Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso. 1985 - 006 - Approving the contract to prepare responses to the fws/bor evaluation report and cdfg and nmfs letters to the lake red bluff power project and authorizing the mayor to execute the same 110 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING THE CONTRACT TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE FWS/BOR EVALUATION REPORT AND CDFG AND NMFS LETTERS ON THE LAKE RED BLUFF POWER PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding as follows: 1 . The City of Redding does hereby approve the Contract to Prepare Responses to the FWS/BOR Evaluation Report and CDFG and NMFS Letters on the Lake Red Bluff Power Project; and 2 . The Mayor of the City of Redding is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Redding and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the Mayor and to impress the official seal of the City of Redding on the aforesaid contract; and 3 . A true copy of said contract referred to herein is attached hereto and made a part hereof. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was intro- duced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 7th day of January , 1985 , and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Demsher, Fulton, Pugh, & Kirkpatrick NOES : COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Gard ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None N HOWARD D. K RKPITRICK, Mayor City of Redding • ATTEST: ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk FORM APPROVED: RA DALL A. HAYS, it. " Attorney -2- • • 111 CONTRACT TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE FWS/BOR EVALUATION REPORT AND CDFG AND NMFS LETTERS ON THE LAKE RED BLUFF POWER PROJECT Prepared for City of Redding Electric Department 760 Parkview Avenue Redding , California 96001 Prepared by EA Engineering , Science , and Technology, Inc . 41A Lafayette Circle Lafayette, California 94549 January 1985 T. ,nf 111 • STATEMENT OF WORK EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc . ( EA) will prepare responses to : 1 . Evaluation Report (ER) of The Potential Impacts of the Proposed Lake Red Bluff Water Power Project on the Fishery Resources of the Sacramento River , prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and dated October 1984 2. Comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dated October 30, 1984 3. Comments from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dated October 31 , 1984 . 4. Letter from the Department of the Interior dated December 3, 1984 . The responses will consist of a General Response plus 2 Appen- dices. The General Response section will bring up the main points that : 1 . The ER and NMFS and CDFG letters are one-sided attempts to block the project , ignoring the extent to which the Applicant has attempted to work with the agencies to design an environmentally responsive project . 2. The benefits of the project over the existing conditions are all but ignored and are discredited because they may not completely solve the problems of the existing dam. The proposed project does offer enhancement , but at this 1 410 i point the agencies appear to want much more than the mitigation that reasonably should be required . 3. The Applicant believes that the agency staff approach to the Red Bluff Power Project License Application as evidenced in their responses, is exactly the opposite of what it should be. The agencies, in their comments , make little effort to suggest improvements in the Applicant ' s fish protection facilities. Rather , they spend all of their effort attempting to discredit the Applicant ' s studies and design. 4. The agencies have gone out of their way to ignore or discredit studies done by the Applicant . A case in point is their observation that "Preliminary investigations , currently being conducted by the Service' s Fisheries Assistance Office at Red Bluff , indicate that juvenile predation by Sacramento squawfish . may be a major problem, especially during periods of nightime illumination of RBDD (David Vogel , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 1984) ." No mention is made that this problem was first diagnosed and the solution proposed by the Applicant as a part of the preliminary permit field studies . Further- more, in their catalog of studies done at RBDD ( ER, Appendix C) the agencies ignore the studies done by the Applicant . 5. When the agencies suggested alternative fish screening and passage facilities, FERC requested the Applicant to supply a de8igh and cost for them, and the Applicant delivered the additional information to FERC and all of the agencies . The agencies , however , when making their responses, chose to ignore the additional information and design provided by the Applicant , even though it was provided well in advance of the preparation of their 2 411 • reports . Most of their comments are therefore largely irrelevant , since they were made on an earlier project design . Because of this fifth point , response to many of the comments in the ER is somewhat academic . However , since the tone of the agency ' s comments is so negative, and since the comments include errors of fact and misleading statements, a point-by-point response is appropriate and necessary. This point-by-point response will be made in Appendices A and B. Appendix A will be a discussion of all points made in the Evalua- tion Report that remain in contention even with the addition of fine-mesh screen and new fishway entrances . Appendix B will discuss all issues raised by the agencies that will become moot with the addition of fine-mesh screen and an additional fishway entrance, and that would not have been raised if the agencies had considered the new design submitted to them (and to FERC) by the Applicant . 3 • 110 4110 APPENDIX A Untrue or Misleading Comments Made in the Agency Responses COMMENTS IN THE FWS/BOR EVALUATION REPORT ( ER) Comment A-1 : (pp. 4-30) The History of Fishery Resources in the Sacramento River presented on pages 4-30 of the ER report makes a number of observations about mean numbers of fish over various periods of time. It also cites various agency documents as sources of conclusions about predation . The discussion fails to address the uncertainty associated with the fish population estimates over the years , and is uncriti- cal of the bases for agency conclusions about fish population size and rates of predation . EA' s response will supply this critical review of the existing data base, both for popula- tion fluctuations and for predation . It will also discuss the irelevancy of the historical information to the design and operation of the proposed project . Comment A-2 : (pp, 31-43) The ER describes in great detail the economic value of individual salmon. The analysis appears to be an attempt to demonstrate the magnitude of the adverse economic consequences of the project . The Applicant acknowl- edges that salmon are valuable and doesn ' t see that estab- lishing the exact value has any importance for the proposed project , particularly since the Applicant intends to design a project which will improve fish passage problems that exist at present and result in an increase in value. EA will also comment on the very inexact science of calculating absolute value. ( It is interesting that the Agency ' s worst-case esti- mate is $3 . 2 million [ including multipliers ] , whereas the project , during the first year of operation , will produce a similar dollar value of power production even without any inclusion of economic multipliers. ) 4 • Comment A-3: (p. 44) The ER states that there is at present a delay to upstream migration of sexually mature spawners and that this delay is detrimental . EA will point out the nature of the studies resulting in this conclusion , and will agree. Comment A-4: (p. 44) The ER cites Hallock ( 1981 ) as the author- ity that juveniles released above the dam return at a lower rate than those released below it . EA will call attention to the FWS analysis refuting this conclusion , our own analysis, and the current results obtained in 1984 ( to the extent available) . Comment A-5 : (p. 44) The ER speculates that there is increased predation on juveniles in Lake Red Bluff over the preexisting condition . EA will point out the complete absence of data on this subject . Comment A-6 : (p. 44) The ER identifies predation on juveniles as a problem downstream from RBDD, but cites no evidence. EA will put this issue into perspective. Comment A-7: (pp. 46-48) The ER briefly identifies the Tehama- Colusa Canal Diversion and Fishery Problem Study, the Interim Action Measures Program, and the Fish Passage Action Program as being important factors in opposition to the Lake Red Bluff Power Project . But , as in the past , they offer only the most sketchy description of the measures . For example , they fail even to mention the installation of a new fish ladder in the center of the dam, an activity that had been completed and tested by the time the ER was released . EA will discuss the significance -of each of these measures to the installation of the Lake Red Bluff Power Project , and will point out that the addition of the power project will aid in evaluating the impacts. 5 • Comment A-8 : (pp. 51-53) Part VII of the ER (Analysis and Dis- cussion of the Proposed Lake Red Bluff Water Power Project) is written in a manner that would imply to a reader unfamiliar with the existing situation , that everything is fine at present , and the proposed project will only make things worse. For example, the first sentence under "Design Considerations for Fish" states that "Upstream passage of adult chinook salmon, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout, American shad , and other fish , will be delayed or otherwise adversely impacted if adequate upstream passage facilities are not provided", and that the proposed "...design consider- ations for [ upstream] adult passage are deficient". It then goes on to describe the "deficiencies" in detail. No mention is made in this section of the fact that the existing situa- tion is abominable , with fish delayed as long as 40 days , that the BOR and FWS have been attempting all sorts of minimal fixes , and that the proposed project is almost certain to be better than any of these band-aid attempts by the agencies. Comment A-9 : (p. 54) The ER indicates that the fishway should exit upstream into an area of positive flow--that design considerations should include extending the left fishway exit upstream. EA will indicate the Applicant's willingness to do so . Comment A-10 : (pp. 55-56) The ER states that the curtain wall will not effectively guide fish, and that it would be detrimental to downstream fish passage. They go on to describe its deficiencies in great detail as though it were central to the Applicant 's fish protection scheme. EA will point out that it was proposed following a meeting with the agencies in which they raised the issue that the migrants would be at the surface and susceptible to such diversion. EA will indicate the Applicant's willingness to withdraw the suggestion. No credit was taken for it by the Applicant in any case. EA 6 • 111 will also take the Agencies to task for non-constructive comments about everything that we suggest and for failing to provide alternative design features for inclusion. Comment A-1l : (p. 61) The ER cites the agency studies or evi- dence that high predation exists at RBDD, and suggests that the project will increase predation. EA will address the inadequacy of the agency studies for reaching such conclu- sions, and will explicitly describe the control approach proposed by the Applicant in much greater detail than previously. We will also point out that greater upstream passage will go far toward reducing predation. Comment A-12: (p. 62) The ER claims the Applicant has indicated that the project will reduce juvenile mortality by not releasing bypassed fish into a turbulent flow field and by reducing total turbulence downstream from the dam. It fails to mention that fewer juveniles will pass under the dam , fewer predators will accumulate downstream from the dam when passage is improved , and that the Applicant will aid the agencies in discouragement or removal of predators. All of those points will again be made. Comment A-13 : (p. 62) The ER implies that the Applicant relied on electrofishing data and ignored superior SCUBA data on predation obtained by them. In fact , the agency collected the SCUBA data after the application was filed , and has not as yet published them or made them available to the Appli- cant. EA will attempt to obtain those data and incorporate them in the response. Comment A-14 : (p. 62) The ER cites studies suggesting that electrofishing may have short- term value in discouraging predators. In fact , no studies were done , and in any case , short-term discouragement is preferable to no discouragement. They also cite Hallock as stating that extensive electro- 7 • • fishing will have adverse impacts. The Applicant does not intend to do extensive electrofishing--rather the electro- fishing will be done from fixed electrodes near the tailrace, and will be done judiciously to achieve control. EA will address this and point out that the agencies have failed to come up with any superior method. Comment A-15 : (p. 65) The ER states that the project will require removal of wells, pumps, and hatchery facilities. EA will find out just what this entails, and will indicate the Applicant's willingness to replace them (pointing out that, as stated in the Application, the Applicant already intended to do so). Comment A-16: (p. 66) The ER cites the Application (p. 2.11) as indicating that with the project , any material on the right' bank of the river would remain 4 times as concentrated as without the project. EA will indicate that the Application does not reach this conclusion, and in fact provides evidence that no such problem will exist. The ER also states that the suggested measures to protect water quality have been tried and failed. EA will describe specifically what has been done, and the results (to the extent we can figure it out). Comment A-17: (p. 66) The ER states that increased fish passage problems with the project will decrease the effectiveness of Coleman National Fish Hatchery. EA will argue that the project will enhance rather than interfere with passage. Comment A- 18 : (p. 77) The ER claims the project will interfere with the effectiveness of mitigation measures for the Cotton- wood Creek project, the Lake Redding Power Project, and other projects . EA will point out that for some reason the agencies condone the Cottonwood Creek project , which clearly will have adverse effects on the salmon and steelhead , and are actively trying to block the Lake Redding project. 8 ! • EA will specifically answer similar comments for the CDFG, NMFS, and Interior Department letters by referring to the answers to the FWS/BOR document on which they are based , and will answer any additionally identifiable arguments. • 9 • • APPENDIX B EA will compile an annotated list of all complaints of all agencies that would be alleviated if the fine-mesh screen proposal is implemented. Some of the specific comments that will be addressed are the following : Comment B-1 : (p. 53) The ER states that the FWS/BOR analysis of the proposed attraction flows to the fishway finds them to be inadequate based on a conclusion that the time required for chinook salmon to find the entrance would be excessive. EA will point out that this conclusion is not based on any evident line of reasoning , and that in spite of their cal- culations about the appropriate attraction flows, they fail entirely to recognize that the tailrace is the attraction flow. Also , in discussing the inadequacies of the Appli- cant 's proposed attraction flow, they fail to note the current situation in which fish are attracted to Gate 11 with no hope of getting through the curtain wall to the right fish ladder. They also reach unsupportable conclusions about the effect on attraction of operating only one of the turbines. EA will attempt to clarify their reasoning. Comment B-2 : ( pp. 56-60) The ER reiterates the agencies ' previous comments against louvers. EA will refute them point • by point (once again). Comment B-3 : (pp. 60-61) The ER again misinterprets the Olson and Kaczinski data on turbine mortality, and implies that the Applicant relied on them arbitrarily, rather than carefully considering all available data -and choosing the most repre- sentative as a model. EA will correct the misinterpretation, Comment B-4 : (p. 59) The ER makes the case that louvers are being abandoned all over , because of poor efficiencies. EA will examine the two cases they identify for relevance, and 10 • 111 will introduce data from the T.W. Sullivan plant in Portland , Oregon, which shows louvers to work very well. Comment B-5 : (p. 59) The ER attacks louvers as being hard to keep clean, but completely ignores the difficulty in keeping fine-mesh screen clean. EA will call this to the attention of the agencies. Comment B-6: (p. 60) The ER comments that the "exceedingly low average velocities (0.45 fps)" adjacent to the fine-mesh screen section of the louver bypass will encourage predators. EA will point out that these velocities are not as low as those required by the agencies (0.33 fps) for the fine-mesh screen array that they have recommended. Comment B-7: (p. 65) The ER claims that turbine mortality will' be a completely new mortality source, and therefore unaccept- able. EA will again put the magnitude of the mortality into perspective, and reinforce the accuracy of the original calculations . Comment B-8: (pp. 68-69) The ER makes extensive calculations on turbine mortality and entrainment , based on louver effi- ciencies different from those used in the Application. EA will demonstrate that the FWS/BOR assumption of 70% louver efficiency is incorrect , and that therefore the calculations are incorrect. In addition , the calculations appear to be wrong for other reasons, and EA will find out why and comment on it. A comparison will be made between the worst-case analysis made by the agencies and that made by the Applicant. Comment B-9: (p. 69) The ER implies that based on T-C Canal fyke net data, the application seriously underestimated the number of fish in the river . EA will explain why the ER is incorrect on this point , and will explain why the population 11 modeling done in the RBDD Exhibit E did not detect the smolts released by Coleman National Fish Hatchery in October 1982. Comment B-10 : (p. 71) The ER converts lost salmon into adult equivalents, and then estimates the number of fish lost by the project. EA will expose the fallacy of this argument by recourse to the ecological literature. Comment B-11 : (p. 71 ) The ER also calculates steelhead smolt mortality. EA will show that no steelhead smolts will be killed . Comment B-12 : (p. 74) The ER calculates that 300 ,000 salmon smolts from Coleman National Fish Hatchery will be lost to turbine mortality. EA will show that none of these would get through the louvers. Comment B-13 : (p. 74) The ER objects to the project based on long-term production goals for the Sacramento River. EA will point out the meaninglessness of these goals. Comment B-14: (p. 77) The ER glibly concludes that the project will cause fish losses worth $3 , 329 ,000 annually. EA will comment on this conclusion. Comment B-15 : (p. 79) The ER complains that the Applicant does not offer compensation for adverse impacts. EA will rein- force the lack of adverse impact expected , and comment on the fact that when the project is already producing benefits, it is unreasonable for the agencies to continue to negotiate for additional enhancement measures. 12 i • ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE The response is due at FERC on February 1 , 1984 , consequently it must be sent by courier no later than January 31 . We will supply draft material to the City of Redding as completed on January 21 . Our Draft Final version will be sent to the City via Federal Express on January 25 . Any changes will be done on the 28th and 29th in conjunction with our agency meeting , and either we or the City will send the final comments to FERC by Federal Express on January 31 . • 13 • • ANTICIPATED COST This work will be conducted on a time and materials basis for a not-to-exceed amount of $19,000. Labor will be billed at actual cost plus 1.6 times actual cost. Direct costs and consultants ( individuals) will be billed at direct cost plus 0.25 times direct cost. Computer time will be billed at a flat rate of $20/hour. Consultants to be used may include Dr. Craig Heller, a Professor at Stanford University, and Dr. James Harder , head of the Hydraulics Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. Others may be used at our discretion as the work proceeds. ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this day of , 1985 CLIENT: City of Redding Address: 760 Parkview Avenue Redding , CA 96001 BY : ,,FOIM APPROVED and dre, 47 CITY LEGAL DEPT_ EA Engineering , Science , &Technology , Inc. 41A Lafayette Circle , Lafayette , California 94549 BY: - - TITLE: Director , Western Operations This contract includes the attached General Terms and Conditions . 14 • • EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1 . It is understood that this proposal is valid for a period of ninety (90) days. Upon the expiration of that period of time, Ecological Analysts , Inc . ( EA) reserves the right to review the proposed basis of payment and fees, to allow for changing costs , as well as to adjust the time of performance to conform to work loads. 2. Invoices will be submitted on a monthly basis , terms net thirty ( 30) days. Past due balances shall be subject to interest at the rate of 1 .5 percent per month or the maximum permissible under state law, whichever is less. In addition , EA may, after giving seven (7) days written. notice, suspend services under any agreement until all past due accounts have been paid . 3. The proposed fees constitute our best estimate of the charges required to complete the project as defined . Except as provided in Paragraph 4, the project scope will not be altered without mutual written agreement . For many projects such as those involving process development work, planning work, or environmental impact assessments, all activities are often initially not fully definable. As the project progresses, the facts uncovered may dictate a change in direction which may alter the scope. EA will promptly inform the client of such situations so that negotiation of change in scope can be accomplished as required . 4. Costs and schedule commitments shall be subject to renegotiation for unreasonable delays caused by the client ' s failure to provide specified facilities or information , or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences , or force majeure , such as fires, floods, strikes , riots, 15 • I unavailability of labor or materials or services , process shutdown, acts of God or of the public enemy, or acts of regulations of any governmental agency. Temporary work stoppage caused by any of the above may result in additional cost (reflecting a change in scope) beyond that outlined in this proposal . 5. Where the method of contract payment is based on a time and material basis, the minimum time segment for charging of field work is four (4) hours . The minimum time segment for charging of work done at any of EA' s offices is one-half hour . Where applicable, rental or use of specialized apparatus, instrumentation , or technical equipment and the calibration thereof will be charged to the project . 6 . Salary increases will become effective immediately upon company authorization and will be reflected in the next invoice submitted to the client . 7 . Expenses properly chargeable to the work shall include : travel and living expenses of personnel when away from the home office on business connected with the project ; shipping and production costs; identifiable drafting and word processing supplies ; equipment usage and rental fees ; and expendable materials and supplies purchased specifically for the project . A 10 percent handling and administrative charge will be added to all project expenses . 8 . This agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this agreement through no fault of the terminating party , providing that no such termination may be effected unless the other party is given : ( 1 ) not less than thirty ( 30) calendar days written notice of intent to terminate , and (2) 16 r • 4 an opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination . A final invoice will be calculated on the first of the month following receipt of such cancellation period ( the effective date of cancellation) . a. Where method of contract payment is "lump sum" , the final invoices will be based on the percentage of work completed to the effective date of cancellation , plus 5 percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost . b. Where method of contract payment is based on time and materials, the final invoice will include all services and direct expenses associated with the project p to the effective date of cancellation, plus 5 percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost . c . Where method of contract payment is cost plus a fixed fee , the final invoice will include all costs to date of termination and a pro-rate share of the fixed fee plus 5 percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost . The closeout cost referred to in subparagraphs 6a, b, and c is not to be considered as a penalty, but represents an allowance for demobilization of personnel and equipment and costs not available on short notice. 9 . EA will maintain insurance coverage in the following amounts : Workmen ' s Compensation Statutory Employer ' s Liability $ 100 , 000 General Liability Bodily Injury/Property Damage including Contractual $ 500 ,000 Liability 17 • Automobile Liability Bodily Injury/Property Damage $ 500,000 Excess Liability $5 ,000 ,000 The City of Redding , its officers, agents and employees will be named as additional insureds. Premiums for insurance in addition to the above-stated normal coverage, when requested , will be charged to the project and subject to reimbursement . 10. All specifications, drawings, operating procedures, and technical information held proprietary by EA and furnished by EA in connection with this agreement , but not developed as a result of work under this agreement or under prior agreements between client and EA, shall be held confidential by client , be used only in connection with the performance of the agree ment or in litigation to which the objectives of the agreement pertain , and be returned . to EA at completion of performance or conclusion of litigation . All inventions , techniques , and improvements held by EA to be proprietary or trade secrets of EA prior to use of same on behalf of client , as well as all inventions , techniques and improvements developed by EA during but independent of the services rendered to client under this agreement , shall remain the property of EA or other clients of EA as appropriate. 11 . EA will prepare all work in accordance with generally accepted professional practices, and it is not the intention of EA to provide o'r offer to provide services inconsistent with or contrary to such practices, nor to make any warranty or guarantee , expressed or implied , nor to have any agreement or contract for services subject to the provision of any Uniform Commercial Code. Similarly, it is not the intention of EA to accept those items and conditions offered by the 18 • • client in its purchase order , requisition , or notice of authorization to proceed except as set forth herein or as expressly accepted in writing . 12. If the services covered by this contract are subject to local or state taxes or fees (except state income taxes) , such additional costs will be charged to the project and subject to reimbursement . 19