city - public works dept. letterheadcity-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/documents/pdf/... ·...

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1717 Fifth Street – Davis, California 95616

530/757-5686 – FAX: 530/758-4738 – TDD: 530/757-5666

C of D

Staff Report January 26, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Keith Smith, Wastewater Administrator SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend Consultant Agreement to Proceed with Preliminary Design

and CEQA Documentation for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Recommendation

1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the Consultant Agreement with Carollo Engineers to proceed with Preliminary Design Engineering and CEQA Documentation for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project, CIP No. 8119.

2. Allocate a contingency fund equal to ten percent of the total agreement to be authorized by the city’s project manager in a manner consistent with Attachment 1, Scope of Work.

3. Approve the attached budget adjustment allocating reserves from fund 531 – Sanitary Sewer Operations and Maintenance fund for $335,000. This will facilitate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit planning to achieve compliance with State mandated requirements.

Fiscal Impact Fiscal impact for this consultant agreement is $2,122,395. Because of the complexities of this project, we are also asking for a 10% contingency. While this is an unusual request for consultant agreements, because of the size and nature of the planning, there is a potential for unforeseen elements to surface. The contingency will only be used for activities directly related to the scope of work in this amendment. The major portion of this work was anticipated in the Fiscal Year 05/06 budget. The budget adjustment for $335,000 will allocate additional funding from unallocated Sanitary Sewer fund balance (531). Background and Analysis The wastewater treatment plant operates under and in compliance with its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Based upon stipulations from the City and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), the current (2001) NPDES permit provisions have been stayed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and are pending, awaiting further action by the Regional Board. Regardless of the Regional Board action, the current NPDES permit is up for renewal in 2006. As such, in September 2005, the City submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) to the Regional Board that is required for application of NPDES renewal. In November 2005, the Wastewater Facilities Draft Strategic Master Plan was presented to City Council for consideration and approval. The Draft Strategic Master Plan included the following recommendations to facilitate compliance with existing and future regulations:

I T Y A V I S

City Council Authorization to Amend Consultant Agreement to Proceed with Preliminary Design and

CEQA Documentation for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements January 26, 2006

• Continue discharge at existing discharge location into Willow Slough Bypass. • Further evaluate reliable secondary and tertiary treatment processes. • Assess the implementation of a phased reuse program: • Continue influent wastewater salt management program by gradually converting existing drinking

wells from the saline intermediate aquifer to deep aquifer and continuing effort to pursue surface water.

• Begin pilot/bench scale testing of membrane bioreactor (MBR) process and investigate existing full-scale extended aeration operations to determine compliance with California Toxics Rule (CTR) constituents and to optimize metals removal.

• Begin regulatory studies for constituents of concern. The City Council approved the Draft Strategic Master Plan along with the recommendations summarized above on November 15, 2005. The City Council also gave approval to begin negotiations for the next phase of work with the consulting engineer, which is to include preliminary design engineering and CEQA documentation. The estimated wastewater treatment plant improvement project costs to achieve compliance ranging from $125 million to $140 million include this phase of work. This work is planned to over a 15-month period. Progress will be reported to City Council through a combination of informational staff reports and presentations. Staff will inform City Council of the major conclusions and recommendations resulting from the pilot study, results of the preliminary engineering effort along with recommendations for detailed design, and presentation of Final EIR. Because the City is embarking on a multi-faceted improvement project that will evolve into further expenditure of public dollars, public outreach/education is another important component of this preliminary design phase. Public outreach/education will involve presentations to City Council and the Natural Resources Commission at key project milestones, a publicly-accessible project website, and development of a project summary presentation for use in outreach to community organizations/groups. In addition to this effort, the Public Works Department is recommending community involvement in this project through the Natural Resources Commission. Attachments: Amendment No. 1 (copy) Budget Adjustment ks/ks/mb c: Bob Clarke, City Engineer J:\PW\WWDiv\WW Planning\PreDesign_EIR\Agreement\Predesign_SR.doc

RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES 2006

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH

CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND CEQA DOCUMENTATION FOR

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS CIP NO. 8119

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that the city manager is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement by and between the City of Davis a municipal corporation, and Carollo Engineers, for Preliminary Design and CEQA Documentation for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, CIP No. 8119; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all terms, conditions, and covenants of said agreement be, and the same are, hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Davis this 7th day of February, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

RUTH UY ASMUNDSON

Mayor ATTEST: MARGARET ROBERTS City Clerk

Consultant Agreement [Carollo Engineers]

Preliminary Design and CEQA Documentation for

Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements CIP No. 8119

Amendment No. 1

Amendment to Agreement made and entered into this 7th day of February , 2006, by

and between the City of Davis, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and

Carollo Engineers, located at 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, California

94598, hereinafter called "Consultant."

Witnesseth: Whereas, on August 2, 2004, City and Consultant entered into an Agreement; and, Whereas, following the above described design, City and Consultant desire to enter into an Amendment to their Agreement. Now, Therefore, City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: Amend to include engineering services for Wastewater Treatment Plant

improvements preliminary design and CEQA documentation services. (See Attachment A attached hereto and made a part hereof for specific tasks under Scope of Work.)

2. Fee Schedule: Not to exceed $2,122,395. (See Attachment B-1 attached hereto and

made a part hereof for cost breakdown of each Task under Scope of Work.) 3. Term: Consultant will complete the tasks described in Attachment A by July 2007. Except as hereinabove modified, the Agreement between City and Consultant, together

with the terms and provisions contained therein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

Preliminary Design and CEQA Documentation for Amendment No. 1

Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, CIP No. 8119 Page 2 of 2 R:\CITYCLK\Agenda2006\02-07-06\Wastewater Treatment AGR.doc

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed in its name by order of its City Council, this day and year first above written. City of Davis A Municipal Corporation, State of California James W. Antonen City Manager Approved as to Form: Harriet Steiner City Attorney

Consultant Carollo Engineers Steve MacDonald Project Manager

Amendment No. 1

Attachment A Scope of Work Page 1


Development of Master Plan for

Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant CIP No. 8119

Amendment No. 1

Attachment A Scope of Work

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The City has recently completed a Draft Strategic Master Plan to renovate the 7.5-million gallons per day (mgd) (average dry weather flow) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to address anticipated and potential National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and to increase treatment reliability while continuing to conserve natural resources.

Treated effluent from the WWTP must meet NPDES permit requirements when discharging to Willow Slough or the Restoration Wetlands. During the master planning process, anticipated NPDES permit requirements were defined as the basis for the development of the Master Plan recommendations. However, concurrent with this preliminary design phase, the City will be re-negotiating the NPDES permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, the preliminary design activities will be closely coordinated with the final NPDES permit requirements resulting from these negotiations.

The anticipated new NPDES permit requirements for monthly average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) is 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). An improved secondary treatment process combined with new tertiary treatment is required to achieve these new requirements. Typically, this is achieved through conventional tertiary filtration resulting in a daily average turbidity of 2 NTU, and disinfection to a total coliform count of no more than 2.2 most probable number (MPN)/100 ml. However, newer treatment processes, such as the membrane bioreactor process (MBR), even greater benefits in the flexibility needed to meet increasingly restrictive limitations on the discharge of metals and trace organics. Effluent ammonia will also likely be regulated to prevent effluent toxicity to aquatic organisms. In addition,

Amendment No. 1


effluent limits are anticipated for other toxic substances, as well new limitations for heavy metals. This includes selenium, copper and aluminum.

OVERALL APPROACH

The Strategic Master Plan recommended providing reliable secondary and tertiary treatment to produce a consistently high quality effluent while continuing to discharge at the existing location, Willow Slough. Alternatives considered for providing reliable secondary and tertiary treatment include extended aeration followed by conventional tertiary media filters, and the MBR process. The Master Plan analysis concluded that use of the MBR process has the potential to provide a high quality effluent, while maximizing flexibility for meeting future regulatory requirements.

This preliminary design phase includes a process confirmation task to pilot test several treatment processes, including the MBR process, to verify design and sizing parameters, and to address outstanding operational and performance issues related to the treatment processes decision, especially in the area of metals and organics removal.

To the extent practicable, the preliminary design activities will proceed in parallel with process confirmation. Once the secondary/tertiary process decision is confirmed, the preliminary design will then be completed for these portions of the project. In addition, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation and permitting tasks will be conducted concurrently to the preliminary design engineering effort.

This Scope of Work includes tasks necessary to complete a design to approximately a 10 percent completion level. This Preliminary Design includes the following tasks:

• Task 1 - Secondary/Tertiary Process Confirmation • Task 2 - Preliminary Design Engineering • Task 3 - Influent Sewer Rehabilitation/Replacement Feasibility Study • Task 4 - Permitting • Task 5 - CEQA Environmental Documentation • Task 6 - Public Outreach/Education • Task 7 - Project Funding Assistance and Financial Review • Task 8 - Yolo County Landfill Coordination Assistance • Task 9 - Finalize Master Plan • Task 10 - Preliminary Design Management / Administration

Amendment No. 1


PROJECT ELEMENT LIST

The scope of the City of Davis WWTP Improvement Project shall be generally as developed and summarized in the Strategic Master Plan Report. The major project areas to be considered as part of the preliminary design are included in the project element list summarized below:

A. Preliminary/Primary Treatment Facilities. 1. Bar Screen Replacement/Modification. 2. Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment Facilities.

B. Secondary/Tertiary Treatment Facilities.

1. Fine Screens. 2. Activated Sludge Basins. 3. Membrane Bioreactors. 4. Ancillary Equipment/Facilities. 5. Oxidation Ponds/Recirculation Pump Station. 6. Flow Equalization.

C. Disinfection Facilities.

1. Ultraviolet Disinfection System. D. Solids Treatment and Disposal Facilities

1. Boiler System Rehabilitation. 2. Waste Activated Solids Treatment.

E. Restoration Wetlands.

1. Wetlands Modifications. F. Recycled Water Facilities.

1. On-Site Recycled Water Storage/Pumping. 2. Demonstration Site Reuse Transmission/Irrigation Piping. 3. Department of Fish & Game Transmission Piping. 4. Urban Reuse Transmission Piping/Booster Pumping.

G. Plant Site /Auxiliary Systems Improvements.

1. Site Grading/Drainage (including Pond Drain Pump Station). 2. In-Plant Stormwater Pumping. 3. Site Paving / Entrance Road. 4. Potable Water Well/Pumping/Storage. 5. Yard Piping. 6. Plant Air System.

Amendment No. 1


H. Operation/Maintenance/Laboratory Facilities. 1. New Laboratory Building, including Records and Training Room. 2. Rehabilitation of Existing Laboratory Space into Office Space. 3. Maintenance Building Upgrades.

I. Power Systems.

1. Co-Generation Replacement. 2. Emergency Generation Replacement. 3. Gas/power lines to/from Yolo County Landfill.

J. Electrical.

1. Main Electrical Substation/Transformer. 2. MCCs/Lighting Panels. 3. Power/Control/Wiring/Conduits. 4. Interior/Exterior Lighting. 5. Ductbank System.

K. Instrumentation.

1. Field Instrumentation. 2. Control System. 3. Security Systems.

L. Information Technology Systems.

1. Data Management Systems. 2. Communication Systems.

SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES

The following scope of services includes the work to be performed as part of the Preliminary Design Services.

Task 1 - Secondary/Tertiary Process Confirmation

The objective of this task is to verify the specific design parameters and outstanding operational and performance issues of a membrane bioreactor system for use as secondary and tertiary treatment. This process confirmation will be accomplished through continuance of an MBR pilot study, potential addition of a second pilot setup, such as extended aeration/filtration, performance data review from existing installations, and site visits to selected secondary/tertiary facilities. A technical memorandum (TM) will be prepared summarizing the pilot data results, the performance data review, and the site visit findings. The TM will also include an analysis of the secondary/tertiary process alternatives based on the information collected during this task. This information will be presented to the City in a technical workshop at the conclusion of Task 1.

Amendment No. 1


1.1 Secondary/Tertiary Process Pilot Study. The pilot study will assess design criteria and performance of a membrane bioreactor system with the option of also testing an extended aeration/filtration system. The pilot study will focus on priority pollutant metals removal and reduction of other inorganic pollutants of concern in addition to normal operating parameters. This task contains two main parts: 1) on-going pilot testing using a bench-scale membrane bioreactor and 2) design, construction and pilot testing of an additional pilot setup. Work on the second pilot process will only commence after discussions with and consent from the City. The specific tasks related to the pilot study shall include:

1.1.1 Pilot Testing Operation: Continue MBR pilot testing operation assistance for the duration of the study as scheduled in the Experimental Plan (for approximately 6 months, up to 2 site visits per week). Assist in maintaining a test log to record testing conditions and WWTP operation as it relates to the pilot testing. Assist in coordinating sampling according to the approved Experimental Plan and Sampling Protocol and coordinating the sample analysis with the City laboratory staff. Conduct periodic progress meetings (assume 4 meetings) to update WWTP operations and City staff on pilot testing progress.

Addition of a second pilot will extend the schedule of the pilot testing oversight by as much as 3 months, depending upon the Experimental Plan. Also, additional progress meetings would be conducted during the extended schedule (2 additional meetings have been budgeted).

1.1.2 Additional Pilot Design, Set-Up/Start-up: Design and facilitate purchase/rental of equipment for second pilot setup. Provide City with two (2) plan and section drawings to assist with equipment purchase, construction and installation. As much as practicable, the second pilot unit will utilize MBR system components already in operation. Provide set-up and start-up assistance to City of extended aeration/clarification/filtration equipment (2 days for each).

1.1.3 Experimental and Sampling Plan Modification: Modify Experimental and Sampling Plan to include additional pilot testing. Provide training (1 day site visit) to plant operations staff on the additional pilot process.

1.1.4 Analyze Data: Analyze MBR pilot testing data results to determine recommended design criteria and to develop a performance assessment as it relates to pollutant metals and other inorganic and trace organic pollutants of concern. Summarize the data results for presentation to the City.

As in Task 1.1.1, addition of a second pilot setup is expected to extend the schedule for data analysis by as much as 3 months, depending upon the Experimental Plan. Also, an additional process will result in a second set of data to analyze with moderately different process parameters.

Amendment No. 1


1.2 UV Study. Three key parameters, UV transmittance, UV dose response and UV lamp fouling rate will be examined to provide information to be used in the preliminary design of the UV disinfection facility. UV transmittance monitoring will conducted in conjunction with the pilot study. UV fouling testing and dose response analysis will be conducted as separate tasks.

1.2.1 UV Fouling Testing. Set-up UV lamp fouling test apparatus downstream of pilot testing unit (s) to test UV lamp fouling rate. Measure loss of UV output by collecting readings a minimum of 8 times during testing period duration. Analyze fouling test results and include significant findings of results in the TM prepared for the process confirmation task.

1.2.2 UV Dose Response. Collect and analyze MBR influent and effluent samples to determine coliform and bacteriophage concentrations and calculate removal across the MBR system. Perform collimated-beam analysis on MBR effluent samples to determine UV dose response on coliform and bacteriophage. Maximum of 10 samples to be collected. Collimated-beam analysis to be performed by Consultant. Laboratory analysis fees will be responsibility of the City.

1.3 Performance Data Review. Collect and review performance data from other operating wastewater treatment plants with membrane bioreactor, extended aeration and/or pond installations as it relates to priority metals and inorganic pollutants of concern. Collect and review performance data from the existing WWTP pond process as it relates to priority metals and inorganic pollutants of concern. Compare the membrane bioreactor data with the extended aeration and pond secondary processes coupled with tertiary filtration to assess performance capabilities of the various process alternatives. (Carollo/West Yost will perform Task 1.3 with available Research Funds, at no cost to the City.)

1.4 Secondary/Tertiary Process Site Visits. Visit up to three (3) facilities with secondary/tertiary processes (i.e., MBR, extended aeration, tertiary filtration, or UV disinfection) with appropriate City staff to tour the facilities and interview operations and maintenance personnel. Site visits are assumed to be 1-day trips. A brief “trip report” memorandum will be compiled following each site visit.

1.5 Technical Workshop. Present the findings, major conclusions, and recommendations of the process confirmation task developed as part of Task 1 to appropriate City staff. Re-evaluate preferred secondary/tertiary process to confirm process selection, based on significant findings. Process experts from the project team and from UC Davis will be in attendance to provide peer review. Prepare agenda prior to the workshop and a summary of meeting minutes following the workshop. The desired outcome of this workshop is to confirm the secondary/tertiary process that will be further developed in preliminary design.

Amendment No. 1


1.6 Technical Memorandum (TM) Preparation. Prepare a TM including a summary of the pilot study objectives, methodology, results, statistical analysis and conclusions; the review of performance data from various secondary/tertiary processes; and the significant findings from the site visits. A summary of the raw data will be included as an appendix to the memo. As necessary, re-evaluate preferred secondary/tertiary process to confirm process selection. The evaluation will be peer reviewed by process experts from the project team. A change in the secondary/tertiary process based upon the evaluation results would necessitate an amendment to this Scope of Work. Recommend design criteria for use in the preliminary engineering design of the secondary/tertiary system based on the findings from the process confirmation effort.

Task 2 - Preliminary Design Engineering

The objective of this task is to develop the preliminary design engineering that will serve as the basis of final design for the WWTP Improvement Project. Task activities will include collecting survey and geotechnical information of the existing WWTP site, conducting preliminary design engineering on each project area identified previously, and summarizing the findings and results in a TM. Each TM will provide recommended layouts, design criteria and preliminary control philosophies for the respective project area. Once the preliminary engineering for each TM is complete, a brief technical workshop will be conducted with the City to obtain City input and decisions on each individual process areas. All draft TMs produced will be combined into one Preliminary Design Report containing information and recommendations that will serve as the basis for final design of the WWTP Improvement Project.

2.1 Information Collection. Specific technical information needs to be collected to assist in completion of the final design of a wastewater treatment facility. Certain key information will include the following:

2.1.1 Aerial Mapping. Aerial mapping shall be prepared to serve as the base map for the final design documents. The mapping will be based on new aerial photography and will be compiled at the following scales:

• 1"=40' with 1' contours - Wastewater Treatment Plant operations area. • 1"=100' with 2' contours - Oxidation Ponds, Overland Flow Area, Restoration

Wetlands and the 750 +- acres of City owned property adjacent to I80.

Topographic mapping shall be delivered as AutoCAD Release 2004 or higher DWG files.

2.1.2. Control Survey. A ground control survey shall be performed to provide aerial premarks and horizontal/vertical control for the aerial mapping. The datum for the horizontal and vertical control will be based on previous surveys for the WWTP or as specified by the City. Up to three days of additional survey crew time shall be provided

Amendment No. 1


for supplemental field surveys of selected structures and utilities deemed necessary for preliminary design.

2.1.3. Existing Geotechnical Report Review. Previous geotechnical/soils reports and other existing soils information shall be reviewed to assist in completion of the structural assessment of the existing processes as well as to evaluate potential locations of proposed treatment processes.

2.2 Technical Memorandums (TMs) Preparation. The objective of this task shall be to conduct preliminary design on the individual project elements. The preliminary design, findings and recommendations for each project area will be summarized in a TM. Each TM will identify process design criteria, provide a recommended layout for final design and develop preliminary process flow diagrams and control philosophies, as appropriate. Where necessary (as outlined below), additional engineering evaluations including alternative layouts, costs analysis and refined design criteria will be included. Each TM will be relatively brief with the majority of the evaluation included in appendix form.

Evaluation materials from each TM shall be provided no less than one week before any scheduled technical workshop for City review. Review comments from the City on the content material of the TM will be provided to Carollo either verbally at the meeting or in written form within two weeks following the meeting. TMs to be prepared as part of this task include:

2.2.1 TM No. 1 – Basis of Design. This TM shall summarize the influent flows, pollutant concentrations and loads to be used for the design of the WWTP improvements based on information from the Strategic Master Plan Report and additional influent sampling conducted by the WWTP staff for this explicit purpose. The TM shall also list the anticipated effluent limits the processes will be required to meet.

This TM shall also include structural and seismic design criteria for the project. Code requirements will also be identified. Results from the previous geotechnical site investigations will be reviewed and preliminary recommendations for foundation design will be made.

2.2.2 TM No. 2 – Preliminary/Primary Treatment Facilities. This TM shall list the design criteria for the preliminary treatment facilities including existing influent pumping, modified bar screens, and existing grit removal. The TM shall include a recommended layout for modifying the existing headworks structure to replace/add bar screens as well as to rehabilitate the existing influent flow measurement. The TM shall address the issue of grit build-up in the headworks area and investigate alternative design solutions. This TM shall also list design criteria and provide a preliminary layout for chemical addition to the primary clarifiers, contingent upon the findings from the Task 1.

Amendment No. 1


2.2.3 TM No. 3 - Secondary/Tertiary Treatment Facilities. This TM shall include refinements of the recommended treatment alternative, including preliminary secondary/tertiary facilities layouts, refined design criteria, and operational and control concepts. The TM shall build upon the findings and recommendations from Task 1. The level of effort estimated for this task is based upon the assumption that an MBR system will be identified as the preferred approach in Task 1. If this is not the case, an adjustment to the estimated level of effort may be required for this task in order to accommodate the greater number of treatment components that would be required.

2.2.4 TM No. 4 – Disinfection Facilities. This TM shall develop the design criteria for Ultraviolet Light (UV) disinfection system based on disinfection requirements, on the recommended secondary/tertiary process, and on the potential future need for advanced oxidation processes. An evaluation will be conducted to determine the appropriate type and configuration of UV system for the WWTP Improvement Project.

2.2.5 TM No. 5 - Recycled Water (RW) Facilities. The objective of this task is to address the recycled water facilities recommendations put forth in the Master Plan. This TM shall assess the facilities needed to complete three proposed recycled water projects:

• A demonstration reuse project on approximately 750-acres of City owned property south of the plant site near the discharge point for the restoration wetlands.

• A recycled water project providing irrigation water to the Department of Fish and Game (Yolo Bypass Foundation) Wetlands and Agricultural Lands.

• A project providing Title 22 recycled water for urban reuse to City golf courses and Covell Village development.

The TM shall list design criteria and provide a preliminary layout and sizing of the facilities for each project as well as an estimate of anticipated project costs, and project benefits. The TM shall also develop a phased timeline for the construction of these facilities.

2.2.6 TM No. 6 - Restoration Wetlands. The objective of this task is to evaluate the purpose and best use of the existing restoration wetlands in the proposed treatment scheme. The following subtasks will be undertaken as part of this effort:

• Subtask 1: The alternative uses of the existing restoration wetlands outlined in the Draft Master Plan will be evaluated briefly by identifying necessary improvements, potential costs and the process and regulatory implications associated with each. A summary presentation will be prepared with the significant findings from the evaluation.

• Subtask 2: A technical workshop (as outlined in Task 2.3) will be held where the findings of the alternatives evaluation will be presented. The purpose of the technical workshop will be to identify a strategy for the continued use of the

Amendment No. 1


restoration wetlands. A wetlands expert as well as legal and regulatory experts will be included in the workshop.

• Subtask 3: Pending the outcome of the restoration wetlands technical workshop and authorization from the City, preliminary design of the restoration wetlands improvements will be conducted. A TM shall be prepared which will assess improvements to the restoration wetlands and the associated effluent pump station based on their purpose in the overall treatment process. The TM shall outline the recommended improvements and provide a preliminary layout for those improvements.

2.2.7 TM No. 7 - Solids Treatment and Disposal Facilities. This TM shall evaluate alternatives for treatment of the waste activated sludge. The three potential alternatives include aerobic/anaerobic lagoon digestion, thickening and anaerobic digestion with primary sludge, or aerobic membrane reactor digestion. The TM will also evaluate continued treatment of primary sludge with existing anaerobic digesters and sludge lagoons. The TM shall list the design criteria for the recommended alternative and provide a preliminary layout for solids treatment and storage facilities incorporating both existing and proposed solids handling facilities. This TM shall also evaluate alternatives for upgrading/replacing the existing boiler system.

2.2.8 TM No. 8 – Plant Site/Auxiliary Systems Improvements. This TM shall evaluate various necessary site improvements and provide a preliminary site layout. Site utilities shall also be reviewed including potable water supplies, non-potable water supplies, plant storm water drainage facilities, plant air system and tank drain facilities. Issues of system sizing, pressures, and equipment will be investigated for each of the utility water systems. In addition, staging areas and access for construction activities shall be identified.

2.2.9 TM No. 9 - Operations/Laboratory/Maintenance Facilities. This TM shall evaluate the needs for additional on-site operations, maintenance, and laboratory facilities based on projected staffing needs. This TM shall include spatial/functional relationships for the facility; results of a code study; architectural themes for the facility and preliminary elevations of the building; materials of construction for buildings and schematic floor plan for the building. This TM shall also evaluate the renovation of the existing operations/laboratory facilities to create additional office space in place of the existing laboratory space.

2.2.10 TM No. 10 – Alternative Power Supply. This TM shall evaluate the costs/benefits evaluation of the addition/use of alternative sources of power supply. The main potential energy sources include utility power, co-generated power using digester and/or landfill gas and solar power. Three main options will be reviewed: 1) all power from local utility, 2) a combination of power from cogeneration using digester gas and the local utility and 3) a combination of power from cogeneration using digester and

Amendment No. 1


landfill gas. For the third option, two potential locations of the cogeneration unit will be considered one at the landfill and the other at Davis WWTP. Solar power, evaluated previously during the Master Planning phase, will be compared to the three energy supply options evaluated during this task.

Also, included in this evaluation will be a discussion of emergency standby power options for the WWTP for each alternative. An itemized list of essential loads requiring standby power will be prepared in discussion with WWTP staff.

It is assumed that Yolo County (YC) Landfill officials will provide the necessary economic information for completing this analysis. Coordination with the YC Landfill officials will be done as part of this task. Based on the findings of the cost-benefit evaluation, the TM will recommend an alternative power supply strategy (including emergency power) for the City to consider.

2.2.11 TM No. 11 – Electrical Power Systems and Distribution. This TM shall include schematics for power distribution, expansion and emergency power. It shall also identify project design standards, code requirements and electrical requirements as follows: connected loads based on process redundancy anticipated operating loads, and 25 percent “reserve” capacity. The TM shall also identify design criteria, preliminary layouts and system connectivity considerations for replacement of the existing co-generation (or other alternative power supply as determined from TM No. 11) and emergency power generation systems. Initial coordination with PG&E will be documented in this TM including a review of system capacity based on the power projections from the proposed project.

2.2.12 TM No. 12 - Instrumentation and Control. This TM shall assess the existing plant operational philosophy and control system hierarchy through on-site investigations, drawing and specification review, and interviews with plant staff. The TM shall include an updated control system block diagram, including new process facilities, and outline project design standards for hardware, software and field instrumentation. The TM shall address the incorporation of the new process facilities into the existing SCADA system or make recommendations for upgrading the existing SCADA system, as deemed appropriate through reconnaissance investigations. This TM will also investigate and address security issues for the existing facility including the plant upgrades.

2.2.13 TM No. 13 - Information Technology Plan. This TM shall provide an assessment of existing data, infrastructure, and flowchart used to manage data, information, and knowledge within the organization. The TM will culminate in a report that identifies information management needs, including software, hardware, policies, procedures, and work flow to provide increased efficiency and decrease costs within City departments. The effort to complete the TM will consist of the following tasks:

Amendment No. 1


• Subtask 1: Collect Existing Information. Available information will be collected to provide base information on the data that is exchanged in the organization and workflow, and procedures used to collect, disseminate and store information. Requested information will include applicable data needs, software support requirements, hardware needs, personnel and workflow needs.

• Subtask 2: Interview City Personnel and Assess Needs. Interviews with key City personnel will be conducted to assess the existing IT system and future needs consistent with the new master planned facilities.

• Subtask 3: Technology and Benchmarking Review. Perform a benchmarking review of technologies used by at least three (3) other municipalities of similar size for comparison to the City (i.e. number of personnel, annual budget for both people and resources, software/hardware used, etc). These reviews will include an infrastructure review and provide comparisons between City’s current technology infrastructure (software, hardware, networks, servers, databases) to other available technologies.

• Subtask 4: Information Technology Program Recommendations. Based on a review of the estimated needs for systems integration software, hardware, and personnel, develop planning-level recommendations for budgeting purposes to provide increased efficiency and reduce costs while providing for the effective management of information to address the daily management and operating decisions required for the new master planned facilities. These recommendations are intended to increase communication, production, data sharing, reduce costs and increase efficiency within the organization as related to technology usage and exchange. Costs will be estimated to provide a planning-level budget range for necessary capital purchases as well as maintenance contracts.

2.2.14 TM No. 14 – Preliminary Hydraulic Profile / Process Model / Solids Balance. This TM shall include a preliminary hydraulic profile based on the site plan, preliminary design process sizing and existing and new facility hydraulics. This TM will also include a preliminary process model and solids balance based on the recommended secondary/tertiary process.

2.2.15 TM No. 15 – Project Delivery Analysis. This TM shall include the development of a detailed construction schedule to identify the critical path for construction activities, determine the length of construction, identify constructability issues, review equipment procurement options and identify potential pre-qualified or sole source equipment. The prequalification of general and special contractors will also be evaluated.

2.2.16 TM No. 16 – Construction Cost Estimate. This TM shall provide an updated basis of cost as well as construction and project cost estimate. The updated basis of cost will be used in all cost estimates prepared during the preliminary design portion of this work.

Amendment No. 1


2.2.17 TM No. 17 – Staffing Evaluation. This TM shall evaluate the staffing needs for the WWTP Improvement Project based on the treatment process selection and instrumentation/control philosophy. The staffing evaluation shall include review of staffing reports previously prepared by Consultant, review of actual existing WWTP staffing for operations, maintenance, laboratory and clerical personnel, review existing staffing methodology and management of shift work and develop a staffing needs assessment based on the treatment process selection, EPA staffing recommendations and experience of Consultant’s operations specialist.

2.3 Technical Workshops. Up to six (6) technical workshops shall be scheduled over the duration of the Preliminary Design Engineering. The technical workshops shall serve to present the evaluation materials from each TM, and to solicit feedback from City staff. Materials for the workshops shall be provided no less than one week before the workshop. It is anticipated that review comments from the City on both the workshop materials, and the conclusions of the workshop will be provided to Consultant either verbally at the meeting or in written form within two weeks following the meeting. The technical workshops may include the following topics, which are subject to variation based on project schedule:

• Basis of Design / Preliminary / Primary Treatment (TM 1 & 2) • Secondary / Tertiary Treatment / Disinfection (TM 3 & 4) • Recycled Water Facilities / Solids Treatment (TM 5 & 7) • Restoration Wetlands (TM 6) • Alternative Power Supply / Operations, Maintenance and Laboratory (TM 9 &

10) • Electrical / Power Systems / Instrumentation / Project Delivery (TM 11, 12 & 15)

At each of these meetings, the findings from the respective TM shall be presented and discussed. All review comments and decisions made (in either verbal or written form) will be documented and incorporated into the draft TMs, as applicable. The draft TMs will be given to the City for review after the inclusion of comments from the technical workshops. The TMs shall serve as the basis for the Preliminary Design Report.

2.4 Preliminary Design Report Preparation. The Preliminary Design Report shall consist of an executive summary and a collection of the technical memoranda (TM) as listed in Task 2.2. A Draft and Final Draft Preliminary Design Report shall be provided for the City of Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvement Project. City staff shall review a draft report and comments shall be incorporated into the final draft preliminary design report. A Final version of the Preliminary Design Report will be issued once the Environmental Documentation (i.e., CEQA / EIR) is complete.

Amendment No. 1


The Preliminary Design Report shall provide conclusions for the following items: the basis of design for the preliminary, secondary, tertiary and solids processes. The Report will also include the preliminary site layout based upon hydraulic requirements and existing facility restrictions; the general flow stream layout and unit process locations; the “good neighbor” requirements for the facility including: 1) level of noise control; 2) level of odor control; and 3) building height requirements; and key technical decisions in the areas of electrical, power, control, and instrumentation.

2.5 Value Engineering Review. A Value Engineering (VE) team will provide third-party review the Final Draft Preliminary Design Report. The VE team will be assembled by the City and will receive a brief presentation by the Carollo/West Yost design team describing the project. The design team shall prepare written responses to the VE recommendations and compile the responses into one document for project record and for City review.

Task 3 - Influent Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary Design

The purpose of this task is to provide preliminary design for the rehabilitation of the WWTP influent sewer pipeline. This includes research and review of existing information, assessment for design of pipeline and structures based on existing structural and hydraulic condition, identification of design and construction criteria and parameters, and development of preliminary drawings.

The portion of the influent sewer in need of rehabilitation consists of approximately 5,262 feet of 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) from MH 43 to the junction structure located just south of the WWTP, and 720 feet of 66-inch diameter RCP from the junction structure, under Willow Slough, to the headworks of the WWTP.

This study of rehabilitation alternatives is critical to be considered at this time because of: 1) the extremely poor condition of the existing pipe, and exposure to imminent collapse or failure, and 2) due to the need to consider the potential impact of grit loadings, and hydraulic considerations as part of this preliminary design of the WWTP improvements.

3.1 Review/Research Background Information. The following existing information will be collected and reviewed as part of this task:

• Sewer drawings and as-built information for pipeline and junction structure. • Utility information in area of pipeline rehabilitation. • Existing soil and groundwater information. • Previous City rehabilitation project contract documents. • Condition assessment records including tapes and reports.

Amendment No. 1


• Existing easement information.

3.2 Assess Existing Situation. Review all available existing information including, but not limited to, existing drawings, specifications, reports, maintenance records, and video available, with conversation with City staff to assess the existing condition and issues to be considered in rehabilitation of the pipeline and associated structures. The following subtasks are included:

3.2.1 - Condition Assessment of Pipe and Structures. Assess severity of the structural deterioration of the pipe and associated structures to determine the level of rehabilitation required, and concerns associated with cleaning and continued operation during construction/repair.

3.2.2 - Analysis of Grit Removal Requirements. Assess the amount of grit present for cleaning and disposal, and the estimated amount of grit that may be conveyed to the headworks during construction and upon implementation of post-rehabilitation solution for removal of grit from the conveyance system. This does not include testing of the grit to determine if special handling or disposal requirements are required; however, this will need to be address in the contract documents and should be conducted by the City.

3.2.3 - Existing and Rehabilitated Capacity Analysis. Analyze the hydraulic capacity of the existing pipeline and predict the impacts to pipeline hydraulics/capacity with proposed rehabilitation. The inside diameter of the rehabilitated pipeline will be consistent with the inside diameter of the previously rehabilitated sections of the pipeline. A spreadsheet providing capacity and velocities information for each segment of pipe will be prepared.

3.2.4 - Access, Scheduling, Easement and ROW. Coordinate with local property owners for access, scheduling, and easement and right-of-way (ROW) issues.

3.2.5 - Environmental Survey. Summarize environmental survey to determine the limits of wildlife protection, and required level of permitting required. Environmental survey will be provided by City staff.

3.2.6 - Permitting Requirements. Investigate permitting requirements for accessing and lining across the Willow Slough, which will require contacting State Department of Water Resources.

3.3 Develop Evaluation Criteria. Develop evaluation criteria for the purpose of comparing and ranking the conceptual and viable alternatives. Criteria to include, as a minimum: construction costs; ability to implement (including constructability risks such as right-of-way and pipeline collapse, and ability to continue with operation during construction); institutional issues (permitting, impact on the community and adjacent

Amendment No. 1


businesses); impact on downstream processes (for example, changes to grit loading at the headworks); operations flexibility, and others.

3.4 Develop Viable Alternatives. Develop viable alternatives to the level needed to apply the evaluation criteria developed. This shall include, as a minimum identification of rehabilitation methods for rehabilitation of pipeline (including slip-lining and cured-in-place pipe (CIPP)) and for all structures, development of preliminary project descriptions (including alignment, hydraulics, materials of construction, implementation schedule), pipeline cleaning and grit removal requirements and bidding options, access and staging requirements, constructability concerns, and estimated construction. Rank and compare the viable alternatives, and recommended the best apparent alternative for implementation.

3.5 Identify Preferred Alternative. Develop the “basis for design” for the recommended alternative. This should be to the level needed to serve as the basis for the project description to initiate the CEQA documentation required to proceed to preliminary design, and include the following:

• Project description. • Hydraulic capacity and rehabilitated pipeline velocities. • Plan for continued operations during construction. • Constructability considerations (including sheeting and shoring, tunneling and

disposal of grit, and cleaning operations). • Construction work parameters (including access, location of haul routes, location

of staging areas, traffic control). • Rehabilitation methods for pipeline and structures. • Description of, as provided by City staff, mitigation requirements for

environmental impacts, permitted crossing of Willow Slough, temporary construction easements and any required changes to permanent maintenance easements

• Additional project requirements to provide grit removal after rehabilitation. • Conceptual contract requirements. Provide list of required technical specifications

and preliminary bid schedule. • Preliminary contract drawings. Develop preliminary plan sheets using the City

supplied GIS base maps and aerial photos supplied by others. The base maps will be plotted on the aerial photo and the horizontal location and rim elevation of all structures will be provided using GPS to determine an accurate length for use in establishing measurement and payment for the work. Manhole depths shall be taken from existing sewer drawings.

• Implementation schedule, in Microsoft Project format. This shall include milestones and sequencing from the start of project preliminary design through construction.

• Estimated construction costs.

Amendment No. 1


3.6 Review Meetings. Prepare for and attend up to five (5) meetings with City staff to obtain information, review and discuss progress to date, and key issues to be addressed throughout the study.

3.7 Preliminary Design TM. Prepare draft TM summarizing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the above subtasks, and submit for review by the City. Incorporate review comments and include in the preliminary design summary report (Task 2.4) to the City.

Task 4 - Permitting

The objective of this task is to identify the necessary permits required to design and construct the City of Davis WWTP Improvement Project. This task will also include initial regulatory agency consultation as well as development of regulatory strategies for obtaining all necessary permits. However, at this time, it is difficult to anticipate the full range of activities required to secure the permits for the project and for many of the permits, the completion schedule may continue into final design. Both the level of effort and the total listing of permit requirements to be satisfied are difficult, at this time, to fully identify. Therefore, the budget for this permitting task should be considered as an allowance. The allowance may be adjusted in response to needs that may arise as a result of regulatory or City direction. The City shall be responsible for all permit fees.

The environmental / general permits which are anticipated at this time for construction and startup of this project are listed below:

Wastewater Treatment Related

• Regional Water Quality Control Board – NPDES Permit assistance, Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

• Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management District - Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate for Davis WWTP (co-generation improvements).

• Yolo County – General land use permits. • City of Davis including Building Department Permits, Planning Department and

Fire Marshall, as required.

Site Permitting/Wetlands Related

• US. Army Corp of Engineers – Wetlands Issues, Section 404. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Wetlands and endangered species consultation. • California Department of Fish and Game – Streambed alteration, NPDES permit

and wetlands consultation, endangered species consultation. • Yolo/Solano Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District – Review and

Amendment No. 1


comment on wetlands concept and design. • National Marine Fisheries Service. – Wetlands and endangered species

consultation.

Reuse Related

• Department of Health Services – Title 22 Engineering Report. • Reclamation Board. (Yolo Bypass Foundation Reuse Project) • State Lands Commission. (Yolo Bypass Foundation Reuse Project) • California Department of Transportation (Yolo Bypass Foundation Reuse Project)

Task 5 - CEQA Environmental Documentation

The purpose of this task is to develop CEQA Environmental Documentation for the project including a project-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR). See subconsultant’s CEQA Documentation Scope - Exhibit A, Attachment 1. Consultant will provide support to the subconsultant by providing input to the CEQA process, assisting with technical information needs, reviewing deliverables and attending relevant meetings. CEQA related meetings are discussed as part of Task 10.3. The level of effort for CEQA support is difficult, at this time, to fully identify and is directly related to the complexity of the CEQA process. Therefore, the budget for Consultant engineering effort should be considered as an allowance. The allowance may be adjusted in response to needs that may arise as a result of City direction.

Task 6 - Public Outreach/Education

The objective of this task is to provide support for potential public outreach/education that may take place throughout the project duration. Public outreach and education may be required due to the significant nature of the project and the potential rate impacts for the City. Consultant activities include:

6.1 Two-by-Two Council Meetings. Prepare for and attend up to two (2) meetings on a two-by-two basis with City Council members to provide project status updates at key project milestone points.

6.2 City Council/NRC Meetings. Prepare for and attend two (2) meetings with the Natural Resource Commission and two (2) meetings with the City Council to provide project status updates at key project milestone points.

6.3 Public Outreach Presentation. Prepare presentation that provides project overview, benefits and economic impacts for use by City in presenting to various City of Davis public groups.

Amendment No. 1


6.4 Project Website. Develop a project website to be accessible by the public containing project information and current status updates. Website material will be developed and content finalized as part of this task. The website will be maintained by Consultant and updated monthly.

Task 7 – Project Funding Assistance and Financial Review.

The purpose of this task is to provide general assistance to the City for project funding and financial planning review.

7.1 Financial Planning Review. The purpose of this task is to assist the City with review of Consultant proposals for the Rates & Fees Study and provide comments/recommendations as necessary. In addition, Consultant shall provide information and review as requested by the City for use in the Rates & Fees Study. Consultant shall also provide a cash flow summary for the project.

7.2 State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Submittals / Support. The purpose of this task is to assist the City through the initial work of the SRF loan fund application and submittal process. Consultant shall attend one (1) meeting with the City and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SRF administrators to introduce the project. Consultant shall also assist the City in being placed on the potential projects list for SRF loan consideration.

Task 8 – Yolo County Landfill Coordination Assistance

The purpose of this task is to provide coordination assistance with the Yolo County Landfill as it relates to issues of alternative energy supply and leachate/septage waste acceptance.

8.1 Leachate/Septage Analysis. Consultant shall evaluate additional leachate/septage data to be provided by YC Landfill officials to determine potential impacts to WWTP. Consultant shall prepare brief memo summarizing the findings and recommendations on the leachate/septage analysis.

8.2 Leachate/Septage and Energy Contract Coordination. Consultant shall provide general coordination assistance to the City during negotiations with YC Landfill. Tasks may include meeting with City and YC landfill officials to discuss findings of alternative energy supply analysis and additional leachate/septage quality information (assume 2 meetings), provide technical assistance in obtaining Joint Power Authority Agreement (if necessary) and provide expertise in negotiating power agreements. Budgetary level of effort is included, but the budget may be adjusted in response to additional needs that may arise as a result of City direction.

Amendment No. 1


Task 9 – Finalize Master Plan Document

After completion and approval of the CEQA documentation for the recommended project, the Draft Master Plan document (2 volumes) will be finalized including documentation of mitigation measures identified in the CEQA process. The purpose of this task will be to revise as necessary and finalize Volumes 1 and 2 of the Draft Master Plan document.

Task 10 - Preliminary Design Management / Administration

The task objective is to provide overall management and administration for the preliminary design effort. Preliminary design project management activities will include oversight of project budget, schedule and QA/QC, coordination of subconsultants, and preparation of monthly progress reports to be submitted to City staff.

10.1 Project Management Activities. Consultant shall provide general leadership and guidance on all of engineering, CEQA and permitting work described in this contract. Consultant will promote creativity, effective communication, open discussion and constructive interaction among all members of the Project Team, including other City engineering and legal consultants. The Consultant will:

• Monthly Progress Reports. Prepare progress reports summarizing the project progress on a monthly basis. The monthly progress reports will show the percentage of work completed, the percentage of contract billed and summarize the work completed during the month.

• Track and Update Budget and Schedule. Monitor and track the overall project scope, budget and schedule, and update on a monthly basis.

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Review and provide general QA/QC of all work products developed by Consultant and subconsultants. All documents delivered to the City are considered deliverables, including but not limited to technical memoranda, technical reports, agendas, meeting materials and summaries, invoices, progress reports, and communications.

• Project Coordination and Integration of Work Efforts. Communicate, interact and coordinate with City staff and all other Project Team members, as needed, to assure the efficient and effective completion of activities related to the internal consistency of all work products. Work with City staff to integrate project findings and develop project deliverables that are consistent and in alignment with the other work conducted as part of the engineering process.

• Decision Log. Maintain a decision log throughout the preliminary design period to record the decisions made by the Project Team. The decision log shall contain decisions made during technical workshops and project meetings as well as during telephone conversations or by email. The decision log shall list the date the

Amendment No. 1


decision was made, the type of meeting in which it was made (regular design meeting, telephone conversation, etc.), the individual involved making the decision, and the nature of the decision.

• Project-specific website. Develop project-specific website to be tied to but not accessible from the public project website. Project-specific website will be for the purpose of posting project related materials (i.e., decision log, meeting minutes, technical workshop summaries, preliminary layouts, etc.) for access by City personnel only. Website will be maintained and updated by Consultant on a monthly basis.

10.2 Provide oversight of subconsultant work. Provide direction and oversight of all subconsultant work. The following subconsultants are required to aid in the preliminary design of this project:

• Process, Civil, Surveying/Photomapping West Yost and Associates • CEQA/EIR Preparation EDAW • Wastewater Process Expert George Tchobanoglous • Wetlands Consultant Robert Gearheart

10.3 Project Meetings. The project team will meet with City staff and outside agencies as outlined below. Technical bulletins or meeting summaries will be developed summarizing the findings and action items from each meeting or workshop.

• Project Start-up/Kickoff. Organize, prepare and attend the Project Kick-off Meeting. Prepare agenda and meeting minute summary.

• Progress Meetings. Prepare for and attend weekly to bi-monthly progress meetings (24) with City staff, including preparing agendas and meeting minutes/summaries.

• Agency Coordination Meetings. Organize, prepare for and attend meetings with the following agencies: RWQCB (2), Department of Health Services (1), City of Davis Building and Fire Department (1), others (2).

• CEQA Coordination Meetings. Prepare for and attend meetings with City and CEQA subconsultant for CEQA documentation coordination, public hearing and scoping and interagency meetings. Assume ten (10) meetings.

• NPDES Permitting Assistance Meetings. Prepare for and attend meetings with City and City’s consultant (Larry Walker and Associates) responsible for the Report of Waste Discharge. Assume two (2) meetings.

DELIVERABLES

The following shall be the deliverables for the Preliminary Design project.

Technical Memoranda Draft of each TM - 5 copies.

Amendment No. 1


Technical Workshops Significant findings (design criteria, preliminary layouts) of TMs. Meeting agenda – draft by e-mail; final provided at meeting. Meeting minutes – email copy.

Project Progress Meetings Meeting agenda – draft by e-mail; final provided at meeting. Meeting minutes – email copy.

Final Master Plan Report Final Report Submittal - 7 copies plus PDF file.

Preliminary Design Report Draft Report – 7 copies. Final Draft Report – 7 copies. Final Report Submittal - 7 copies plus PDF file.

CEQA Documentation See Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT 1

CEQA DOCUMENTATION SCOPE

ATTACHMENT 1 SCOPE OF WORK

CEQA DOCUMENTATION

OVERALL APPROACH

This work program addresses preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), and findings for the City of Davis (City) Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) project. The work program may need to be refined and modified if the project options are changed substantially or new scope issues arise.

The work program is based on the following project: upgrades at the existing treatment plant and a demonstration reuse project, which would irrigate up to 770 acres. The EIR will not evaluate the overall Master Plan, except as it may relate to cumulative projects.

WORK PROGRAM

The proposed scope of work that follows has been organized into major tasks.

Task A: Initiate Project and Review Data

Approach

1. EDAW’s principal-in-charge and project manager will attend an orientation meeting with the City of Davis staff and other consultant team representatives to review the proposed scope of work, project schedule, and make preparations for all CEQA technical investigations and analyses. Key issue for discussion are: • Identification of those WPCP expansion components that will comprise the “proposed

project”. The proposed project will be defined by those facilities and operations that the City intends to implement in the near future and thus require project-level CEQA compliance, entitlements, and regulatory approvals. Facilities that will may be implemented later as part of the Master Plan will be considered at a lesser level of detail in the cumulative impact analysis (evaluated at a level typical of cumulative impact analyses).

• Issues that could present the need for data collection or updates to support the individual CEQA resource impact analyses.

• Collect any additional existing and new reference and research materials related to the project, project sites, and vicinity that were not received previously, including base maps, aerial photographs, and any environmental or engineering studies; distribute, as appropriate, to project team members.

2. EDAW’s principal-in-charge and project manager will attend a technical resources meeting with City staff and consultant team representatives to review and evaluate the approach and strategy, available information, assignments, and schedules for technical data collection and analytical methods that will be used to evaluate effects of wastewater

E D A W I N C ● C I T Y O F D A V I S W P C P P R O J E C T E I R

-2-

management on several key resource issues including surface and groundwater hydrology and water quality, fisheries and aquatic resources, and public health and safety.

The engineering work program will also be discussed to integrate tasks that each firm will be relying on the other firm to provide. For instance, Carollo will likely require information on permitting requirements (NPDES, DHS, etc.), environmental constraints to development of certain facilities, etc. Conversely, EDAW will rely on the City, Carollo, and the City’s other sub-consultants to provide certain elements of the project description, hydrologic data, and other project planning data.

TASK A SUMMARY

Deliverables: Meeting minutes and action items resulting from the orientation meeting and follow-up technical resources approach meeting

Meetings: One orientation meeting with City’s staff, to be attended by principal-in-charge, project manager (and subconsultant or technical representatives, if necessary)

One meeting on key technical wastewater management resource issues with City’s staff, to be attended by principal-in-charge, project manager, Carollo ,LWA and West Yost representatives

Task B: Refine Work Program for Completing Environmental Documents

Approach

1. EDAW’s principal-in-charge and project manager will attend a meeting with the City and Carollo to collaborate and determine the specific approach to the CEQA process and to develop/review the project description. This meeting will be held after the project initiation (Task A) efforts are underway and the data needs have been assessed and any additional data collection, engineering, and associated work schedules have been finalized.

EDAW understands that the City anticipates that the project will contain a proposed overall wastewater treatment and disposal plan, which for purposes of the EIR will consist of upgrades to the plant and the reuse demonstration project.

2. Refine the work program and fee (if necessary) and project schedule based on information discussed at the initial meetings and decisions made in CEQA strategy sessions. Finalize the work program and submit it to the City for approval.

3. Prepare the project description section for the draft EIR, based on results of pre-field research and strategy sessions with the City and Carollo, to include the following: • regional and local setting; • project history including development of the Master Plan and the role of the project in the

Master Plan; • project objectives;


-3-

• identification of proposed project features evaluated in detail in the EIR; construction and operation characteristics for facility components including location and description of structures, timing, and any other information relevant to an understanding of the proposed project;

• intended uses of the EIR, as required by §15124(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, including a list of responsible and other agencies expected to use the EIR in decision making and a list of approvals for which the EIR will be used; and

• project schedule.

Providing an early draft of the project description to the City and Carollo will ensure that the environmental review addresses all project issues. The project description shall be reviewed and agreed to by the City before the environmental analysis is initiated.

4. Provide EIR outline and format example to the City to ensure that the EIR is structured to meet the City’s needs and to allow the City to easily select the various project options and components that will essentially result in the selection of a preferred project on project approval.

TASK B SUMMARY

Deliverables: Revised work program (if necessary) and schedule

Draft project description section of the administrative draft EIR

EIR outline and format example

Meetings: Attendance by principal-in-charge, project manager, and Carollo at one project description/work program review meeting with City’s staff

Task C: Prepare Initial Study and Notice of Preparation and Conduct Scoping

Approach

1. Prepare an administrative draft Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) according to the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15063), and any applicable procedures of the City. The IS will include both a checklist of impacts, reasoned explanations of the “less-than-significant” potential project-related effects, and a summary of the issues to be addressed in the EIR and impact significance conclusions. Several issues are anticipated to be scoped out of the EIR, such as traffic, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, and public services. It is proposed that the NOP include in it an announcement of a public agency (daytime) and public (nighttime) scoping meeting to be held during the NOP review period.


-4-

2. EDAW assumes the City will provide a consolidated set of comments on the administrative draft IS/NOP. Following receipt of the comments, EDAW will revise and submit the final IS/NOP to the City for distribution. EDAW will prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) form and deliver the NOC and fifteen (15) copies of the IS/NOP to the State Clearinghouse.

3. Attend and present the project at the evening public and daytime agency scoping meetings. These meetings will be attended by EDAW’s principal in charge and project manager , City staff, and Carollo.

4. EDAW will review the public and agency comments received on the NOP/IS and at the scoping meetings. Determine whether any new scope issues are raised that will require analysis in the EIR. Submit a memorandum to the City summarizing issues identified in the scoping process. Provide a revised work program for the EIR, if required, based on information received at the scoping meeting and on IS/NOP comments.

TASK C SUMMARY

Deliverables: Ten (10) copies of the administrative draft IS/NOP

Thirty (30) copies, a camera-ready version, and a CD with electronic file of the final IS/NOP

Memorandum that summarizes the scoping comments

Revised EIR workplan (if necessary)

Meetings: Attendance by principal-in-charge and project manager at public and agency scoping meetings

Task D: Prepare Administrative Draft EIR

Approach After the CEQA approach and strategy have been determined and agreed to by the City and the City has approved the draft project description, EDAW will prepare an administrative draft EIR that analyzes all potentially significant impacts associated with implementing the proposed project. The approach and contents for the different chapters and sections that will make up the EIR are described below.

1. Executive Summary. Because this chapter summarizes the contents of the draft EIR, preparing it while the remainder of the document is still being revised is inefficient. For this


-5-

reason, the chapter will be available to the City for review as part of the screen-check draft EIR (Task E).

2. Introduction. An introduction to the EIR will be prepared that describes the type and use of the EIR, the environmental process associated with the project, and the organization of the EIR. It also will identify documents used in preparation of the EIR as well as the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies.

3. Project Description. The project description prepared under Task B and approved by the City will be revised, as necessary, under this task.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Using existing information and, when necessary, new analysis, EDAW will prepare the “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” chapter. It is anticipated that the following issues will be addressed in the EIR: • Land use consistency and agriculture • Hydrology and water quality • Health and safety • Fisheries and aquatic resources • Biological resources (botanical, wildlife, and wetland resources) • Air quality • Noise • Cultural resources • Visual resources • Public utilities • Recreation • Population and Housing (Socioeconomics)

Specific environmental issue areas to be addressed, the general approach to be used, and the known issues to be evaluated in each section are described below. Each resource section will include documentation of baseline conditions, environmental impact evaluations, and mitigation measures (as necessary.) Growth-inducing and cumulative impacts will be comprehensively evaluated separately in the EIR.

a. Land Use Consistency and Agriculture. The land use consistency analysis will assess the consistency of the project options with adopted plans and policies aimed at reducing or eliminating environmental impacts, including consistency with relevant environmental policies in the City’s General Plan (and Yolo County’s General Plan, if applicable). Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the facilities identified will be described from existing information. This section also will address the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. An exhibit showing existing land uses will be presented in the EIR.


-6-

b. Hydrology and Water Quality. EDAW will prepare the EIR analyses describing potential surface and groundwater hydrology and water quality impacts. EDAW will coordinate closely with the City, Carollo and other consultant team representatives during the preparation of this analysis and EIR section, particularly in relation to the collection, summarization, and analysis using the most appropriate and relevant effluent and receiving water flow and water quality data. EDAW also assumes that the City’s other consultant team representatives will provide technical input to the analysis and will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the work program and administrative draft EIR analysis prior to submittal to the City.

1. Collect and Summarize Pertinent Existing Hydrology and Water Quality Setting Data. The following information will be collected and summarized, as available: • Available receiving water data for Willow Slough and Conaway Ranch Toe

Drain will be collected and summarized to establish historic and existing conditions. Parameters to be summarized, as available, should include flow, pH, hardness, TDS, chloride, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nutrients, trace metals, trace organics, and toxicity. It is assumed this data will be made available to EDAW, by City, Carollo and other subconsultants.

• EDAW will coordinate with Carollo to characterize the existing effluent quality, and projected effluent quality that is anticipated with the treatment technologies developed for the proposed project. It is anticipated that literature-based information, and personal communications with other existing similar and representative treatment plant operations, will be necessary to characterize the projected effects of treatment processes on contaminant removal for the City’s specific constituents of concern. Parameters to be addressed include flow, BOD, pH, temperature, TDS, ammonia, trace metals, trace organics, and toxicity.

• Available groundwater data from aquifers that could be affected by project alternatives will be collected and summarized to establish background conditions. Parameters to be summarized include pH, hardness, TDS, chloride, nutrients, trace metals, and trace organics, if available. EDAW will use the available groundwater information to analyze whether the project would affect beneficial uses of the groundwater, and/or whether the project would cause the groundwater to exceed health-based (or other applicable) water quality standards. EDAW will coordinate with Carollo to identify feasible mitigation measures, if needed, to effectively treat the wastewater to comply with these standards. Such mitigation measures may include pretreatment requirements, or prohibition, for certain classes of future land uses. It is assumed that EDAW will not conduct any additional research, but will rely on the available information and other relevant information regarding groundwater conditions and quality.

• The section will include a review of the relevant federal and state regulatory programs for water quality control. Specific requirements associated with the Basin Plan, California Toxics Rule/National Toxics Rule (CTR/NTR), the Clean Water Act 303(d) impaired waters listing, and the projected NPDES permit will be described. These requirements will include beneficial use designations, applicable water quality objectives, projected effluent limits, and anti-


-7-

degradation policy restrictions. The section will address limitations imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Board, California Department of Health Services, and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.

• Collect Additional Surface Water Quality Data (Optional): If it is determined that additional surface water quality data are needed, EDAW will coordinate the collection of such data. Sources of the data may include City staff or other members of the consultant team, as appropriate.

2. Analyze Project Impacts on Water Quality. The water quality impacts analysis will consist of the following elements: • Threshold values for the determination of the significance of water quality

impacts of proposed discharge scenarios will be identified. These threshold values will consist primarily of applicable City general plan policies, and water quality objectives (Basin Plan, CTR, Title 22 drinking water quality standards, agricultural guidance values, etc.) as applied to receiving water quality and beneficial uses.

• The analysis of direct or indirect surface discharge will be performed to assess projected compliance with water quality objectives for toxic pollutants and other constituents of concern. This analysis will take into account available dilution at the proposed discharge locations and will assess whether the discharge will cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives in the receiving water. The existing receiving water quality data and projected effluent quality characteristics, in combination with flow variables, will be used to determine mass loadings associated with the proposed discharges and mass fluxes of specific parameters of concern in receiving waters. The mass balance analysis will be used to predict impacts on water quality and determine whether assimilative capacity is available to ensure resource protection objectives. The analysis will consider applicable seasonal constraints, presence of sensitive organisms (based on existing data), reasonable mixing zone conditions, ability to affect constituent controls within the treatment processes, and availability of impact minimization measures within the overall project features (e.g., optional recycled water reuse, constructed wetlands).

Because additional permit capacity is not anticipated to be needed, mathematical modeling is assumed to not be needed.

EDAW will use the available groundwater information to analyze whether the project would affect beneficial uses of the groundwater, and/or whether the project would cause the groundwater to exceed health-based (or other applicable) water quality standards. For purposes of this scope, it assumed that numerical groundwater modeling will not be necessary to adequately evaluate hydrologic and water quality impacts.

• Results from the analyses described above will be presented and described. Summary tables and figures will be provided to portray key results, including


-8-

compliance with water quality standards and incremental changes in water quality resulting from the discharge.

• EDAW will coordinate with Carollo to identify feasible mitigation measures, if needed, to effectively treat the wastewater to comply with these standards. Such mitigation measures may include pretreatment requirements, or certain restrictions on effluent disposal and recycled water reuse operations. It is assumed that EDAW will not conduct any additional research for the mitigation measures, but will rely on available information to develop general performance-based terms and conditions.

c. Health and Safety. In connection with the potential use of reclaimed water and discharge of treated water to Willow Slough, Conaway Ranch Toe Drain, and downstream effects to other channels within the Yolo Bypass, EDAW will conduct an analysis of potential public health and safety impacts. The analysis will be based on literature review of data on potential health effects associated with using Title 22 treated water for irrigation, tertiary treated water discharge, and potential pathways to exposure. EDAW will prepare this analysis with input from Carollo. Health and safety effects associated with past uses of the potential reuse sites will be qualitatively evaluated, as will evaluations of potential health and safety effects associated with facilities operations.

d. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. This section of the EIR will analyze impacts related to fisheries and riverine resources supported by Willow Slough, Conaway Ranch Toe Drain, and downstream surface water bodies caused by proposed changes in treated effluent discharges. EDAW will prepare a separate Fisheries and Aquatic Resources section for the EIR. Applicable regulatory framework, standards, and significance thresholds for potential impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources will be identified in the EIR. The approach for describing the existing conditions and evaluating potential impacts to resources is as follows: • EDAW will review available information on aquatic resources of the project area

(including special-status aquatic species) and downstream water bodies likely to be affected by the project. A site visit will be conducted to document the characteristics of the receiving water channels at the proposed points of discharge, and characteristics of downstream reaches and water bodies that may be affected by the project. A primary focus of the data collection will be general habitat assessment for channel form and function, streamflow, substrate, and bed-bank cover characteristics that are important to seasonal and life-stage characteristics of aquatic resources, particularly special status aquatic species (i.e., steelhead and Chinook salmon) known to occur in the area. This scope assumes that field scientific collection for organism samples will not be necessary.

• The setting section will include a brief characterization of known or potential effects of the City’s existing WPCP effluent discharges on aquatic resources in Willow Slough, Conaway Ranch Toe Drain, and downstream water bodies as the conditions may relate to constituents that would not appreciably change under the proposed project. Existing effluent quality characterization will be based on information collected and prepared for the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the draft EIR (i.e., compilation of the City’s historic discharge self-monitoring report


-9-

data for conventional and toxic trace constituents, including whole effluent acute and chronic bioassay results, and seasonal discharge rates.) EDAW will use the above-cited information, and related information, as the technical basis for its assessment of project impacts to receiving water fish and other aquatic resources.

• The impact analysis will address project operations effects on fish and aquatic resources in the receiving water and downstream water bodies, including special status aquatic species and their habitats. The impact analysis will focus on constituents of concern as already identified by the discharger and the Regional Water Board. The analysis will rely on the analysis and findings in the Hydrology and Water Quality section regarding projected effluent quality under the proposed WPCP expansion facilities, and associated level of compliance with applicable water quality objectives/criteria. The fisheries and aquatic resources impact analysis will address individual constituents or parameters as to whether: 1) an impact may occur even when compliance with the applicable standard/permit limit is achieved (e.g., temperature); and 2) an impact would not occur even though the standard/permit limit would be occasionally exceeded (e.g., copper). This approach provides for consistency with the current science and more detailed scientific assessments where standards are potentially either over- or under-protective of environmental resources. The analysis will also qualitatively address the hydrologic effects, and related aquatic resource effects, of increased effluent discharge flow rate to the receiving waters.

• Feasible mitigation measures for operations water quality effects to aquatic resources, if necessary, will be developed in coordination with the City, Carollo, and the hydrology and water quality analysis of the draft EIR. It is expected that mitigation measures, if necessary, will consist of general performance-based terms and conditions.

• The impact analysis will also address potential construction-related impacts to fish and aquatic resources in the receiving water and downstream water bodies. EDAW will provide input on standard project construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary for the project description. If necessary, additional mitigation measures will be developed that specify impact avoidance and minimization measures.

e. Biological Resources. An EDAW botanist/wetland ecologist and an EDAW wildlife biologist familiar with the natural resources in the City will conduct a habitat-level field survey of the areas affected by treatment plant upgrades and the demonstration reuse project. For purposes of this scope, it is assumed that the biological resources associated with the treatment wetlands will be unaffected; if they are affected by the project, the scope would need to be expanded to fully investigate changes to wetlands values and associated effects. Before field surveys are conducted, literature review and research efforts shall include a review of previous documents prepared for projects located on or adjacent to the project areas. Preliminary research shall also include searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online database to determine which special-status plant and animal species have been documented on or near the project site. EDAW’s approach to the biological resources section of the EIR is as follows:


-10-

• Our approach includes habitat-based surveys for sensitive plants and wildlife. This scope assumes reconnaissance survey of the project area by a botanist, wildlife biologist, and avian biologist. This scope assumes reconnaissance-level surveys will be conducted for up to 750 acres of land including the existing WPCP site and demonstration reuse areas. The purpose of the surveys is to characterize habitat conditions and determine their potential to support sensitive species and other native plant species in the project study areas. During the field survey, the biologists will identify and map common and sensitive habitat types in the study area and assess the potential of the areas to support special-status plant or animal species. EDAW will also describe the habitat types and any potentially occurring special status species within the project area. The surveys also will be used to evaluate project implementation and operation impacts on wetland and riparian habitat. A formal wetland delineation and focused special-status plant and wildlife surveys are not included under this task. The cropland and existing Department of Fish and Game (DFG) lands identified for irrigation reuse will not be surveyed in detail, but the vegetation communities will be mapped accordingly using an aerial photograph.

• Following the field habitat survey, the EDAW biologists will prepare the biological resources section of the EIR using information from existing documentation and the field surveys. The section will give a brief overview of federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of biological resources in the City and in Yolo County. The status and applicability of the Yolo County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) will be described. The section will contain a map of habitat types present in the study area, descriptions of these habitat types, and lists of plant and wildlife species observed during the field survey.

• The analysis portion of the section will analyze the impacts on biological resources resulting from implementation of the options. Regulatory authorizations needed for project implementation will be discussed. The document also will outline thresholds of significance, identify all impacts resulting from implementation of the options, and, for significant and potentially significant impacts. The analysis will include an evaluation of project construction-related impacts on biological resources and wetland/riparian habitat using GIS-based resource mapping information and overlay analysis of proposed project construction activities. Project operations-related impacts on biological resources and wetland/riparian habitat will also be evaluated. Appropriate mitigation will be identified to reduce impacts, including focused surveys where necessary. This approach allows the City to keep EIR costs down, deferring costs to when the project is defined and a preferred alternative is selected.

f. Air Quality. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). EDAW’s approach to the air quality section of the EIR is as follows: • The setting of the air quality section in the EIR will describe regional air quality

conditions and local air quality in the vicinity of the project site, based on existing data. The basin is currently designated nonattainment for state respirable particulate


-11-

matter (PM10) standard and state and federal ozone standards. Micro-meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the project site that could affect air pollutant dispersal or transport will be described, if needed; however, field monitoring of meteorology and pollutant emissions is not included. The local topographic effects on pollutant dispersal will be discussed. Applicable air quality regulatory framework, standards, and significance thresholds (based largely on YSAQMD guidelines) will be identified in the EIR

• The YSAQMD applies numerical thresholds in the evaluation of air quality effects caused by construction activity. Accordingly, EDAW will conduct quantitative analysis of construction-related criteria pollutant emissions.

• Criteria Pollutants: Analysis of long-term air quality impacts will include a quantitative assessment for criteria pollutants. As part of this analysis, increases in regional criteria pollutants and precursors (e.g., ROG, NOX, and PM10) will be quantified based on the projected increase in area source (e.g., expanded plant operations) emissions attributable to the proposed project. The YSAQMD recommends that quantification of ROG emissions be conducted in accordance with the methodologies contained in the “TriTAC Guidance Document on Control Technology for VOC Air Emissions from POTWs.” This document was produced in collaboration with Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and air regulatory agencies in California. The document presents four recommended methodologies for the quantification of VOC emissions, generally referred to as “flow-related emission modeling,” “concentration-based emission modeling,” “fate emission modeling,” and “direct measurement emission modeling.” Each of these approaches has an associated level of accuracy, level of data requirements, and cost of implementation. The first approach utilizes predetermined “flow-related emission factors” applied to each individual treatment processes. It requires knowledge of liquid influent flow rates for each of the main treatment processes and is considered to generate a conservative estimation of emissions. The remaining three methods of estimating emissions generate more accurate predictions of emissions, but are substantially more involved. EDAW will consult with City and YSAQMD staff to develop the quantitative methods applied in the EIR. However, based on EDAW’s recent experience with the UC Davis WPCP expansion project, we assume for the purposes of this scope that the use of TriTAC’s recommended “flow-related emission modeling” approach will be acceptable. We assume that calculation will use bulk-VOC emission factors and individual VOC constituents will not be evaluated in this analysis. Emissions estimates will be limited to the treatment processes for which emission factors are available. Long-term increases in criteria pollutants will be compared with applicable YSAQMD significance thresholds for determination of significance. YSAQMD-recommend control measures will be provided as mitigation measures, as necessary.

• Because the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial change in levels of service along affected roadway segments, computerized modeling of long-term localized carbon monoxide “hot spots” at nearby sensitive receptors is not anticipated to be required and is not proposed. In addition, stationary sources subject to YSAQMD permit requirements would not be expected to exceed the numeric


-12-

thresholds of significance for criteria or hazardous air pollutants and, as a result, the potential for long-term intermittent stationary source emissions will be qualitatively evaluated.

• Odors. The analysis will characterize odors currently generated by the existing WPCP and their affects. As part of this scope, formal information requests will be submitted to YSAQMD and the County environmental health department to gain a comprehensive understanding of the WPCP’s odor complaint history (if any). The impact analysis will address the types of proposed modifications to WPCP processes and operations that may alter existing odor generating activities, and whether the proposed project will result in an increase in the frequency of odor exposure to nearby sensitive receptors, particularly residential land uses in the area. Existing atmospheric conditions (i.e., prevailing wind patterns) and proposed features designed to minimize odorous emissions will be taken into account. If necessary, measures deemed necessary to mitigate potential odor impacts will be recommended..

• Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Based on EDAW’s recent experience with the UC Davis WWTP expansion project, we assume for the purposes of this scope that the qualitative evaluation of potential project-related TAC emissions will be sufficient. The analysis will focus on evaluating exposure of nearby receptors to the vicinity of the WPCP to substantial air toxics concentrations associated with the proposed expansion and changes in operational processes. The analysis will include describing any applicable regional health risk assessments (HRAs) that have been prepared that include designated TACs known to be associated with WPCP processes. Because TAC emissions from the expanded WPCP would be expected to be a subset of the total health risk from region-wide emissions, it is also expected that the impact analysis will primarily focus on the project-related contribution to the potential for cumulative health risk impacts.

g. Noise. The EIR will include a description of the existing noise environment on and in the vicinity of the project sites, based on existing environmental documentation and onsite reconnaissance data. As part of the site reconnaissance, EDAW will conduct short-term (e.g., 15-minute) noise monitoring at various locations on and in the vicinity of the project sites to document daytime ambient noise levels. Nearby existing noise-sensitive receptors and noise sources will be identified and discussed. Relevant background information, including noise fundamentals, descriptors, and applicable state and local regulatory framework, will be described in the EIR. • To assess potential temporary, short-term (i.e., construction) noise impacts,

sensitive receptors and their relative exposure (considering topographic barriers and distance) will be identified. Noise levels of specific construction equipment will be presented in the EIR, and resultant noise levels at given distances from the source will be calculated. Resultant impacts on nearby noise-sensitive receptors will be discussed. The significance of short-term noise impacts will be determined in comparison to applicable state and local standards. If necessary, mitigation measures will be developed for significant impacts.

• The EIR will include an assessment of long-term noise impacts, such as potential increases in stationary source noise levels, associated with implementation of the


-13-

proposed plant upgrades and demonstration reuse project. Resultant impacts on nearby noise-sensitive receptors will be discussed. The significance of long-term noise impacts will be determined in comparison to applicable state and local standards. Mitigation measures will be developed for significant and potentially significant impacts.

h. Cultural Resources. The historical and archaeological resources analysis for the project will be conducted by EDAW, using information collected through field reconnaissance surveys, database records research, and any information contained in the City’s confidential files. EDAW’s approach to the cultural resources section of the EIR is as follows: • EDAW will conduct a records search of the California Historical Resources

Information System and contact the Native American Heritage Commission to request a review of Sacred Lands Inventory Files. EDAW will additionally conduct reconnaissance-level surveys for proposed new facility construction areas, new pipeline routes, and those portions of the potential recycled water irrigation reuse area that will require direct construction-related land disturbance. This scope assumes reconnaissance-level surveys for up to 750 acres of land. If listed or potential archaeological sites are identified within the survey area, EDAW will prepare a confidential archaeological report and cultural resources analyses for the EIR, as required by existing regulations. Otherwise, we will prepare only the EIR section. No excavations or laboratory research is proposed as a part of this analysis.

• The setting will describe the existing physical conditions within the project study area. A synopsis of previous cultural resources records searches for the project areas will be included. The regulatory setting for archaeological and historic resources will be described. The site identification and assessment will include compiling a list and description of any listed or observed archaeological resource sites found, and identification of whether these sites may represent archaeological resources based on CEQA significance thresholds.

• The impact analysis will include a qualitative evaluation of the potential impacts on cultural resources associated with all components of the project. Mitigation measures required to avoid significant cultural resources impacts will be identified. Sub-surface surveys, consultation with SHPO, structural impact analysis, economic analysis, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are not included as a part of this scope.

i. Public Utilities. This section of the EIR will address the utility impacts associated with implementing the options. The analysis will address any disruption of service associated with construction of the project, including trenching. EDAW will coordinate with the City’s staff and affected utility purveyors to obtain information on nearby connection points and existing and potential distribution alignments, existing capacity, adequacy of existing infrastructure, and plans for future expansion or improvements. EDAW will assess the potential impacts of the project on electricity and natural gas. Mitigation measures will be presented for any significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the utilities analysis.


-14-

j. Population and Housing (Socioeconomics). A summary of existing and projected population, employment, and housing will be presented, based on available data. The EIR will describe the amount of growth that would be accommodated by the treatment plant and compare it for consistency with City General Plan, as well as census data and forecasts developed by the City, Yolo County, and the California Department of Finance. The socioeconomic analysis will form the basis for conducting the growth-inducement analysis.

k. Recreation: This section of the EIR will address the potential impacts to recreation associated with implementing the project. The analysis will be focused on the City’s constructed wetlands that are a popular habitat feature and potential changes in recreation opportunities if project-related actions result in alteration of quantity, access, or functions of the wetlands. The setting will describe existing estimated recreation opportunities (based on existing data; no new data collection is proposed) at the facilities in terms of user-days of visitation. The impact analysis will qualitatively evaluate anticipated changes based on projected changes that may occur in their operations.

l. Visual Resources. The visual resources section will address the potential visual impacts associated with implementing the project options, including expanding the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities, installing pipeline, and implementing reuse, if selected, including storage ponds.. The analysis will consider the visibility of facilities, alteration of the visual setting, and sensitivity of viewpoints. Mitigation measures will be presented for any significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the visual resources analysis. This section will include ground-level site photographs from sensitive viewpoints near the locations of facilities. Preparation of photosimulations of the project sites is not included under this task.

6. Cumulative Impacts. EDAW will prepare a cumulative impacts chapter consistent with §15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The chapter will define what constitutes a cumulative impact under CEQA and provide a summary of the project’s cumulative impacts that considers both specific known projects and projected growth. The analysis will be based on an updated list of proposed, pending, and approved projects, including those within the Yolo Basin watershed, provided by the City. Buildout of the Master Plan will also be considered.

7. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. EDAW will prepare a chapter that addresses significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b). Included in the discussion will be any impacts that can be partially mitigated, but not to a level that is less than significant. Any mitigation measures eliminated from consideration because of new impacts associated with their implementation will also be discussed.

8. Growth-Inducing Impacts. In accordance with Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, EDAW will prepare a chapter that evaluates the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project. Potential sources of growth inducement and their impacts, such as removal of obstacles to growth through treatment plant capacity additions, will be analyzed qualitatively to the extent they are applicable. Consistency with the City’s urban services boundary also will be addressed as it pertains to growth inducement.


-15-

9. Alternatives: EDAW will prepare an alternatives section of the EIR consistent with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. EDAW will develop and evaluate alternatives for the EIR as follows: • Alternatives Screening and Development: Alternatives to wastewater treatment plant

expansions are technologically limited, and must focus on treatment technology and discharge options. Because publicly owned WWTPs represent considerable capital investments, alternative locations for the WPCP are not expected to be evaluated. One alternative will include the “No Project” alternative required by CEQA. We will work closely with City staff to develop and conceptually define and describe up to three (3) remaining alternatives. However, it is anticipated that alternatives will not be fully developed until EDAW has completed the IS and public scoping, received public comments on significant environmental issues of concern, and collected initial background resource setting information to assess the full range of potential significant resource issues associated with wastewater treatment, constructed wetlands operations, effluent disposal, and seasonal recycled water reuse scenarios. It is further anticipated that alternatives will in large part be drawn from the alternatives that were considered during the strategy workshops, but not brought forward as the “proposed” facilities. In coordination with the City and Carollo, the feasible alternatives will be identified that meet the substantive obligation under CEQA to evaluate options that would substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts identified for the preferred project. EDAW will work with Carollo to identify alternative screening criteria and selection methods for alternatives, and develop any conceptual design of alternatives (if necessary). The focus of alternatives screening will be on those scenarios that could substantially lessen significant long-term environmental impacts versus significant (and significant and unavoidable) short-term construction-related impacts. EDAW will prepare a technical memorandum describing the alternatives screening and recommendations for alternatives to carry through the EIR process. EDAW’s principle-in-charge and project manager will attend a meeting with City staff and Carollo to discuss and refine the alternatives selection and analysis methods.

• Alternatives Analysis: Analyses for CEQA alternatives (including No Project) will be conducted at a lesser level of detail than the proposed project, but at a sufficient level to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative will be identified. No field work associated with the alternatives analysis (other than the alternative pond sites described in this scope of work) is assumed. EDAW anticipates that a likely set of alternatives that may be considered will include: ♦ No Project (CEQA-required no action) ♦ Alternative wastewater treatment processes: such as reverse osmosis ♦ Alternative effluent disposal options: Yolo Bypass toe drain canal surface discharge;

evaporation ponds; pipeline to and discharge in the Sacramento River ♦ Alternative recycled water irrigation reuse locations and/or facilities

EDAW will also discuss any alternatives that were considered by the City, but were rejected as infeasible. This discussion is expected to the options that were previously evaluated by the City for the early strategy workshops including various pipelines to surface discharge locations, and several treatment and seasonal recycled water irrigation reuse areas. EDAW can evaluate


-16-

additional alternatives and conduct field work for alternatives, if requested, with an amendment to this scope and fee estimate.

10. Other CEQA-mandated Sections: Other CEQA-mandated sections of the EIR will be included as follows: • Table of Contents • Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources • Effects Found Not to Be Significant • List of Organizations and Persons Consulted • Preparers of the Environmental Document • References • Appendices

11. Quality Control/Quality Assurance: A thorough quality assurance review of the Administrative Draft EIR will be conducted by EDAW’s project management team and Carollo before submittal to the City.

12. “CEQA-Plus” Requirements: Wastewater treatment improvement projects that entail federal funding through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan process are subject to special “CEQA Plus” requirements that require specific additional information submittals to comply with federal NEPA compliance requirements. The anticipated additional submittal requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Section 7, Federal Endangered Species Act, Federal Clean Air Act, and National Historic Preservation Office. EDAW understands that the City is interested in but has not committed fully to pursuing federal funding for any expansion of the WPCP facilities at this time. EDAW will work with Carollo and the City to develop the additional detailed scope necessary to compile necessary data and comply with the “CEQA Plus” compliance requirements when, and if, deemed necessary. As such, an budgetary allowance is included for this effort that will be refined along with the refinement of scope. Commencement of work on this particular task will not take place until directed by the City to do so.

TASK D SUMMARY

Deliverables: Technical memorandum of alternatives screening and development

Ten (10) copies of the administrative draft EIR

Meetings: Attendance by principal-in-charge, project manager, and Carollo at one alternatives development meeting with City’s staff


-17-

Task E: Prepare Screen-Check Draft EIR and Draft EIR

Approach

The purpose of this task is to prepare a final screen check draft EIR and produce the publicly circulated draft EIR, based on comments by the City on the administrative and screen check drafts.

1. Coordinate with the City’s staff, which will assemble City comments on, and suggested revisions to, the administrative draft EIR. One set of unified comments will be provided to EDAW.

2. EDAW’s principal-in-charge and project manager will attend a meeting with the City’s staff to discuss comments on the administrative draft EIR.

3. Complete revisions to the administrative draft EIR in accordance with review comments. Revisions will be prepared in conformance with the scope of work.

4. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15123, an executive summary will be prepared that presents the significance conclusions of the EIR using clear and simple language easily understood by the public. A summary table will identify each impact presented in the analysis, identify the level of impact before mitigation, describe mitigation measures when applicable, and, for those impacts requiring mitigation, identify the level of impact following implementation of mitigation.

5. Submit a screen-check draft EIR to the City for final review. EDAW will provide minor changes based on the City’s final comments.

6. Reproduce the draft EIR for submittal to the City for distribution to the public. EDAW also will provide the City with an electronic copy of the draft EIR on CD.

TASK E SUMMARY

Deliverables: Five (5) copies of the screen-check draft EIR

Seventy-five (75) copies and a CD with an electronic copy of the draft EIR

Meetings: One review meeting with the City, to be attended by the principal-in-charge and project manager

Task F: Prepare Administrative, Screen Check, and Final EIR

Approach


-18-

This task will involve preparation of the final EIR for agency and public review with written responses to comments received on the draft EIR that raise significant environmental issues and submit the document for City staff review after the close of the public comment period. The final EIR will incorporate the draft EIR by reference. It will document all changes made to the draft report, but the draft EIR will not be reproduced as part of the final report.

1. The City will compile and transmit to EDAW all written and public hearing comments on the draft EIR. One set of unified comments from the City is assumed.

2. EDAW’s principal in charge and project manager will attend a meeting with City staff to review written comments on the draft EIR to develop a general framework and strategies for preparation of responses. The meeting is assumed at eight hours (including travel time) in Davis.

3. The format of the final EIR will be as a stand-alone document that includes comment letters and the responses to comments. It is assumed that it will not be necessary to revise and reprint the DEIR text as part of the FEIR.

4. Submit the administrative final EIR with draft responses to comments to City staff for review. Because the extent of public comment is not yet known, a total of 100 hours of environmental staff time (plus 40 hours of document production time) has been budgeted by EDAW for this task. If the effort exceeds the budgeted amount, a contract amendment would be needed.

5. Coordinate with the City staff that will assemble comments on, and suggested revisions to, the administrative final EIR. One set of unified comments will be provided to EDAW.

6. Based on City staff comments, revise the responses to comments. Revisions will be prepared in conformance with the scope of work. Revisions requiring comprehensive changes or additional analysis will be undertaken under an additional scope and fee.

7. Prepare and reproduce the final EIR for submittal to the City for its distribution to affected agencies and the public. In addition, EDAW will provide the City with a copy of the final EIR on CD in a format that the City can post on its website.

TASK F SUMMARY

Deliverables: Ten (10) copies of the administrative final EIR

Five (5) copies of the screen-check final EIR

Seventy-five (75) copies and a CD with an electronic copy of the draft EIR

Meetings: One review meeting with the City, to be attended by the principal-in-charge and project manager


-19-

Task G: Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Approach

1. Prepare an administrative draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) concurrently with preparation of the final EIR. The MMRP will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation requirements during project implementation. In coordination with the City’s staff, EDAW will prepare the MMRP for mitigation measures that address significant impacts or are adopted as conditions of approval.

2. Design the program to fit into the City’s format requirements and existing entitlement and project review processes. The MMRP is proposed to include the following components: • introduction and purpose of the program, • roles and responsibilities, • monitoring and reporting procedures, and • master mitigation matrix.

Coordinate with the City’s staff to refine the MMRP content and format before preparing the draft MMRP.

3. Coordinate with the City staff that will assemble comments on, and suggested revisions to, the administrative draft MMRP. One set of unified comments will be provided to EDAW.

4. After review and comment on the draft MMRP, revise the MMRP according to the comments provided and submit the final MMRP as part of the final EIR.

TASK G SUMMARY

Deliverables: Ten (10) copies of the administrative draft MMRP

Seventy-five (75) copies of the final MMRP, to be provided as an appendix to the final EIR

Task H: Preparation of Written Findings

Approach

The purpose of this task is for EDAW to prepare the written findings for each significant effect identified in the EIR, pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21081 of CEQA), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.


-20-

1. Prepare draft findings on behalf of the City for each significant effect identified in the EIR, and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations if significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, one of three findings must be made for each significant effect and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will rely on input from the City regarding the benefits of the project.

2. EDAW will consult with City staff to review draft findings and finalize them.

3. Submit final findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary), to the City for adoption.

TASK H SUMMARY

Deliverables: Ten (10) copies of the draft findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

One (1) electronic file of the final findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

Task I: Attend Public Hearings

Approach

The purpose of this task is for EDAW to be present at public meetings and hearings, to develop an understanding of the public's comments and concerns, to be available to answer questions on environmental issues, and to make presentations on the EIR. Attendance at additional meetings, if requested, will occur on a time-and-materials basis additional to this scope and fee estimate.

1. Attend up to four (4) public hearings by the principal-in-charge and project manager. Such meetings could include public workshops, and hearings on the draft and final EIR. Hearings held for project scoping (Task C) are considered separately from this task.

2. Conduct presentations, as required, regarding the EIR process and findings, and be available to answer questions that may arise at public hearings or meetings.

3. Prepare presentation graphics and handout materials regarding the EIR process and findings, if needed. Meeting graphics depicting the project and other project description materials are assumed to be provided by the City.

TASK I SUMMARY


-21-

Deliverables: Presentation graphics and handout materials

Meetings: Four (4) public meetings, to be attended by the principal-in-charge and project manager

Task J: Project Management, General Coordination, and Team Meetings

Approach

The purpose of this task is for EDAW to manage the EIR preparation effort and to maintain close communication between the City staff, Carollo, the City’s other subconsultants, and any other project team members. This task is also intended to ensure that the project is running on time and within budget, as well as being technically correct and legally defensible.

1. Communicate as necessary with project team members for compliance with the schedule, scope of work, and budget. Coordinate the work of the EIR team and provide management liaison between the EIR team and the City for communication of issues, transmittal of comments, financial management (e.g., invoices), and other project management matters.

2. Prepare two (2) information request memoranda and submit requests to the City; one (1) at the kickoff of draft EIR preparation, and one (1) approximately half-way through the draft EIR preparation effort. Any delays in receiving the requested information may have implications with regard to the project schedule.

3. EDAW assumes that up to four (4) project team meetings will be required during the preparation of the draft EIR to discuss project status and specific resource issues. These meetings are in addition to the team meetings (1 all day meeting each) conducted to discuss City comments on the administrative draft and administrative final EIR. It is assumed that EDAW’s project manager will attend all four meetings, and the principal-in-charge will attend two meetings. This scope and budget assumes that each meeting will be attended by two other EDAW staff (most likely CEQA/environmental coordinators and/or resource specialists). Attendance at additional meetings, if requested, will occur on a time-and-materials basis additional to this scope and fee estimate.

4. Attend one coordination meeting with the City and Regional Water Board and up to two meetings with other resource agencies. It is assumed that two people from EDAW will attend.

5. Field survey of the project area will require in-field visits to known cultural resources and areas where current WPCP facilities exist or are planned. These visits may require coordination with the City, private landowners, and various state and federal agencies. Relevant agencies may require permits for property access and research, and contact with private landowners will need to be conducted before the survey efforts. Additional agency coordination and consultation also will occur to determine overall project strategy and identify any specific issues and concerns relating to cultural resources situated in and in the immediate vicinity of the project area. It is assumed that such coordination will include attendance by EDAW’s senior cultural resources


-22-

specialist at one (1) project start-up meeting with the City and with state and federal agencies as necessary. Meetings and other agency contacts will ensure that there is a clear understanding between various regulatory agencies and EDAW’s cultural resources team regarding project approach, implementation, and deliverables.

TASK J SUMMARY

Deliverables: Presentation graphics and handout materials

Meetings: Four (4) interim draft EIR project team meetings with the City, to be attended by up to four EDAW staff members

One (1) coordination meeting with the City and RWQCB and up to two meetings with other resource agencies, to be attended by two EDAW staff members

One (1) coordination meeting with the City and state or federal agencies, to be attended by EDAW’s senior cultural resources specialist

EDAW’S OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE EIR

EDAW’s scope of work and cost estimate are based on the following assumptions. • For the purpose of this scope, it is assumed that environmental impact analysis will focus on

wastewater treatment and the demonstration reuse project. If any other facilities from the Master Plan, or from other sources, are to be included in the project, this scope may need to be refined.

• The City will prepare the distribution list and circulate the NOP/IS, draft EIR, and the responses to comments to any public agency commenting on the draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).

• If substantial changes to the work program are required for the EIR based on meetings with responsible agencies and on NOP comments, an amended scope of work and budget augmentation would be required.

• EDAW assumes the project description will not change, to the degree it would change the impact conclusions, once the EIR is initiated and the project description is approved.

• The City will arrange all necessary rights of entry. • The City will provide stenographic, or similar, documentation services for the scoping

meeting, and other public meetings and hearings, if desired.

Task K. Permits

At this point in time, it is uncertain what specific regulatory approvals and/or permits will be necessary for the project and the extent to which technical studies beyond the EIR will be needed


-23-

to support permits. The applicable permits and scope and supporting analysis will be determined as issues arise in the EIR development. However, EDAW will assist the City with initial regulatory agency consultations for several key permit processes, and develop additional scope and budget for providing regulatory strategy and oversight at the later stages as appropriate. The scope is not intended to be all inclusive; rather, the intent of this scope is to complete the steps necessary to develop an ultimate program for the procurement of permits. For this contract, the following services are included: • EDAW will provide initial coordination for the current most time-consuming regulatory

approval processes including Clean Water Act Section 404 compliance and Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. EDAW will coordinate with Carollo and the City, as well as staff from Yolo County involved in the NCCP/HCP as appropriate, and will conduct initial consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, to the degree these agencies are responsive to meet within the timeframe of the EIR. We will develop a regulatory approval strategy for the project. Initially, EDAW’s regulatory specialists will coordinate with the City and Carollo once the specific project elements and location of facilities and pipeline routes have been determined and assessed.

• EDAW will also assist the City with the initial coordination and strategy development for a series of other permits that are often associated with construction-related activities for large municipal wastewater projects including the YSAQMD air quality permit, DFG Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement process, Regional Water Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Regional Water Board NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity, USACE Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit, Reclamation Board encroachment permit, and State Lands Commission lease agreement. The scope includes initial contact with regulatory agencies and the development of a permitting work program. The program will include the following elements: 1. Permits to pursue, by agency and type, 2. Data needs that will be required by each agency 3. Schedule, based on our working understanding and consultation with relevant agencies,

for permit procurement. • This scope assumes that EDAW will not provide any coordination of permits specifically

applicable to the City’s general construction contractor such as local grading and erosion control ordinances, right-of-way encroachment approvals, and Caltrans encroachment permits. EDAW will also not provide any coordination with the Regional Water Board NPDES stormwater permit for general industrial activity that is applicable to operations at the WPCP site itself.

• Please note that the budgets are preliminary, and would increase if the City elects to use the EDAW team to procure permits.

Amendment No. 1 Attachment B-1 Fee Schedule Page 1




Amendment No. 1

Attachment B-1

Fee Schedule A. Compensation For items listed in Attachment A, Scope of Work, the City shall compensate

Consultant on a time and materials basis with a not-to-exceed amount of $2,122,395.

Task TOTAL 1. Secondary/Tertiary Process Confirmation $ 291,739 2. Preliminary Design Engineering 721,685 3. Collection System Pipeline Rehab 119,076 4. Permitting (Allowance) 74,339 5. CEQA Environmental Documentation 466,079 6. Public Outreach / Education 77,604 7. Project Funding Assistance and Financial Review 20,468 8. Yolo County Landfill Coordination Assistance 36,709 9. Finalize Master Plan 26,219 10. Preliminary Design Management /

Administration 190,843

B. Reimbursable Expenses 1. The hourly billing rate as indicated in Attachment B-2, Charge Out Rate,

shall cover standard overhead and profit, including telephone charges, miscellaneous copying costs, first class postage and computer use. These expense items shall not be reimbursable as separate expenses or fees.


2. Other reimbursable expenses specific to the project are itemized below: a. For round trips exceeding 100 miles, mileage will be reimbursable

at prevailing rate as established by City; otherwise, mileage is included in overhead as part of the multiplier.

b. Express Mail. c. In-House Graphic Services 11" x 17" Computer Prints………………..$0.75/Print 13" x 19" Computer Prints………………..$1.50/Print 8.5" x 11" Color Prints……………………$1.00/Print 11" x 17" Color Prints…………………….$2.25/Print d. Third Party Reprogragraphic Services: invoice plus 5%. e. Other items as may be pre-approved by City. C. Mark up Mark up for subconsultants shall be limited to 7.5 percent. D. Additional Services Should the City desire that Consultant provide additional services, such services

shall be authorized, in writing, by the City. Compensation for additional services shall be at the Attachment B-2, Charge Out Rate.





Amendment No. 1

Attachment B-2 Charge Out Rate

Classification Hourly Rate Engineers/Scientists Assistant Professional 111.00 Professional 142.00 Project Professional 158.00 Lead Project Professional 191.00 Senior professional 205.00 Technicians Technicians 72.00 Senior Technicians 124.00 Project Equipment Communication Expense (PECE) per DL Hour

5.36