff
the March survey shall begin at le~t 25 feet landward of the top edge of thc bluff, and
the September survey sh~[1 begin landvagrd of the bulkhead if no change i~ noticeable in
the bluff. Readings a/ong tran.~ects shall be tn.ken every ~cn feet and at slope
Post-Storm Surveys: Each transect shall be surveyed to the same extent as in item 1.2.1,
Annual Surveys, after ~ major storm, if it should occur. Prior to conducting the Post-
Storm Surveys the Town of Southold shall provide written notice to proceed. Where
profile line~ cross bulk~eads in front of bluffs surveys shall begin on the landward side of
the bulkhead unless chan~ is noticeable in the face of the bluff, in which case the survey
shall begin ~ f~t landward of the top edge of the bluff. Transects shall be carried to the
~il seaward extent. Proposals must include a sepa.ram bid amount for this imm.
~: A~emble a olaf, base of survey profiles P..femnced to NAD 1983
Long Island Lambert horizontal coordirmes and ~A'v'D I988 recital coordinates. Survey
dam coll~:[ during Ye~"s 1 m'td 2 of th/s study as we~ as that collected by the New York
Depmuuent of S~te ~t ffft~n pre-existing monuments is to be incorporated with the Year
$ surveys collected by the contractor. Make a separ~e dia=~ram for each transit,
overlaying the profile surveys collected to date. Po~r-&orm Survey& iterr~ 1.2.2, 2.1.1
and 5.1.1, must be included in the d=m base and profile dla.?ams. I. udieate dam collection
dam for survey profiles for each trmazec~ line both g'rophically and by labeling. Survey
profile~ ~ll be complied electronicall.y, in the U.S. Army Com. s of Engineers ISRP format
and ×,y,z coordin=m d~m $trtlcture; i~l A~CII and either Q,a~uvro 6.0, Paradox 5.0, or
F. xcet 5 format. IncNde paper copies of the survey profiles as an .a~oendix to the Draft
Report, item 3.5.0, below.
Ag~d_Pfm~l.,~l~: Aerial photography of the shoreline study area determined by the
Town of Southold shall be taken in the spring as near as possible to the ,.'vlamh survey
des~'u~ed in i~a 3.1.0, Annual Surveys. The phomgrapl~y shall be color, $tereographic,
and at 1:9600 scale.
3.3.0
Re~onal Sediment Bud?r: P:¢pare a Regional Sediment Bu~t~ tbr the study area asing
the Preliminary Regional Sediment Sudget h'en 2. 4.0 and re,suits of the survey dam
3.:1-.0
including: the data collected by the New York Depmu-ent of State ar 15 pre-e.'dsring
monument locations, the results of the Year 1 Annua/Surveys and Post Storm Surveys (if
any), the Yem. r 2 Annual Surveys and Post Storm Surveys (if any), the Year I amd Year
2 Bathymetric Surveys, and the Year 3 Annual Surveys and Post Storm Surveys (if any).
Include soum,~, sqnk.~ and approximate ma=miracles. Compute cp,ar~fie~ or quantity range~
into and out of the inlet and adjacent beaches and bays 7~here po~m%le..~sl'irnare the net
sediment deficit to down drir~ beache~ m.mlting from the jeu~es ar Martimc~k and Goldsmith
Inlet and the Birmer and Lockman groins. Estimma the average annual bypa.~r[ng required
to re.store ~amral sediment transport at the irdets, including assumptions and
A/so estimate inputs from we~ of the Town I/ne, west of Duck Pond Point and outputs
east of l:Iorton Point. Include discussion about m-ucm~e impacts on sediment mov~men[
Summarize part, ms and quantities of sediment moving through the audy area, and
seasonal or s~orm generated variations. Show these summ,~:ib.:ed patterns, qumxi-p_k~.
directions of movement on a map at the scale of 1: 10,0130. The map shall be produced
in both paper and distal formats (AutoC,~D DX~ file format on 3.5"
accordance with the requirements in .Appendix 1.
Summary. Beach :Morpholo~: Provide a descr/ption of e~ candk/uua inck~ding
temporaI and ~p~fial changes in morphology, amd cross-shore and alon~hore
morpholo~cal var/ar/ons based on the d~ra COll~..ed. Include a map showing the
of sig'nificam morpholog/cat f~mres including, but not !ira/ted to: the ed.=~ and t~e of the
bluff, c,-v~st and me of the'dune, c:est of the berm(s), bulkhe:l~, jetties, Iow w=re? ~p,
inshore trough, imhore ridge, and offshore bar(s). The map shmll be pflx~blc~[ in both
paper (1' = 200' scale) and digi~ formats (AumC.-kD DX1= t-fie format on 3.5'
in accordance with the requkements in Appendix 1.
3.5.0 ~: P~.Faze a Draft l~port with the following:
a) Up dated condition of monumenu with horizontal and ve,~icai coordimw~,
and len=~d~, and a history of any monument replacement
b) Methods used to compile survey data
c) Printed copies of survey proffies, through the S~rember 1999 survey.
d) A complete ~et of the Year 3 aerial photography
e) Re~onal Sediment Budget with map a~ descT/bed in item 3.3.0.
~) A sum'mary of beach morpho!9~ a~ described in item 3.4..0.
3.5.1
Deliver twelve (12) copies of the Dmfr R~po. n to the Town of South?Id prior to Mzav. h 3 I,
2O00.
~: The corm-actor ~rl make a presentation ou findin=~ of the Dr~ft R~o~ for
Year 3 of the SHOR~ rNE MONTrOKa-NG PROGRAM m the Towu of Southold,
Erosion Nfir/~mrion Wod~ Group. The m~'J. ng ~dl be held in Southold Town ~all. prior
to Nh_mb 31, 2000, at · time convenient to members of the Work Gms.
3.5.2
Final Repom The conwacmr will produce a Final Repor~ from the Draft Report,
incorporating all data collected th.rough Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 of the SHORCq' IN'E
MONITORE'q'G PROGRaSux,'£, as well as wrkten and veabal comments received wjrhln two
weeks of the ~. The Final Report shall contain the complete copies of ail
products descn~xi in the Year 3: Scope of Work including full sets of maps in paper and
distal formats.
Twelve copies of the ~ wfiI be delivered to the Depa,tmeut of State prior to
Apn] 30, 2000. Two additional distal copies of the Report, complem with digital copies
of all map preducrs in accordance with the sumdards in Appendix i, shall be delivered ro
the Town for dism~bution to the New York Dep',uu,uent of State.
F. Products: Submission of these product~ should be included in the codrractors time schedule
d2scussed in: D. Project Time Frame, above.
Year 1:
1.i
M~mm~L~l~ll~ - ar ~ 80 must be ptac~d plus replatmments tbr any of the
15 pre-e~sting monuments placed by the Department of State.
1.2 Survey !?mille Dia:.~rams
1.4 Map of Bathyme~c Survey
[.5 Bathyme~c Difference Map
1.7 ~l~mmary of Beach .Mo~ho!o~r
1.s
1.10 ~
Year 2:
2.1
Monument Replacement - For any monumenm that have ben de~aoyed or
damaged
2.2 Survey l>mfile Dia~m-ams
2.3
2.,
2.5 Map of 8arhmeufic Surve? '-
2.6 Bath_vme~c D/fference _May
2.7 Summary Of B~ach
2.8 Correlation of Morpholo:m/w/th Sediment Size
2.9 Re~onal Sediment
2. 0
2.i2 ~
Year 3:
S~'[-14
3.1 Monument Replacement - For any monuments ~ hav~ been destroyed or
c~'naged
3.2 Survey Profile Dia=~raxns
3. ¢ Re~onal Sediment Budget
3.5 Summm? of t~each Morphology
~.6 ~
3.7 ~
ATTACltMY_aNT 1: REQb~I~NTS i~OR CONTRACT NIAP PRODUCTS
GF~N'ERAL M:4.P PRODUCT R.EQL~PfNTS
The following general carro=m-aphic requirement~ must be adhered to by the Contractor.
1) Nfap~Products - The Division requires delivery of distal map pmducrm, urdess othemri~e
specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP), that meet the M:~ficariom outlined in this
G~N-ISRA.L MAP PRODUCT REQb~flrNTS s~tion and the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL
CARTOGI~-kPItIC FU.F. REQ~rl~N'TS section. If analog map product~ m'e required by
the RFP, they must meet specifications outlined in this G~N-ERA.L MAP PRODUCT.
REQ~flz~rs section and the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL-READY >lAP PRODUCT
REQUIR.EWE~S section.
2) Deliverable Format - ..gl distal map and arm~oute table files must be provided in Maplafo
4.0 for Windows95 format oll ~- mm DAT tape, 8mm DAT ~tape, QIC-80 rope, TR-i .m!)e, or 3.5~
floppy diske~e media. )dtemative!y, the digital products may be prov/ded in ro~'NIX or PC
ARC/12'rFO binary., or export format (.d0) or AaroCAD D,'G= format on the mine media .types
upon a~mproval of the Division..-ql other distal formats require prior approval of the Division.
Coordination with the Division prior to submission of distal me, d'm is required to ensure
comparibilky of the delive,md matemJs.
3) Documentation - A dam dictionary, must be included a/ong wir. h the map files describing file
contents, file names, map projection, horizontal and vertical datums used, coordinate system,
PuYfS accuracy and log sh~r, information sourc= and dares, the map maker and date of
preparation, and creation methodology. Dam provided under federal funds mm be provided in
a manner which m~-m .DiQral GeospaMal Fede.,-~l C_,-eom~i-aphic Darn Commitle2: Metadara Standard
as ex~uted by F-xecarive Order 12906, April 11, 1994, 'Coordinating G-eo~m-aphic Dam
Acquisition and Ac -cesa: the National Spar/al Dat~. Infrasl:nlCalre'.
4) Map Accaracy - Un/ess otherwise stated in the RFP, all deliverable map products mum
conform to National Map Accuracy Standards for horizontal and verdcal accuracy as established
by the Un/red Sta~ Bureau of thc Budget, ]'un¢ 10, 194-1, revised June 17, 1947:-For e:~ampl¢,
for maps at 1:20,000 or smaller, not more than I0% Of the well-defined map points te~ed mus~
be more man 1/50 inch (0.508 mm) OUt 0f correct position. A~ 1:24,000, this tolerance translates
to a required hor/zontal ac~racy of 40 feet_ If by prior a_D'eemem with 'the Division the map
product does not conform to National Map Ac-'m'acy Standmds, then a statement of acaml map
ac~racy should be inctuded in the Documentation above. Furthermore, hydrographic an-veys
and maps should conform to recommended accuracy smnda~ proposed in the joint USGS, NOS,
Coastal Mapping Ftandbook, 1978, Melvin ~ editor, U.S. Government Print/rig Office,
AppendLx 6.
SM-16
~ Dat-mq - Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, ail map pt~xiuc= should b~ referenced to the
North .American Horizontal Datum of 1927 (NAD2?) and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
of 1929 (NGVD29).
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL CARTOGP, APKIC Frr,F, REQ~rI~NTS
The follo~wing cartographic construction r~uirements must be adhered tm by the Contractor.
1) Edge-matching - All map sheetx must be boa vi~,ally and coo~;~am ecLge-matched wkll
adjacent map sh~ts. No edge-match tolerance will be allowed. Attributes for splimble featm~
must also be identical.
2) Common Boundaries - Ail feanam that sha~ a common boundazT, _m. gardlesa of map. layer,
must have exacdy the sanae coordinate position of that feature in ail counnon layer~.
3) Point Duplication - No duplication of points that occur v~thln a data miug is permitted.
4) Comaecfivi~ - W'hem grapnlc elements visually m~t, they must be aBo digita]Iy meet..Ail
confluences of line and polygon dam must be exact; 'ovenhoots', 'undershoots', '~liver~~, or
"offshoots" are NOT pem~itted.
~ Line Quality. - A high quality, cz.rtog-raphic a.~.earance must be achieved. Transitions from
straight lines to curvl]inear elements must be smooth, with angu~ intl~tions at the point of
intersection. The distal rep~.sentatiou must not contain extraneous dam at a ao~ visible rove..
There shoilld be no jags, hoo~, or zero len~i segments..&ay lines that axe sunlit, or should
be straight, should be di~tized using only ~wo points that represent the beginning and ending
points of the line:
6) Polygom Closure - For area features being digitized, the la~ c..................~ordimt¢ pair m_n.c.t be exactly
(mathematically) equal to the flit coordinate pair. No line or poly~n mt:~ c~,., ..... ~[f _. copt
to join at an actual confluence. All digitized features across map bouudalc
effect smooth and conrlnuous Lines.
~ Graphic Pree/sion - Positional coordinates for all digital
reported to a level of precision ~rearer than one thousandth (.001) of
8) Dig~ A~'racY - The required I~MS error for m~uzer accurac7 must be 0.00 or better
for distal map regii~ion.
ADDITIONAL DIGIT.aL-READY ..~[A-P PRODUCT REQD-IR.~I~-'NTS'
The following requimmenu for large sca/e, non-di~ud map pr~ucts must be followed to fac;~tate
the future conversion of the maps to distal map products..~l large format, non~ligi~ map
products must be provided on stable base materfial at a scale ~ptflated in the RFP. The map
products must include an index map to all map sh~ts and thorough d~ous of all the
carto~raphic elements portrayed on the maps.
1) Base Map Media - Ail maps must be created on Mylar or other stable base
2) ~iap Scale - .All maps of a 6rnU,r series should be created using the same ba~e scale. Uuless
otherwise stated by the Division, all maps should be compiled at 1:2¢,000. If other map scales
are approved by the Divixion, where possfole they will conform to standard ruT scales tach as
i:9600; 1:50,000; 1:75,000; or 1:100,000.
3) Map Re~istratlon - The maps must provide a minimum of four (4) comer and four (4)
interior tick~ tied to USGS/N-YSDOT quadrangle larJI.ong or NYTM coordinates. The maps
must be geomeu-icaLly correct and should re,stet when overlaid on the appropriate
US GS/NYSDOT quadrangle control ticks.
4) Map Title and Legend - The maps must provide a title and legend block de.tangoing the
in/on-nation conmlned on the maps, and including the Doenmentation and Dan,m~ information
requested in the GI~'E1R.a~L MAP PRODUCT REQb-I:R~S above and the map ~:ale.
~ Cartographic Quali~ - The quality of all map line work and symboli?afion must conform to
items i - 6 in the map cfire:Sa set forth in the ADDITIONAL DIG1T:~L C.4~RTOGRAPItlC
FTT.F. REQUI:R.~I~'TS sect/on outUned above.
CONTi~:kCT DAT.~BASE ST.~N-DARDS
Delivery Media
All database and rab,,l:r fi/es must be provided on distal media as sped. fled above ?_,. D,,5~'e:-able
Format. -.
Software Format
All database and U~,,lar fi/es must be provided in Bortand's Paradox for W'mdows')5 ve:'.'~on 5.0
format. Other formats that ax~ couveruTole to Paradox may be used with prior at. royal of the
Division.
Geographic Attribute~
Database and tabular files that contain elemenrz with a geographic reference mint provide a
corresponding data field and a geographic coordlr~re pa/r for each feature loenrlnn.
Geophysical Investigation. Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Pt,rpose: To a~,vze beach sediment and:
!. Lq.cate an offshore sand source in sufficient quantity to be used in a beach nourishment pro.~ecz
in the vicinity of Kenne.v's Beach, Southold. New YoHc It is presumed ~r an offshore source
must lie within approximate!y two miles for dred~ng and placement to be cost effexive.
2. [denti~ upland sand sourc~ of sufficient quantity to be used in a beach nourishment proj~t in
tile vicinity of Kenne,/s Beach. Southold. New Yod<.
Data ,5'om this study must be suitable for inclusion in a Future ElS.
B. Backgronnd: in respgnse to public concerns Bout shoreiine erosion, the Town ol'Southoid is
interested in s~ud.ving erosion of me shoreline in the Duck Pond Point to Ho~on Point area.
Town of Seu~hold's wiilin~mess to commission ~ study of shore!eno ere~on s~l in no way
manifest an acceptance of any responsibiii~ For d~e creation or colorlon o?~y erosion problems
wi~ich may be shown in :he s~udv. U~e Town ofSouthoid beiieves :.hat more praise data is a~ded
~o seiec: :he mos~ a~prop~a~e response m the erosion probiems.
C. Geographic Setting: The ~ea :o be su~'eyed is ne.ir K~ne,;'s Beach Tov, n P,_..,-k. Town or'
Southoid. New' Yorlk. Kenney's Beach Town Park is north and ~..~ or' ~he aordqe.m terminus or'
Kennev's Road. Uqe GEOPHYSIC.'.L ..~VESTIGATiON seeks ~o [oclte a ~ource or' suitable
sanci at either ~ upland location, or offsftore in Long island Sound with, in appro~mate!y
miles in any deters'on or'Kennev's Beach Town
D. Project Time Fr'ame: Bidders must,orovide a schedule ~br completion, or'the wot,,.- '- inciudin,.z_
ail of the product, s discussed below. The ove."ail length of time needed ~o compie'.e the study
shouid.be~dn upon r~eipt or` approved, siL__med copies or` the contract, ti'om the Town of Sourhoid.
The schedule ~'br completion or' the work will be used a.s part of the c,-ite.qa by. which the Town
evaluates proposals.
Execution of a final contracz is dependent upon pass~e of a New York State budget for fiscal
;'ear lpg 7-iPgB. [te.?uru'le.,:v r?/'ihe Et. lie ,?f t'~t~U'.~;'t at.,;optt~,~H at7 ,'t~r# nu.¥t h~ ct~mpJeted przor it)
/he ettd q/'ihe ftScui.rcur. .t. htrc'h 3l. !99,~
Bid proposals may provide a sch~uie with compie.,ion or' the work a~er 54arch
i~owe,,'er payment For any work c.t~ed out zlker Marc.h~,." i'-398 wiii be contin,.ze?.t_ :-oon
reappropriation or' Funds for chis smd'; in the ~008-lggg fiscal yesr.
E. Scope or'Wot4,::
10
2.0
3.0
. ",' ,, with Town of
Or,_,anizafion M~.'in,_,: Upon asgard contractor shall alan a
Southold or~cials ro dis~ss the work.
Coilec-, Existin~ Data: Collect '~xiszing reports, data and intbrmation ~br use in conduc:ing
the study. Possible sources o( information include, but are not limited to: the reg/onal
or, ce of the U.S..-~-rny Corps of En=gi'n~rs. the U.S. Geolo~cal Survey. and the State
University of New York az Stony. Brook. Re!evant data fi-om prev/ous analyses on
sediment te.xrure and possible sediment borrow sites ~hould be wed to focus the
investigation.
if suitable. ~ch ='~isfing 'data a~ may be permissfoly copied shall be [ncom. orated into the
Final Re=orr (,¥ec#o~ t'~ Pro~luczs. item '...0. be!ow) on the results of the investigation.
properly identified with its source
Sediment Analysis of E.'dszin~ B~ch: Sediment samples shall be ¢otlec:ed and analyzed
for size along six transec-~.s on r,~e beaO. fi.om west or. ?~onic Dunes County. Park to easz
or' >fcCabe's @each Town P~<. U~ese ~x transec:s are already ~abiished as sur,'ey
profiles and are identified by monument szakes on the beach. T:ne ?vlap of Monument
Locations ?or Beach Sediment Sampling below shows the a~groximate position of the
exiszing sur.'ev monuments, llabe!ed A throu~q F5 with a listing of acvaai coordinate
locations.
Beach sediment sam.~ies shaiI be coilec:~.ed at se,,'~ locations along each cransec: as
:'oiios*s: be~nning ,Mth the .5ac!ishore ~'base or' dune), then be.,-m cr, es~. mid-beach face.
!or, wazer s~e?. inshore ~rou,_,h. inshore ddge. and offshore bar. The Progosal shall
describe a me:hodoioD' For coilec.'ion ,..nd preparation. Pe.'¥orm a sieve analysis on the
suite or' samples --.nd deveioo sediment statistics including ,.s a minimum: me~. variance
~s;andard de,,Bationl, skewness and a distribution carve..ALSO evaluate :he variations in
grain size across and along the shoreiine.
The New Yod< De;a~men[ or' 5laze wiil protBde :he rm'uits or' previous beach sediment
sampling and analysis ~r the ..~'rudy area. T~ese results shall be incorporated in :he
analysis or'sediment size and across and along shore sediment variation.
The F'.,nal Renorr.. (in _<~:ion F. Pti)ducat. i/em ZO. be!.ow) shall contain c.qarts identifying
.'.he '---"'mn size diSmbution at ~ch of ~he sample ~Btex. inc!uding the separately identified
sanmte results provid~ by the O~arrme.qt or' State.
[dentin ~.c:e=tabie Sedimem ?,.rame~'e~: ['sing ~arn aoilec:..~ in ilem ZO..S~,dimet,
A,~t~vaz¥ ,?F/Cria'tm~ ,%uc~ ~nd ~diuo~ ~a pro~d~ ~y :he Oepmt,nent od 5ia~e.
identiO z ~nge of s~iment size comoositio~ 'a-hich ;vouid be ~kabty compatible For
placement on :he mr.'a7~ beach.
inland 5ur-,'ev: Lec'.te :nv !niand sand sources within 50 miles or' Kenne'/s Beach or'
Es[im.~te purchase costs. ~ruckinD costs, and pl~ceme.~t costs From ¢~ch b/and deposk per
cubic yard. Also estimate the quantity or'suitable sand at e~ch location.
)l~p oi',~lo~umen[ Lo¢:~tions l'or ~e:~¢~l Sediment $:~m.~iin~
5.0
Geoohvsical Su~ev: Using h'i,,.,h-I&:~'oh.io~ Geo, oh3:vi,=l !'e,'hniquc;.~' ~o'ey the sea floor
within two miles of Kenne:/s Beach. provided water depth exc~'~4~s :he depth of closure
but does not exceed 50 ~ket. The bid proposal shall discuss the sampling pattern that w/il
be used. Using parameters identified in it¢.m $.l. [~Jetlli~.' ,4c,~vi~tahle .5'edime.t
Pur~neter.~: locate any ar~.s where potenfia/ d~osits at' sediment suitable rbr beach
nourishment may be located, and determine their areal ~xtenc
5.1
Bodnu Samole of' Suitable Deoos~rs: Using the results of itetn
pc.florin core sampling of potential sites whe. r~ beach quality, material may exist to
dere.~nine the thickness and quaIi~ or' borrow rnate.q~s. The ~ac~ ,rig,_, tenth, and
distribution of the core samples s~hall be suffident to assure that the deposit identified in
item 4.0 is or is not of a cons/stencv which ~ls w/thin the range or' sediment size
compositions defined by itetn 3. [. [demify .4cceptab[e Sediment
tabulation of core sample results with a notation on which ~za'npies ,-r~ch parameters
identified in itetn 3. !. [denl~, ,4c6~mahle ,Pzdimem ?arame:erx. Provide an analysis or'
the over-fill ratio required For each borrow sire idenfiiied.
Mae Borrow Site Results: Prov/de a Borrow Site Loo-.fion 5,1ap desc:5.:bing s~iment ~9e
and disrribution for the entire sum'e/arm .:md outlining suitable borrow iocations ar a scale
not !ess than 1: iO.O00, indicate the [ocadon o£co~ samples ,~ng a aumbeHng C~'srem ~o
torte!are with rhe tabulation pro,,ided in tte.,n .¢.[. ,goring .~.bmp&, of .gmtuhle De?o.sVLS'.
The Borrow Site Location Map shall also in,icao the shore!She for ar [e?.sr ~'o miles in
either direction fi.om Kenne,;'s 8~ch. ~nd hhe monume.'~ ~ocar/ons or' :i~e .q'anse'x.,s used
rbr sediment sampling in item $.0. 3;zu?)nem .4ttal)~'tx or- l"i";.v~tHff t~c"-*C'~5. Generate maps
in both paper ,.nd di~rai formats. Maps s~dl be produc~ in accordance with :he
requirements s~ared in Appendix I.
5.3
X, lao [ntand Sand Loc-.tions: Pro~Sde ~ inland Sand Loc'.rion Map 'showing sites where
suitable beach nourishment sand exists, lnciude a notaxion on the quantity ofsuitabie sand
ar each site according with the estimates pro~dded v, ith imm ;.ti h#taM .¥~tr','ey. above.
Gene. ate maps in both paper and di~rai /'o~na~s. Ma~s ~5'edl be Freduc~ in accordance
· with the requirements rated in Appendix I.
F. Products: Submission of these produc= should be included in the contrac:,c4-s dme schedule
discussed in: D. Projec. zlPme Frame. above.
Draft Reoort: Prepare a Draft Report or' the re:mits or' ,'he Scope of Work items 1.0
through 5.2 above, include the rabuiarion of the ,-esuits or' Scope of Work itetn .¢. [.
[qrIrJn~.r .~atrt,oJe of.¥tt#abJe De,.vosit. v. Compare the re~dts or.the 8oring Sample g?~n size
analysis with r. he res'dtts or' Scope of Work: item J.l. [demL6, .4cc'ratable ,Yedimettt
?:~ratneterx and discuss their ~mpaffoiiiry. inc.:uding the ,-e!a~ive ove~iil ~c:,or r<uired
~br ncur/shment. Present Borinu [o,,.s. Also include F~' copies of the ,7,aus .arepar~ For
Scope of ¥¥ork: item 5.2. :t. lup .5'um'ey Re.wthx. attd item 5. J. ,V/up fl#und ,~d
Loc'ulion. s'. Submi[ cv, e!ve (12) copies or'the Draft Reeor~ to the Town.
2.0 Presentation: The contractor shall make an oral presentation on findings of the
GEOPHYSICAL ['h"v'ESTiGA~ON. Duck Pond Point to Horton Point. The m~ting
shaft be held at Southold Tov,'n Hall. at a time convenient to members of the Erosion
Miti~tion Work Group.
3.0 Final Reeorz: The contractor will produce ~ Final Report, incorporating written Nd verbal
comments r~eived within two w~ks or' ~.he Presentation, with the Draft Reoom Twelve
(12) complete copies o£the Final Revo~ shall be delivered to the Town. Two additional
distal copies of the Report, complete with di=,gital copies or' ail map produczs in
accordance with the ~andards in Appendix I, shall be delivered to the Town for
dis~budon to the ~'ew York Depar'~ent of State.
.ATTACH~IE~'T 1: REQUIRE)lENTS FOR CO,NTRACT )lAP PROOUCTS
GENERAL ~IAP PRODUCT REQUIR£klENT$
Ti~e l'bllowing general carmL_.,,'aphic requirements mus~ be adher~ to by the Contractor:
1) Mal~ Products - The Division requires detive~ of dior2.1 map produc:s, unless othe?,vise
specified in the Reques~ tbr Proposal (RFP). that m~t the speci~fi~ons outlined in this
GE;NER_-~L ,.'vlAP PRODUCT REQUIRE)lENTS s~tion ~d the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL
CARTOGR.-~PHIC FILE REQUIRE3,1ENTS section. If analog map. produ~s are required by
the RFP. they mmr me~t spec/ficarion~ outlined in this GEN'ERAL DIAP PRODUCT.
REQUIRFDIENTS semfoo and the ADDfi"IO~AL DIGITAL-RF_4. DY DIAP PRODUCT
R£QUIREDIENTS sea-rio n.
· 2) Deliverable Format - .411 distal mw and ~.'m~oute table flies must be provided in Mapinrb
-4.'.0 r'or Windows95 ~rmar on Z mm DAT tape. Sram DAT tape. QIC-30 t~pe. TR-I ~ape. or 3.?
floppy diske~e m~i~. .-kkemafiveiy. ~e digital produc:s may be provid~ in UNIX or PC
ARC/INFO binary or export ~rmar (.*30) or AutoCAD D.'C:.~ (ormat on :he .~ame me-,,2ia ~'pes
upon approval or' :he Division. Ail ocher distal For'mars require prior approval or' ~.he Division.
Coordination with the OMsion .anor to submission or' distal m~ia is r~uired :o ensure
compafibiii~ or' the deiiver~ materials.
3) Documentation - A data dicfionar.,t must be included ,.ion___. w/th the map flies deson'bing
contents, file names. ,-nap 9roj~:iorc horizontal and ve.qical datums use~& coordinate ,.'ysrem.
RMS accuracy and log ~heet. inr'ormafion sources and dates, the moo ,'tinker and date or'
preparation, and cr=rion'merhodot%.,y. Da~a provided under ~'~eral ~nds mtt~ be provided in z
manner which m~:s Digital O~spatial F~eral Oeo~,,'aphic Data Commirr~ Meradara Standard
:~ executed by g,:ec'~ative Order 12.%6. April 11. 199a. 'Coordinanng Geo_m'a~.hic Data
Acquisition and Ac:~: the National 5padal Dam [nfi'asrracmre:'.
4) Map Accura~ - Unle~ orhe.~ise stated in the RFP. ~1 deiiv~ie ~ produ~s mu~
confo~ to Nafion~ M~ Ac~e/S~s For ho~ont~ ~d '~e~ ~e/~ ~iish~
by the Unir~ Smr~ Bur~ or,he Bud~ June t0, 19al. re,~s~ J~e [7. ~7. For mxm=ie.
For maps ~ 1:20.000 or ~1~. nor more ~ 10% of the 'a'eil~e~n~ map poim r~ mu~ ~e
more than 1/50 inch (0.508 mini our ofco~r position. Ar i:24.000, ins roi~c= r~siares co
~ required ho~on~ ac:~ o( ~ (~ [f by prior ~menr '~zh '~he Oivi~on the mad
product do~ nor contra rD Nafion~ ~1~ Ac~t Scan~. ~en a r~em~r of a~ mad
accuracy should be i~d~ in the Docamen~doo ~ove. ~'mh~or~ hydrosm~hic mo~evs
~d maps should can~m rD r~mmend~ ac=~z r~d~d propos~ in me joint USGS. NOS.
Coastal Ma~oin~ H~ook. !978. Me!yin Ellis ~ror. U.S. Gov~menr Printing O~c~.
Appendix 6.
Gi-7
5). Datums - Unless c~he.~.~.-ise sgecified in the RFP. ail ,'nap produc:s shoula be referenc~ to the
North American Honzontm Datum or Igz~ (NAD~7) and ~he Nadonal Geodetic 'v'e~ic~J Da.~m
of 19:9 (NG'v'DZ_9).
ADOITIOiNAL DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC FILE REQUIRI~ilF~T$
The fbllbwing carto,_,raahic construc:,io, requirements must be adhered to by the Contractor.
1) Edge-matching - ,~I mao sh~rs must be both v/molly and coordinate 'o '
· e~_e-matcned wir. h
adjacent map sheers. No edge-march tolerance wilI be allowed. Am-ibutes For ¢iir. able ~amres
must also be identical.
2) Common Boundar/es - .411 t'karures that share a common boundary.. ~ardtess_ of map layer.
must have exac:fy the same coordinate position of that feature in all common lavers.
3) Point Duplic-~tion - No dupiicarion ofgoinrs that oca.u- ~thin a darn mhng is
4) Connectivity. - Wher~ gr.a~i~ic e!ements visually m~ they mm be ,.lso di~railv m~r. All
confluences or' tine ~d :eivuon data must be exa~ 'ove~hoors' 'undershoots'. '
.... ~d~'e.'S~. or
"o~§hoots' are NOT 7e..-mirred.
5) Line Quality - A hiuh quality czrrogmphic appearance must be achieved. Transitions from
straight lines to curvilinem~ eiemenrs mint be ~,'rncod't with angular infle~ions ar .'.he Foint of
intersection. ~ne eigiral :e~r~entarion .,'nusr not contain e~ran~us darn ar a non ~/sibie lev~.
There should be no j~s. hooks, or z:ro !en~h s~menrs. Any lines c~t are srr",~i~ht, or should be
straight, should be di~riz~ using only .'wo .ooinrs ,:hat regresenr the b~.z/,;nning and ~ding points
or'the tine.
6) Polygon Closure - For a. rea r'e:uures being di~zed, the [asr coordirme pair must be ~'-,ac'dy
(mathemarically} ~ual to :he first coordinate pair. No line or polygon must ~,oss ir~g.f exc=t to
join at an ac,~ condue:ce..AJl digiriz~ features across map boundaries mm be ~.:ited
smooth and continuous lines.
7) Graphic Prec./sion - Positional coordinates for ail di~rz/ L--'~, hic ~ements should not be
reported to a level or'preciZsion greater than one ~housandth (.001 ) or'a -toot.
8) Digitizer Accuracy -- Cae :~uir~ R.MS e.q'or .."or di~r/z, er 2c,~racv must be 0.003 or better
tbr di,~ral=, map re~stra~ion.
.-~. DDIT1ONAL DIGITAL-READY :~IA? PRODUCT REQUIRE;~IENT$'
The tbllo,a'ing requirements i'br large sc~e. non..4.igitai map products must be f'ollowed to
i'~.cilita~e the ~t'ure conversion of the maps to distal map products. Ail large format, non-cli,..,Stal
map products must be provided on szable base material at a scale stipulated in the RFP. The i-naD
products must include an index map to ,.il map shee~ and chorouffh descriptions of' ail
cartographic elements portrayed on the maps.
Base :¥1ap 31edL't - .ail maps must be created on Mylar or other stable base mater/al.
2) ,¥1ap Sc-de - AJI maps ora similar series should be cr~_.~ed '~ng the same base scale. Unless
otherwise s'iared by the Division. ail maps should be compiled at 1:24.000. l£other map scales are
approved by the Division. where possible the,/ will corn:otto ~:o ~andard m~ scales such as
1:9600:150.000: 1:75.000: or I: 100,000.
3) .~,lap R~is~rado, - The maps must prov/de ~ minimum oF Four (4) comer ,-.nd four (4)
Mre.,-ior ticks tied to USGS,~'YSDOT qu~dran~e ,L~Long or NYTM coordina£es. The maps
rnus~ be g~me~cally corr,: -~nd ~ouid r%~srer when overlaid on ~he appro,odare
USGS/NYSDOT quadrangie control tic!-:~.
4) )lap Tide and L~end - ~e maps mus~ provide a tide and le=,e,-,d block describing the
inr'onnacion contained on ..'he mag:s. :md inciuding the Docume,~:~don and Datums information
requested in the GE.'I ERAL SlAP PROOCCT REQUIRES, I ENT$ above and' ..'he map scale.
5) Car'tographic Quality. - The ~.uaii~ or'~l ma~ !ine work ~d s.vmboiiza~ion mus~ conform to
item.~ t - 6 in the ,'nap c~te."ia se: form in :he ADDITIONAL DIGITAL C.4RTOGR.APFIIC
F1LE REQUIRE.'~I E.NTS s~rion our..lin~ above.
CONTI;CACT DATABASE STA,NDARDS
All database and tabular files mtn: be provided on digital media as specdfied above in De!iverable
Formal:.
SolYw:~re Form~£
All database and tabular flies mus[ be provided in Bori~d's P~radox ~br Windows95 version 5.0
Format. Other Forma~s tha~ are canve.,'ribi¢ rD Pm'ad. ox may be used with prior appro('al of the
Division.
Geogrnphic Am"ibutes
Database and ~abuiar flies rha~ contain ~emen£s with a g~aphic reri~.'-e:a,c= must provide
corresponding ~ta ,Sold and ~ ~eoL_.,nphic coordinate pair ~'cr ~c~ ~eamre iocation.
Environmental Inventory., Duck Pond Point to Horton Point
PROJECT DESCRIPTION'
.A_ Purpose
To identil%' tlora. ~iiuna. and ~o{o~cal communkies ,haz m{~t be a _~__.nve..,y ~ect~,ed by
an engineered shoreline modification in the =,-udy area. Ecoio~cal commtm/fies shail be
defined according to the desc:'iptions prov/ded in Eeo{o,_,/cai Communities of New York
State. published by the Ne:,,' York Narur~ He.drage ProL_-'.am. S.oec/.~es Found in ~e ~,-udy
area that have beon~. ,-e~,.'~',,_nu_._'-=,4 ~ chr~rened or endanaer~~ zt the ~'kd~.-~'ai level or sues. cos'
~n~an ....... ~r~_r~..e_., ar. or expm,rm~y ;~ineraNe ~r the ~are [evet shait
be idendfie< as we!l ~ ~- ,-:~- ' r ~,Vatcn g:s~s" ot ¢ove~mc::r
.,~e....u :ns. may ,..ppear on spec:-.ai ' ; ' ' '
z,_,enc.,es or conse.'-,'artcn orgznizzrions. '.c~:es or' ~anomic imuorr-.nce shail also be
idenriried. E:onomicaiiy impomsnt sg~eS:-es shall inciude fish md shell :'ish i'br commerc:'ai
,~..~e--.lOnal cE. rca. J. nc other :ianr or anlmra s~ies ....... ri? am ,es~ea :n ..'he mmv
area. The ~ocation and ~mbirs .:( :he idendtied ~eci~ies ~qrhin :he ~ady. ar*_- shall be
described m chat pro.ions can be man~z~ in such a ,say .:hat ne,_~rive im.oac-~ are
minimize. Data coilec:~ ':br this ~,.:dy must ~:e suitabie ..'Er inc!usicn in a ~mre tiS.
~3 Ba¢!~ruund
_ . ~n_ [sl~d 5~und
shorefine be~-~'een ~he Town line. sep~ing Souu~eid ~d the To~u of ~v~ md
No,on Point. Use Town od 5eurhoid ,aiil dere~ine ,~'heth~ this =~dy is [imr~ :o ~qe
shore!ine ~om Duck Pond Point ro No,on Poin[ or whether hhe retire shomlne ~m d~e
w~em To~m line ro Ho~ ?oinr is ro be ~di~. ProposaN~ ~ncu~e'; ..... oma puc= and
wot< d~pfions For both of rh~e options. A num~ oF din~nr ~on mid,don
alrem~v~ have been 9ropos~& U~e ~te~mdv~ ~ be d~m~ ~ly ~ no
~on. prope~/ ~c~isifion. s~d 5~n~ b~ch nounshm~t or mine ~m0in~on
:hereo[ The Town of 5ourhoid is now ~ml~ng infom~on n~: ro ~ke ~
d~sion on which method(s! of erosion mfig~rion ~ ~ropfi~e.'
C. Geographic 5emng
Ti~e ~rojec:~. area is in the Town or' 5oumoid. on the norm shore =ar' Long island. New
¥'or.'<. The '.vesrern Town !ine and Hot,on P~tnr define the limits ,or'-he ~,-t'udv '._rea zion~
the shore!ina. Proposals must anticipate two different geographic ii,nits. [n one c~e the
study area may include the entire shore!ina fiom the western Town line to Hot[on Point.
At the discretion of the Town of Sou[hold. the study may be limited to the shore!ine fiom
Duck Pond Point to Harmon Point. The study area shall inciude all the prope,'-cies which
are within or pa~ty within the hazard are.xs identified on the most recent Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (available fi.om the National Flood insurance Prob~,.m of the Federal
£mergenc'/Management Ageno,.') amd lie north-west of Sound Avenue or North Road and
-Route 48. be.-a'een the western Corporate Limits of the Town or` Sou[hold and Hot[on
Point. The ~,-vady shall also ~xtend seaward into Long island Sound including the water
column and sea floor throughout the littoral zone. and a distance of' two miie~ fi.om the
Sou[hold Town Padg at Kenne,/s Beach. At the discretion of the Town o£ Sou[hold the
littoral zone pardon of the study shall cover the shore area fiom the western Corporate
Limits of the Town of Sou[hold to Hot[on Point. or it ma',' be limited to the shore area
fiom Duc., Pond Point to Harmon Point.
Eas~'ard .%m [he weszem corporste Limits of ,:he To~vn of Sou[hold [he shore!ina
,.zeolot, v is comoosed of sandy beaches in front or' high ,lac;al blu,.'~, with some rocky
mte,q~cm ~re?_s. 7l,~e je..,sv at. lan~tuc,, [nie'.. approximateiy ..-,va miles ~ or' the Town
iine. is ~he iargesz shore pro[oz.-ion ~'zruc::are in d'~e ~,-rudv area. 2,uikheads have been
canst,-uc:~ in ,,,omo are= ~e.-.v~n Marriruck Met and Goidsmith Met ~br bluff
,,,~abiii~rion. D:ceat For approximateiy one half mile or' prope.qi:' at Manituck thio.'
r~,.v'nuncr~' ' -',e-".. =t Goldsmith [niet rt~e 'x..=s~_~ern .option o( the upland. -an'aa is .:riva[air.
otvned with singie 5miiy detached homes. The western portion or` the ~,-mdy area consists
or aeacn oac.,~ ay oturr=, up ~o 80 .... I , mgn For ,_ di~ance o£approximatei¥ i.5 miles
no~h e~ from Duck Pond Paint. with biuiqs dropping .:o [e~s than 50 r'~t hi~q For
another ,v, iie :o Goldsmith ' ' ~ A I : .... ' .....
thiO.. .ow .c .... ~on fiite: w~th a ~oe peach lies to :he west
or' Goidsmith [nie~ inc!uding a small Town b~ch immediateiy adjacent to the iniet jo.qr.
Ea.s~ oF Goidamith thief is a ba~,'mouth ban'i, ler beach (or approximareiy e. vo miles.
includes .~,vo Suffoik Counv.,' P~:s ~ciiities and scattered sinuie ~miiy homes in
:yes, em mile. ,.nd a Town Beach mrrounded ay more cioseiy `-.paced sm~e ramny nome=
in the eas[e.'-n mile. The easze.':n, end or' t~e landward imd~,' ar: consists of iow ~oding
glacial biuffs For "miie west o£ d~e h:dland az Hcr~on Point ri, sin,, to 60 (~t[~-:'-) in
height, with sin~e ~i~nily homes and anoth~ Town beach. The conrai£ant should review
U.S.G-.S. Q ,uadran~e sh~ts MATTITUCK. MAi-FiTUCK HILLS ~d gOU-i~,qO[.D For
general topo,__-'aphic informanon on the ~t'ra.'dv are~.
The sea floor in .'.he study area drops off ,_,_,-adually from shore to maximum depths in ~he
range or' --5? ..'o 40 feet .'.w-o miles off ,or' Kenner~ 3~ch. Previous re.ao~s raggest
bottom sediments consist at' iifx[Stied lavers ram,m,, ~om :ina sand :e m~ium sand and
D. Project Time F'rnme
gidde.~ mtm-t pro~ide a scSeduie ;'or :ompie.'ion or' :~e '.var!<. inciuding all o£ the produces
dis~.~s~ed ~ott Ti!e; .a .... .
.~,,e.,.e m~t ~t:mase camoie:iun times seu~a~e!v sbt :he ~it
El_Z
szudy area ~om the western Town line to Horton Point. and tbr the are~ betw'~n Duck
Pond Point and Honon Point, in the event the Town of Southold directs only that area is
'`o be studied. The overall length of time bidders will ne~ to complete the ~-udy should
be~n upon receipt or' signed, approved copies of the contract.fi'om the Town of Southold.
The scheduie tbr completion of the work wiil be used as par~ or' the crkeda by which the
proposal is evaluated.
proposals mus~ mc:uae ome or comp~enon esdmat~ ~or the wod,:.
Bid proposals may provide a schedule with completion of' the work ~er March ] I, I998,
however payment fbr any work carried out ai-~er March 3 I. 1908 ~ be cont' _m~xt upon
reappropriation of timds i'br ',his ~-aidy in '`he I ggs- I 9gg fiscal year.
E. Scope ot'Vv'ork
1.0 Preiiminarv .rnformation
Organization ?4eerinm Upon award, contractor shall plan ~. m~dng with To~,,'n of
$outhold o~als to discuss .'.he work.
Lkeratt.,re Re,r/e,.v: Review available iirerarure ii'om libraries, universities.
conservation organizations. (~erat and s~ate ~encies. etc. --nd identi~y svedes of
conce~ r. hat may be.'=resent in ',he ~-~dv area. Idend?~. ~r~_re,=. ~ cu. ~: "~ ~a' n_e,, "e.L"
rare. expfoitably ;-uine.,'abie sp~ies, a.s well as ~edes thaz may appear on spedal
"Warci~ Lis~s" or' government auencies or conservation ord..hi.r/OhS, inc!uding a
notation on their prorated status ir' any. and the type of !isfin$ .aso identiiS,.
s~esies or' economic impoaanc= such as those harvested by commercial and
recr~.mtional dsaing and sheil fishing. Horseshoe cabs. shore.birds and wading
birds, overwintenng ,aate.'-r. bwL and other s~edes which may be permanent or pm
ve~ residents shall also be identified ~s species o( concern if ~e consultant
de'~e.,~mines they are ce'__~onally important or vuine...~ie. Commie a list o~'sp~ies of
conc~.m with a descri,mion of!lib history and habitaz r~u, ir~'nenrs fbr each.
Gene~e a So~ies Lis~: Contac: New York Staze R~,,,.;J_'on I. D~mmen~ of
En~ironmenz~ Conse~'adon. SUNY .M~ne Sdenc= R~N C~nter (Stony
Brook). [oc~ pfiva[e ~d non-profit cons~ation or~i~rio~ ~d Io~
munidp~ pinning or conse~'afion de~menrs ~d ~abl~ wh~ ~e s~i~
identified in item 1.2. [.Rerotltre Review. or oth~ s~m ~fc=nc~
the ~dy ~e~ Ci~si~ ~ch s~i~ ~ eimer known co be pr~t {doc~ented
w/thin the l~r five yemk [ike!v co be pr~enr imira~ie habi[~L Fo~ibiy pr~enr
{m~bqn~ly suirabie habitarL or nor preset. [~p~ :he uu~' ar~ ~d detemine
the ac:u~ extent of the h~irar
¢xaioitabiv vuiners~ie. ~anomic~lv impo~anr sp~!~. 'Watch ~a' sa~es, or
other s~e~qes of concern. Also.
ecological communities as defined by the New Yod,: Natural Heritage Program
within the study area.
1.4
Deve!oo A So~ies Database: Summarize ini'brmation on all threatened,
endangered, rare, exploitabiy vulnerable, economically important or other species
of concern occurring at or adjac~t to the study area, or which may oc~r ~ven
current habitat conditions. Summarize habitat requirements tbr each species,
importance of the study area habitat to the local, state and global population oS"
each s,oecies, and the spatial and temporal dism~ution of Medes using the habitat
types in the study area. Relate the distribution of~ed~es to life cycle requirements
inc!uding mi~azory ~opover. migratory br~ding resider breeding and
overwintering. Include findings fi.om the study, area inspew~don performed as pax
of item L3. Generate a S~ec'ie.s List.
[.5
Moo So~ies Distribution: Dev~op di,..~tal maps at a scale'not less than 1:I0.000
showing the .~bilo~ing information in separate lavers as indicated (noting data
sources, accuracy and other requirements as specified in Appendix I ):
Base %lap
Show the limits or' the study area. roads, mean high
water line. and the geog.~phic exzent of the
ecoio,=4cal communities. Produce dibqtai and paper
copies.
Lzyer [ to N
Create a separate map laver ~or each or' the species
identified in item !.3. Getterule a Sfle:'iex Lira. [denti~. the
geob.,raphic range of each sp~!es according to the
classification r..¢stem: known to be present, like!y to be
present, or possibly present.
Layer
Deve!op a Temporal aes'rricdcns map [br shoreline
modification acdons. Show Geographic limits and time
'periods during which spe~es identified in item 1.$.
Generate a ,5~oec'ie.~ DLw. would be vulnerable to actions that
mi~t be taken to reduce shoreiine ~osicm. Such ac'dons
include dredgi_'ng sediment in Long island Sound and
sediment placement on beaches, excav~on of sediment
trapped behind the je,'~y at GOldsmith inle'., moving
sediment along shore with heavv ~uipmenr. removing
s~ones fi.om the md or the middle or' :he je~qy., and removal
or'other shore pe~dic,atar ~ruc:ures.
16
Establish Base!the Water Quality and Aouadc Communiv, !ntbrmadon: Baseiine
information ,,viil be garnered in order to ,.~ssess '~,,ater quality impacts or' the
sei~xed erosion control .measures az Goldsmith Inlet and Ooidsmith Pond.
Impacts o~" interest inc!ude al:ermions in hydrologic .r~me
suspend~ sedimen~ s~ze ~nd ~pe. alte~do~ in bosom ~ment ~ze ~d ~'pe
wifi~in Goldsmith Pond. ~d impels on tempe:ture and ~ini~ pron]es. The
proposal shall desc6be ~p/ing methods ~d
the inlet, within the inlet ~d ~ithin ~l~mi~ Pon& to ~lish the baseline
info,arian. This b~fine intb~afion ~ll ~clude ~pend~ s~im~t ~e ~d
~in gze analysis, and standard water q~i~ m~ements such ~ mmperamre.
salini~, and dissoiv~ oxs'gen ~d ni~g
sp~Scdly For monitoring ~d
2.0
Re=on Preoarafion and Revision: Submi~on of'thes~ producr, s should be [ncfuded
in the contra~ors time schedule discussed in D. Projecf 17roe Frame.
Preliminary Reoon: Prepare a Preliminary Re~ort containing the information fi.om
item 1. ~t. Devefl~p a .~t;ec'iex Databaxe and the B~e M~ ~nd Spezi~ies Maps.
Lavers I to N. from item l.$. Map S~cie.v Di.~trihmm,. Prepare four copies of
the Preiiminary Repor~ and submit them to the Tow'n at the earliest possibie time.
This inr.ormation is n~sary for another szuO being undertaken concurrently, the
ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS. The proposai mus~ describe the O_.~e at
which ~he Preiiminar~ Report will be de!ivered to the Department.
Draft Reoon: Prorate a Ora& ~epor~ inc!uding the information gathered ..'-or .:he
Pre!iminar7 Repo~-. item 2. I above, the t,r~ter quality, information i?om item i.6.
Es~abiish Baseiine Water Quality. Information and delcfibing how and when
shore!ine consume:ion projez'~s may be c-~rried out in such ~ way ~ ;o minimize or
eiiminate a~-_tive impac:s on those specifies identifi~ in imm 1.3. (Jo,orate a
.S~oecqex Lixt. Pre,are two!ye (12)c~pies of the dr'~t final re,on and submit them
to the Town prior .:o the Prc,.5'c. mation, item L4 i~c. iou'. R~ord pertinent
comments made by Work Group member~ ar the pre~en, tation. Allow ri'~r~ we=ks
(or re~4ew or' the Orari Report. Address i~ues or conce~s that m'ise du~ng the
re,flew period by ~ther con&fence calls or a re~ie.v meenn,__,
3,laos: Prepare t~veive (12) paper copies of each map and mbmit a se: of maps
along with ~ch copy or' the Dra. i5 R .e,~,ort to the To,u-n tbr re,~?¥. All maps
should compiy with the ~andar~ described in AppendLx L
Presentation: ScS~ule a m~:ing ar the To'~tn or' Sou.thol& during =_ dme
conveni:t ?or members o~ the To,~n E:'osion Woe:< Group. and make ~
presentation or' the findin~ of'the ~-udy.. R~,'ord c,omme..-.ts made bv Work Group
members a~ ~.he pr=entarion.
F}nal Re=on: .-kddr~s~ing the drari re~ort comm~.t~ m~,,de durinu the
and the review ~efiod. submit vxe!ve ~ IS} copies or' :ne final r:or~. ~c!: with
::a~er copies ofzil maps..oiu~ ~.vo i2~ compile c.~.ei~ an 3 t,Z' ~coov disk~sL
Yv'ordPe~e-~ 6.0 to .:he Tov,'n. Additionally. submi[ co the T6t,,'n two (2) complete
copies on 3 1i'? ~lo.~py disk(s) and two ('2) di.~i~al copies or'ail map produc~s ~o
the required s~andards on suitable media as provided in Apge,~dix I for distribution
to the ~e,~ York Depar~me,t oi"State.
ATTACH;~IENT I: REQUIR£,'vlENTS FOR CONTR.-~CT ~IAP PROOUCTS
G EN ERA L ~¥1AP PRODUCT REQUIRE~IENTS
The fbllow-ing general car~og-caphic requiremen~ mus~ be adh~ed to by the
1) 3'lap._Produc~ - The Division requires de!ive,~, of distal map produc, s. tmle~s ot_her~se
specified in the Reques~ ~br Proposal (RFP). rh~ m~t the specifications outlined in this
GENERAL ..'~IAP PROOIJ'CT REQIJIRE$1ENTS ~'ion and the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL
CA RTOGRA?H IC FILE REQUIRE~IENTS se~on. If' analog map products are required by
the RFP. they mus~ m~ speci~iiScations outlined in rNs GENERAL klAP PRODUCT
REQUIRE,~IENTS section ~nd the ,ADDITIONAL DIGITAL-READY kIAP PRODUCT
REQ UIRES'IENTS section.
]) Deliverable Forrnn£ - Adl distal map and axm"o~e table ~es mus~ be prodded in Map[ntb 4.0
rbr WindowsO5 ~b~at on 4 mm DAT [ap~ 8mm DAT tape. Q[C-80 tape. TR-[ tape. or 3.5"
~loOpy diskette media. Alternative!y, the ~t~ pmdu~s may be provid~ in U%'IX or PC
kRC/INFO bina~ or expo~ Fount (.eg0} or AutoCAD DXF lo,at on the same media ~pes
upon approval of the DMsion. Ail other di~r~ Fomats r~uire prior approval o( the Division.
Coordination with ;he Division prior to rabmi~ion of di~tul media is r~uired ro ensure
c=mpa~ibiiiD' of the deiiver~ ~te~s.
33 Docnmentation - .& data dimicnm-,' mm~ be included miong ,,~ith the moo flies d~cfibine file
contents, rile n~. map proje=ion, ho~zontfl md ve~i~ ~mms us~ coordinate ~'~em. RMS
acz:~racv and log sh~:. info~adon sourc~ ~d ~. the map m~er and date of preparation, and
creation me.noao~obs. Dam provid~ under f~ ~n~ mu~ be provided m a manner which
me=:s Dibd~al G~spauat F~e~ Geob~phic Darn Comm~ M~adaa Stan~d as ~x~ur~ by
Executive Order [2906. April II. 199a. 'Coo~ng ~phic Data Acquiskion and Across:
~i~e National Spada Da~a in~cmre".
-~) ,¥lap AccurncT - Unt~s othe.~ise ua~ed in the RFP. all de!iverable map products mus~
conform to National Map Ac=ar,ao..~ Standards t~r horizontal and ve,~ical ac=arno/as es~,aiished
bv the United Sta~es Bureau of&e Budge'.. June I0. lgal. revised lune 17. 10g. T,_ For example.
for maps at 1:20,000 or s,'nmler, not more chon 10% or'the weil~tefin~ map ~oims tested must be
more than [, 50 inch (0.508 mini ou~ of correct., position. At 1:2a.000. this tolerance transla~ to a
required horizontal ac=aracy, of-.'0 f~'.. If by prior ,,?,-.__,,'e~.'ment with the Division the map product
Joes not conrbrm to National ~,lap Ac:arao..~ Standards. then a s~re:ne~t of actual map ac~rac7
should be included in the Documentation above. F=rth~--more..~'.drographic su~'e./s and maps
shouid conform to r~ommended acc'oar7 glmdard propos~ in the joint USGS. NOS. Coaszai
Maouinu Handbook. ~078. X'leivin Eitis ~imr. U.S. Gow='nmenr P,"indng Ot~c-... Appendix ~.
5) Datums -- Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, all map products should be re£erenced co the
North American Horizontal Datum oi" 1927 (NAD2~ and the National Geodetic Vertical Damrn
oi" 19£g (NGVD29).
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC FILE REQU1RE5IENT$
The ~bllo_wing cartographic construction requirements must be adh~,',ed ro by the Contractor.
I) Edge-matching - All map sheets must be both 'dsually and coordinate edge-matched with
adjacent map sheets. No edge-match tolerance ,,,.,ill be allowed. Attributes for spiirmble fcamres
must also be identical.
2) Common Boundaries - All ['kamres that share a common boundary., r%,~dless o£ map layer,
mus~ have exactly the same coordinate position of that t~.mre in all common [aye.~.
3) Point Dt, plicntion -- No duplication of points chat occur within a data siring is permitted.
4) Connecriviu- - Where graphic elements visually meet. they must be also diL-~tally meet. All
conrluences of line and polygon data mus~ be exact: "overshoots'. 'undershoots'. 'silvers'. or
"o~hoots" are NOT permitted.
5) Line Quality - A Ngh quality cartographic appearance mus~ be achieved. Transitions ~om
straigi~t lines to cu~'iiinear eiements mus~ be smooth. ~th an~iar infi~:~ons at the point of
intersection. The digdtal r~presemation m~r not contort e~nn~ ~ta at ! non visible ieve{.
There should be no jags. hooks, or z~ro length se~en~s. Any [in~ tbmt ar~ s~r~ght, or should be
straigi~r, should be digitiz~ using only ~o poims chat regr~enr the be~nning ~d ending points of
the line.
6) Polygon Closure - For area (eatur~ being diL_4tized, the last coordinate pair must be exacttv
{mathematically) equal to the firs: coordinate pair. No line or polygon must c~oss itse!f excspt to
join at an actual comluence. All digitized t~amres across map boundarie~ mus~ be edited co etr-e~
smooth and continuous lines.
7) Graphic Precision - Positional coordina~e~ ~br all di_~tal _m'aphic eiement~'shouid not be
reported to a [evet of pr~ision ~eater than one thousandth (.001 ) ora feoc
$) Digitizer Accuracy - The r~uired ~MS ~,-rror ~br diL-4izer ac~ra~; must be 0.003 or be=er
I'br digital mao registration.
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL-READY SIAP PRODUCT RI"'QU1R£)IE.N.TS
The tbllowing requirements ~br large scale, non-d.i~tai map producr, s must be tbilowed to tiiciiitate
the ~ture conversion of the maps to distal map products. All large ,.'brmat non-diStal map
products mu.st be provided on stable base m~erial at a scale stipulated in the RFP. The map
products must include an indm, c map to ail map shee~.s and thorou,~q descd,'ptions oF ail the
ca~ographic elements po, u,tyed on the maps.
I ) Base ~lap t~ledia- .All maps must be created on Mylar or oth~- stable base material
2) ~l.'zp Sc,fie - All maps ora similar series should be cre..~ed using the same base scale. Unless
otherwise sta~ed by the Division. alt maps should be compiled a.t 1:24.000. If'other map scales are
approved by the Division. where posm%le they will conform to standard map sc~es such as 1:9600:
1:50,000: 1:75.000: or I:I00.000.
3) .~lnp Registration - The maps mus~ provide a minimum of Four (4) carnet and tbur (a) inte.~or
dcks tied to USGS/NYSDOT quad~gte Ear'Long or N~I coordinate. The maps mus~ be
geome~cally co~ ~d should r~i~er when ovoid on ~e ~ppropdate USGS/NYSDOT
quadrang!e consol dcks.
4) ?,l:~p Title and L~end - The maps must provide a dtte and l~d bicck describing the
inrbrmation contained on the maps. and inciuding the Documentation znd Datums information
requested in the GENERAL ~I.AP PRODUCT REQUIRE>IE.NTS ~ove ~d the map scale.
5) Cartographic Quality - The quality of ~11 map line wod.< and ~,'mboii~tion must conform to
items I - 6 in the map criteria se: (or~h in the ADDITIONAL DIGtTAL CARTOGRAPHIC
FIL£ REQUIRE)lENTS sec, ion outlined above.
CONTRACT DATABASE STANDARDS
Delivery. ,'Vledi~
All database and tabular him m.a..be provided on di~ media as ~eci_iiied above in Deliver-able
Form:H:.
S;o ft'm'ar~ Formut
Ail database and tubular flies mus~ be provided in Borland's Paradox For Vv'indows95 version 5.0
~'brmat. Other. tbn'nats thor are convembie ~o Paradox may be us~ '~':h prior abprovai or' the
Division.
Geogrnphic Am-ibut~s
Database and tabular tiles that contain eieme~r~ with a geoL--,~ap, hic ,-er'erence mus[ .orovide a
corres!~onding data tidal and a geo,_,_2'aphic coordinaze pair ,%r tach ~'earure icc.vxion.
Historic Shoreline Analysis. Town Line to Horron Point
P KO.rECT DESCRIPTION
A. Purpose: To d.e:en'nine the r~e ~d ~.':renr o£~osion and ac~-edon or'the sho~!ine from the
we~em ~order of ~he To~ o( Sourhoid (h~n~ ~e ~To~ tine~) ~o Ho~on Point ~n ~e
Town of Sourhoi& New Yo~. ~ne ~s ~l be d~o~ ~m ~-~Jng i~b~oD ~d one
new sure'/o[ ~sfin~ c~ndifio~ co be ~o~ ~ p~ o~ ~ wod~. ~e ~pa~ o~ shore
pe~endicul~ ~u~ m~ be ~s~ ~ c~mg~g pre-~re ~d posr-~m~re
' ' ' . .~C,~O~ ~ ~ ~r~
_c ..... owr~,on ~r~. Data coil~ tbr chh ~ shoed be ~le tot, ~ · ' ~
E~S. ~e ~v mu~ provide apgm~Hare ~n~o~ toc ~e d~i~ ~d implementation oF
me~ures ~o mitigate erosion probiem~ ~n the wa~ ~
8. Bac!-:grnund: Iae i own of 5outheid is int~.~'"~t~ in =_ddr-~,..sing ~osion ~ong the Long [si~d
Sc~nd shoreiine bez.v~n ~he 7,>~n ~ine. ~e~n~ 5ourheid ~d ~he To,on of Riverhea& ~d
Etlon Point. Cqe To,an of 5ourhcid '.~il dete~k~e ~hem~ ~ais wudy is Iimit~ co ~he shcrefine
:?co Duck ?:nd ~ainr ~o Hooch ?ciao or .~-heJ~er ~ke enri~ ihere!ine ~om ~e '~'~e~ Town
iiae :o Hc~cn Point is ~o be s;udied. ~rocos~s m~; include bid pdc~ ~d ,.voff~ d~c~ptions for
:c~n or' chose ~vo ceticns. .& aumcer cf ~%re~r croton midiron propcsaJs have b~z
~e,,'eicee~ by the Totvn. %e To~n ~f 5cu~aid ~ ~i~ mere ?~se ~m on shoreline
Geo=r~pmc _e.nn=. ~qe orojec:.~ ~_r-~ is in :he Town of i,2ud'~oid. ~diacent ~o Lon~, Island
' ' t=,~q~ New Yod<. U~e ,~'~e~ To~ line ~d Ho~on Point
~erine :he iimks of ~ne study zr~_ ~ropos~s ~ ~dd~e ~ao di~r=nt ~<~phic ~imks. [n
one .:~e ~he ~edy ~ea may include ~he end~ sho~ine ~om doe wm~em Town line ~o Ne~cn
Point. A~ :he discretion of ~he Town of Sou~oi< dne ~ mv be limit~ co ~ shoreline from
Duck Pond Point to No,on Point.
E~r,'ard ~cm me ,u~e~ To~ ~ine ~he shc~ine g~le~ ~s ~enm~iy compos~ of
::eaches in ~ont or asa Coca =muw~ .~rn rome mci~ im~ ~. Uae j&~ zr Mammck
inlet, a~rc~ma~eiy run mii~ ~ o¢ :he To~n [into is me ~ ~ho~' )mt~on um~are m
:ne sra~v ~e& 3uikh~ have ~n c:r~ in ~me ~ 5~u~ Mammck Inlet ~c
Gciasm~rn inlet for ~iuffnabii~=cn. Z~e iha~e ~ or Uuc~ Pond P=int ~s o~cn oacxea =y
biuri"s, uu to 80 r'~'(-/-) mgn ['bt a ~ stance o, approximately 1.5 miles, dropping to less than 50
Feet higi~ For another mile to Goldsmith Inlet. A tow' plain with a wide beach lies on tile west side
of the inlet. Eas~ of Goldsmith inlet is a barrier bar beach For approximately two miles, then iow
eroding g!aciai bluffs rise to 60 feet (+/-) for another 1/2 mile to the headland at Ho~on Point.
Concrete and wooden bulkheads have ben constructed in front of homes west of Kenneyiiis
Beach. Tile study area is approximately 4.9 miles in [eriCh From the western Town line to Duc!,:
Pond Point and another 5.1 miles in len~h from Duck Pond"Point to Horton Point. Overall
length of the study area is approximate!y 10 miles.
D. Project Time Frame: Bidders must provide a schedule r'or completion oFthe work. including
ail or' the produc-,s disc'assed below. The schedule musz esdmaze completion times separately for
the ~tl x-zudy a. rea From the western Town line to Horton Point. ad for the shore!She be.,o, veen
Duck Pond Point and Horton Point. in the event the Town or'Southold directs only that area is to
be studied. The ove.,-.,il lengzh or' time contra~ors wilt need to complete the study shall beL_~n
upon receipt or' approved, si~ed copies of the conrrac: i:rom the Town of Southold. The
sci~edule i'br completion or' the work wiil be used as par~ of the criteria by which the Town
evaluates proposals.
.ql/ u'or# ~mt.s'l he c'r~mg/c, te~ ~d .f~hnm/c,:,~ i, .svLOTc.;em time ~r irbs,'~'/review .orior lo the e,d q/'
,'/~c' fi.s'c-:# !.'er~.r. .~.{~irc'h '., i. I9~),~.
E. Scope of Work: Following is :he work '*hich me succe.s.,,-rtzl contractor must comeie.'e. For
each item the proposal should include ~ discussion or' methods the contac:or inte,qds to use to
,.mole,,. :he :,,'od.<.
Garhedn,.z, Data: .~lap and air photo daza must be coitec:,,ed. The ?bllowing data sources
are avaiiable ~om the New York De=arzment of Stat.-. Disdsion or' Coastal Resources and
Wate~ont Re'.'it.*.ii~tion.'ne. ~.narte-o' ' - ....... -=-~"-ed -to ~s "'~he De:arcrnent" "'.
For the Duck Pond'Poinr to Hot, on Point ~-udy
I. USCGS 'T-Sh~t" From l:~84. Regj'ster No. ;57~. North Shore of Long island.
Sou~ok: aha ,.orion s Point. scede I:lO.000. Bromide copy.
-. L'SCGS 'T-Si~t" From [885. R~s~er No. 17~0. From Ma.,:dmc!-: Hills to
Goldsmith's [nlm. scale I: I0.000. Bromide copy.
3. USCGS W-51~,~". ~died P-)ST. Re?:s~er No. T-5337. E-?zstern Long Island.
$outi~oid and Vicini~. scale I: 10.000. Bromide Copy
L'SCGS 'T-Sh~t". Re,,~ster Xio T-5070. 1933. sc~e I: 10.000
l'-)55 .~.erA;al Photos at I" = !000' sc3Je, black ~d white prints.
~, 1'%-' .-,.e..al Photos at i" = 1000' scale. ' ' ~
-. o~ac:,: md white prints.
l%~ -~edai Photos ar I" = I000' '-sc3Je. Nacx ~d wrote prims.
lOTto .a.e~.;al Photos ar I~ = t000' '~>:aJe.omc.,¢' ' ' ~(a: white .onnts-
The foilowin.~ data is know ~o ~xist and mus~ be obtained by me con,rat:or ~br the
:.t es~em to,ion or't~e sr..'dv zr.~.. ~¢m' :~e :ves[~-rt Tov, n [inet
1.3
USCGS ;'T-Sheet~ ~om 1885. Re~=~ste.,' No. T-I/~9. Bromide coov.
The following data is known to exist for the 1~[1 study area fi.om the w'~,-te.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,:n Town line to
Horton Point and prints must be obtained by. the contractor for chis ~-udy. The Town oF
Southold ~,iil pro,,-ide intbrmation on where the prints can be obtained:
10. 1988 Aerial Photos ar I': 1000' scale, black and white prints.
'The f'oilowing data is desirable ['or purposes of the study. Toe com'ra~or mus~ conta~
vendors to obtain prints for this
For the flail study ar~ fi.om the western Town line to Norton Point
I I. 1972 or 1973 Aerial Photos a~ I' -- I000' scale, black and wt'&e prints.
For the western Town line to Duck Pond Point shoreline:
12. 1955 Ae~ai Photos at I': 1000' '~:ale. black and white prints.
I 3. 1964 Aerial Photos at [" = t 000' scale, black and white prints.
14. 1969 Aerial Photos at I ' = [000' ~c:fie. black and white prints.
[ 5 1976 Aerial Photos at t" = 1000' scale, black and white prints.
These data sets. as a minimum, must be mod in the shore!ine change analysis ~ong w/th
the product of 1.3 below. A contractor may propose to use fiirn diaposifives or' .:i~e ae~ai
pi~otography, but these 'Mil not be mppiied by the O~ar~ment or' State or :.;.e Te,.vn or'
Southold. Upon completion or' chis x-curly ~I data obtained by .:he contractor re perform
;he work shall b~ome the property of the Town of $oud~oid.
Establish Su~ev Control: The contr~or ~ql [dentiN. vaitabie landmarks common ~.o the
various sets or' data in i/em /.t). (JuthernE~ Da~ to use as sur~ey control 7oints.
Appropriate techniques must be ~ to idenfi~ ~e lo~ticn o~ ~e points within the
New York Stye Plane cocr~in~e ~'~. Cne final m~o~ must include a derailed
estimate or'the ac:urac-/or, the method.
Di,._ftize Si~ore!ine Data: For ~ch of the data se~ in item LtL (]~nl~ering Data. di~ze the
shoreline using the :~¢pro.,dmate high water line. 'Foe aerial photo_m"achs must aiso have a
second rer'erence fenture, the bluff edg~dune ~.-r'~',. di~fized. L'~e landmad<.~ identified in
item I. 1 to t/e the di~tized shoreiine into ~e New Yod~: Scare P!ane coordinate system.
The final report must document how the various ~horeline~ w.ere adjusted to fit .'.ogether.
Su~'ev the Ex/srinu Shoreline: Obtain a rec~.,~t shoreline ,..nd a s~ond ~ference feature.
the bluff edg,~dune crest, or' ~.he ~,-udy area. Conv~"~ ir co :he same digital romar 2a the
other clara sets in item /.2. Digmzz .S7torc'litte Da~a. md comoare ir w-/.th :he other
dibdtized data. ~e final re~or~ must document ~e m~hod and ,_cc"ara~..; :~ :o obtain
,'.he shore!ine. The bid pro¢osal shall c?,.~Sy dis,.~~s the method and acz_,rac¥ .:roposed
;-'or obtaining the r~ent shore!ine.
2.0
2.1
3.0
Calculate Si~ore!ine E:os~orv'&ccre:ion: Using the shore!the dam de,,&~nir~e net change in
shoreline position and the rare of shoreline recession or accretion for each time interval
between data sets. Show the ne', change and rate ol-'shore!ine change eve.~' I00 ~et along
the shoreline. Net rote or' chan,.-,e should be calculated using the endpoint and linear
regression me,'hers. Data must be presented in tabular and graphical ~'ormats.
(~orre!ate Shoreiine Chans~e With Storms: Using the dam sets gathered fbr the study as
described in i&,m 1.0. Ga/tiering Data and item 1.3. 3'urYey tfl~ lPi. s'ti~ Shor~ti~?e.
subdMde the hismdc~ record ~br Ae ~dy ~ into discreet time i~[~s be~'e~ ~a
sets. Renew w~ther recor~ for the ~dy ~ea ~d ch~ame~e ~ch dine int~
accordin~ m ~o~ ~uency. ~d inten~/~d du~don ~br the ~ ~ sho~n~
W~ther maps for ~o~s sh~l be re~ew~ to redefine dk~ion of ~o~ ~ks ~d
result~t ~e of wave a~ack For ~e p~o~ of co~el~in~ the m~mde of sho~he ·
chan~e ~ith s~o~ ~cks ~d wave ~1~. [nc!ude estimated probabiii~ or--ce in
szo~ d~cfipdons. Co~eiate shorefine r~ion ~thin di~reet dine ime~'als ~th ~o~
chara~efi~tiens.
Corre!ate Simreiine Chan,.ze ~.~th Human Jmoacts: Using the data sets gather~'~d for the
study as desc~b~ in ~tem 1.:1. (jo/bering Data and item I.S. Su~:ev the
.xTu~t'e/i~m. establish the dares whea shore prot~ion s~mu~res were complet~ within the
study area. [nc~ude jetties. ~oins ~d bulkheads. Come,ate ra~ o? shorefine ch~ge
~ufi~S discr~t :ime 7esods caver~ by the ~ta sets wit~ conszmc:ion of s~racmr~ and
determine ti~e :e~xtive effec:s of ~ch ~m~re.
Resort Shore!ine Chanue F~ndinus: Compile a pre!iminaqt re.=o~ summad~4ng the findings
or' ~.he shoreiine change ~alysis as described in item 2.0. Ca&':date 37mreli,e
[;)'o.~'itut.4¢'r.'l'¢:tem. ile.'~t 2.[. (',JtTeklle Shore!ine ('hurt,,?. t~yith .5'lorm.¥. cold item
('~rre!ut¢ .~/1ol".'.iill~ ('t'l(lll.?t-' ",["l'th ['~fltmt. llt hnpac't.v, lnc~ude moos show/ng shoreline
positions at each of:he dates tbr which data was available. Ail maps shall comply with the
standards descfibe4,~ in Appendix I. Show rares of change ar the inte.",'als calculated with
bar char~s on :he shore!ine mom or by other a.~propfiate means. Written and bwaphical
presentations should c!eariy show the long-rem trends in erosion/acre'.effort and any
changes in the ~ds res'airing from e~nsrracrion o£ shore protean,ion ~,,'zruc:ures and storm
history in the are~ Preeare (our copies or' the Pre!iminza,/P, eport and su~.'_mit .:hem to the
Town of 5ourhoid at ~he -~-iies~ ~ossible ame. This information is n~sar7 For another
study b~ng undexaken concarrentfy. ',he ECONOtMIC BENEFIT5 A,~ALYSIS. -Fine
proposal must ,i. escri, ibe :he dare = which the Pre~.iminary Report ~iii be deiivered to the
Department.
Estimate :he Rate or' Lon,_,shore Tr,..msoorr: Using the e'fidence of s~iiment accumulation
behind shore pe~endit.~iar s~;,ac:'.ares- ez'znnate the .-ate or' lon~hore rranspo~. Report
conclusions and .'.he basis rbr ,.'hem. include an ~rimare of accurac7.
Evaluate Previous Shoreline Chan~e .analyses: Copies of pre,Aous shoreJine change
analyses by the Corps oF Enginery:Davies &: Axelrod et at and Gr~nman Pedersen are
available ~om the Dep~r~ment of State. These studies should be reviewed and care~tly
evaluated For accaracy oFdata sources, methods and final resuks. Results oFthese studies
shall be compared to the present study and any, v~iiations ,~xplalned. Conc!usions shall be
incorporated in the final report.
F. Products: Submission o['[hese produms should be inciuded in the contractors time schedule
discuased in: D. Project 77me Frame. above.
10
Di-4ral Files: Separate data flies of the di~tized shorelines from Scope of Work: item 1.2,
Di~tize Shoreline Data ~d item 1.3. Survey the E.'ci~n~ Sitoreiine, above, shall be
~sembled by date. with control points. Control point names and coordinates shall be'
provided, along with an estimated de"O'_ ~ or' ac~racy for ~ch shoreline location. The7
shall be stored on 3.5" floppy disks in AutoCAD DXF file (orma~ and delivered to the
Town of Southold for distribution to the New Yofi<. Department of State.
".0
Preliminavz Resor~: Provide ;."our copies with maps as provided in Scope of Work: item
2.$. R%oort .5'horefi,e (7~an~':, 3Tndingx. All maps shall comply with s~andards as
described in Appendix !.
3.0
Dra~ Reoor~: A draA report si~ail be prepared summan~sng methods usevL accuracy, net
changes md r~ o( shoreline ac~efioWr~om with maps
Work: ,em 2.3. Re?,'t 37~orefine ('hut[~
d~is investigation [he repo~ shall dis~ass the impam oF sto~s on erosion rotes d~rouglaout
the i~udy r~cn. ~ in Scope of Work #em 2. 1.
Using ~he ~ta deveIoe~ in ~is inve~fion.
any. of shore .... on ~ '
pe~enmcm~ ,,=a~res croton throu~ou~
Sco~e of Wo~: ' ' ~ .......
ttem ....( ome/ate .Stnwe/ine ('h~l~e ~lh mi/mall [mpac:x. A sera,re
section of the D~ Re=o~ s~l ~sc~s the [on~nore cms~o~ ~dmare ~ d~b~ in
$co~e o~ Wo~: item ~.0. ~'~im~e the Rale of
separate s~on gq~l mpo~ the ~ndin~ of Scope of Wo~ item 3.1. E~'~uate Pre~'iou. v
3noretme ( 'h~t~.~, ,4n~'xex. ~ove. Tweive copi~ of the D~ Re9o~ =nail oe ~bmined
to the To~ of Southold.
;I '
Presentation: The contrac:or si~all make an oral presentation on findin~ or' the His;orical
Si~oreiine .analysis. including ~l items r~or~e'd in P,"oduc~s: ttem 3.0. Dret't Report. to
the Town or' Southoid. Erosion Miu~fion Work Group. Ti, qe m~dng shall be heid in
5outhold Town Hail at a dine convenient to members or' :he ','v'od-: Group. Relevant
comments maoe ~unng me Presentation shall be incorporated into item -,..1. ,t. Tna/Re~ot't.
below.
Finai Revorr: The :ontrac:or ,.viii produce ~ T.'nal Re~or~ ~om the Draft: Regor~.
inco~oratin,_z wnrzen .,nd venal comments r~eived within r, vo ,.v~ks or' :he ?resentatior].
T,,,,'e!s'e copies o£ the Final R.e~o~ will be de!ivered to the Tow~ ol"'$Outhold. Two
additional digital copies o~ the Final ReporL inctudin~ all wfi~en. ~T'aphic and map
produc~s, shall be prepar~ and de!ivered to the Town or' $outhold t~r disz~ibution to the
.",i'e,,¥ York Depa~ment o~' State.
ATTACHSIFNT 1: REQUIRESII'2N'TS FOR CONTR.ACT MAP PRODUCTS
G E,N ER.~.L SlAP ,PRO DUCT REQ U IREbl ENTS
The following general cartographic requirements mus~ be adhered to by the Contractor:.
1 ) Slap Products - The DMsion reduires de!ivory of distal map produ~',s, unless otherwise
specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP), that met the ~ecifications outlined in this.
GENERAL MAP PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS s~don and the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL
CARTOGRAPHIC FILE REQUIREMENTS sec,ion. If analog map products are required by
the RFP, they mug met specifications outlined in this GENERAL MAP PRODUCT
REQUIREMENTS section and the ADDITIONAL DIGITAL-RF_-~DY SlAP PRODUCT
REQ UIREbiENTS section.
2) Deliverable Format -- .adl digital map and arn-ibute table files must be provided in Mapfnrb
-4'.0 ~'br Windows95 t'brmat on 4 mm DAT tape. gram DAT :ape. QiC-80 tone. TR-[ cape. or 3.5"
floppy diskette media. .-klte.'-native!y. ;he digital 'produc:s may be provided in UNIX or PC
.-kRC:'[NFO binary, or export format {.egO) or AutoCAD DXT Format on the same media types
upon approval of the Division. Ail other di.gScal Formats require prior ap.oroval ar' the Division.
Coordination with ;he Division prior to submission or' di~dtal media is r~uired to ensure
compatibility of the de!ivered materials.
3) Documentation - A data dicrionar:; must be included along with the map files desc:'i, ibing file
contents, file names, map projection, horizontal and vertical datums ~ed, coordinate ~szem.
R.'viS ac:'aracy and log si~eet, information sources and dates. :he map makff ~d date or'
preparation, and creation methodolo~/. Data provided under federal ~nds must be provided in a
manner which m~m Digital Geospafial Federal Geo,__,,-aphic Data Committ~ .Me:adaza Standard
as ex~ated by E.,:~utive Order 12906. A. pdl ti. !9c),*. "Coordinating Geo~,,'aphic Data
Acquisition and .'.cress: the National Spatial Data [nfi'astvacmre'.
· 4) Slap Accuracy. - Unless otherwise stated in the ,,~,cp, all deiiveraNe map produc,,s must
conform to National Map Acc'aracy Standards For horizontal and ve.~cat acc-arno/as es-,abiished
by the United States Bureau or'the Budge~. J'une 10. I9,;I. revised .~une 17. 194-7. For ,.xampie~
.."or maps az 1:20.000 or smaller, not more ~han !0% of the ,:veil-defined maD points tested must be
more than 1/50 inch {0.508 mini out of correct position..4t l:24.000, this toie:-ance u-ansiates
a required hor;e, ontal accuracz or' 40 ~'~. [f by prSor a=._~ment ,*,'ith the Division the mao
product does not conform ~o National Map .Ac~aracf Standards. th~ a s-,atement or' actual map
aczuracv should be included in the Documentation above. Furthermore. hyciro,_,_,-aphic
and ,naps should conform to recommended ac:arno/standard proposed in the joint USGS. NOS.
Coastal X, la~oin,_, Hancibook. 1978. Meivin Ellis ~itor. U.S. Gov~-nment Printing O~ce.
Appendix 6.
F) Datums - Unless othe:'w/s¢ specified in the RE'P, all map products should be rer'erenc~ to the
No~h American Horizontal Da£um of 1927 (NADZD and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
or' [929 (N'GVD29).
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC FILE REQUIRE;~iENTS
The ?bllowing carto~,'aphic construction requirements must be adhered to by the Contractor.
1) Edge-matching - AJI map sheets must be both visually and coordinate edge-mamhed w/th
adjacent map sheets. No edge-match tolerance wltl be allowed. Attributes t'or splkable features
must also be identical.
2) Common Boundaries - All Features that share s. common boundary, reg~dless or: map layer,
must have ~xac~ly the same coordinate position ol"thar t'k~mre in all common layers.
Point Duplication - No duplication of points that oc*.:r w/thin a darn string is permitted.
4) Connectivity - Where .b~aphic eiements visually m~:. the'/must be also dibfftally m~t. Alt
conr!uences of line and ,~olygon data must be ~xacr: 'overshoots". 'undershoots". 'slivers" or
"offshoots" ~re NOT :~e,mfirred.
5) Line Quality. - A high quality, c?.rro~aphic appearance must be achieved. Transitions ~om
straight iine~ ..'.o curviiinear e!emenrs must be smooth, with an?lar ind~ons at the point oi:
intersection. The digital representation must not contain extraneous data ar a non v/sibie leve!.
There simuid be no iai. hooks, or zero len~urh se=-ments. Any lin~ that are straight, or should be
straight, should be digiriz~ usinL-, only two points thar represent the beginning and ending points
or' r. he line.
6) Polygon Closare - For area Features bein~ di~fized, the last coordinate ?air must be ~-;ac:lv
(marhema£ically) equal ro the firs~ coordinate pair. No line or polygon must c:.oss i~sdf except ro
join at an actual confluence. All di~tized l"eamres across map boundaries mvzt bc
smooth and continuous iines.
7) Graphic Pree/sion - Positional c:ordinates for all distal ~al, hic ek:c:e.'_::~ rS::.,L5 not be
reuorred to a level of prezJ',sion ,__-'.eater chart one thousandth (.001) or.x
Digitizer Accuracy. - The r~uired RMS error for di~fizer acmarac'! must be 0.003 or hexer
digital map r~=,is~mtion.
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL-READY 5lA? PRODUCT R£QUIR£.~IE:NT~
The i'bilowing requirem~ts ,~br large scale, non-distal map products mu~ be tbllowed to
~ciiitate the ~ture conve~ion of the maps to diOt~ map ~rodu~s. ~1 ~e ~o~a~ non~
map produ~s must be ~rovid~ on ~le b~e mate~ at a scale s~ipulat~ ~n the ~. ~e map
produc~s mu~ include ~ inde~ map ~o ~I map sh~ts ~d thoro~h d~c~pdo~ of ~I the
camographic elements ~y~ on ~he maps.
1 ) Base Map t~'ledia - All maps mus~ be created on :'vl¥1ar or other ~able base material.
2) ~,lnp Scale - All maps o£a s{milar ser(es should be created us~n8 the same base sca~e. Unless
otherwise ~ated by the Division. all maps should be compiled at 1:24.000. [fother map scales are
approved by the Division. where pos~ole they will conform to standard map sc:~es ~ch as
1:9600: 1:50,000: 1:75,000: or l: 100,000.
3) ,~lap R~istration - The maps must provide a minimum of ~bur (4) comer and ['bur (a)
interior ticks tied to USGSiN'YSDOT quadrang!e Lat~Long or NY-DJ coordinates. The maps
must be geome=ricaily correc:~, and should re'=,izer when overlaid on the appropriate
USGS/NYSDOT quadrangle control ticks.
4) Map Title and Legend - The maps mus~ provide a ..'ide and [~e.qd block describing ~he
intbrmation contained on the maps. ~nd including the Documentation and D,qmms information
cequesred in the GENERAL 3dAP PRODUCT i~QUIRE~IENTS above and the map scale.
5) Cartographic Qualit7 - The quaii~' oFail map line wo~< and ~.-ymbciization mus~ conrbrm co
items I - 0 in the map criteria se~. rbr~h in the ADDITIO~'AL DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC
F1L E REQ U IREM ENTS s~:ion outlined ~cve.
CONTRACT DATABASE STA,NDARDS
Deliver7 ~iedia
All database and tabular tiles must be provided on distal media as wecified above in Deliverable
Formal.
So(tware Format
All database and tabular files mus~ .be provided in Bodand's Pm-adox For Windows95 version 5.0
tbrma~. Other i'brmats that are canve.'-dbie to Paradox may be used ~sm prior ~pprovai of the
Division.
Geographic Attribt, tes
Database and tubular flies that contain ~e.-ne.qts '.~th a ~,eo~,~aphic ~£erenc: .mus~ ,provide
corresponding dam field and a geog.~phic coordinate ~alr For ~ch r'~_.Jure !ocarion.
I ]1 · 1 f I g ! f I f,! I ! f ! l,I I I I,! f ! ! ! · i ! I I I I I
STANDARD 1. Firm Name/Business Address: 2. Year Present Firm 3. Date Prepared:
FORM (SF) Established
1982 January 9, 1998
254 The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc.
105 South High Street 4. Specify type of ownership and check below,
Architect-Engineer West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382-3226 if applicable.
and Related ACASS # 012690
Services XXX A. Small Business
la. Submittal is for,.~[~ Parent Company [-~ Branch or Subsidiary Office B. Small Disadvantaged Business
Questionnaire
c. Woman-Owned Business
5. Name of Pareut Company, if any: 5a. Former Parent Company Name(s), if any, and Year(s) Esablished:
6. Names of Not More Than Two Principals to Contact: Title/Telephone
1) Van Dyke Polhemus, PresidentY610-692-2224
2)
7. Present Offices: City / State / Telephone / No. Personnel Each Office 7a. Total Personnel 23
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382-3226
610-692-2224
8. Personnel by Discipline: (List each person only once, by primary function).
2 Administrative __ Electrical Engineers Oceanographers ~ Comnuter Snecialist
Architects Estimators (Cost) 3 Planners: Urban/Regional ._L.1 (~hemi~t
Chemical Engineers __ Geologists Sanitary Engineers
2 Civil Engineers __ Hydrologists Soils Engineers __
__ Construction Inspectors Interior Designers Specification Writers
2 Draftsmen/Graphics __ Landscape Architects Structural Engineers
6 Ecologists __ Mechanical Engineers Surveyors
5 Economists Mining Engineers Transportation Engineers
9. Summary of Professional Services Fees Last 5 Years (Most Recent Year First) Ranges of Professional
Received: (Insert Index Number) Services Fees INDEX
I. Less than $100,000
19 96 1995 1994 1993..~_ 1992 2. $100,000 to $250,000
Direct Federal Contract Work, Including Overseas 5 5 5 5 4 3. $250,000 to $500,000
All Other Domestic Work 2 2 2 2 2 4. $500,000 to $1 million
All other Foreign Work * 5. $1 million to $2 million
6. $2 million to $5 million
7. $5 million to $10 million
i* Firms interested in foreign work, but without such experience, check here: [] S. $10 million or greater
! I f I fl r ! f I I ! f I f I fl I I f ! f ! W ! f ! f I fl f ! ! ! !
10. Profile of Firm's Project Experience, Last $ Years
Profile Number of Total Gross Fees (in Profile Number of Total Gross Fees (in Profile Number of Total Gross Fees (in
Code Projects thousands) Code Projects thousands) Code Projects thousands)
l) 012 I 29 11) 21)
2) 020 I 2,000 12) 22)
3) 033 3 2,270 13) 23)
4) 042 2 7,640 14) 24)
5) 078 2 140 15) 25)
6) 218 19 8,651 16) 26)
7) 235 I 120 17) 27)
8) 252 I 49 18) 28)
9) 19) 29)
10) 20) 30)
1L Pro]ect Examples, Last 5 Years
Profile "P, " "C, " Cost of Completion Date
Code "JE " or Project Name and Location Owner Name and Address Work (Actual or
"IE" (l,O00's) Estimated)
218 P 1) Economic Analysis of Water Resources Projects, Indefinite Robert Selsor 400 1996
Delivery contract U.S. Anuy Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 400 1997
100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building 400 1998
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
215/656-6569
218 C 2) Indefinite Delivery Contract (Philadelphia) For Planning Robert Selsor 100 1994
Services For Economic Analysis (Subcontract to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 100 1995
DRJJMcGraw-Hill, 1nc.) 100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building 100 1996
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
2151656-6569
218/092 P 3) Revisions to the National Economic Development Stuart Davis 44 1994
Procedures Manual - Urban Flood Damage U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, Cascy Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-7086
218/092 P 4) Understanding the Non-Federal Financing Options and Robert Salsor 52 1995
Politics of ibc Delaware River Main Channel Deepening U.S. Army Corps of Engineees, Philadelphia DisUict
Project. ] 00 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
215/656-6569
STANDARD FOR/vi 254 PAGE 5 (REV. I 1-92)
f ! f ! Ir 1 r ! g I f ! r ! &r i f ! I ! Ir ! f~ I f' I f ! [ 1 l- ] ! ! ! ! ! !
218/092 C 5) Marine Casualty and Oil Spill Contingency NED Benefits Robert Selsor 37 1995
and Plan Analysis for Channel Improvements in Philadelphia U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District
(Subcontract to DRI/McGraw-Hill, Inc.) 100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
215/656-6569
218/092/224 P 6) Economic Impact of the Wyoming Valley Flood Control James Brozena, P.E., County Engineer 75 1997
/252 Project, Financial Strategy and Mitigation Plan for Induced Luzeme County Courthouse
Flooding, Luzerne County, PA 200 N. River Street
Wilkes, Ban'e, PA 18711
717/825-1600
252/0201033 P 7) Economic Assessment of Individual and Cumulative Uses of David Poflison, Head of Planning Branch 49 1993
/I 14 the Delaware Estuary Delaware River Basin Commission
West Trenton, NJ 08628
609/883-9500
218 P 8) Economic Studies Thomas Hacker 255 1993
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District 262 1994
P.O.Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
503/326-6438
218 P 9) National Economic Development Procedures Manual - Stuart A. Davis 26 1997
Sampling Methods Primer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-7086
218 P 10) National Economic Development Procedures Manual - William Hansen 45 1992
National Economic Development Costs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-9089
218 P 11) Economic Trafiqc Model and Data Collection for High Island David A. Moser, Ph.D. 105 1997
to Brazos River, Gulf Intracoastal Water, ray, Section 216 U.S. Army Corps of Englncers, Institute for Water Resources
Feasibility Study 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-8066
218 P 12) Risk-Based Analyses for Deep DraR Navigation; Methods Pbillip Tho~e 140 1997
for analyzing probability distribution of NED benefits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
derived from DRl/McGraw-Hill commodity and fleet 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
forecasts; Methodology development and case study Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
(Brewerton Cut-Off, Baltimore, MD). 703/428-7074
218/079 C 13) Port Everglades LRR Economic Benefit Analysis and lan Mathis 90 1995
Section 107 Studies; eommodfly and fleet forecasts, analysis U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
of alternatives, and economic feasibility of port 400 West Bay Street, Room G-25
improvements/channel deepening (Subcontract to Dames & Jacksonville, FL 32202
Moore~ the.I 904/232-1105
STANDARD FORM 254 PAGE 5 (REV. 11-92)
218 P 14) Economic Impact~ & Analysis of Hotcl Occupancy Tax. James M. Torbik, Director 39 1996
Cost R¢cov¢i3, Strategy and Financial Feasibility for Office of Public Information
Proposed County Sports Arena Luzeme County Courthouse
Luzeme County, PA lgTl l
717/g20-6305
012/21 g P 15) Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects, Elkton, MD and Frederick Fumey 29 1997
Local Flood Protection and Anacostia Flood Forecast and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
Warning P.O.Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-171:5
410/962-2946
218/092 C 16) IDC for Multidisciplina~ Planning and Environmental Michael Holland 100 1997
Services, Basin Planning, Flood Control, Navigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, New Orleans District 100 1998
(Subcontract to Dames & Moore) P.O.Box 60267 100 1999
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
033 P 17) Procedures Manual: Approaches for Incorporating Risk and Leigh Skaggs 70 1997
Uncertainty into Environmental Evaluations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-9091
042/079/218/ P 18) Analytical and Professional Support Services for the Institute Arthur Hawnn 1,500 1996
235 for Water Resources Navigation Programs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, institute for Water Resources 1,500 1997
7700 Telegraph Road, Casey Building 1,500 1998
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868 1,500 1999
703/428-6242 1,500 2000
078/218 C 19) IDC Contract for Planning, Engineering, and Design Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50 1997
(Subcontract to Dames & Moore) Tulsa District 50 1998
Tulsa, OK 74128
033/020/218 P 20) Environmental Services Contract, New York District Roselle Henn, Chief, Env. Assess. Section 1,000 1995
(environmental, economic, cultural investigations) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District 1,000 1996
26 Federal Plaza, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10278-0090
212/264-1275
218/092/042/ P 21) IDC for Comprehensive Planning and Environmental Robet~ Gore 1,000 1995
028 Services for Civil Works, Military Activities and Others U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District 1,000 1996
P.O.Box 1715 1,000 1997
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 1,000 1998
410/962-3235 1,000 1999
078/224 P 22) Business Plan for Non-Federal Sponsor Cost of the Delaware Robe~ Callegari, Chief, Planning Division 40 1996
River Main Channel Deepening Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District
100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
215/656-6540
STANDARD FORM 254 PAGE 5 (REV. 11-92)
218/092/114 P 23) Manual for Risk and Uncertainty in Corps Civil Works Eugene Z. Stakhiv 74 1989
Planning (including case studies for flood protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
navigation) 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-6370
218/235 P 24) Development of Benefit/Cost Methodology for Evaluating Mark Dunning, Ph.D. 160 1994
O&M Projects (Phase I), Field Tests, Data Collection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
Evaluation of Economic Analysis Methods {Phase II) 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-6593
042/079/218 P 25) Investigation and Analysis in Support of National Study on William Holfiday, Policy Division 140 1995
/235 Dredged Material Disposal Policy, including assessment of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
disposal capacity and problems, analysis of need for changes 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building
in Federal law and policy, investigations of alternative Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
financing strategies, case studies and Section 216 Report to 7031428-6309
Congress
033/235/015 P 26) Delaware Estuary Program: Land use/water quality controls James Walsh, PADER 200 1993
and authorities; NPS Pollution Control Strategy and Bureau of Land & Walcr Conservation 1994
Pennsylvania Demonstration Project - anaalysis of policy Division of Coastal Programs 1995
options for protection of the EstuaD', local zoning 400 Market Street, 1 lth Floor
modifications and state Icgislation proposals with local Harrisburg, PA 17120
implementation 717/787.2529
218/42 P 27) Development of Tools, Measures, and Organization for Arthur Hawnn, P.E. 47 1997
Prioritizing Corps of Engineers Harbor Projects U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, C~scy Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
703/428-6240
235/092/218/ P 28) Integrating Condition and Capacity in Inland Waterway L. George Antic, Ph.D. (Ret.) 120 1994
079 Navigation Investment Analysis. Analysis of thc Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Watcr Resources
Gencral Equilibrium Model (GEM) to incorporate facility 7701 Telegraph Road, Cascy Building
deterioration and determine priority of navigation Alexandria, VA 22315-386g
invcstmcnts (Phase I); and conduct field investigations for 80
locks and dams (Phase ID.
218/I 15 C 29) Economic and Policy Analysis for thc U.S. EPA Office of U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water 400 1992
Drinking Water Ralph Jones, Cadmus (Prime)
617/894-9830
020/028/033/ P 30) Environmental Services Indefinite Delivery Contract for thc Je~3t Pasqualc, Chief Environmental Section 400 1990
218 Philadelphia District (Primary Issue: deepening of the 100- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 400 1991
mile main navigation channel in the Delaware River, C&D 100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building 400 1992
Canal) Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 400 1993
215/656-6555 400 1994
12. The foregoing is a statement of facts Date:
STANDARD FORM 254 PAGE 5 (REV. 11-92)