SCOPE OF WORK

Feasibility Study and Remedial Design Harbortown Upstream Shoreline and Harbortown Shoreline Target Areas

Detroit River Area of Concern Wayne County, Michigan

761/26502.SAR

PURPOSE

This Statement of Work (SOW) provides a summary of the work to be performed as part of the Cooperative Agreement between Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). The purpose of the work activities discussed in this SOW is to support the evaluation of the contaminated sediments in the Harbortown Upstream Shoreline (HT-UP) and the Harbortown Shoreline (HT) along the Detroit River, both target areas are within Detroit River Area of Concern (AOC) located in Detroit, Michigan (Figure 1), to perform an evaluation of potential remedial options in a Feasibility Study (FS), and to engage in Remedial Design (RD) that will support the eventual remediation of the Detroit River.

Specifically, activities covered in this RFP will advance the project from FS through the RD.

Such activities include the following:

• Existing site information, including both chemical data (sediment concentrations) and physical in nature data (e.g., geotechnical data, survey results, boring logs, and sample photographs)—will be reviewed. This review will allow for a greater understanding of site conditions and refinement of the conceptual site model (CSM), including the nature and extent of sediments containing constituents of concern (COCs) above applicable criteria comparison levels, and identification of any potential existing data gaps.

• Once the Data Gap Work Plan is approved by the project work group (PWG) consisting of EGLE, EPA-GLNPO, and potentially other non-federal partners, the supplemental investigations will be performed, and the results will be reviewed to determine if the data gaps phase of the project has been successfully completed.

• Preliminary remedial goals (PRGs) will be developed based on all available information collected to date. These PRGs will be used in the FS alternative development.

• Once the supplemental investigations have been deemed complete, applicable remedial technologies and alternatives will be developed and evaluated. The results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase will be evaluated in the FS, which will identify the most appropriate remedial action(s) (RA) to be implemented at the site.

The results of the evaluation, as well as the rationale for selecting the recommended remedy, will be presented in the FS which will include a final determination on whether remediation and/or restoration would be beneficial based on the current extent of the sediment contamination and habitat quality. The determination will identify and assess the potential types of remediation and/or restoration alternative(s) that may be implemented.

• Following the completion of FS-related activities, a Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan will be developed to summarize the data needs that must be addressed to facilitate the successful completion of the Remedial Design.

During continued implementation of the work described in this RFP, EGLE, PWG will continue to foster a partnering strategy and a working relationship through a mutually developed, formal approach of commitment and communication that creates an environment where trust and teamwork prevent disputes, foster a cooperative bond, and facilitate completion of a successful project. The work described in this SOW is expected to support the eventual delisting of beneficial use impairments (BUIs) related to the restrictions of fish and wildlife consumption, restrictions on dredging activities, fish tumors and other deformities, and degradations of benthos (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015- 08/documents/clinton-aoc-delistingguidance-20051117.pdf).

SITE DESCRIPIONS & BACKGROUNDS

Detroit River

The Detroit River is part of the international waterway that links Lake Erie to the upper Great Lakes and flows generally from northeast to the south through Wayne County, Michigan, and serves as a strait connecting Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie, forming part of the international border between Michigan and the Canadian province of Ontario. A 32-mile strait, the Detroit River drains approximately 700 square miles of land in Michigan and Ontario, as well as the 107-square-mile City of Detroit “sewershed.” The Detroit River has been heavily industrialized for nearly 100 years and is primarily used as a water source for industry and human consumption. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a Detroit River Stage 1 Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was completed in 1991. The Stage 1 RAP described the river’s use and conditions and identified 11 BUIs. Known causes for these BUIs include urban and industrial development in the watershed, bacteria, PCBs, PAHs, metals, oils, and greases. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and municipal and industrial discharges are major sources of contaminants within the Detroit River AOC.

Stormwater runoff and discharge from tributaries in Michigan are also major sources of Contaminants. The BUIs identified in the Stage 1 RAP are as follows:

• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption

• Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor

• Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor

• Degradation of fish and wildlife populations

• Beach closings

• Fish tumors or other deformities

• Degradation of aesthetics https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/clinton-aoc-delistingguidance-20051117.pdf

• Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems

• Degradation of benthos

• Restriction on dredging activities

• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

At the time the Stage 1 RAP was drafted, six municipal drinking water intakes serving approximately 4.1 million people in nearly 100 communities, and approximately 25 industries withdrew water from the Detroit River. As a receiving water, approximately 30 industries and power plants discharged cooling water and/or process water, and 10 municipal wastewaters treatment plants discharged industrial and domestic wastewater.

The principal industrial discharges were on the Michigan shoreline along the lower 15 miles of the river from Zug Island downstream through the Trenton Channel to the mouth of Lake Erie. Major industries included steel mills, petroleum refineries, electrical power generating plants, chemical manufacturing plants, and automotive part manufacturers. The largest discharger to the river was the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, which discharged an average of 715 million gallons per day, including waste from more than 700 industrial users. An additional 46 facilities discharged to Detroit River tributaries. The river also received urban and industrial runoff directly and through its tributaries and storm sewer systems (Michigan Department of Natural Resources [MDNR] 2001).

Use of the river today is similar to 1991 except that there are fewer industries and wastewater treatment plants. In the Michigan portion of the AOC, there are currently four municipal drinking water intakes serving about 4.2 million people in nearly 127 communities.

Approximately 20 industries and power plants discharge cooling water and/or process water to the river, and about 29 additional facilities discharge to the tributaries. There are five municipal wastewater treatment plants.

In 2006, Michigan EGLE established criteria for remediation of each of the BUIs in Guidance for Delisting Michigan’s Great Lakes Areas of Concern (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/clinton-aoc-delistingguidance- 20051117.pdf).

To address the delisting criteria and allow for the eventual removal of the BUIs, in 2012 the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), Michigan EGLE, Detroit River Public Advisory Committee, and Friends of Detroit River began to define the “known contaminated sediment sites” in the Detroit River. Between 2012 and 2025, multiple site characterization and RI efforts have been performed across the Detroit River AOC, with the results of these investigations leading to the establishment and refinement of target areas (Harbortown Upstream, Harbortown Shoreline, Riverbend Shoreline, River Rouge-Ecorse Shoreline, Upper Trenton Channel, Monguagon Creek – Upper Trenton Channel, Elizabeth Park Canal, and Gibraltar Canals). Six of these target areas were the subject of previous Remedial Investigations/Sediment Sampling, hereafter referred to as the “investigation areas”:

1. Harbortown Upstream Shoreline (HT-UP)

2. Harbortown Shoreline (HT)

3. Riverbend Shoreline

4. River Rouge-Ecorse Shoreline

5. Elizabeth Park Canal

6. Gibraltar Canals

Numerous historical investigations have been completed in the Detroit River AOC documented in the following referenced reports EA2014a, 2014b, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2019, 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d. Most recently, EGLE conducted field investigations in 2025 with the most recent sampling along the HT-UP and HT Shorelines being conducted in 2021 and 2025. The Harbortown Upstream project area is approximately a 2- mile stretch of the upper Detroit River beginning at Maheras-Gentry Park and extending downstream to Erma Henderson Park (Figure 2). This area is upstream of, and contiguous with, the Detroit River AOC Harbortown Shoreline target area.

Sediments were initially characterized in 2018 for the Harbortown Upstream target area.

The characterization found five hot spots which were pulled out for further investigation. The total estimated volume of the potential contaminated sediment through spatial analysis/kriging during the 2018 Harbortown Upstream site characterization was determined to be approximately 834,539 cy of contaminated sediment. However, three hot spots were removed (Hot Spots 2,4 and 5) from further investigation due to low volumes and concentrations which were present only at one sampled location within the hot spot. Thus, reducing the estimated volume to 443,218 cy of contaminated sediment between the two Hot Spots 1 and 3.

The 2021 HT-UP RI included collecting 72 surface and subsurface sediment samples collected from 18 locations from the Harbortown Upstream target area. Seven hot spots were identified as having sediment which had contaminant concentrations over probable effects concentration (PEC). Of the seven hot spots only Hot Spot 1 was carried forward for further FS/RD investigation and development. The six others which were removed as target hot spots were determined to either have small volumes or contaminant concentrations at depth or both. The volume of contaminated sediments which remain for further investigation is approximately 73,996 cy of material exclusively from Hot Spot 1 within the Connor Creek Outfall area. This area has contaminated sediment concentrations exceeding the PEC.

Constituents for which the PEC exceedances are occurring within Hot Spot 1 include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc dioxins, total PCB Aroclors, and total 17 PAH. Cadmium, lead, dioxins and total PCB Aroclors have concentrations greater than three times the PEC.

A FS/RD will be carried out on the HT Hot Spot 1 and HT-UP Hot Spot 1 areas under this SOW, including data gap investigations and potentially Pre-Design Investigation, if the project team deems that more data is needed to move forward with design. Work will commence at both locations after a firm is selected through the DTMB Request for Proposals process. A timeline of events can be found in Section 16 of this document.

The Harbortown Shoreline is immediately downstream of the Harbortown Upstream investigation area. It is a 2-mile stretch of river beginning at MacArthur Bridge leading to Belle Isle and extending downstream to upstream of the General Motors Renaissance Center, in downtown Detroit.

The sediment characterization of this target area included approximately 168 surface and subsurface sediment samples from approximately 36 locations, and the 2025 Harbortown Shoreline remedial investigation included approximately 189 surface and subsurface sediment samples from approximately 45 locations. Sediment samples were analyzed for PCB Aroclors, 34 PAHs, heavy metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc plus, oil and grease, cyanide, nitrogen ammonia, pH, percent solids, dioxins and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) for only Hot Spot 1. RI- sediment data is still being validated, and figures will be included in the final RI report once validation is complete. The RI will be completed and all data associated with the RI will be finalized in a report prior to initiation of the FS/RD process. The RI data will be used to help define the large footprint currently existing for these target areas. Additional data gap investigations during the FS and Pre-Design Investigations will be needed as we move forward with FS/RD to better refine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination.

The estimated volume of contaminated sediments of Harbortown Shoreline Hot Spot 1 from the 2016 characterization study was approximately 737,777 cy sediment with constituent concentrations exceeding approximately 3 times the PEC occurring within Hot Spot 1 include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, zinc, dioxins, total PCB Aroclors and total 17 PAHs with copper, nickel, exceeding approximately 2 times the PEC.

The firm selected will develop PRGs for the HT-UP and HT targeted locations within this SOW. The selected firm will then draft the FS for both HT and HT-UP once PRGs are developed for each site. When both FS’s are complete, EGLE will submit both documents to GLNPO (see schedule below). Once the FS is finalized, the development of the selected alternative will be finalized and moved forward for RD. However, the design implementation will not be moving forward immediately to RA due to lack of funding.

Harbortown Upstream and

Harbortown Shoreline

FS/RD Location for the RFP.

Figure 1. Detroit River Sediment Remediation Target Areas. Targeted areas are highlighted in blue with white dots showing where completed remediation projects have been carried out historically. Work is targeting Harbortown Upstream and Harbortown Shoreline

Harbortown Upstream and

FS/RD Location for the RFP.

Figure 2. Northern Detroit River Sediment remediation Target Areas. Target areas are highlighted in blue with white dots showing where remediation projects have been completed historically.

DESCRIPTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

The Harbortown Upstream Shoreline and the Harbortown Shoreline will be considered as the project areas described in this RFP. The Detroit River has been preliminarily characterized by EPA GLNPO and most recently by EGLE under funding provided by EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Establishing an effective and long-term solution to address contaminated sediments within the AOC is important to eventually delisting it in accordance with the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

EGLE, their engineers, selected firm, along with EPA GLNPO, and the project coordination team will coordinate implementation of the project through the FS and RD phase to address contaminated sediments within the Harbortown Upstream Shoreline and Harbortown Shoreline areas of the Detroit River AOC. EGLE and GLNPO representatives will serve as co-chairs of the project coordination team and will coordinate on all aspects of the remedial action.

STATEMENT OF WORK/TASKS

The Engineering Firm shall perform the tasks listed below. There shall not be any duplication of effort.

Task 1: Project Planning Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Field Sampling Plan (FSP) Health and Safety Plan (HASP) Conduct weekly Meetings with project partners & Record Minutes

Task 2: Determination of Costs related to the Review of Existing Dataset to Develop Data Gaps sampling and analysis

Task 3: Develop and Implement Field Data Gaps Work Plan Task 4: Development of Feasibility Study Task 5: Development of Remedial Design Task 6: Data Management

Task 1 – Project Planning and Support

This task will include the scheduling of bi-weekly conference calls, development of a schedule for the project as well as on-site meetings, if necessary, and monthly reports to document monthly progress. A QAPP, FSP and a HASP will be developed by the chosen firm to address the work proposed for this project. Prior to any work conducted by the firm, the QAPP will be reviewed by the project team and approved by EGLE.

Task 2 - Review of Existing Dataset & Data Gap Investigation to Support FS Development

This work task will include reviewing the available site data to further understand and develop the CSM, the nature and extent of sediments containing COC above appropriate screening levels initially and later focusing on the Remedial Goals established for the site and identifying any potential existing data gaps.

Prior investigations carried out within the AOC have included the collection of more than 2700 sediment samples over the past 12 years. Samples were subject to one or more of the following analyses: PCBs, PAHs, inorganics/metals, acid volatile sulfide/simultaneously extracted metals (AVS/SEM), dioxins/furans, and grain size/moisture content. These data shall be reviewed to identify any potential gaps from both horizontal and vertical perspectives.

Field notes should also be reviewed for instances of Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL) presence. NAPL is an organic chemical contaminant which does not dissolve in water, because it is immiscible, it forms a distinct separate physical layer when it comes into contact with water. The major contaminants generally associated with NAPL are petroleum fuels, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s (PCBs), elemental Mercury as well as others. In instances where NAPL might have been described as present, or where saturated NAPL was observed and subsequently recorded or if supplemental sampling detects NAPL, the location(s), depth(s), and corresponding analytical results shall be taken into consideration, in order to, evaluate the need for future NAPL mobility sampling. Abatement/remediation of potential NAPL will be addressed in the RA phase of the remediation process.

In addition to the above, physical data shall also be reviewed for completeness and potential additional data needs. Based on information provided to date, the following surveys have been performed:

• Bathymetric and side-scan surveys

• Sub-bottom profiling survey

• Utility location survey in the river for crossings using electromagnetic techniques

• Shoreline survey, which located pipes, outfalls, and other structures that could be observed

Upon receipt of the historical investigation data, such data shall be reviewed and presented in a Summary of Understanding Report.

Task 3 - Development and Implementation of Field Data Gaps Work Plan, if necessary

If necessary, a data gap investigation shall be conducted if the review of existing data identifies areas where additional information is needed to fully develop the feasibility study.

A data gap work plan shall be developed by the selected firm to explain what data will be included in the work plan. It is up to the selected firm whether this work will be subcontracted.

The work plan developed by selected firm will be reviewed by EGLE and EPA-GLNPO to ensure that the proposed work is necessary for the development of the FS and the RD and meets all EPA-GLNPO’s QA/QC data requirements for submission into the Great Lakes Sediment Database (GLSED). The selected firm will be responsible for completing the permitting activities and applying for the required sediment sampling permits and others, as needed.

The selected firm will be responsible for gaining any potential access agreements which shall be required prior to conducting data gap sediment sampling as well as conducting any Pre-Design investigation work and producing a Data Summary Report. The anticipated timeline for acquiring sampling permits can take approximately six months since all access agreements must be in place to apply for the sampling permit. Additional time may be needed to acquire Administrative Warrants to collect sediments if landowners do not respond. It is up to the selected firm to determine which task items may be subtracted, if any.

Gaining access agreements has historically been long process, approximately six months, in which the selected firm is required to acquire all property access agreements prior to submitting to EGLE for a sediment sampling permit. The selected firm r should be prepared to pay for multiple rounds of mailings including; two rounds of certified mail, a round of standard mail and direct contact over the phone in attempts to get agreements signed prior to the permit submission. However, a very low percentage of property owners sign these agreements and without these access agreements, sediment data for the characterization and remedial investigation sampling would have been very spotty and the information would not have meant much. Once these efforts are exhausted, and general responses from landowners is normally extremely low, EGLE Water Resources Division works with their Law Enforcement Unit and the Attorney General’s Office to acquire Administrative Warrants from the respective District Courts where the sampling is to take place. The warrants generally are signed by the judge after EGLE staff swear the warrants out in front of the judge that all information compiled by the selected firm is accurate and all efforts have been exhausted for contacting the landowner. The selected firm will not be required to appear in court. Warrants are signed for approximately 60-90 days, in which all work is required to be completed. After the field work is completed a “Return and Tabulation” report is required by the court to report to the landowners the information which was collected from their property during the sampling event.

No access agreement work has currently been conducted for potential sampling for this project. However, as stated previously, the process is known and landowner access and warrant process can be initiated if needed for this project.

Task 4 - Development of Feasibility Study

As indicated above, an FS will be developed based on the completed RI and characterization work for each target area, Harbortown Shoreline and Harbortown Upstream Shoreline. Work associated with the development of an FS is expected to include but not limited to the following:

• Development of remedial action objectives (RAOs) which are specific, measurable goals which aim to mitigate risk from contaminated sediments to benthic organisms, fish and human consumers, such as reducing risk to the environment by controlling contaminant exposure, lowering sediment toxicity or restoring habitats.

• Development of preliminary remediation goals (PRGs). PRGs are risk based clean up targets developed in the site evaluation process to define acceptable chemical concentrations to protect ecological and human health receptors, serving as foundational benchmarks for defining cleanup areas and evaluating remedial alternatives in a Feasibility Study.

o Site Specific PRGs will be developed for the Harbortown Upstream and the Harbortown Shoreline target areas under this RFP using all existing data and data to be collected, for the chemicals of concern, after a data gap evaluation and associated sampling event.

• Identifying Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). ARARs are generally federal and state environmental standards required for EPA Superfund sediment remediation projects, ensuring site cleanup protects the environment and human health. They fall into chemical, location, and action specific categories governing contaminants, site locations and remedial activities like dredging or capping. This site is not an EPA Superfund site but the same process to evaluate the remediation of the sediments will be conducted.

• Identifying and screening remedial technologies which may be prudent to use and evaluating each of these to move these options forward to include in the final FS and cost estimates.

• Determining the remedial area and volume to be potentially addressed based on the RAOs/PRGs. This information will help develop a more accurate footprint of the contamination in each of the target areas. If further information is needed to better define these footprints, additional information will be collected via a data gaps investigation or a pre-design investigation.

• Developing proposed remedial alternatives. Based on the prior information collected from each of the two target locations and the development of PRGs, remedial alternatives will be proposed and evaluated for pros, cons, effectiveness, practicality, and cost. The best alternative will be recommended and the selected alternative to move forward to the RD.

• Creating detailed FS-level cost estimates for each alternative

• Developing a comparative evaluation matrix of alternatives using data from the screening of remedial alternatives

• Recommending the preferred remedial alternative using the comparative evaluation matrix.

• Select final remedial alternative with concurrence from EGLE and EPA-GLNPO

Task 5 – Development of a Remedial Design of the Selected Sediment Remedy

Using information collected during the RI/FS phases of the project, the preferred sediment remedy and potential associated habitat restoration will be designed in coordination with the project team and agreed on by all team participants. The remedial design will include preparation of an Engineering Remedial Design Report (Remedial Design Report). The Remedial Design Report will outline the specific, actionable engineering plans, drawings and specifications needed to clean up the contaminated sediments in each of the target areas. The Remedial Design Report will be followed by a Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act evaluation to identify, assess, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to historical features which might be present within each target area. Supporting documentation and a draft permit package for review by regulatory agencies and permit authorities. Agency and draft permit reviews will be followed by further refinement leading to a final permit package. After review and comment, the Remedial Design Report will be submitted in final form to the project team. This final remedial design will not immediately go into construction due to lack of funding and remedial partners.

Remedial design tasks include, but are not limited to:

• Under EGLE’s oversight, the selected firm will identify data gaps and conduct a Pre- Design Investigation, if needed, to further define the investigation area requiring remediation or to obtain other data required for design of the remedy. The field investigation work would result in a Pre-Design Investigation Summary Report. It is up to the selected firm whether portions of this work will be subcontracted. However, a named project manager and senior engineer must be from the prime firm. Subcontractors for Geotech, marine survey and laboratory analysis must be pre-approved by the State’s project manager.

• Refine the sediment contamination and volume estimates.

• Fully develop and refine the remedial design with selected remedy from the FS.

• Prepare Remedial Design Report, plans, construction specifications, engineer’s cost estimate, and bidding requirements needed to implement the project, along with other necessary project documents that may include:

o A project work schedule for implementing design o Project quality assurance and control documents o Cost estimates and value engineering (VE) Study to evaluate the selected remedy o Site preparation, access and management plans (including plans for mobilization, site security, and post project site restoration, if needed).

• Evaluate habitat restoration requirements and develop an appropriate restoration design.

• Identify the disposal options for the sediment to be removed, including transportation options.

• Create a waste handling plan for all waste that the remedial activities will generate, including segregation of special wastes, as necessary, and strategies to minimize the expense of waste management.

• Obtain local, state, and federal permits, rights of entry, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) letter preparation and approvals and other coordination with landowners necessary to implement the project.

• Evaluate historical sources of contamination as well as ongoing sources of contamination that have the potential to re-contaminate the sediments after remediation, resulting in the preparation of a source control memo.

• Evaluate and plan for post-dredge residuals.

• Conduct sustainability evaluations to reduce short- and long-term environmental impacts associated with the remedial action.

• A preliminary design package shall be submitted to the project partners for review upon completion. The preliminary design will include a Basis of Design Report, general and technical specifications, and preliminary drawings. The Basis of Design report will include the following items:

o Design and performance objectives for individual design elements for sediment and sludge remediation approach.

o List of project specific permit requirements, and access and easement agreements.

o Preliminary construction sequence and schedule.

o Preliminary RA cost estimates include a summary and justification of assumptions used including supporting calculations.

o Any additional data needs will be identified during preliminary design.

• An intermediate design package will be submitted to the project partners for review upon completion of the 30%, 60% and 90% design phase. The intermediate design will show the progression and completion level of the design including specific details, layouts, calculations and drawings for team review.

• An intermediate design package will be submitted to the project partners for review upon completion of the 60 percent design. The intermediate design will incorporate and address project partner’s comments on the preliminary design. The intermediate design will include the following items:

o Advanced preliminary design drawings to the intermediate design level o Description outlines of proposed remediation verification methods for the RA o Updated technical specification package o Updated Basis of Design Report to incorporate any changes in design criteria since the preliminary design

• The draft final design will be submitted at the 90 percent design completion stage. The project partner’s comments on the intermediate design will be incorporated and addressed in the final design draft. The final design will be completed after the project partner’s review of the draft final design. The final design will be approved by a professional engineer. The following final design will include the following items:

o Final design plans and technical specifications for the RA components o Updated and finalized Basis of Design Report to incorporate any changes to the design criteria since the intermediate design o Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan details the water quality monitoring requirements for project implementation

Task 6 – Development and Maintenance of ArcGIS based Web-Viewer

An ArcGIS based web-viewer has been developed during the remedial investigation phase of the Detroit River AOC projects which house all sediment data. Data collected during the FS/RD phase of these projects will be required to match the schema of the current GIS data used to create the web-viewer. The selected firm will conduct QA/QC evaluation on the data prior to uploaded into the web-viewer. This viewer will be used by EPA and EGLE to allow project team members to access all project data and provide a visualization based on any given analyte collected during the historic and current investigations. Links to access the web-viewer shall be provided to State and Federal entities to allow access this information.

COST AND COMPENSATION

The actual tasks that will be conducted over the life of the contract period cannot be reliably anticipated. In order to fairly evaluate cost proposals, estimates for the following Tasks should be developed.

Harbortown Upstream Shoreline – Detroit River

1. Cost to conduct historical data review and prepare Summary of Understanding based on review.

2. Cost to develop a Health and Safety Plan, Field Sampling Plan and associated

QAPP.

3. Cost to acquire all Federal, State and Local permits, landowner property access agreements that will be associated with any data gap sampling events in both target areas.

4. Cost to develop sampling plan, collect, analyze and validate to fill data gaps which may include but are not limited to: geotechnical samples as well as bulk and porewater sediment chemistry, in river utility investigations, hydrographic surveys debris surveys, sediment thickness evaluation as well as shoreline structure survey as needed to fill data gaps.

5. Cost to develop the Feasibility Study which may include but not limited to:

development of Remedial Action Objectives, Preliminary Remedial Goals, Remedial Alternatives, Project Footprint, contaminated sediment volume estimates, remedial alternative cost analysis, draft and final FS reports.

6. Cost to develop the Remedial Design which may include but not limited to: Pre-design Investigations, design plans, specifications and bidding requirements, develop project schedule, Value Engineering Study, access agreement acquisition and easements if necessary, disposal options, waste handling options, all federal, state and local permits, evaluation of historical and current potential sources, post remedial residual evaluations, preliminary Draft 30%, 60% and 90% Basis of Design Report, as well as the Final Design Report.

7. Cost to continue development of the ArcGIS based sediment web-viewer currently being used by Federal and State partners.

8. Cost to prepare a project summary and budget. Assume that the summary will provide a detailed written description of the specific activities that were conducted by the professional, the costs of those activities, and other activities that are expected to be conducted by the Professional, and a budget and schedule for those activities.

The report should be organized to indicate which specific subtask was, or is expected, to be billed for the work being described. The report should track the overall labor hours billed to the project each month by individual project team member.

9. Provide estimate travel expenses for traveling above the limit of 200 miles round trip per traveling event.

Harbortown Shoreline – Detroit River

1. Cost to conduct historical data review and prepare Summary of Understanding based on review.

2. Cost to develop a Health and Safety Plan, Field Sampling Plan and associated

QAPP.

3. Cost to acquire all Federal, State and Local permits, landowner property access agreements that will be associated with any data gap sampling events in both target areas.

4. Cost to develop sampling plan, collect, analyze and validate data to fill data gaps which may include but are not limited to: geotechnical samples as well as bulk and porewater sediment chemistry, in river utility investigations, hydrographic surveys debris surveys, sediment thickness evaluation as well as shoreline structure survey as needed to fill data gaps.

5. Cost to develop the Feasibility Study which may include but not limited to:

development of Remedial Action Objectives, Preliminary Remedial Goals, Remedial Alternatives, Project Footprint, contaminated sediment volume estimates, remedial alternative cost analysis, draft and final FS reports.

6. Cost to develop the Remedial Design which may include but not limited to: Pre-design Investigations, design plans, specifications and bidding requirements, develop project schedule, Value Engineering Study, access agreement acquisition and easements if necessary, disposal options, waste handling options, all federal, state and local permits, evaluation of historical and current potential sources, post remedial residual evaluations, preliminary Draft 30%, 60% and 90% Basis of Design Report, as well as the Final Design Report.

7. Cost to continue development of the ArcGIS based sediment web-viewer currently being used by Federal and State partners.

8. Cost to prepare a project summary and budget. Assume that the summary will provide a detailed written description of the specific activities that were conducted by the professional, the costs of those activities, and other activities that are expected to be conducted by the Professional, and a budget and schedule for those activities.

The report should be organized to indicate which specific subtask was, or is expected, to be billed for the work being described. The report should track the overall labor hours billed to the project each month by individual project team member.

9. Provide estimate travel expenses for traveling above the limit of 200 miles round trip per traveling event.

Additional costs may be negotiated between the State and Professional for actual work items that exceed the assumptions contained in the above generic cost estimates. Cost reductions may also be negotiated for actual tasks that require less work than the generic cost estimates.

INELIGIBLE COSTS

In addition to other specific exclusions in the Contract for Professional Services, the following are ineligible costs;

Invoice preparation or correction of invoices by the Professional or consultant/subcontractors

Downtime due to mechanical problems or failure of the Professional’s or consultant/subcontractor’s equipment.

The State of Michigan will not pay for the Professional to rewrite all or portions of the documents when the Professional did not follow written State directions or in the opinion of the Agency Project Manager, the written product received by the State is inadequate.

When there is a change in the Professional’s team, the State will not pay for new staff to review information that the previous staff person understood.

The Professional may not bill the State for health and safety training and medical monitoring for Professional and consultant/subcontractor staff.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Professional is responsible for developing and implementing a health and safety plan (HASP) for the site.

The Professional is responsible for obtaining any permits which are required for the performance of the work specified.

All on-site work shall be done in a timely manner. Security of the site and equipment shall be the Professional’s responsibility.

DELIVERALBES

The Professional shall provide electronic copies of all final reports, specifications, drawings and other significant deliverables in Microsoft Word, Excel, Shapefiles (.shp) or geodatabase (.gdb), and standard AutoCAD formats (.dwg/.dwf/.dwfx/.dgn etc.), as applicable, as well as in PDF format. The selected firm shall prepare and/or provide the following documents:

1. Draft and final Field Sampling Plan, QAPP, HASP and other necessary plans prior to commencement of field sampling. The selected firm will prepare draft versions of the documents and provide those to, at a minimum USEPA and EGLE

2. Summary of Understanding Report submitted to project team after review of historical data.

3. The selected firm shall collect analytical data to address gaps in the nature and extent of contamination of sediments at each site. Data collected shall be sufficient to support determination of the volume, nature, extent, movement, and rate of deposition of contaminated sediments. Data collected shall be sufficient to support determination of whether on-going sources exist that impact site sediments. The selected firm shall collect data in accordance with the approved QAPP and Work Plan and shall document the methods and procedures used during the investigation in the Field Data Gap Investigation Report. Draft and Final Data Gap reports may include but not limited to the following:

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Site background

• Historical data

• Investigation Activities

• Sample Methods, results, data validation

• Existing Conditions

- Sediment surface elevations

- Location of debris

- Hydrology/channel flow regime

- Estimated sedimentation rates

- Sediment stability/scour potential

- Shoreline/in‐stream structure conditions

- Utility locations

• Maps detailing the existing channel conditions, sample locations, and results

• Kriging or equivalent interpolation of the data

• Calculation of a surface‐weighted average concentrations for PAHs, metals and

PCBs

• Source Evaluation (controlled/uncontrolled)

• Habitat assessment

• Estimates of the sediment footprint area and volumes

• Recommendations and Conclusions

• References

The Field Data Gap Report will also document sampling changes made in the field, deviations from the QAPP, along with any issues, concerns or problems encountered during data collection and analysis. The selected firm will prepare a draft of the document and provide it to the project team. Upon receipt of comments on the draft document, the selected firm shall have 30 days to revise the document and submit a final document. Final reports shall be submitted in electronic form. Electronic copies will be provided in both Microsoft Word format as well as in Adobe Acrobat format.

4. Copies of raw laboratory data reports containing the final data package submitted by the laboratories as part of this project.

5. Electronic data deliverables in spreadsheet or database format containing all location, chemistry, toxicology, bioaccumulation and physical data collected as part of this sampling effort. The firm selected must follow EPA R5 GLLA Reporting Standards.

6. Shapefiles for any data collected or information developed related to the sediment remediation project shall be submitted to the project team.

7. The firm selected shall provide a draft and final Feasibility Study which may include but not be limited to the following:

• Summary of Remedial Investigation Results

• Guidance, Remedial Action Objectives, and Preliminary Remedial Goals

• General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies

• Development of Remedial Alternatives

• Evaluation of Alternatives

• Associated Tables, Figures and Appendices

8. The selected firm shall provide a 30%, 60% and 90% Draft Final Remedial Design may include but not be limited to the following:

• Summary of Remedial and Pre-Design Investigations

• Conceptual Design/Basis of Design

• Design Approach

• Construction Schedule

• List of Technical Specifications

• List of Contract Drawings

• Associated Tables, Figures, and Appendices

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EGLE

The EGLE will be responsible for the following:

• Providing project oversight, reviewing and payment of invoices.

• Providing the Professional with all applicable documents associated with historic sampling of these locations.

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Upon acceptance by the State of the proposal and contract, the winning bidder agrees to complete all work required within 60 months. The contract may be extended for one additional year at the sole option and discretion of the State. If the contract needs to be extended, it will be done with a change order. The schedule of deliverables below is an estimated proposed schedule contingent upon PRG development, access agreements, and permit acquisition and it is required that each firm submitting a bid for this work will submit their own proposed work schedule to accomplish the required work within the allotted timeframe.

• The Project Kick-Off Meeting shall be held within 14 calendar days of contract award.

• The HASP shall be submitted to the EGLE within 30 calendar days of contract award.

• The Monthly Progress Reports shall be submitted to the EGLE by the Wednesday of the week following the end of the service period.

• The Weekly Reports shall be submitted to the EGLE by email by the Monday of the week following the end of the service period.

Table 1. PROPOSED TASK SCHEDULE & DELIVERABLES - PROJECT #1 (Harbortown Upstream Shoreline)

Task

DELIVERABLE FORM DUE DATE

1 Project Team Meeting Participation & Minutes

Virtual & Electronic

2 days after team meeting

2 Historical Data Review and Summary of Understanding Report

Electronic Winter 2026

3 Development of QAPP, HASP, Work Plan

Electronic Winter 2026

4 Data Gaps Field Sampling Event Electronic Spring 2027

5 Draft & Final Data Gap Investigation Report

Electronic Fall/Winter 2027

6 PRG Development Electronic Spring 2028

7 Electronic Data Deliverable to EPA- GLNPO in the R5 EDD or SEDD/ADR format for GLSED inclusion.

Electronic Spring 2028

8 Draft Feasibility Study Electronic Spring 2028

9 Final Feasibility Study Electronic Fall 2028

10 Pre-Design Investigation, if necessary

Electronic Summer 2029

11 Draft Remedial Design Reports Electronic Spring 2030

12 Final Remedial Design Report Electronic Spring 2031

Table 2. PROPOSED TASK SCHEDULE & DELIVERABLES - PROJECT #2 (Harbortown Shoreline)

Task

DELIVERABLE FORM DUE DATE

1 Project Team Meeting Participation & Minutes

Virtual & Electronic

2 days after team meeting

2 Historical Data Review and Summary of Understanding Report

Electronic Winter 2026

3 Development of QAPP, HASP, Work Plan

Electronic Winter 2026

4 Data Gaps Field Sampling Event Electronic Spring 2027

5 Draft & Final Data Gap Investigation Report

Electronic Fall/Winter 2027

6 PRG Development Electronic Spring 2028

7 Electronic Data Deliverable to EPA- GLNPO in the R5 EDD or SEDD/ADR format for GLSED inclusion.

Electronic Spring 2028

8 Draft Feasibility Study Electronic Spring 2029

9 Final Feasibility Study Electronic Summer 2029

10 Pre-Design Investigation, if necessary

Electronic Spring/Summer

11 Draft Remedial Design Reports Electronic Fall 2030

12 Final Remedial Design Report Electronic Summer 2031

LABORATORY ANALYSIS

The Professional will be required to schedule all sample analysis (sediment and groundwater samples) with an appropriate EGLE approved contract lab. The EGLE lab shall not be used for any of the analysis of the collected samples. A list of state-approved contract labs can be found in Table 3. The Professional shall ship/deliver all samples to the approved contract laboratory. If a contract lab must be utilized for sample analysis, the lab will be chosen based on cost and availability. The EGLE Project Manager must approve the chosen contract laboratory prior to sample shipment/delivery. Costs for shipping, laboratory analysis, both mobile and stationary laboratory services, will be the responsibility of the chosen firm and should be estimated as part of this contract bid.

Table 3. State of Michigan Approved Contract Labs

Contract Lab Contact Person Telephone Email

Eurofins TestAmerica

Gail Carr 734-276-7655 gail.carr@testamericainc.com

Fibertec Stacy Kotecki 517-669-0345 ext. 2 skotecki@fibertec.us

Merit Laboratories Maya Murshak 517-827-2744 mayamurshak@meritlabs.com

INVOICING

Application for payment shall be submitted monthly per the requirements in the Contract for Professional Services. Project costs will be reimbursed to the Professional on an as-incurred basis in accordance with the terms of the Contract for Professional Services.

Invoices received covering service periods for which the monthly progress reports have not been received by the EGLE Project Manager will not be processed until the progress reports are received. These will be considered incomplete invoices.

Each invoice that includes labor will include a one-page summary sheet that lists by date the name of the individual providing the professional service, the individual’s position/classification, hours worked that day and hourly billing charge. Each invoice that includes reimbursable expenses will include a one-page summary with the following categories: Meals, Lodging, Travel, Shipping, Rental Equipment, Field Supplies/Equipment Purchase, Subcontractors and Miscellaneous. Under Meals and Lodging categories, the date, name of the individual and total daily cost will be included. Under Travel category, the Professional will include the date, name of the individual, total daily mileage (minus 200 miles), mileage rate and total daily cost. Under Shipping, the Professional will include the date shipped, description of item shipped (e.g., water samples, groundwater tech memo, etc.) and the cost to ship the item. Under Equipment Rental, the Professional will include the range of dates equipment rented, description of equipment rented and rental cost.

Under Field Supplies/Equipment Purchase and Miscellaneous categories, the Professional will include the date purchased, description and purpose of the item purchased (e.g., ice for sample preservation, baggies for samples, .45-micron filters for groundwater sampling, etc.)

and the cost.

mailto:gail.carr@testamericainc.com mailto:skotecki@fibertec.us mailto:mayamurshak@meritlabs.com

Under Subcontractors, the Professional will list the date of the subconsultants’ work, name of the subconsultant, description of work conducted (e.g., monitoring wells surveyed, VAS drilling, etc.) and the cost. The total cost for each category will be presented.

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY PURCHASE AND RENTAL PROCEDURES

The Professional shall use the methods in this section to purchase, rent or use Professional-owned equipment. If an item is consumed or would be expected to be rendered unusable during the project assignment, then renting is not a viable alternative and purchasing the item is necessary. Examples of consumption are bags of cement and installed casing. Examples of items expected to be rendered unusable are Tyveks and disposable bailers. If the rental price or price of using Professional-owned equipment exceeds the purchase price, the item shall be purchased. If the purchase price exceeds $2,500, the Professional shall obtain three bids and the State will accept the lowest bid. At the end of the project, the State then has the option to accept ownership of a purchased piece of equipment.