HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1996, C-3 - WATER REUSE PROJECT - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN council Htin
°4a
June 4 1996
acEnoa izEpout hm.. . _
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director`o"M
Prepared By: David Pierce, Water Reclamation Coordinator
SUBJECT: WATER REUSE PROJECT-BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATION
By motion, (1) approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, addendum 4, in the amount of
$18,903.00, to a contract with Fugro West Inc. for "Water Reuse Project -
Evaluation of Biological Resources"
DISCUSSION
Fugro West, Inc. has prepared the Biological Resources Assessment for the Water Reuse Project.
They provided the data for the preparation of the Draft EIR which included a list of 10 mitigation
measures that could be used to reduce the impact of the project to the less.than significant level.
Comments have been received on the Draft EIR and on the proposed mitigation measures. It is
now necessary to develop a complete mitigation and monitoring plan to include in the Final EIR.
As part of the mid-year review on February 27, 1996, the Council approved an additional
appropriation of $75,000.00 for the study phase of the Water Reuse Project. This included
$35,000.00 needed to have Fugro complete the mitigation plan in sufficient detail to process the
Final EIR.
The attached Addendum for an amount not to exceed $18,903.00 proposes to complete the work
needed to satisfy the requirements of the CEQA process. After the completion of this work, the
mitigation plan will include a list of mitigation measures and locations where these should be
implemented.
After the EIR is certified and the State Water Resources Control Board has issued the necessary
permit to change the purpose and place of use of the effluent of the Water Reclamation Facility
it will be necessary to accomplish the detailed design of these mitigation measures, monitor their
construction, and then monitor the success of the measures for at least 5 years. At this time it
is estimated that the cost of obtaining this work through a qualified consultant will be close to
$200,000.
The existing contract with Fugro West, Inc. was awarded on April 12, 1994 in the amount of
$12,090.00 following a formal request for proposals. Addendum No. 1, in the amount of
$2,900.00, was approved by the Utilities Director on March 2, 1995 to evaluate additional
minimum discharge flows of 1.7 and 3.0 cfs. Addendum No. 2, in the amount of$16,514.00,
was approved by City Council on June 13, 1995 to expand the evaluation of impacts on the
Tidewater Goby. Addendum 3, in the amount of$4,350, was approved by the CAO on August
24, 1995 to provide hydrologic analysis associated with the impacts to the Tidewater Goby.
a_3-/
Council Agenda Report- Water Reuse Project - Biological Resources N[itigation Plan
Page 2
FISCAL EMPACT
Approval of the recommended action will authorize execution of an $18,903.00 contract
addendum with Fugro West, Inc., for mitigation plan services, and approve up to $2,000.00 in
contingency funding , if needed, for these services.
FUNDS REQUIRED Previous Expenditures
Mitigation Plan $18,903.00 Basic Contract 12,090.00
Contingencies 2,000.00 Addendum No. 1 2,900.00
$20,903.00 Addendum No. 2 16,514.00
Addendum No. 3 4,350.00
This Addendum (No. 4) 18.903.00
Revised Contract Total $64,757.00
The Water Reuse Project CIP - Study budget (500-9124-510-551) has a balance of $72,900 to
support the recommended action. During the 1995-96 Mid Year review, $75,000 was added to
the studies phase including $35,000 that was identified for this additional work to be completed
by Fugro in preparation of the mitigation plan.
Water Reuse Project Studies Phase Expenditures to date:
$35,854.00 to Fugro West Biological Resources Evaluation
$44,344.00 to Stetson Engineers Hydrologic Model
$ 8.133.22 to Thomas Payne & Associates Instream Flow Study
$88,331.22
ALTERNATIVES
A contract could be awarded to Fugro West, Inc., for all the remaining work that will be required
to complete the project. This includes design, construction monitoring, and monitoring of the
success of the mitigation measures. The award of such a contract is estimated to cost
$200,000.00. However, the scope would be in very general terms because the specific projects
to be designed have not yet be defined. Staff recommends that at this time the contract be
awarded as recommended and that additional contracts be awarded for the additional services
when the scopes are more clearly defined and the costs can be more closely estimated.
Following completion of this phase of work it may be preferable to seek proposals for the
remaining work related to design and construction. Staff will evaluate this option and provide
an appropriate recommendation to Council upon completion of this phase of work.
Attachments
Addendum #4
Contract - Fugro West
g:dava/bio_ad4.agd
ADDENDUM NO. 4
The AGREEMENT dated April 12, 1994, between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as City, and Fugro West,Inc., hereinafter referred
to as Contractor, is amended as follows:
The work to be performed under this agreement is increased by the scope of work described in
the letter from Fugro West, Inc., dated May l(& 1996 and included as Exhibit A to this
addendum. The maximum compensation is increased by $18,903 from $35,854.00 to $64,757.00.
Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this addendum on behalf
of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
this day of June, 1996.
CONTRACTOR
20 L06ST INC.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, '
A Municipal Corporation
ATTEST: Allen K. Settle, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
toy o ey
�-3-3
ORO
FUGRO WEST, INC. w.
5855 Olives Park Drive
Ventura,CA 930037672
May 16, 1996 Tel:(8W 650-7000
Project No. 96-61-1650 Fax:(805)650-7010
City of San Luis Obispo
Wastewater Division
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Attention: Mr. David Pierce, Water Reclamation Director
Dear Mr.Pierce::
At your request, I have prepared a scope of work and cost estimate to prepare a detailed
mitigation plan proposal and monitoring program to support the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Water Reuse Project. This scope of work includes six tasks that will allow us to
select and prioritize specific mitigation measures, identify specific mitigation sites, coordinate with the
City and the resource agencies, and prepare a mitigation plan and monitoring program that will satisfy
CEQA requirements. The scope of work and cost estimate spreadsheet are attached as Exhibit A and
Table 1, respectively, for your review.
Please review the attached scope of work and cost estimate. We will begin work immediately
upon your written authorization to proceed. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
O WEST, INC.
David L. Maguey
Senior Program Manager
Natural Resource Services
DLM:dc
Attachments: Exhibit A- Scope of Work
Table 1 -Cost Estimate
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
May 16, 1996 GRD
Project No. 96-61-1651 z ,
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK TO PREPARE A DETAILED MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WATER REUSE PROJECT
PHASE L DEVELOP MITIGATION PLAN PROPOSAL
Task I-1. Select and Prioritize Mitigation Measures
Fugro staff will meet with the City to discuss mitigation objectives and phases of the
mitigation plan for the Water Reuse Project. Fugro will develop a mitigation summary table that
will indicate the level of priority for implementation and preliminary information on potential
constraints and benefits of each measure. Fugro will submit the mitigation summary table to the
City for review and comment. All requested revisions will be incorporated prior to the meeting
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).
Fugro will meet with the City and resource agency representatives (e.g., USFWS) to
determine/agree on impact assessments for special-status species, primarily tidewater goby.
Fugro will review proposed mitigation measures with the City and USFWS to develop and agree
on mitigation priorities and preliminary mitigation plan concepts.
Based on discussions with USFWS and the City, Fugro will prepare a final mitigation
summary table that indicates mitigation implementation priorities. This mitigation summary table
will be used as a guide throughout the next project phase, when selecting mitigation measures in
coordination with the City, and will be used by the City for the Final EIR.
Task I-2. Develop a Preliminary Mitigation Plan Proposal Outline
Fugro will prepare and submit to the City and applicable resource agencies a preliminary
mitigation plan proposal outline for review and consideration. The preliminary mitigation plan
will identify potential mitigation sites of each aspect (e.g., target species) and mitigation targets
(i.e., aerial extent, mitigation requirements, etc.). No data on proposed mitigation sites will be
gathered during this task.
Task I-3. Meet with the City, Resource Agency Staff, and Land Conservancy
Fugro will meet with the City, resource agencies, and Land Conservancy to discuss
objectives and proposed concepts of the mitigation plan. This task assumes that Fugro (up to
three persons) will attend one meeting in San Luis Obispo.
uuwtttmmon.t�at-sow�tr
...........
May 16, 1996 a 6R0
Project No. 96-61-1651
Task 14. Develop a Final Mitigation Plan Proposal Outline
Fugro will finalize the preliminary plan outline after the City and agency review
comments are received. The revised outline will be submitted to the City for review and
comments will be incorporated into final mitigation plan proposal.
Task 1-5. Develop a Final Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
After the City has decided on specific mitigation sites and details, Fugro will prepare a
final written mitigation plan and submit to the City for approval, with location maps of mitigation
sites. The plan will describe in detail what mitigations will be implemented to offset significant
impacts to biological resources in San Luis Obispo Creek. The plan will identify specific
mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts to special-status
species resulting from implementation of the 1.7 cfs discharge proposal. The plan will identify
mitigation measurement criteria that must be attained or maintained for a predetermined number
of years. A monitoring program will also be developed to satisfy CEQA mitigation monitoring
requirements. The plan will be presented in graphic and report formats and submitted to the City
and resource agencies for review.
Task 1-6. Meet with Interested Parties
Fugro will meet with the City, resource agencies, Land Conservancy, and other interested
parties in a workshop format to discuss the objectives and concepts of the mitigation plan and
monitoring program. The results of the workshop will be incorporated into the mitigation plan, as
appropriate. The products of this and previous tasks will be suitable to include in the Final EIR_
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE
Project Schedule
Fugro will implement this work to Develop Preliminary Mitigation Plan Proposal,
inimediateiy upon authorization to proceed and will be completed in approximately eight (8)
weeks. Task I-1 will be completed within one week. Task 1-2 will be completed within three (3)
weeks. Task 1-3 will be conducted approximately one month after project start-up. Task 14 will
be completed within one week after completing Task 1-3. Task 1-5 will be completed within six
(6)weeks and Task 1-6 within two (2) additional weeks.
Cost Estimate
Fugro estimates to costs to conduct this work is $18,903 and is illustrated in Table 1.
The costs for each task shown in Table I are for illustration purposes only and Fugro retains the
right to allocate funds between tasks as necessary to complete the project efficiently and within
the proposed budget.
2 -
T •irCT �
O
F U N
u
n = T C O P
} 6 F M M H M
�f (� W
O
L
4 e o e o N N o
y ? a n n n n
WO V F N nl
Iil p
w _ 3 a a M c N N O
3 � a
0
N •�
Y u
V
aj
CL
m DLII m N N N N e•1 T_ ' •'y
N C
0 C •a e � I'i �
•E -� g � �
.a m v
e
S °
S —
L
rr O
L L'
000
C •� � ,L. N N ' v �d
Cc i
CL
Q N
Qj d
L p
cc It p
ca
O ❑ C N N �
V
V
E
w
U
Lw �
Q
'O V
& a n a F
'J. _ V •� C V
C a .C5 � •n° .C5
Y S q S •� A � E
v o ^
r
d1 ❑ C Y ❑ L a}{ � u
•� 3 a G 1
r ri •r .i �p C7
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this
12th day of April 1994,by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as City, and Fugro West, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, City requested proposals for!Water Reuse Project-Evaluation
of Biological Resources per Specification No. 93-66.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which was accepted by
City for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 93-66, Contractor's
proposal dated February 10, 1994, and Contractor's revised Scope of Work Dated March 10, 1994 are
hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATION'S. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City
will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor: compensation as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated into this Agreement. Total compensation shall not exceed $12,090.00 without prior written
approval of the Utilities Director.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to
provide services as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement.
5. INSURANCE. Contractors Errors and Omissions Insurance in the amount of$50,000
is adequate for this work.
6. INTDEMNIFICATION. Paragraph 25 "Hold Harmless and Indemnification." of the
General Terms and Conditions of the Specifications hall take precedence over paragraph 7 of the General
Conditions for.Technical Services of the Propos 4.0 5 A 1� 1--• - L — � �
7. 01ENDMENTTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Utilities Director of the
City.
8. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings
specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties
1
hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or
representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
9. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Contractor Mel Willis, Vice President
Fugro West Inc.
1012 Pacific Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
10. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant
that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and
empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
John Dun , City Administrative Officer
ATTEST:
D�ladwell.City Ctipe k
APPROVED AST FORM:
y
e G. rge Attorney
2
March 1994 =
Project No. 9948-6018
5.0 COST BREAKDOWN
Our estimated cost to complete the proposed scope of work is $10,820. Additional
costs for public hearings and responses are estimated as $1,270. A breakdown of cost per
individual task is provided. All work will be performed on a time and materials basis in
accordance with the attached fee schedule and conditions (please note that Paragraph 4 of our
-General Conditions limits our professional liability to a specified amount). We will not exceed
the maximum authorized budget without prior approval by the City.
Task 4.1 Scoping Afeeting
Project Manager 6 hrs @ $75 S 450
Task 4.2 Draft Biological Assessment
Program Manager 08 hrs @ $105 S 840
Project Manager 28 hrs @ S 75 $ 29100
Staff Biologist 72 hrs @ S 70 5,040
Word Processing 08 hrs @ S 40 320
Graphics 12 hrs @ S 50 600
GIS Supervisor 08 hrs @ S 80 640
Subtotal: 9,540
Task 4.3 Final Biological Assessment
Project Manager 08 hrs @ S 75 - S 600
Word Processing 02 hrs @ S 40 80
Printing Lump sum 150
Subtotal: 830
Task 4.4 Response to Public Comment
Project Manager 08 hrs @ S 75 S 600
Staff Biologist 02 hrs @ S 70 140
Word Processing 02 hrs @ S 40 80
Subtotal: 820
Task 4.5 Public Hearings
Project Manager 06 hrs @ S 75 S '450
TOTAL ESTIlISATED COST: $122090
4ZxA►b,*
March 1994
Project No. 9948.8018 r�
• �"�-rte'•
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Task 4.1 Scoping Meeting
To be responsive to agency comments regarding sensitive species, the Fugro project
team met with City, SWRCB, Land Conservancey and DFG staff on February 23 to discuss and
define the scope and methodology of the biological assessment. The following scope of
additional services is based on these discussions.
Task 4.2 Preparation of Draft Biological Assessment
The biological assessment will analyze potential impacts associated with the two
reclamation scenarios proposed by the City. Analysis will include a description of the existing
conditions regarding general riparian vegetation and wildlife resources and sensitive species
habitat and populations, assess potential impacts associated with each scenario, and recommend
appropriate mitigation measures as necessary. A specific scope of work for preparation of the
Biological Assessment is presented below.
Task 4.2.1 Assessment of Existing Resources/Conditions
A. Identify sensitive species documented as occurring in or adjacent to San Luis
Obispo Creek or species that may occur based on the presence of suitable habitat.
Sensitive species will include all Federally or State listed species, including
candidate species, and species of local importance. At a minimum, the investi-
gated species will include the southwestern pond turtle, red-legged frog, two
striped garter snake, tidea,ater goby, Chorro Creek bog thistle, and the San Luis
mariposa lily. This assessment of sensitive species occurring in or adjacent to
San Luis Obispo Creek will include the following:
• Use of RAR.EFINI) to access CDFG's California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNNDB)
• Review of the "Biological Resources" section of the DF_IR
• Search for and.evaluation of pertinent literature and previous. biological
surveys conducted on the resources of San Luis Obispo Creek
• Consultation with staff of CDFG, USFWS, SWRCB, and biologists at the
California State Polytechnic University (Cal Poly).
93•P4148-90I B.0 -l- —31 �/
March 1994 Giza
Project No. 9448.8018 L��
• Review of pertinent Cal Poly senior theses relating to the distribution of
various sensitive species along San Luis Obispo Creek.
B. Determine habitat preferences of sensitive species documented as occurring in San
Luis Obispo Creek. Specific seasonal habitat requirements for these.species %%U
be addressed. This task will primarily be accomplished using resources indicated
above.
C. Determine habitat availability in San Luis Obispo Creek and adjacent areas
potentially utilized by these species. Parameters to be included in this habitat
assessment are water quality, flow rates, cover, and food availability. Habitat
currently available for these species will be determined through:
• Contact with resource agency staff and Cal Poly biologists.
• Review of current and historic aerial photos.
• Review of historic and current streamflow data (Assumed to be available
through the hydrologic study). This will require the City to provide average
monthly discharge rates to compare the two scenarios.
• Limited field surveys (2 days in field).
• Review of the information associated with the Instream Flow Study
conducted by Thomas R. Payne and Associates (for location of various
habitat types within the study area).
D. Determine the type and quantity of general riparian habitat along the creek
corridor downstream of the discharge point. It is assumed that the habitat
mapping from the geographical information system (GIS) will be available free
of charge and on a timely basis through the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Contract with RWQCB indicates that it should not be difficult obtaining
the needed data. This mapped information will be checked through:
• Review of current aerial photos.
• Expansion of the field surveys to include spot checks along the creek for
ground-truthing of the GIS maps.
• Acquisition of coverage data from the Instream Flow Survey conducted by
Thomas R. Payne and Associates.
SSP<:ef-FO1F.0 -2-
�_ d ���—
March 1994
Project No. 9948•E078 �E—�� .
During the field surveys, characterization of habitat along San Luis Obispo Creek will
primarily be restricted to those areas that would most likely support the identified sensitive
species. Aerial photos and available literature will be utilized to select specific sites within the
study area to collect habitat data. The field surveys will focus primarily on the lagoon located
at the mouth of San Luis Obispo Creek, where the tidewater goby has been documented as
occurring, and on slower moving reaches of the stream containing pools with substantial cover,
which are considered particularly important habitat for the southwestern pond turtle and red-
legged frog. The survey will also include a search for bullfrogs since the presence of this
species would indicate that red-]egged frog populations may no longer be viable along San Luis
Obispo Creek.
To further characterize wildlife habitat and augment the fisheries study, a variety of
data will be collected at chosen study areas. These data.will include but not be limited to,
habitat type, stream depth, streambank slope, substrate type, and type and approximate amount
of instream and riparian cover. Data gathered during the field surveys will be incorporated with
information compiled from the sources previously discussed and the GIS mapping to produce
maps that identify the general locations of potential sensitive species habitat within the study area
and illustrate the extent of riparian habitat.
Task 4.2.2 Impact Analysis
The primary impact associated with water diversion in San Luis Obispo Creek is the '
reduction in surface water, particularly the size and duration of pools. These pools are suitable
breeding habitat for the southwestern pond turtle and red-legged frog, and foraging habitat for
the two-striped gal–ter snake. These species need near-permanent pools with vegetated mzrgins
which may be lost if water is diverted.
A. Identify project impacts to sensitive species for each discharge scenario. The
impact analysis will compare each project scenario to the existing discharge flow
of 5.5 cfs. Predicted habitat conditions associated with implementing each
alternative will be determined through review of data produced as part of the
expanded. Instream Flow Study being conducted by Thomas R. Payne and
Associates and the hydrologic study being conducted by Stetson Engineering. It
is assumed that the hydrologic study would include sufficient analysis to
determine surface water conditions along the various reaches downstream of the
effluent discharge point.
B. Evaluate beneficial and/or detrimental impacts to sensitive species associated with
each project scenario. Utilizing predicted flow data associated with each project
scenario, resulting seasonal changes in habitat quality anticipated at the various
study locations will be evaluated based on information obtained during the
s:.paras-so�s.c -3-
— ice`
March 1994
Project No. 9948-8018 rar
ccxa;�a
literature review and typical habitat values. Predicted habitat conditions
associated with each project scenario will be compared to species habitat
preferences, critical seasonal flow requirements and improvements and/or
reductions in habitat availability will be determined. Direct and indirect impacts
to identified sensitive species will be evaluated. Assessment of changes in habitat
availability will be quantitativewhere possible.
C. Identify probable project impacts to the downstream riparian habitat and
anticipated effects on local wildlife populations. Evaluate the cumulative impacts
of decreased effluent discharge and agricultural pumpage on the riparian habitat
and associated wildlife based on the results of the hydrological analysis. 'Discuss
the implications of the project to the potential public trust resources of flora and
fauna along San Luis Obispo Creek.
Task 4.2.3 1ltitig2tion Nfeasures
A. Where negative impacts to sensitive species and/or habitat of these species will
likely result, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels will be developed. Development of mitigation measures will
include consultation with staff of DFG and RWQCB, as well as other appropriate
resource agencies.
B. Methods for implementing specific mitigation measures will be addressed as well
as approximate time frames for implementation.
Upon completion, 5 Administrative Draft copies of the Biological Assessment will be
forwarded to City staff for review. Upon review and incorporation of any staff comments, 15
copies of the Daft Biological Assessment will be forwarded to City staff for circulation to
appropriate State agencies for review.
Task 4.3 Preparation of Final Biological Assessment
Upon review of the Draft Biological Assessment by State agencies, the Fugro project
team will review comments received and will prepare written responses as necessary. The
proposed budget assumes minimal agency comment, with a maximum of two letters with four
comments each. Comments received and corresponding responses, as well as any required
revisions, will be incorporated into the assessment. Upon completion, 15 copies of the Final
Biological Assessment and one unbound camera ready copy will be forwarded to the City for
incorporation-into the DEIR.
cru«soy a.c -4-
March 1994 Gctn
Project No. 9948•8018 ' ="�`•
Task 4.4 Response to Comments on the DEIR.
The Fugro project team will be available to respond to comments on the Biological
Assessment received during the public review period of the DEIR. Upon receipt from the City,
written responses to public comment regarding the Biological Assessment will be prepared and
forwarded to the District for incorporation into the Final EIR. The proposed budget assumes
minimal comment, with a maximum of ten letters with four comments each.
Task 4:5 Public Hearings
The project manager will attend two public hearings, one during the DEIR public
review period and one during the State Water Resources Control Board review period, has been
included in this proposal. It is assumed that the State Water Resources Control Board review
will b&-conducted in San Luis Obispo; if not, additional travel costs would be charged as a
reimbursable expense. Attendance by additional staff or additional hearings would be provided
on a time and materials basis. Project team staff will be prepared to make public presentations
at each hearing attended; however, we have not made allowances for preparation of graphics
other than those utilized in the biological assessment.
01
City's sole option, be extea, for such periods as may be agreed upon L. : City avd the Contractor.
y` In the event drat there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the
contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages which may have
accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons
for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same,
21. Payment Terrors. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor(Net
30).
22. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that
the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of
this contract. All work done arid all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection
and approval. The inspection of such work shall Dot relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill
its contract requirements.
23. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials
used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor.
24. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants tbat it presently has no interest,and shall not acquire
any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this
work,no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that
no one wbo has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the
City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall
at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City.
25. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify,protect and bold the
City and.its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or
�V1 lt! liability establisbed for damages or injuries to any person or property,including injury to the Contractor's
em loyees,agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused
11e�1r� 1 y tb acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work
J or services berein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that
the Contractors duty to indemnify and bold barmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from
the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, offices or employees.
26. Contract A.ssianmenL The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the
contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business
entity of any kind witbout the previous written consent of the City.
27. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such
defect or failure to perform; which notice must give the Contractor a 10 (tea)calendar day notice of time
thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Contractor has not performed the
work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of
the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said
effect. Thereafter, neither party sbaA have any furtber duties, obligations,responsibilities,or rights under
the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force
and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Nodce of Termination, minus
any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. The City reserves the
right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be
determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no
event, bowever, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its
proposal.
6
s � ;
ADDENDUM NO. 1
The AGREEMENT dated April 12, 1994, between,the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Fugro West, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as Contractor, is amended as follows:
The work to be performed under this agreement is increased by the scope of work described in
the letter from Fugro West, Inc., dated February 22, 1995 and included as Exhibit A to this
addendum and the maximum compensation is increased from $12,090.00 to $14,990.00.
Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this addendum on behalf
of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
this Z y day of March, 1995.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A M ic' al Corporation
/1A ---
J n Moss, Utilities Director
CONT fQV'��
•` �GRO
r aam—
FUGRO WEST, INC.
5855 Orrvas Park Drive
Ventura,CA 93003.7672
Tel:(805)650.7000
February 22, 1995 Fax(805)650-7010
Project No.94-48-8018
City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Attention: .Mr.David Pierce
Subject: San Luis Obispo Creek,Water Reuse Project
Dear Mr.Pierce:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a cost estimate to evaluate the biologicai.impacts of the two
new minimum discharge scenarios: 1.7 cfs and 3.0 cfs. Fugro will assess biological impacts of these two
new scenarios in the same manner as the previous two scenarios as documented in our revised scope of
work dated March 10, 1994 (attached). Impacts assessed will include seasonal changes in flow rate, water
temperature and pool depth based upon dry year, average year and wet year hydrologic data presented in
Stetson Engineers, Inc. report dated February 1995. Our cost estimate is 52,900, which includes two
meetings, an impact analysis and revising our October 1994 report. The two meetings includes the
February 16 meeting with the Land Conservancy and Central Coast Salmon Eahancement (out of scope)
and a meeting with the California Department of Fish -and Game. Responding to agency comments,
finalizing our report and responding to public comments will be conducted under our existing scope of
work.
We anticipate completing the impact analysis and revising our October 1994 report within 2 weeks
of receiving the contract change order and notice to proceed.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST,INC.
14,01
Matthew Ingamells
1 (s' j ' �=' '' Project Biologist
=- `_ i .l
FEB 2 41995 t _ d� .
L _ _ _ i Simon A.Poulter
Senior Program Manager
- - -�— ' Environmental Sciences and Planning
MI:SAP:av
Attachment
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
r= L L 't— A
FUGRO WEST, INC.
5855 Clivas Park Drive
Ventura,CA 93003-7672
Tel:(805)650-7000
May 30, 1995 Fax:(805)650-7010
Project No. 95-61-2300
City of San Luis Obispo
Wastewater Division
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Attention: Mr. David Pierce
Reclamation Director
Dear Mr. Pierce:
At your request, I have reviewed and revised our scope of work and cost estimate to
conduct additional analysis and complete the biological assessment report for the Water Reuse
Project (WRP) report. This scope of work includes five tasks, with subtasks, that will allow us to
conduct supplemental field surveys, more fully assess impacts and expand on the mitigation plan,
and coordinate more fully with you and the resource agencies. The scope of work and cost
estimate spreadsheet are attached as Exhibits A and B. respectively, for your review.
The tidewater goby is now listed as endangered, therefore the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) must be-consulted if the project will cause a "take" of individuals or destruction
of its habitat. Consultation with the USFWS needs to occur through the federal agency having
permit authority or providing funding for the project. In this case, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for informally consulting with the USFWS because EPA
is ultimately funding the WRP. During our meeting on April 17, 1995, it was indicated that you
would contact the EPA regarding this project and its potential to adversely affect an endangered
species.
In regard to Stetson Engineers hydrologic model, we recommend that instead of rerunning
the hydrologic model, Fugro will evaluate the model's representative years (wet, average, and
dry) to determine if they truly represent the wet, average, or dry years. This is important because
we are basing our project alternatives impacts on this model; therefore, we must be confident that
the years chosen truly reflect expected stream-flow conditions. If the results of our analysis
indicate that other baseline years would more accurately ilhistrate expected conditions, we may
need to revisit this issue before proceeding with the impact analysis and mitigation plan.
Concurrently, Fugro will conduct a survey for the tidewater goby and assess its potential habitat
at the lower end of San Luis Obispo Creek. Fugro will contract with Dr. Ramona Swenson, a
I.AVVF%l 9WaS-2300*"0LTPL5W A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
City of San Luis ObispoU
May 30, 1995(95-61-2300) a
noted tidewater goby expert (possessing a Section 10A collecting permit from the USFWS) to
lead the sampling and habitat assessment.
Please review the attached scope of work and cost estimate (both revised from our May 5,
1995, submittal). We will begin work immediately upon your written authorization to proceed.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST, INC.
David L. Magney
Senior Program Manager
Natural Resources Services
DLM:pj
Attachments: Exhibits A- Supplemental Scope of Work
Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Spreadsheet
Exhibit C - Standard Billing Rates and General Conditions
-2-
_ 2_ x /1
May 1995 Gun
Project No. 951-2300
EXHIBIT A
Supplemental Scope of Work
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
Expanded Biological Assessment
INTRODUCTTON
On April 5, 1995, Fugro received a package from the City with responses to the March
1995 draft Biological Assessment for the City's Water Reuse Project. The City provided letters
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
(CCSE), and a summary of issues addressed in meetings between the City, CCSE, Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Of
primary concern to the USFWS is the potential occurrence of the federally endangered tidewater
goby in San Luis Obispo Creek and the need for an expanded analysis of potential project-related
impacts to the species' existing habitat. Other resource groups, including CCSE, Land
Conservancy, and CDFG, requested that a detailed mitigation plan be developed that would
identify specific areas of San Luis Obispo Creek proposed for enhancement. These resource
groups requested additional meetings and site visits with Fugro biologists to discuss appropriate
mitigation measures and define methods of implementation.
Addressing general. comments submitted by agencies and local resource groups in
response to the March 1995 draft biological assessment and finalizing our report are included
under our existing scope of work submitted to the City in March 1994. However, responding to
previously mentioned specific concerns by agencies and local resource groups requires additional
work not included in our original scope of work. The following scope of work provides a
description of additional work to be conducted as part of completing the final biological
assessment and estimated costs for completing each task identified. Additional meetings and
project coordination time have also been outlined within the supplemental scope and cost
estimate.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1 -Evaluate Hydrologic Data
Existing hydrologic data will be evaluated to determine the degree to which each
modeled year is representativd,,of dry, average, or wet rainfall/runoff periods. Rainfall data for
each modeled year will be compared to 20-year rainfall period and determination will be made as
to the percentage of years each modeled year represents. In addition, as part of this task,
uwvu�usnsaooioawrwr
May 1995 f
o RO
Project No. 95-61-2300
significance thresholds, as related to the model output, will be clearly defined for each species
targeted in the biological assessment impact analysis. These analyses will be used to support our
findings of significance in the biological assessment, which will satisfy CEQA Guidelines
requirement.
Task 2 - Coordinate Project, Supplemental Work
This task consists of the additional time needed to coordinate the project as related to
expanding the impact analysis. This task includes time spent coordinating with the City and
consulting with agencies and other professionals on tidewater goby related issues.
Task 3 - Expand Habitat Assessment and Impact Analysis for Tidewater Goby
In order to be responsive to comments from the USFWS, the draft biological assessment
will be expanded to provide more detailed information on the tidewater goby in San Luis Obispo
Creek. As part of the expanded analysis, the lower creek and lagoon will be surveyed for the
tidewater goby, existing habitat will be characterized and the suitability of existing habitat will be
determined. Following the field surveys, existing data will be used to determine expected impacts
to tidewater goby habitat in the lower creek.
We propose that Ms. Ramona OHalloran Swenson, from the Integrative Biology
Department of the University of California at Berkeley, conduct the tidewater goby habitat
assessment and expanded impact analysis. Ms. Swenson specializes in designing and
implementing field surveys specifically for tidewater goby and has expertise in its ecology and
reproductive behavior. Ms. Swenson's extensive qualifications are detailed in her resume, which
is available upon request. A description of the work and methods we will employ are divided into
three subtasks.
Subtask 3.1 Coordinate with Resource Agencies
As part of the expansion of the tidewater goby habitat assessment and impact analysis,
close coordination with representatives of the USFWS will be required. The CDFG also has
some regulatory authority over fisheries resources in the creek and have expressed interest in the
City's project. Fugro biologists will consult with USFWS and CDFG representatives on pertinent
regulatory issues and proposed management measures.
Subtask 3.2 Perform Field Surveys
To evaluate the status of the tidewater goby in San Luis Obispo Creek and assess existing
habitat, a field survey will be.conducted by Ramona Swenson with Gaylene Tupen assisting.
Surveying of the creek and lagoon area will be limited to a 2-day period, with 1 day scheduled for
the subconsultant for mobilization and travel time. The surveys will focus on determining the
0a��
, AJMT - 2 -
�
May 1995 ORO
Project No. 95-61-2300 m
presence and locations of gobies in the stream, and characterization of existing aquatic habitat.
The lagoon located downstream of Marre Dam will be seined, as part of sampling for the
tidewater goby. Other species of fish collected in the lagoon will be cataloged. A determination
will be made as to whether other species of fish collected likely co-occur with the tidewater goby.
The primary focus of the 2-day survey of the lagoon and lower creek area will be on
habitat assessment. Features to be considered will include stream and lagoon morphology, salinity
concentration, substrate, water velocity, depth, and vegetation types.
Subtask 3.3 Conduct Impact Analysis
Based on information collected during the 2-day field survey, existing data from the
Hydrologic Study, and on Ms. Swenson's extensive experience, expected impacts to existing
tidewater goby habitat resulting from project implementation will be determined. Any beneficial
effects of the project on tidewater goby habitat will also be identified: With the exception of
information collected during the 2-day field survey, no new data will be provided for the
assessment of impacts. Quantification of impacts to tidewater goby habitat will be limited due to
the absence of hydrologic data from the See Canyon Confluence downstream to the mouth of the
creek.
If impacts to tidewater goby habitat are determined to occur as a result of project
implementation, wherever possible, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels will
be recommended.
Task 4-Prepare Expanded Mitigation Plan
As requested by representatives of CCSE, CDFG, and the Land Conservancy, the
mitigation plan of the biological assessment will be expanded to include additional information on
proposed mitigation site locations on San Luis Obispo Creek and detailed methods of
implementation. Representatives from these organizations have various recommendations for
mitigating for identified impacts to aquatic resources. This task will involve meeting with
representatives from these groups in the field, developing an expanded mitigation plan that
includes their recommendations (if appropriate), as well as additional mitigation measures. The
following describes methods for implementing each subtask.
Subtask 4.1 Meetings and Site Visits With CCSE, CDFG, and Land Conservancy
A maximum of 2 days will be scheduled for meeting with representatives from CCSE,
CDFG, and Land Conservancy to discuss various mitigation options. A minimum of 1 day will be
spent with representatives from CCSE, CDFG, and Land Conservancy, surveying portions of San
Luis Obispo Creek targeted for project-related mitigation. Visited areas will include stream
reaches identified by resource groups as preferred locations for focusing revegetation efforts.
�rnvA,wsysnoo�xNwr
GRD
May 1995 c �a
Project No. 95-61-2300
Subtask 4.2 Expand Mitigation Plan in Report
Using information obtained during site visits and meetings with CCSE, CDFG, and Land
Conservancy, the mitigation plan section within the biological assessment will be expanded to
focus on specific areas identified for revegetation, provide more detailed methods for
implementing mitigation measures, and contingency plans. General locations of
revegetation/enhancement sites along San Luis Obispo Creek, as related to the project, will be
mapped. The mitigation plan section will not include plans and drawings suitable for construction
bidding but will provide detailed conceptual drawings and descriptions of the mitigation measures.
Task 5-Attend Additional Meetings With City
This task includes previous and future meetings occurring with City stag. (One out-of-
scope meeting between Fugro and City staff occurred on April 17, 1995, to discuss comments
submitted by resource groups and the agencies and to identify additional work to be conducted.
This meeting is included in this scope of work.) As part of this task, Fugro expects that two
additional meetings will occur between Fugro and City staff, following completion of all field
surveys and prior to submittal of the final biological assessment.
COST ESTIMATE
Our estimated cost to complete the proposed supplemental scope of work is $16,514.
The costs for responding to general agency comments, finalizing the biological assessment and
attending public hearings is already covered under our existing March 1994 Scope of Work and
contract (Project No. 94-48-8018). An illustration of cost per task for the supplemental work is
provided in Exhibit B; however, Fugro retains the right to allocate funds between tasks as needed
to complete the project.
� „ - 4 -
• �6RD
a
m Tn N
° U'r
H
O H H H H -
p u F H
� r � coi e r c m m r ooa
�p O
••� U F H H H H N H N H
H
ee
-
y
� - u
� � s a Q a m n o E o
a Tn H C
'pp t
m N N to C _
,M.� N yq Q C H oo V fV H
1+�1 L -•� U y K H H K H H Vi H
O Lo O
H G
R w � m
-
O c y H a H
H O O
Cn u m v h e m n e r ,_,
u H a m
.0.. O F � w p E � �c � E
R
y ri
W *''
y L
y ac
O ,o
U
� 5
CJ
r •" o
.0 n
In S o Ti
Q
u c c3•- H a, U � o o ry`o 0
u > > E U o u m
0
. co W
o3 � a � 7 -� m o cc F,
O C m � � C V •� p�,W � � � � YC
5 U u O
U m u L•i u x cc L-1 E •O m
m P. y � � c e
8 d s mk o 2
94
GRID
m
a
EXHIBIT C
FEE SCHEDULE (January 1995)
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND PLANNING SERVICES
PERSONNEL HOURLY RATE
Professional Staff
SeniorPrincipal....................................................................................................................$150
Principal...................
.........
--...
..
................................... ........................................................125
SupervisingProfessional.......................................................................................................105
SupervisingProfessional II .................................................................................................... 95
Senior....................................................................................................................................... 90
Project..................................................................................................................................... 85
ProjectII ................................................................................................................................. 80
Staff.................................................................................. 75
...........
StaffII ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Analyst ................................................ ............................................................................. 60
Analystll .................................................................................................................................55
TechnicalAssistant.............................. ...................................................................................... 50
TechnicalAssistant II .......................................................................................................................... 40
OfficeAssistant .................................................................................................................................. 40
CADDOperator/Illustrator .................................................................................................................. 50
WordProcessor ................................................................................................................................. 45
WordProcessor II .............................................................................................................................. 40
ClericalAssistant ................................................................................................................................ 30
Fees for expert witness testimony, court appearances, depositions, or other testimony will be billed at the rate of
$725 per hour with a minimum of 4 hours per day. Preparation for testimony will be billed at the rates given above.
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
Subcontracted Services...................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
Outside Reproduction............................. .................................................................. Cost plus 15%
Outside Laboratory...........................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
Out-of-Pocket Expenses..................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
Travel and Subsistence....................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
PickupTrucks and Vans..............................................................................................................$75/day
Automobile Mileage (outside 50-mile radius) .........................................................................$0.35/mile
California Natural Diversity Database Printouts ......................................................... $150/Quad Sheet
COMMUNICATIONS
The cost of communications, including facsimile, telephone, postage, incidental express delivery, in-
house reproduction, office computer equipment, and word processing equipment will be charged at
three percent(3%) of the invoiced personnel charges.
ADDENDUM NO. 2
AGREEMENT - A-83-93-CC
The AGREEMENT dated January 6, 1994, between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Stetson Engineering Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as Contractor is amended as follows:
The work to be performed under this agreement is increased by the scope of work described in
a letter dated January 19, 1995 from Peter Pyle and attached as Exhibit A to this addendum.
The maximum compensation is increased from $40,398.00 to $44,344.00.
Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this addendum on behalf
of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
this 2,3=A day of January, 1995.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A 7ici Corporation
n Moss, Utilities Director
CO
•2171 E.Francis, Avd.,Suite K • San Rafael,California 94901 • ,_,S)457-0701 • FAX:(41S)4S7.'163 8
C
• 3104 East Garvey Avenue • Wast Covina,Callfomia 91791 • (818)967-6202 • FAX:(818)331-7065
STETSON •224 Avenida Del Mar, Suite D • San Clemente,California 92672 • (714)492-2777 • FAX:(714)492-7658
ENGINEERS INC. •2651 W.Guadalupe Rd.,Suite A209 • Mesa,Arizona 85202 (602)839-5910 • FAIL(602)839-6560
Reply tx
1640 October 10, 1994
David P. Pierce
Water Projects Manager
i City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Dave,
This letter addresses the estimated cost and time frame for completing the work we
outlined in your fax, dated October 3, 1994, and discussed in our conference call on October
5, 1994.
1. Revise Scenarios A and B per new WRF discharge schedule
This work will require relatively minor revision to the data files for each of the three
years simulated and each scenario. Once the model is run, fairly extensive review, error
checking and data extraction will be necessary. The diversions that are not taken by the model
in these Scenarios will be different for this run than in earlier versions. The output must be
checked manually against the input data and the report tables must be revised.
2. Scenario D - Natural loss of the creek
This scenario will require fairly extensive revision of two input files for each year
simulated. Again most of the effort is in error checking, extracting the stream flow, drawdown
and budget data and tabulating and writing up the results. The method for presenting these
losses require additional effort since it is not a direct model output.
3. Scenario E - Change surface diversions to pumping as_necessary to maximize use of
natural flow
This scenario will require extensive revision of pumping and stream flow data files for
each year. The mix of diversion and pumping will be optimized for each year and possibly each
W A T E R R E S O U R C E E N G I N E E R S
F.KA i7- A
/I_ !3-
STETSON
ENGINEERS INC.
month on a trial and error basis. Up to 14 new well sites will be selected and figures and tables
will.be adjusted or added accordingly in order to summarize results. A uniform reduction of
pumping and diversion may be necessary during the dry year and possibly during the normal
year. The final simulations for this Scenario will reflect any such reductions.
4. Scenario F - Change surface diversions to pumping as necessary to maximize use of natural
flow with the addition of a minimum of oneds WRF discharge per the new schedule
ti
This scenario will require relatively minor revision to the data files for each year with
the usual effort to extract the data, create the necessary tables and figures and report on the .
findings. The timing and configuration of pumping and diversion will be the same as that
developed in the latter scenario.
The cost to complete the above work is shown on the attached table. It includes analysis
and reporting, release of preliminary data to FUGRO prior to completion of the final report,
release of review copies of the draft final report for City and FUGRO review, and minor
revision.of the report after receipt of City and FUGRO comments.
Work has begun and we anticipate that preliminary results of all scenarios available by
October 24. Preliminary data will by regular mail as it is completed. A one week delay in final
analysis and report preparation will occur in late October due to previously scheduled field
work. The draft final report will completed by November 7.
Thank you for this opportunity continue our work with the ground-water model for the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
�V�
Peter M. Pyle
2
1640 Cost Esth for Addtional Work
1. Revise scenarios A 8.8
Principal 1 @ 120 $ 120.00
Senior 1 10 @ 85 $ 850.00
Assistant 1 12 @ 55 $ 660.00 `
Subtotal $ 1,630.00
2. Scenario D
principal 1 @ 120 $ 120.00
t Senior 1 12 @ 85 $ 1,020.00
Assistant 1 20 @ 55 S 1,100.00
Subtotal 3 2,240.00
S. Scenario E
Principal 2 @ 120 $ 240.00
Senior 1 24 @ 85 S 2,040.00
Assistant 1 24 @ 55 S 1,320.00
Subtotal $ 3,600.00
.4. Scenario F
Principal 1 @ 120 $ 120.00
Senior 1 8 @ as S 680.00
Assistant 1 B @ 55 S 440.00
Subtotal $ 1,240.00
S. Reporting, review, editing, production
Principal 3 @ 120 $ 360.00
Senor) 20 @ 85 $ 1,700.00
Assistant 1 8 @ 55 $ 440.00
Clerical 11 6 @ 38 $ 228.00
Subtotal S 2,728.00
Labor Total $ 10,198.00
Expense: (copies, postage, phone,
GIS mapping) $ 200.00
TOTAL $ 10,398.00
ADDENDUM NO. 3
The AGREEMENT dated April 12, 1994, between the CTTY OF SAN LULS OBI5P0,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Fugro West,-Inc., h.ereinafter -
referred to
_ az Contractor, is amended az follows:
The work to be performed under this agreement is increased by the scope of work described in
the letter from Fugro West, Inc., dated August 21, 1995 and included as Exhibii-A.to,this
addendum. The maximum compensation is increased by $4,350.00 from $31,504.00 to"
$35,854.00. -
Addendum No. 2 is corrected to cite a letter dated May 30, 1995 rather than 1Iay.5 1995.____;_
Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this addendum on behalf
of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thiiinstnuaeaCto ire executed. ��'_`'``I _
this 2 q7� day of August, 1995.
CITY OF SAN LUIS .OBISPO,.'-
A.M ci Corporation-.:__.__
- - -
Moss, Utilities Director
CONTRACTOR
David L. Magney
Senior Program Manager, atural Resources .
AUG 21 095 01:01PM FUGRO WEST ROSEVIII E P.1/2
FUGRO WEST, INC.
5855 Orwas Park Ddve
Ventura,cardornta 93003.7672
Tat: 005)850-7000
August 21, 1995 FAX: (805)650-7010
PN 94-48-8018
Mr, David Pierce
City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: SLO Water Reuse Project - Supplemental Surface Water Hydrologic Analysis
Dear Mr. Pierce:
This letter is to transmit Fugro's recommended scope of work and cost estimate to
gather and analyze surface water hydrologic data in the vicinity of Marre Dam. As you are
aware, this area of San Luis Obispo Creek is habitat to the federally endangered Tidewater
Goby. Project-related impacts to the Tidewater Giby is a critical issue to the Water Reuse
Project- To date no data on surface water flows have been gathered or analyzed on the creek
downstream of Highway 101. Stetson Engineers' hydrology model stops at Highway lol;
therefore, determining the wetted area and avaliable aquatic habitat in the vicinity of Mane
Dam can not be determined reliably without additional data from the target area.
The following tasks must be accomplished to provide stage and velocity versus
channel flow relationships for different release scenarios on San Luis Obispo Creek at Marre
Dam. Fugro proposes to develop this information along four survey transects, two between
Marre Dam and Highway 101 and two between Marre Dam and the lower area of Tidewater
Goby habitat, as defined by Ramona Swenson. Channel elevation and morphology data (e.g.,
width, depth, flow rate, substrate) will be gathered at each transect. Fugro will use a Marsh-
McBurney or equivalent type flow meter to determine current flow volume and velocity in the
lower reach of the creek. These data will be used, in conjunction with Stetson's hydrologic
analysis, to calibrate the channel roughness to the known flow and stage measured in the
field. Fugro will then develop the stage and channel velocities versus flow relationships for a
range of flows using the Mannings Equation for uniform flow in open channels, and plot
curves of stage versus discharge and channel velocities versus discharge.
These data and analyses will be used to determine changes in the creek's wetted area
and available aquatic habitat under each project alternative and how changes in flow may
adversely or beneficially affect wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats that are used by special-
status species. The special:status species likely to be affected by the Water Reuse Project
include Tidewater Goby, Southwestern Pond Turtle, and Southern Steelhead Trout.
A tpemher a. the Fugro group of companles with offices throughout the world
C-3 -3Z
AUG 21 095 01:01PM FUGP -EST ROSEVILLE P.22
_ [SRO
1 -
Mr. David Pierce
August 21, 1995
Page Two
Fugro estimates the cost for gathering the additional hydrology data to be $4,350,
including labor and direct expenses. Fugro will begin work on this additional work as soon
as authorization is received from the city. It has been a pleasure to work with you on this
interesting project. Please call me at 805/650-7000 or Mr. Bill 07.eary at 916/782-2110 if
you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST, INC.
qidDavL. Magn
eyy
Senior Program Manager,
Natural Resources
DLM: •