Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso. 1985 - 253 - Approving the contracts between the city of redding and ch2m hill and the city of redding and ea engineering scienceRESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDDING AND CH2M HILL AND THE CITY OF REDDING AND EA ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO THE LAKE REDDING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAME. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Redding hereby approves the contracts between the City of Redding and CH2M Hill, in an amount not to exceed $27,000.00, and the City of Redding and EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $170,845.00, for professional services needed to prepare an EIR for the Lake Redding Project and for assistance in the preparation of a detailed salmon habitat study plan. 2. The Mayor of the City of Redding is hereby authorized and directed to sign all necessary documents 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 documents, when appropriate. 3. A true copy of the contracts 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 18th day of November 1 1985, and • was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote: AYES • COUNCIL MEMBERS • Demsher, Fulton, Gard, Pugh, & Kirkpatrick NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 'H WARD D. K RKPA RICK, Mayor City of Redding ATTEST: C3 e�l�c-C �! •.� ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk FORM APPROVED: RAALL A, HAYS, ' C . y Attorney -2- CH2M :HILL CH2M HILL AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Date November 8, 1985 CH2M HILL OFFICE ADDRESS P.O. Box 2088, Redding, California 96099 PROJECT Lake Redding Hydropower PROJECT R 201.46 NAME NUMBER CLIENT City of Redding ADDRESS 760 Par„kyiew Ayen�,�e gadding., California hereby requests and authorizes CH2M HILL to perform the following services: COMPENSATION to be on the basis of Fixed fee of $27,000 If technical or professional services are furnished by an outside source, an additional_% shall be added to the cost of the services for CH2M HILL's administrative costs. MISCELLANEOUS See Attachment B for Insurance Terms. Services covered by this authorization shall be performed in accordance with PROVISIONS stated on the back of this form. Approved for CLIENT By Title: Accepted or CH,2M HILL }LL By__l _I/".p L Title: Department Manager Water Resources REV 11/82 FORM 1240 PR0VIS10NS 1. Authorization to Proceed Signing this form shall be construed as authorization by CLIENT for CH2M HILL to proceed with the work, unless otherwise provided for in the authorization. 2. Salary Costs CIA2M HILL'S Salary Costs shall be the amount of salariss paid CH2M HILL employees for work performed on CLIENTS Project plus a stipulated percentage of such salaries to cover all payroll -related taxes, payments, premiums, and benefits. 3. Per Diem Rates CH2M HILL'S Per Diem Rates- are those fees published in each of CH2M HILL'S offices, which are charged for work performed on CLIENT'S Project by CH21VI HILL employees of the indicated classifications. 4. Direct Expenses CH2M HILL'S Direct Expenses shall be those costs incurred on or directly for the CLIENT'S Project, includ- ing but not limited to necessary transportation costs including mileage at CH2M HILL'S current rate when its automobiles are used,, meals and lodging, laboratory tests and analyses, computer services, mag -card typewriter services_ telephone, printing and bindingcharges. Reim- bursement for these Expenses shall be on the basis of actual charges when furnished by commercial sources and on the basis of usual commercial charges when furnished by CH2M HILL. S. Outside Services When technical or professional services are furnished by an outside source, when approved by CLIENT, an additional amount shall be added to the cost of these services for CH2M HILL's administrative costs, as provided on the reverse side of this agreeme:it. 6. Cost Estimates Any cost estimates provided by CH2M HILL will be on a basis of experience and judgement, but since it has no control over market conditions or bidding procedures CH2M HILL can- not warrant that bids or ultimate construction costs will not vary from these cost estimates. 7. Professional Standards CFi2Pv1 HILL shall be responsible, to the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional engineers in the same type of work in CLIENT'S community, for the professional and technical soundness, accuracy, and adequacy of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other work and materials furnished under this Authorization. CH2M HILL makes no other warrant,, express or implied. 8. Termination Either CLIENT or CH2M HILL may terminate this Authorization by giving 30 days written notice to the other party. In such event, CLIENT shall forthwith pay CH2M HILL in full for all work previously authorized and performed prior to effective date of termination. If no notice of termination is given, relationships and obligations created by this Authorization shall be terminated upon completion of all applicable requirements of this Authorization. 9. Arbitration All claims, disputes, and other matters in question arising out of, or relating to, this Authorization or the breach thereof may be decided by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining. Either CLIENT or CH2M HILL may initiate a request for such arbitration, but consent of the other party to such procedure shall be mandatory. No arbitration arising out of, or relating to this Authorization may include, by consolidation, joinder, or. in any other manner, any additional party not a party to this Authorization. 10. Legal Expenses . — In the event legal action is brought by CLIENT or CH2M HILL against the other to enforce any of the obligations hereunder or arising out of any dispute concern- ing the terms and conditions hereby created, the losing party shall pay the prevailing party such reasonable amounts for fees, costs and expenses as may be set by the court. ! 1. Payment to CH21VI Hill Monthly invoices will be issued by CH2M H ILL for all work performed under the terms of this agreement. Invoices are due and payable on receipt. Interest at the rate of 1'/z% per month will be charged on all past -due amounts, unless not permitted by law, in which case, interest will be charged.at the highest amount permitted by law. 12. Limitation of Liability CH2M HI LL's liability to the CLIENT for any cause or combination of causes is, in the aggregate, limited to an amount no greater than the fee earned under this agreement. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be held illegal, the enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be impaired thereby. s,a 01 ATTACffMENT A 0 Engineers Planners Economists Scientists November 1, 1985 R201.46 City of Redding - Electric Department 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, California 96001 Attn: Mr. Rick Coleman Gentlemen: Subject: Proposal to Provide Engineering Services in Connection with the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Other Related. Work for the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project This letter is in response to your telephone call of October 24, 1985, in which you proposed to negotiate agree- ments with Ecological Analysts and CH2M HILL for .the prepara- tion of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As I L understand it, Ecological Analysts will be responsible for the environment -related issues and preparation of the draft - report, and CH2M HILL will be responsible for the engineer- ing, cost estimating, and economic evaluation of alterna- tives. I have discussed this proposal with Bob Harding, our Regional Manager, and we feel that this is a reasonable plan in which CH2M HILL would be interested in participating. As I understand it from our conversation, the scope of work will consist of the following: 1. Prepare conceptual layouts and designs for new dams and generating equipment capable of operating at maximum pool elevations of 487.5 (existing), 492.0 (proposed), and three intermediate levels. (Also, develop conceptual plan for utilizing the existing dam.) Provide copies of the layout drawings and design calculations to the,City. 2. Evaluate generation and revenue potential for each. of these concepts for three design flows, includ- ing the presently proposed design flow of 15,000 cfs. Existing flow -duration curves will, be used, r fi CH2M NIL INC. Redding Office 1525 Court Street. F.O. Box 2088• riacsding.Cali/prnio 96099 916.243.5831 r-� City of Redding Page 2 November 1, 1985 R201.46 3. :p :1 Estimates of the value of capacity and energy will be provided by the City. Evaluate alternatives for both the irrigation season (6 months) and for the year. Prepare order -of -magnitude cost estimates (plus 50 percent or minus 30 percent) for each of these alternatives. Prepare a table summarizing the relative economic merits of the alternatives. 5. Estimate the cost of transmitting power to the City of Redding from hydroelectric projects in outlying areas (on a cost -per -mile basis.) 6. Prepare order -of ---magnitude cost estimates for the Squaw Valley Creek, Pit River, and Iron Canyon hydroelectric projects. Data for each of these projects will be provided by the City. 7. Tabulate existing water surface profile data (for maximum pool elevation of 492.0), showing water surface elevations at intervals upstream from the proposed dam for various river flows. Provide this data to the City within one week of award of contract. 8. Present the results of the above tasks in a memo report for use by Ecological Analysts in preparing the draft EIR. 9. Prepare a budget -level cost estimate (plus 30 percent or minus 15 percent) for the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project, as described in the FERC license application dated February 1982. Full-scale drawings will be provided by the City. Break-out cost estimate per FERC requirements using itemized cost. We can complete the work outlined above by January 15, 1986, if authorization to proceed with the work is received early in November. • City of Redding Page 3 November 1, 1985 8201.46 • We propose to provide the above services for a not -to -exceed fee of $27,000 unless approvedby the City. Enclosed you will find two copies of our "Authorization for Professional Services" form. if the above accurately repre- sents your needs, and if the terms proposed in the agreement are satisfactory, please return one executed copy for our files. Sincerely, Neal P. Dixon, P.E. Department Manager, Water Resources RDCH/036 Enclosure CH2M ::HILL CH2M HILL AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES P.O.ox 2088Date October 28 1985 , Redding, CH2M HILL OFFICE ADDRESS g, Cali ornla 9 0 PROJECT Lake Redding Hydropower NAME PROJECT R 201.46 NUMBER CLIENT -City of Reddin ADDRESS 760 Parkview Avenue Re alifornia hereby requests and authorizes CH2M HILL to perform the following services: SCOPE: (See letter proposal attached) COMPENSATION to be on the basis of Fixed fee of $27,000 If technical or professional services are furnished by an outside source, an additional,% shall be added to the cost of the services for CH2M HILL's administrative costs. MISCELLANEOUS s Services covered by this authorization shall be performed in accordance with PROVISIONS stated on the back of this form. Approved for CLIENT Accepted far CH2M HILLj jV L By s is n, Title: Department Manager Title:. �# .r� Water Resources t T x t REV 11/82 FOPM i74A ATTACHMENT B The ENGINEER shall secure and maintain throughout the duration of this AGREEMENT insurance of such type and in such amounts as may be necessary to protect their interests and the interests of the CLIENT against hazards or risks of loss as hereinafter specified. The underwriter of such insurance shall be qualified to do business in the State of California. The certificates shall contain a provision that not less than 10 days' written notice will be given to the CLIENT before any policy or coverage is materially changed or cancelled. Without limiting the requirements hereinbe- fore set forth, the insurance coverages shall include a min- imum of: a. Workmens' compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State of California. b. Comprehensive automobile and vehicle liability insurance. This insurance shall be written in comprehensive form and shall protect the ENGINEER and the CLIENT against claims for injuries to mem-- bers of the public and/or damages to property of others arising from employer's use of motor vehi- cles or any other equipment and shall cover opera- tion with respect to onsite and offsite operations under this AGREEMENT, and insurance coverage shall extend to any motor vehicles or other equipment irrespective of whether the same is owned, non -- owned, or hired. The limits of liability shall not be less than the following: Bodily injury $ 250,000 each person Bodily injury $1,000,000 each occurrence Property damage $ 250,000 each occurrence C. Comprehensive general liability. This insurance shall be written in comprehensive form and shall protect the ENGINEER and the CLIENT against claims arising from injuries to members of the public or damage to property of others arising out of any act or omission to act of the ENGINEER or of any of its agents, employees, or subcontractors. The limits of liability shall not be less than the following: Bodily and $ 300,000 each person personal injury $1,000,000 each person Property damage $ 500,000 each occurrence $ 500,000 aggregate d. Unless specifically agreed upon by the ENGINEER. and CLIENT, the ENGINEER shall furnish profes- sional liability insurance coverage in an amount not less than $5,000,000 and subcontractors shall provide limits commensurate with the responsibil- ities of their work. e. The insurance coverages specified above shall con- stitute minimum requirements and the City of Redding, it officers, agents, and employees shall be named as co-insured or additional interest insured in insurance coverages identified in items "a" through "c." RDR44/009 0 PROPOSAL TO PREPARE AN EIR AND CONDUCT ASSOCIATED CONSULTATION FOR THE LAKE REDDING HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prepared for City of Redding Electric Department 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, California 96001 Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 41 Lafayette Circle, Suite A Lafayette, California 94549 November 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THREE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE 2 2.1 Scenario 1: Coordinated EIR-EIS Prepared I and Reviewed Jointly 2 2.2 Scenario 2: EIR Following the Draft EIS 3 2.3 Scenario 3: EIR Prior to EIS 3 I 3. EA's PROPOSAL TO DO THE EIR 6 j i 3.1 Proposed Coordination and Consultation 6 s 3.2 Proposed Special Studies Responding to FERC's Request for Information and Other Identified Needs 10 3.3 Proposed Content and.Preparation of the EIR 13 4. EA QUALIFICATIONS AND PROJECT PERSONNEL 16 5. LABOR, COSTS, AND SCHEDULE 19 i i. 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Redding's duke Redding Hydroelectric Project has been under consideration for licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) since 1982. Considerable additional information has been provided since that,time to supplement the original data concerning fisheries issues. Most recently, FERC has initiated its process for preparation of an EIS under NEPA, and has requested further data, some of which may require time consuming field studies. Issuance of a draft EIS by FERC is probably at least six months to a year away. The Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project also will require environmental review at the state level meeting the specifications of CEQA. Although CEQA encourages preparation of joint EIR-EIS's, this requires cooperation with the federal agency, and FERC has expressed an unwillingness to _-cooperate. - The three courses of action that the City could follow in meeting CEQA. requirements are summarized below (Section 2), along with the major advantages and disadvantages of each. A proposal is then presented (Section 3) for following the third course of action, preparation of an EIR in advance of FERC's expected EIS, which is the procedure that EA believes would best serve the City's interests. Section 4 reviews EA's qualifications for conducting the proposed work and describes the project management and technical experience - of key. individuals who will be participating in the work. Section 5 itemizes labor and expenses associated with completing the proposed tasks, and presents an approximate -schedule. A fourth scenario, that of refusing to comply with CEQA, could be inferred as a possibility based on some FERC policy statements. - If the City followed this course, a very lengthy and expensive test case of Supreme Court magnitude would probably ensue. This scenario assumes that FERC would license -the project, but the state would refuse water rights. To adopt this approach to CEQA prior to FERC licensing, could endanger licensing and would certainly alienate state agencies and the public. No advantage would be gained by pursuing this fourth scenario at this time and no further discussion of the possibility is presented. • • 2. THREE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE The Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project will require preparation of an EIR because it has potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may require mitigation, and because it does not qualify for a categorical exemption. There are three different approaches the City can follow in meeting CEQA requirements. They are essentially to do the EIR-EIS jointly with FERC, to do the EIR following the EIS, or to do the EIR prior to the EIS. The feasibility, timing, effectiveness, and relative costs of each scenario are discussed. 2.1 SCENARIO 1: COORDINATED EIR-EIS PREPARED AND REVIEWED JOINTLY CEQA policy encourages cooperation with federal agencies to reduce paperwork and duplication of effort. Id-eally, the City would coordinate with FERC to prepare a single document meeting both NEPA and CEQA requirements, and to combine review.processes. An advantage to this scenario would be in reducing the level of confusion within agencies required to review and comment on the NEPA and CEQA documents. There is also a slight possibility that close coordination with FERC during preparation of a.joint EIR- EIS would help to convince FERC of the City's position, and would - promote licensing. The scenario of close coordination between the City and FERC appears infeasible, because- FERC has expressed its intent to prepare the EIS entirely independently, and to not coordinate with the City. FERC's position regarding coordination could conceivably be challenged based on technicalities, or could possibly be modified by persuasion,- but there are several disadvantages to the City in pursuing this scenario. First, and most important, trying to force cooperation through any form of intimidation could be expected to have unsatisfactory results - of almost any magnitude. Second, the City might expend a great deal of time and money on trips to Washington and other measures ,necessary during the coordination process, without any guarantee of a satisfactory outcome. Third, no matter how successful the cooperative effort was, the City would almost certainly have to accept compromises both in content and timing. Finally, cooperation with FERC would not promote coordination with responsible and trustee agencies in California. No time would be saved in obtaining state agency approvals. Coordinating closely with both FERC and state agencies to produce a single document satisfatory to all, would be complicated by the frequently conflicting approaches adopted by the various agencies., In short, even if FERC agreed to cooperate with the City in preparing and reviewing a joint EIR-EIS, this approach would involve complex and sensitive coordination issues, potentially high costs, and considerable loss of City control. 2 e 2.2 SCENARIO 2: EIR FOLLOWING THE DRAFT EIS The City could prepare and circulate an EIR based almost entirely on the Draft EIS issued by FERC. This approach would save money that would otherwise be spent either coordinating with FERC (Scenario 1), or preparing an independent EIR (Scenario 3). There are several disadvantages to this approach. First, the content of the EIS would be uncertain prior to its distribution, and the City might not agree with the logic or conclusions presented. It is likely that the City would be preparing extensive comments on the Draft EIS and at the same time making revisions appropriate to be released by the City as an EIR. This situation would appear adversary and could erode the relationship between FERC and the City. Public and state agency review of both the EIS and the EI.R would also be exceedingly difficult under these circumstances. A second disadvantage to waiting for the. Draft EIS is that of timing. If the City waits six months to a year for the Draft EIS, and then has to comment, make revisions, coordinate with_ state agencies, and go through the full CEQA process, another year could easily pass. Because of documented differences 'j between the EIS and the EIR, there could be further demands for data, and intensified confusion on the part of responsible and trustee agencies under CEQA. FERC might even delay --decision- ;. making pending the outcome of continuing agency consultations. 2.3 SCENARIO 3: EIR PRIOR TO EIS The City will maintain the strongest possible position by acting soon to prepare an EIR to be distributed and reviewed in advance of the EIS. The FERC has tentatively agreed to accept responses to their recent requests for additional information in the form of EIR sections. Overall, this approach is likely to save considerable time and to be most successful at promoting ..licensing. First, it is common practice and advisable in California, to proceed with CEQA processes simultaneously with, or even in advance of FERC review of hydroelectric projects. The SWRCB encourages early coordination on hydroelectric projects because of their need for extensive review prior to making water rights decisions. Typically, SWRCB review covers more issues and is in greater depth than other state agency or FERC review. This water rights review often emphasizes public hearings rather than requests for additional field studies, which tends to be the style of the FERC. Close coordination with SWRCB during preparation of an EIR can be expected to enhance their understanding of the project and lead to a more positive attitude. This will be an important factor in dealing with the negative testimony that can be expected from CDFG during coordination and hearings. By moving ahead with an EIR, coordinated with the SWRCB Water Rights Division, Environmental 3 • l� Unit,, state agency review requirements will be facilitated without offending FERC. Coordination with CDFG and other involved agencies can be pursued in the same time frame. Second, cooperation and influence with FERC may be promoted by moving ahead with an EIR, especially if it has been prepared with close SWRCB and CDFG coordination. NEPA allows federal agencies to use environmental documents prepared by an agency of statewide jurisdiction. Thus, if the SWRCB and CDFG have been involved with the EIR process, the City still maintains control, but there is a possibility that FERC would adopt portions of the EIR as their own. FERC°s willingness to accept new information in. the. format. of the EIR implies that they may be prepared to use much of the EIR directly for their EIS requirements. Third., the.City and EA are thoroughly familiar with the data: base from which- FERC will be preparing the EIS. The EIR will be prepared using the same data base, and a clear line of well supported reasoning to reach impact and mitigation conclusions. The better this information is understood by all agencies, the better are the chances for project approval. The existing body of project documentation, produced over a period of several years, probably is difficult for the average reviewer to assimilate. A strong and clear EIR will be easy to adopt and hard to refute. The availability of the .EIR at an early stage will facilitate decision-making processes. Fourth, the City position will not be damaged even if the FERC EIS, published during or after the Draft EIR reviews includes information or conclusions contradictory to the EIR. This situation would be less difficult than trying to correct possible misconceptions promoted in an EIS that was reviewed in advance of an EIR. In exploring a theoretical case with the SWRCB staff head of the environmental unit, Ray Dunham, the following opinions were expressed: • The SWRCB would welcome early consultation. • Preparation of an EIR ahead of the EIS would be fine as long as FERC refuses to allow a joint document. • The SWRCB process to consider water rights is likely to take longer than the FERC review period under NEPA, so that starting early would definitely be to the applicant's advantage in terms of timing. • If necessary, significant conflicting or additional information found in the FIS could be handled in a supplement to the EIR. 4 • If, when acting on the water rights application, the SWRCB anticipated a high potential for later availability of new information, they probably would in some way reserve their jurisdiction to alter relevant permit conditions after the new information was reviewed. • State agencies are bound by the CEQA legislation, and 4_ although they view federal EIS's as informational, it is the EIR that is the basis for decision-making. These opinions were independently confirmed by other discussions of a theoretical case with experienced existing and former staff of the Environmental Unit of the Division of Water Rights, by the experience of certain EA clients, and by EA knowledge of other previous cases. Although EA would welcome a qualified legal opinion about potential EIR-EIS conflicts, this would need to be based ---on- a careful --review of the Lake Redding Project, and : is - beyond the scope of this proposal. A fifth advantage of Scenario 3 is that by starting the CEQA compliance process as soon as possible, the City._will-have. the greatest opportunity to develop and enhance political and public support for the project. The City is interested in full disclosure and public acceptance of the project. The CEQA process is the public's opportunity to become involved in decision-making. - Public information should be an important part of the CEQA process for the Lake Redding Project, and should be well underway by the time the NEPA process initiates public involvement. In summary, EA believes that the City will maintain the greatest amount of control, and will best promote its chances for licensing, by acting as soon as possible to prepare an ]EIR to be distributed for public and agency review in advance of the FERC EIS. EA suggests that there are further advantages to be gained by preparing the EIR in close consultation with the SWRCB and CDFG. Although this approach will incur some expense to the City over the next few months, the overall costs of CEQA compliance are likely to be smaller than with other scenarios. A proposal for preparing, coordinating, presenting, and defending an EIR follows in -Section 3. Special studies are proposed to provide information specifically requested by FERC or otherwise important to developing the EIR. 5 3. EA'S PROPOSAL TO DO THE EIR EA's experience in the regulatory arena and continuing involvement with the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project gives them the necessary background to assist the City with the CEQA process in a cost-effective manner. Section 4 summarizes the qualifications of EA and key project personnel for doing this work. This section describes the proposed tasks involved in accomplishing the work. EA proposes to participate in agency and public coordination, to conduct necessary special studies, and to prepare Draft and Final EIRs for the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project. It is important that coordination be adequate (leaning toward generous) and fully documented. Special studies will respond to FERC requests for specific information. It is extremely important that the EIR be clear, objective, and as conclusive as possible. The proposed scope of work is intended to meet these objectives, but some continuing flexibility in- the scope will be important in responding to needs determined during consultation. 3.1 PROPOSED COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION Coordination and consultation during the CEQA process will focus on promoting an_understanding of the project with the public and with responsible and trustee agencies under CEQA. The EIR certified by the City should also meet the needs of the SWRCB for assigning water rights. This will. best be achieved by initiating_ early consultation with the SWRCB, the CDFG, and other responsible agencies, and by involving the staffs in scoping and review of the EIR. One objective should be to meet the S`,YRCB's need for water rights hearings during the City's normal public hearings that will be held on the Draft EIR. The tasks that are described below are based on our current understanding of the division of responsibilities and approaches normally used with EIR studies for which the City is Lead Agency. Task 1. Refine Proposed Scope of Work and Outline EIR 1.1 Prepare an annotated EIR outline identifying every project issue that will be discussed, and listing the types of data and/or field studies that are or will be available and are expected to be used in addressing that issue. This document will be used during EIR scoping, will be updated when appropriate, and will facilitate of the Draft EIR. This outline may to the City's Initial Study and before and after scoping rleetings, as preparation be: attached distributed desired. 1.2 Meet with Electric Department, Planning Department, and/or other City representatives to refine the proposed approaches, tasks, and EIR outline as desired. Task 2. Initiate CEQA Process 2.1 Prepare a brief project description and status report to be used by the Planning Department to circulate with the Notice of Preparation. Update and include the annotated EIR outline. 2.2 Fill out the City's standard Initial Study form for the project, to be attached to the Notice of Preparation. 2-.3 Assist the City in developing.a_mailing list for the CEQA process that will include all responsible and trustee agencies, interested citizen and private organizations, and any landowners applicable under the City's noticing policies. Task 3. Initiate Agency Coordination 3.1 Contact SWRCB, Division of Water Rights, and CDFG, to determine who will be their liason and meet with them informally to determine their preferred scenario for scoping and review. 3.2 Contact other responsible and trustee agencies, distribute annotated outline, and conduct an agency scoping meeting in Sacramento. 3.3 Prepare minutes of the meetings to be reviewed by the City, revised as needed, and if desired, distributed to meeting participants. 3.4 Identify alternative solutions to potential problems revealed as a result of the meetings, review these approaches with the City, and adjust EIR outline or scope as desired. Task 4. Initiate Public Participation 4.1 Participate in a public scoping meeting that is organized and conducted by the City, in Redding. 4.2 Prepare presentation graphics addressing the flooding issue raised previously by the public. Use water surface elevation data provided by the City. i � • 4.3 Review meeting minutes prepared by City. Recommend an approach to dealing with any new issues raised and adjust EIR outline or scope as desired. Task 5. Reevaluate and Adjust Proposed EIR Scope 5.1 Review with City all refinements to the annotated .EIR outline and all approaches to be followed in dealing with potential difficulties. 5.2 Meet informally with SWRCB and CDFG liasons to review project developments based on agency and public scoping. Task 6. Review and Revise an Administrative Draft of the EIR Preparation of DEIR material is discussed in Section 3.3). 6.1 coordinate with City, CDFG liason, and SWRCB liason, as_needed_, on -content of sensitive EIR sections. 6.2 Meet with Electric Department and Planning Department staff to discuss revisions to the Administrative Draft. 6.3 Make proposed revisions to the Administrative Draft and review it with CDFG and SWRCB liason. 6.4 Review SWRCB and CDFG comments with City, providingproposed r p p evasions. 6.5 Make authorized revisions to the Administrative Draft, and provide 2 sign -off copies of the Draft EIR for final City approval. 6.6 Deliver 100 copies of the Draft EIR to the Planning Department for distribution. 6.7 Provide text to Planning Department for Notice of Completion. Task 7. Participate in Public Hearings 7.1 Prepare layout for 2 newspaper ads. 7.2 Prepare draft of a "staff report" to 'accompany Draft EIR in Planning Commissioners' packets. f 8 =z_ i wr 9.2 Prepare draft responses and send feview copy to - the- City. Pi 1x� 7.3 Participate 9.3 Discuss responses with SWRCB liason and, if in the City's normal public hearing N process at 2 Draft EIR, Planning Commission meetings on,the 9.4 Prepare Final EIR, which will consist of verbal providing presentation graphics, a ------ presentation questions, as needed. of issues, and reponse to 7.4 Review minutes of the meetings g prepared by the City. Task 8. Continue Agency Coordination 8.1 Review agency comrlents on the Draft EIR with the x City. 8.2 Discuss comments, as appropriate, with relevant agency personnel and assemble any new information that may be cited. 8.8 Conduct up to 4 meetings with agencies and the i City to discuss resolution of issues -and prepare___! and distribute minutes. 8.4 Review status of agency positions with City and �t with CDFG and SWRCB liason and- develop an < approach to responses. ,ff Task 9. Prepare Final EIR rpY 9.1 Assemble and organize all written comments and transcripts of hearings to be provided by the y City. 9.2 Prepare draft responses and send feview copy to the- City. Pi 1x� Y 9.3 Discuss responses with SWRCB liason and, if Possible, include information that will satisfy SWRCB N that the Final EIR is adequate for its use. 9.4 Prepare Final EIR, which will consist of a response to comments section, and provide 2 Sign— off copies for final City approval. L id" t 9.5 Deliver 100 copies of the Final EIR to the Planning Department for distribution. Task 10. Support Certification of the Final EIR and Project Approval 10.1 Provide draft text of any findings Or Statement of Overriding Considerations that may be appropriate for the City to consider. 4 9 F „k,• 10.2 Participate in one public meeting in Redding to certify the EIR. j 10.3 Prepare text of the Notice of Determination. r 3.2 PROPOSED SPECIAL STUDIES RESPONDING TO FERC's REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND OTHER IDENTIFIED NEEDS On 27 August 1985, FERC requested that the City provide additional information in support of its Lake Redding Project ' license application. Subsequently, the City has agreed with FERC staff to a revised schedule for these submittals an s d has proposed to include the information in the EIR. The tasks described in this section are essentially special studies, required by FERC, that are appropriate for inclusion in the EIR. A table in the EIR will specifically reference sections where the requested -�� information is provided. *' As indicated, the City will provide information needed to prepare certain portions of the special studies mainly pertaining to the ;need for power and the selection .of alternative projects. Where - existing reports or data are not adequate to cover the topics, EA will interview appropriate City personnel and/or_worl* directly with City" staff to reconstruct or develop the necessary Information. - Task 11. Develop Approved Scope for Predicting Salmonid Spawning Habitat Changes To be implemented simultaneously with EIR coordination and preparation.) 11.1 Coordinate with FERC, CDFG, U.S. Fish and. ! Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine exactly the objectives of the additional information requested by FERC on page 1 of their 27 August 1985 request. 11.2 Review existing studies and data and potential ' alternative studies and modeling with the agencies. Examine the feasibility and effectiveness of various scenarios for field studies, modeling, data analysis and interpretation, using on-site investigations where needed and practicable. 11.3 Stork with the agencies to develop a consensus of opinion regarding the details of a scope of work, the completion of which will satisfy their questions about the extent of potential spawning habitat changes resulting from the proposed project and the specified alternatives. Prepare draft study plans. 11.4 Review draft study plans with FERC. revisions and review with agencies. Finalize Plan for responding to FERC request. Task 12. Elaborate the Construction Scenario for the Project 1201 Present monthly labor force and payroll information provided by the City, and consistent with cost estimates and Exhibit C of the license application. Adjust the construction scenario and schedule described in Exhibit C, if indicated, to reflect information provided from the costing study,,and to include construction of proposed mitigation facilities such as a fish hatchery. Respond specifically to FERC item 1 request within 60 days, referencing relevant EIR sections. 12.2 Using information from the City used in the east estimating, Prepare a series of site Plans,. - ,to -Show the locations and sequence of construction activities involving cofferdams and major excavation. The potential for water -quality and sedimentation impacts will be described and related to seasonal river discharges, life cycle requirements of the salmon, and the expected effectiveness of measures that will be used to minimize impacts.. Dr. James Harderf_ an engineer and hydrologist from the University of California at Berkeley, will assist EA with this evaluation. Task 13. Estimate Economic Impacts of Reduced Salmon Runs 13.1 Determine what is the "worst-case scenario _ for project impacts to the salmon runs assuming no project mitigation, and assuming full mitigation at a level of reasonable reliability. 13.2 Review existing assessments of the economic value of salmon. Correct and adapt these methods to provide the information requested by FERC in i.ten; 2, to be provided within 60 days, referencing relevant EIR sections. Dr. Michael Hanemann, professor in the Department of. Agricultural and Resource Economics at U.C. Berkeley, will assist EA in this work:. 13.3 Use historical catch records, to help estimate regional versus national, and commercial versus recreational effects. Quantify Project effects using a no -mitigation scenario and a reasonable range of assumptions for various causes of salmon mortality. Describe; potential economic effects assuming full project mitigation. 11 estimates. Respond directly to FERC items 10-12 requested within 30 days, using references to all relevant sections of the EIR. i Task 15. Provide Status of Negotiations Regarding Keswick 15.1 Combine relevant information from Task 14.4 with j information and documentation from the City and Bureau of Reclamation to describe the status of j negotiations regarding project impacts on power generation at Keswick. 15.2 Compare the value of the increased head for power C production at Lake Redding to the resultant losses at Keswick, and discuss the feasibility of a power exchange. The viability of the project with and without tailwater encroachment will be reviewed, and the current attitude and demands expressed by the Bureau will be described. i Respond directly to FERC item 4 requested within 30 days, using references to the relevant EIR sections. Task 16. Determine Consequences of Proposed Inundation 16.1 Obtain from the City details of the expected water surface elevation within the proposed pool at representative locations and at different flows including a 100 -year flood event. Also obtain the duration of elevations at each location. r 16.2 Determine the extent of inundated area, map and describe vegetation, land use and ownership, and aesthetics of the innundated and adjacent areas. Provide graphics and other documentation. _ 16.3 Evaluate the effects of inundation, recommend mitigation measures, and prepare graphics to explain the post -project condition. Expert opinion regarding effects on vegetation will. be provided by Dr. Andrew Leiser, Department of Environmental Horticulture, U.C. Davis. 3.3 PROPOSED CONTENT AND PREPARATION OF THE EIR The EIR for the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project will be based almost entirely upon existing data and results of the special studies.. To the extent feasible, the EIR will incorporate material directly from the Exhibit E and subsequent submittals to the FERC. The EIR will be written clearly, demonstrating exactly how conclusions are reached, based on the best available data.. Supporting technical studies will be summarized and cited. Some existing documents may be converted to appendices, if necessary. 13 I All drawings generated by EA that are larger than 8 1/2 x 13 inches will be provided on mylar. In addition to the special studies described in Section 3.2, some subject areas covered lightly in the Exhibit E will be updated or supplemented for the EIR. Revisions will incorporate an assessment of proposed mitigation measures as part of the proposed project. Topics such as growth -inducing impacts, short- term versus long-term effects, and other sections necessary for CEQA compliance but not required by FERC, will be added. The tasks described below are numbered sequentially following Tasks 1 through 10 described for proposed coordination and consultation and Tasks 11 through 16 describing special studies. Most of the EIR preparation tasks would be conducted concurrently with Tasks 1 through 6. Some of theproposed work might be adjusted to meet needs identified during public and agency scoping o Task 17. Prepare_Current_Project Description -- - - 17.1 Details of the proposed project description, including fish facilities, and construction and operation scenarios will be reviewed with the City. Much of thiswork-will depend on special study tasks. 17.2 Text and figures from Exhibits A, B, C, D, F and G describing the project will be used as applicable or revised and compiled into a project description meeting CEQA requirements. City to provide press -ready originals of existing applicable figures. 17.3 Describe intended uses of the EIR. Task 18. Describe Existing Conditions 18.1 Compile material from Exhibit E and subsequent documents to prepare a deta.i.led but. concise description of existing resources in the project area. 18.2 Supplement or update existing information as needed, including photographic documentation for aesthetics, applicable updates of land use and socioeconomics, Iadditional detail on how recreation will relate to proposed fish facilities, relationships of water quality to other proposed projects, and check of sensitive species list relative to current CNDDB records 18.3 Prepare preliminary draft text, and assemble documentation. 14 figures, tables, In Task 19. Identify Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation easures 19.1 Develop fisheries impact scenarios based on existing data of seasonal comparisons of expected conditions relative to existing conditions. Describe methods, assumptions, and supporting documentation for arriving at quantitative assessments of each type of impact. Document rationale and effectiveness of each proposed mitigation measure. 19.2 Describe other expected project impacts and proposed mitigation measures as approprite, for subjects including aesthetics, land use, recreation,- ripar-ian resources,--water--quality-, and cultural resources. 19.3 Describe existing and expected cumulative effects of water resource development projects, fishery management practices, and industrial and other activities on fishery resources. Emphasis will be to give perspective to the.. magnitude of any_ impacts or mitigations from the proposed project. A history of salmon in the Sacramento h --ver will be provided as a technical appendix. 19.4 Prepare required impact summary sections including short-term versus long-term. effects, irreversible changes, significant unavoidable adverse effects, growth --inducing impacts, and energy implications. Task 20. Describe Alternatives to the Proposed Action 20.1 Assemble documentation of project alternatives using material provided by special study tasks.. 20.2 As appropriate, prepare material regarding alternative fishery mitigation measures Task 21. Provide Report and Consultation Documentation 21.1 Assemble list of contacts, meetings, etc., and summarize public and agency consultation. 21.2 Prepare bibliography and assemble cited documents. A complete set of cited documents plus an annotated bibliography will be provided to the City. 15 • • 4. EA QUALIFICATIONS AND PROJECT PERSONNEL IEA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) is a national firm providing environmental and related engineering services. Approximately 250 professional level employees are located in 5 ,offices across the country. Attachment A is a corporate brochure describing the company and explaining the range of services ,available. EA was founded to provide professional environmental services to the electric• utility industry. Although the clientele has ,broadened over the years, the electric utility industry remains the company's largest client sector. EA has worked under prime contract to over 75 electric utility companies, with multiple contract awards with many of them. EA staff members have performed over 1,000 man-years of professional services.on behalf �of--the electric utility industry in the past 12 years.. 4Y1 ,Table 1 (included as Attachment B) summarizes EA- work in 'representative environmental projects performed for electric utilities and related clients. In.nearly all these projects, EA was prime contractor to the-facility/owner. In a few of the projects, EA was subcontractor to an A/E firm. This table does not present an all-inclusive list of contracts, but one intended i .'!to demonstrate both the diversity of the projects performed and ,the range of utilities who have employed our firm to conduct environmental studies relating to the impact assessment and licensing of major generating and industrial facilities. In California, EA has been working for electric utilities since 1976. These studies have included designing and conducting extensive monitoring programs at existing thermal power plants, conducting site selection studies for thermal and hydroelectric plants, route _selection and environmental documentation for transmission facilities, and licensing and mitigation studies for numerous proposed hydroelectric developments. Table 2 (included as Attachment C) lists most of EA's hydroelectric_project studies in California. Outside of the power generation industry, EA has done environmental work relating to water resource development, ¢lood control, waste discharge, transportation, land development, and recreation. Many of EA's projects have required EIRs under CEQA, as well as other environmental documentation. Project summaries for representative projects are included in Attachment D. Almost all of EA's studies involve agency consultation and negotiations at levels ranging from carrying out routine discussions and documentation to providing expert testimony. EA has good raport and credibility with the agencies reviewing natural resource issues, and our work is respected and trusted by individuals who have been assigned to monitor our studies. EA. has contributed to the development of methodologies adopted by the agencies, and has also been selected by groups such as U.S. 16 i Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, Electric Power Research Institute, and others to critique available methodologies, evaluate existing and proposed standards, and resolve scientific and research issues. The proposed EIR work for the Lake Redding Hydroelectric Project will be conducted under the direct supervision of Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Vice President of EA and Director of Western Operations. Dr. Emil Morhardt will actively participate in most project tasks., and will conduct most of the agency consultation dealing with sensitive fisheries issues. This effort will be a natural follow—up to Dr. Morhardt's extensive involvement, to date, in agency consultation regarding the Lake Redding Project. In 19831, EA negotiated data analysis techniques and interpretations with USFWS, CDFG and NMFS, and prepared several technical supplements supporting the Lake Redding :.__License application. Most recently, Dr. Morhardt participated during FERC's site visit, and attended informational and scoping meetings at FERC headquarters. The continuity of Dr. Mbrhardt's involvement throughout Lake Redding project licensing efforts will continue during the proposed-EIR studies. The project manager for the proposed EIR studies will be Dr. Sia. Morhardt, senior scientist at EA who is responsible for regulatory compliance. Dr. Sia Morhardt also has worked on. the Lake Redding project since the original license application was submitted, and was responsible for data processing and report preparation during previous studies. She specializes in -scoping s� ,and managing large multidisciplinary projects where numerous agencies and the public are involved in reviews. She has managed most of EA's larger projects requiring full Exhibit Es for FERC,. ski EIRs under CEQA, or mitigation negotiations with agencies. One 'of these was the Exhibit E for the Lake Red Bluff Hydroelectric Project. Her background includes 13 years in the environmenta}: consulting industry, working on water resource development and power generation projects subject to the regulatory requirements of.most major federal agencies and at least a dozen states. Dr. ' Sia Morhardt will conduct most of the work on the Lake Redding EIR Project. Several EA scientists and staff will assist with specialized portions of the proposed studies. Dr. Stephen Hansen, senior aquatic ecologist at EA, will assist with cumulative impact assessment and feasibility scoping for developing approved methodologies for any future habitat studies. Dr. Hansen participated previously with Lake Redding data analysis and i; !analysis of historical salmon fishery data. He also designed and supervised field, studies and analyses of fisheries, water quality, and hydrology data supporting. the Lake Red Bluff license ;application. Dr. Carl Mesick, fisheries biologist, will assist with the Lake Redding Project on tasks related to evaluation of fish mitigation 17 alternatives, development of an approved scope for any future 11 studies, and related issues. Dr* Mesick°s background is in experimental and applied methods to determine salmonid habitat preferences and requirements. Richard Fahey will assist with the project in areas relating to planning, land use, and economic data analysis. Nadine Ohara, a professional photographer and marketing research analyst who is in charge of EA graphics, will assist with visual impact assessment and will prepare presentation and report graphics. Additional EA' staff will include William Hurley, a water resources engineer, Ray Force, an attorney working on regulatory compliance, and George Read, EA°s managing editor. Three academic consultants, known for excellence in their areas of expertise, are proposed to be used in an advisory capacity on different issues. Dr. James Harder, Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at U.C. Berkeley, will assist with determinations of sedimentation 'impacts during project construction and operation. Dr. Andrew Leiser, Professor of Environmental Horticulture at U.C._ _ Davis, ---is _ an expert . on the effects of flooding on vegetation. He will provide expert opinion about how the changes in water surface elevation will affect existing vegetation.- Dr. .Michael Hanemann, Associate Professor of Agricultural and - Resource Economics at U.C. Berkeley, will assist with making econmic impact estimates requested by FERC regarding potential { project effects on the recreational and commercial fishery. Resumes for all EA staff listed above and for the consultants are included as Attachment E. ri 5. LABOR, COSTS, AND SCHEDULE t The tasks proposed in Section 3 cover coordination and consultation necessary during the CEQA process, special studies necessitated by FERC requests for information, and preparation of the EIR. Table 3 summarizes labor and costs by task for the proposed work. The total not -to -exceed cost of doing the work described in Tasks 1 through 21 for the Lake Redding EIR project is $170,840. EA's fee, or profit, is estimated at 10 percent of the total project cost. General terms and conditions of the contract are included as Attachment F. Figure 1 shows the approximate schedule for conducting proposed tasks. It is important for the work to start as soon as possible, and EA project staff are prepared to begin as soon as verbal authorization is given. ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS day of , 1985. CLIENT: City of Redding Address: 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, CA 96001 BY: Howard Kirkpatrick, Mayor and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 41 Lafayette Circle, Suite A Lafayette, California 94549 I BY: — - i J. Emil Mor ardt TITLE: Vice President _ This contract includes the attached General Terms and Conditions. ATTEST: Ethel R. Nichols, City Clerk FORM APPROVED: Randall A. Hays, City Attorney 19 TABLE 3 LABOR AND ODSM ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED TASKS RELATING To CEQA PROCESSES FOR THE LAKE RIDDING HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. Tasks is Coordination and Consultation Tasks Task 1 Outline and Refine 2 Initiate CEQA Process 3 Initiate Agency Coordination 4 Initiate Public Participation 5 Reevaluate and Adjust Scope 6 Review and Revise Administrative Draft EIR (100 copies DEIR) - 7 Participate in Public Hearings 8 Continue -Agency Coordination 9 Prepare Final EIR (100 copies) 10 Support Certification Special Study Tasks Labor Hours 3,800 Direct Task Senior Other "Support Costs Total Professional Professional Staff $ $ 60 40 16 300 6,000 22 - 8 150 1,780 78 - 29 1,000 6,795 28 - 44 1,300 4,220 28 - 6 300 2,270 124 - 63 4,300 13,935 38 32 500 3,770 116 32 ___12 806 9,760 84 - 48 2,300 8,960 34 4 300 2,610 ,.EIR Preparation Tasks 17 Prepare Project Description .18 Describe Existing Conditions 19 Impacts and Mitigation .20 Describe Alternatives 21 Documentation Total 128 58 3,800 19,480 40 Task 11 Develop Approved Scope 150 72 12 Elaborate Construction Scenario 40 120 13 Estimate Economic Impacts 68 0. 14 15 Need for Power and Alternatives Keswick Negotiations 88 20 102 16 Effects of Inundation 46 ,.EIR Preparation Tasks 17 Prepare Project Description .18 Describe Existing Conditions 19 Impacts and Mitigation .20 Describe Alternatives 21 Documentation Total 128 58 3,800 19,480 40 40 2,800 7,800 72 24 2,300 9,840 120 80 1,500 13,420 16 2 300 2,210 102 64 3,700 13,860 30 26 24 200 3,660 72 88 44; 11900 10, 760 136 100 92 -1,000 15,640 60 40 42 500 6,850 24 56 180 1,200 9,220 $ F 078,40 1 < o C m w .m. N e w 3 m.� 5 i .@. ' > ® ac e<f J N < c o v O O w _ at C, a = co O N F CL to t� cs4 o w rO. U ftl t4 w w F at m �a > w d N w 0 a�B 0 Xd •� o v Bl aO a m 0 0. iOV N U O :E m IL � t T Q to ! B B 1 111 LL V w co f 1 > ! / T 1 1 d g i 1 t Y d3 I- C' -1 N ;r W V 1 1 1 1 t 1 O 1 I a O i aJ z rA X O d 0- O w F» O a O m IL El O z z i 0 o C m w .m. N U) 3 m.� 5 i .@. ' > ® ac e<f c > o ac co N < c o v O c .. IL d at C, a = co O N F a u w t� cs4 o w rO. U ftl t4 w to at m �a > w !� O p < cc < W N w 0 a�B 0 a `>�, a •� o v Bl aO a m 0 0. iOV N U Y O < F- O V w co 0. > d O 9L ItJ Y d3 I- C' -1 N ;r W aJ i CL u N G m -r� a` o o E c ro d v o a! z 0 c to O a _ A ` c C � Q- rPki ro 1 O U 1 ` C Q 1 a4 QJ - - cm - fn 4; t C O U F O �• � dt'+ > f p t 1 � � 1 � � 1 1 m 1 H •r{ iJ }4 - GY F c U la m Cf±„ f 1 1 O N 1 U. O 1 1 i4 U J O m O U 'Q t F til c,c c C O A- ® 1 rt O O U I b TS — 1 U b O ` < U 0 m C v > 47 .f w U1 C 0 V O z z i 0 o C m w .m. N t71 ..a.s. — = co 3 m.� 5 i .@. ' > ® ac e<f c > o ac co a► ae a f` < c o v O c .. IL d at C, a = co O Y a u w t� cs4 o w rO. U ftl t4 w o O a Q at m �a > w !� O p < cc < W 3 fs mo n a I O w 0 a�B 0 a `>�, a •� o v Bl aO a m 0 0. iOV N Y Y O < F- V w co O > O 9L ItJ Y d3 I- -1 N ;r u N c m W a` o o E c v o z 0 c to O a _ A ` c C � Q- rPki Q 2 O U m ` C Q 3 a4 0 O cm C W C O > �� C � �. m GY c .. m Cf±„ ..CL 1L U J O m O U 'Q U O c C O iZ ® w O O U C ` — 'O U O ` < U 0 m C t- > U1 C 0 V y ao 7 !a (= W �Oy d ; U z ® 0% IL Q 01 ` V m Q C V m < C « C a) m b �, O z z i 0 o C m w .m. N t71 ..a.s. — = co 3 m.� 5 i .@. ' > ® ac e<f c > o ac co a► ae a f` < c o v O c .. IL d at C, a = co O Y a u w t� cs4 o w rO. U ftl t4 w o O a Q at m �a > w !� O p < cc < W 3 fs mo n a I O w 0 a�B 0 a `>�, a •� o v Bl aO a m 0 0. iOV N fr O O 0 Y O < F- V w co `1 Gli F- 9L ItJ Y d3 I- EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS �3 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 i 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 Dot 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. It is understood that this proposal is valid for a period of ninety (90) days. Upon Y the p expiration of that period- of time, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) 'I! ii reserves the right to g review the proposed basis of payment fp and fees, to allow for changing costs, as well as to adjust IM the time of performance to conform to work loads. �3 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 i 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 Dot 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. for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences, or force majeure, such as fires, floods, strikes, riots, 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 a 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 acid 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) r 2 calendar days written notice of intent to terminate, and (2) 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 I materials, the final invoice will include all services and direct expenses associated with the project up to the 3 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 asa closeout cost. i The closeout cost referred to in subparagraphs 6a, b, and c is not to be .considered as a penalty, but represents an s allowance for demobilization of personnel and equipment and costs not available on short notice. 3 9. EA will maintain insurance coverage in the following amounts: workmen's Compensation Employer's Liability General Liability Bodily Injury/Property Damage including Contractual Liability Automobile Liability Bodily Injury/Property Damage Excess Liability Statutory $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $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. 4 A. 11. EA will prepare all work in accordance with generally y accepted professional practices, and it is not the intention =r: of EA to provide or 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 Yn, ti Uniform Commercial Code. Similarly, it is not the intention of EA to accept those items and conditions offered by the 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. x