HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1995, C-1 - WATER REUSE PROJECT - EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. MEETING olTE:
city o f san ,.als OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: -1
FROM: John Moss;P_ PREPARED BY: Dave Pierce
Utilities Director Waw Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Water Reuse Project - Evaluation of Biological Resources.
CAO RECONZIENDATION:
By motion, (1)approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, an addendum to the contract
with Fugro West Inc. in the amount of$16,514.00 for "Water Reuse Project-Evaluation
of Biological Resources"
(2) approve the transfer of$15,900 from Water Administration Contract
Services to the Water Reuse CIP.
DISCUSSION
On November 9, 1993,.Council appropriated$65,000 for additional analysis of potential impacts
of the Water Reuse Project. This money funded an expansion of the Instream Flow Study by
Thomas R, Payne, a Hydrology and Ground-Water Modeling of Lower San Luis Obispo Creek
by Stetson Engineers, Inc and an evaluation of impacts to biological resources.
After a formal request for proposals, a contract was awarded to Fugro West, Inc. to evaluate
the potential impacts to the biological resources of San Luis Obispo Creek that might result from
the Water Reuse Project. For $12,090 Fugro was to evaluate potential impacts associated with
a project that would discharge a minimum of 1.0 cubic foot per second (cfs) during the summer
irrigation season. An alternative of a zero minimum discharge was also to be evaluated.
After reviewing the preliminary results of this study and the modeling by Stetson Engineers, the
Fugro contract was increased by $2,900.00 for analysis of the potential impacts associated with
minimum releases of 1.7 cfs and 3.0 cfs. The 1.7 cfs scenario was selected as most representing
the amount of reclaimed water that will be excess to non-potable demands projected for the
recently approved Land Use Element. The 3.0 cfs scenario was evaluated because that amount
had been discussed by several agencies that had expressed opposition to the project.
Staff has worked with the Department of Fish and Game, the Land Conservancy and Central
Coast Salmon enhancement to insure that the consultants' reports answer the questions that need
to be asked. Based on these discussions, it is expected that the mitigation measures to be
evaluated by this addendum will result in a project that has no significant impact to the creek.
After reviewing the last draft of the Fugro report, the US Fish and Wildlife Service expressed
concern that the discussion of the Tidewater Goby was inadequate. The proposed addendum will
provide a recognized expert to evaluate the suitability of the habitat for supporting a population
of Tidewater Gobies and the potential impacts to that habitat. The additional work will also
provide a protocol for monitoring impacts upon completion of the project.
����►►►����IIIIIII�I� ll�lll city Of San I s OBI SPO
ie COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Upon the completion of this evaluation, staff will be prepared to release a revised Draft EIR for
public comment.
FISCAL E1PACT
FUNDS REQUIRED FUNDING SOURCE
This addendum $16,514.00 Water Reuse CEP
Contingencies 5.000.00 500-9124-510-551 $5,600.00
$21,514.00 Water Admin Contr. Svcs.
500-9124-510-551 $15.900.00
$21,500.00
Expenditures to date
Basic Contract 12,090.00
Addendum 1 2.900.00
Revised Total $369504.00
The Water Reuse CIP budget has $5,600 available. The remainding is available from contract
services in the Water Engineering and Administration operating budget. This funding was
placed in the operating budget under contract services for project engineering review on any of
our water supply/CIP projects. The use of this funding for this project is consistent with the
budget intent. The funding is available from this 1994-95 fiscal year.
Attachment: Addendum - Fugro West.
Budget Amendment Request.
i
L/�
ADDENDUM NO. 2
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 5, 1995 and included as Exhibit A to this
addendum. The maximum compensation is increased by $16,514.00 from $14,990.00 to
$31,504.00.
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, 1995.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
Allen Settle, Mayor
CONTRACTOR
Dianne Gladwell, City Clerk
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
------1AY 30 '95 1702 FUGRO WF-- VENTURA P.1/8
poy3-It-Faz NOW 7671 Data
To PI SCE FMM bk Jn M GN !G
May 30, 1995 Phone a X10^"9dS 6 So- 014
Project No. 95-61-2300F,xr Som . l-'}tq Fax gos 5'e--1 o
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 illustrate 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
e W0219A amOvaryYA
i
MAY 30 '95 17003 FUGRO lam'_ VENTURA P.2/8
City of San Luis Oblspo
May 30, 1995(95.61-2300)
noted tidewater goby expert (possessing a Section l0A 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 begun work immediately upon your written authorization to proceed.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST,INC.
Z )IUM
David L.Magnet'
Senior Program Manager
Natural Resources Services
DLMpj
Attachments: Exhibits A- Supplemental Scope of Work
Exhibit B -Cost Estimate Spreadsheet
Exhibit C- Standard Billing Rates and General Conditions
,®am mooawara sns -2- r
�/J
MAY 30 '95 1703 FUGRO WEST VENTURA P.3/8
May 1995
Project No.9"1-2300
EXH0IT A
Supplemental Scope of Work
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
Expanded Biological Assessment
INTRODUCTION
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
(GCSE), 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 CCSF, 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 discus 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 representative 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,
tiww+�a�sommawAr - 1
MAY -30 195 17:04 FUGRO W.l VENTURA P.4/8
May 1995
Project No. 9"1-2300
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
Creels. 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 O'Halloran 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 overfisheries 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
cve�oae�me mwu�r
-2 -
MAY 30 '95 17:04 FUGRO WEST VENTURA P.5i8
May 1995
Projed No.96-61-2300
presence and locations of gobies in the stream, and characterization of existing aquatic habitat
The lagoon located downstream of INlarre 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 CCSB, CDFG, and Land Conservancy, surveying portions of San
Luis Obispo Creek targeted for project-related mitigation. Visited area will include stream
reaches identified by resource groups as preferred locations for focusing revegetation efforts.
uw.+oaoess�oanou�wr -3
MAY 30 '95 1705 FUGRO Wr' VENTURA P.6i8
May 1985
Project No.95.81-2300
Subtask 41 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 area 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 S-Attend Additional Meetings With City
This task includes previous and future meetings occurring with City staff (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 staf, 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.
td�laam.370aFANWY
-4-
L'-/-9
-MAY 30 '95 17:06 FUGRO WEcT VENTURA P.7i8
H V M
e e e e e
N N N (q N
3 q i4 N
M
^ N
g
w S�
om
at Cli Iq %q
02
c " 2
w.l N N N U N N N N N b S
" w a
ro- 5 r
SS �
W 0 8 m w .. v1 v " m t. 0 n a %a 8 8
w w w
V O P O
� a � Via " �
U
CA
R m " m ONO $ va T
d
4
M U94
,]
w = �
srj a
W N wi
wi n w o v
S
t.
MAY 30 '95 1706 FUGRO WcZT VENTURA P.8/8
EXHIBIT C
FEE SCHEDULE(January 19951
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND PLANNING SERVICES
PERSONNEL HOURLY RATE
Professional Staff
SeniorPrincipal....................................................................................................................$150
Principal.................................................:...............................................................................125
SupervisingProfessional.......................................................................................................105
Supervising Professional 11 .................................................................................................... 95
Senior.................................._.................................................................................................. 90
Project.....................„.........................................................................................................._.. 85
Project11 ................................................................................................................................. 80
Staff. ........................................................................ .......................................................„. 75
StaffII ........:...................................................................................................................-...... 70
Analyst ......................... ........................................................................................................ 80
AnalystIf .................................................................................................................................55
TechnicalAssistant................................................. ............. ......................................... 50
TechnicalAssistant 11 ....................... ................. ....................................._.................................... 40
OfficeAssistant .................................................................................................................................. 40
CADDOperator/Illustrator .................................................................................................................. 50
WordProcessor ................................................................................................................................. 45
WordProcessor II .............................................................................................................................. 40
ClericalAssistant ............................................................................................................................... 30
Fees for exprJt w1rum taeto=y,court appearances,depwMans,of outer tesUrnony Will be WW at am Pale of
SW per holo with a minimum of 4 hours per day. Preparation for tesfimony wM be tamed at the rates gWen atwve.
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
Subcontracted Services...................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
Outside Reproduction.......................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
OutsideLaboratory...........................................................................................................Cost plus 15°x6
Out-of-Pocket Expenses..................................................................................................Cost plus 15%
Traveland Subsistence............................................................................................._.....Cost plus 150/6
Pickup Trucks and Vans............................................................................... ...........$75/day
....................
Automobile Mileage (outside 50-mile radius) .........................................................................$0.35/mile
California Natural Diversity Database Printouts........................................0.......0.......$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.
city of san Luis mis
NUMBER
BUOCEt aMMOMCnt REWCS-1
REGUES`MG OEPARTMENT FUND AMENDED FUND ND.
LITIL-1 ri 5 S. Gc�4� s oy i
REVENUES
ACCOUNT OESCFIFTION DEPT. OBJ. SUB-OBJ. CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS BUDGET
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
ACCOUNT OESCRIPTION DEPT. OBJ. SUB-OBJ. CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS BUDGET
p i 5570 zzv -? Asw �l
X1 3 33
�U r aus _ d �� FJZ4 /D SSl FYI 33 / CEJ
TOTALQ94
PURPOSE
Tr )L r Oal'nhnc &dA L - n 1 r M ' e7oll cSeruree
fU i P f Z eke f' t'U
fry
MEAD GATE DIRECTOR OF RNANCE DATE
_n_Y
AOMW8TRATIVE OFFICER DATE ENTERED By DATE
CBF-5= 091)
DISTRIBUTION: yywto; Fftmnce wry; FUmnce Pink Dep mwt Gddwwc& DepeRnwMR90apy 50-66
2-1-/07