Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Contracts & Agreements_44-2023
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE MITIGATION OF SALT LOADING IN THE BUNKER HILL-B MANAGEMENT ZONE BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF REDLANDS This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Mitigation of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS, Salt) Loading in the Bunker HiII-B Management Zone is entered into and effective on the 25th day of January 2023 among the following listed Signatories: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District ("Valley District"), East Valley Water District ("EVWD"), City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department ("San Bernardino"), and City of Redlands ("Redlands"), collectively referred to as the "Parties". Recitals A. In 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy that encourages public agencies to recycle municipal wastewater as it becomes an increasingly valuable source of water for the State. The Recycled Water Policy was amended in 2018 to encourage development of groundwater recharge projects using recycled water. B. The Recycled Water Policy requires evaluation and management of salt and nutrient loading to groundwater as a result of basin -wide recycled water use for irrigation and/or recharge. Groundwater recharge project proponents are required to participate in applicable salt and nutrient management planning efforts. C. The Recycled Water Policy also requires Antidegradation Analysis (State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 68-16) for all groundwater recharge projects to determine if assimilative capacity is available for projected salt and nutrient loading. Individual projects are permitted to consume up to 10% of available assimilative capacity in a basin, while multiple projects may consume up to 20% of available assimilative capacity. D. Valley District is constructing the Regional Recycled Water Facilities which includes a recycled water conveyance system and a groundwater recharge facility known as the Weaver Basins. The conveyance system will allow recycled water to be conveyed from EVWD and San Bernardino facilities to the Weaver Basins. E. EVWD is constructing Sterling Natural Resource Center, a new water reclamation facility that will recycle wastewater from EVWD's service area and recharge it via Weaver Basins into Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone. F. San Bernardino is developing the Tertiary Treatment System, which will produce recycled water from the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) with the intent of beneficially using in and around WRP for general plant use and irrigation. Valley District's recycled conveyance system will convey recycled water from the WRP and will also convey recycled water produced by EVWD via a future pipe connection to Valley District's conveyance system for recharge via Weaver Basins into Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone. Page 1 of 5 G. Redlands has existing Waste Discharge Requirements for treatment and discharge of recycled water from its service area into Bunker HiII-B Groundwater Management Zone. Phase 2 expansion of its Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility will increase recycled water discharges via Redlands Basins. H. The Parties believe that through their cooperative work, they can treat and discharge recycled water in a manner that will maximize benefits to the Bunker HiII-B Groundwater Management Zone, the Parties, and their ratepayers. I. Using recycled water to replenish the Bunker HiII-B Groundwater Management Zone provides a drought tolerant water supply that improves water supply reliability for the Parties and the region and also provides a drought buffer for those agencies in the event of a prolonged drought. J. The Parties, together with a number of other water agencies, are working together to develop a collaborative regional plan — the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan — that supports increasing the use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment and other purposes, while also managing groundwater quality to provide the maximum benefits to the people of the State. K. The Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan is a multi -year effort and will not be complete before the Parties — namely EVWD's Sterling Natural Resources Center, and potentially San Bernardino's Tertiary Treatment System and Redlands' Phase 2 expansion of its Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility — require executed Waste Discharge Requirements for the recycled water discharge projects listed above. This MOU is intended to establish and implement salt mitigation commitments for the Parties, to be reflected in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan. Salt mitigation commitments may include regional groundwater quality monitoring, brine line discharge for high-TDS industries, optimized chemical use at wastewater treatment/reclamation facilities, a regional recycled water desalter, and enhanced upstream recharge of low-TDS water. L. The Parties wish to establish and agree to a framework for their working collaboratively toward mitigation of salt loading that will occur due to all the Parties' recycled water recharge operations within the Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone, prior to the implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan. Agreements 1. The Parties agree that they will work together in good faith to develop and implement a regional approach to salt mitigation in Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone, prior to the implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan. This may include a regional recycled water desalter and associated brine line, enhanced upstream recharge of low-TDS water, or other regional project constructed via partnership between all Parties that contribute salt loading to the basin. 2. The Parties agree that assignment of responsibility for salt mitigation shall be based on mass loading of salts to the basin by the Parties' recycled water contributions and overall benefit to the basin and its stakeholders, as calculated through a mutually agreeable Antidegradation Analysis or similar effort. Page 2 of 5 3. The Parties will continue to participate in the development of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan to manage salt and nutrient loading in the broader San Bernardino Basin Area and will support mitigation strategies for Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone in accordance with the responsibility structure set forth in paragraph 2. 4. The Parties will conduct collaborative reporting and assessment to document the assimilative capacity that is consumed by the Parties' recycled water recharges. Annually, each Party shall provide total discharge volumes and TDS concentrations to a mutually agreeable third party who shall calculate mass loading by each Party and calculate use of available assimilative capacity, both individually and cumulatively. 5. The Parties will collaborate on a Feasibility Study (conceptual design and engineering, alternative salt mitigation strategies, benefits analysis, economic modeling for cost share) for a regional recycled water desalter, to be completed by December 2024. The regional recycled water desalter will be defined in this Feasibility Study to serve as supporting documentation for funding pursuits. 6. The Parties agree to develop and execute a Funding Agreement for cost share of the Feasibility Study in Item 5 by March 2023. 7. Wastewater that goes through advanced water treatment processes (reverse osmosis) and is recharged to the Bunker Hill basin has additional regional benefits by contributing to removal of multiple water quality constituents that may be of concern to the Parties. The Parties shall also consider these regional benefits in the design of the regional recycled water desalter or other salt mitigation strategy. 8. The Parties will collaborate on development of a Salt Mitigation Implementation Plan for Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone, to be completed and submitted to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board by June 2025, which defines the selected mitigation strategy, operations, roles and responsibilities, cost share, and schedule. 9. The Parties will use 285 mg/L ambient TDS concentration as an "action limit" — once 10% of available assimilative capacity (5 mg/L increase over 280 mg/L ambient condition') is used in Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone, based on the collaborative reporting and assessment completed annually, the Parties shall begin implementation (final design and construction) of the regional desalter. Based on current modeling results, with implementation of a regional desalter, the action limit is expected to be reached in year 2027. 10. The Parties will ensure that the salt mitigation measures are constructed and operational by the time 20% of available assimilative capacity (10 mg/L increase over 280 mg/L ambient condition2) is consumed. Based on current modeling results, prior to construction and start-up of the regional desalter, total allowable assimilative capacity is expected to be reached in 2031. Construction of 'Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's 2020 Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in Santa Ana River Watershed for the Period 1999-2018 2 Ibid. Page 3 of 5 the regional recycled water desalter or other salt mitigation strategy will be completed by the end of 2031, with operation beginning in January 2032. With implementation of a regional recycled water desalter, cumulative TDS loading from the four regional partners will not exceed total allowable assimilative capacity within the model timeframe (60 years). 11. Should the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan analysis and findings be accepted by regulatory agencies in the future, and with consensus of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Parties may amend this MOU to revise the "mitigation strategies" in Paragraph 1 and/or "action limits" identified in Paragraphs 9 and 10 in order to be consistent with the Plan. 12. The Parties will collaborate via committee made up of the General Managers of each of the four Parties, or their designees. All decisions shall be made on a unanimous basis. 13. The Parties hereby authorize their respective General Managers or designees to develop administrative and operating rules and procedures that may be needed to implement the terms of this MOU. 14. All notices, requests, demands, or other communications required or permitted under this MOU shall be addressed as follows: SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Heather Dyer, General Manager 380 East Vanderbilt Way San Bernardino, CA 92408 heatherd@sbvmwd.com EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Michael Moore, General Manager/CEO 31111 Greenspot Road Highland, CA 92346 mmoore@eastvalley.org CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT Miguel Guerrero, General Manager PO Box 710 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Miguel.Guerrero@sbmwd.org CITY OF REDLANDS John Harris, Director, Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department 35 Cajon St Suite 15A Redlands, Ca 92374 Page 4 of 5 In witness whereof, the Parties have caused this MOU to become effective by their respective endorsements below: SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT By: Name: 14e ,41.1e. r r Date: 3 I R 1 7. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By: Name: Michae6 oore, General Manager/CEO Date: gil --7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT By: Name: Miguel J. Guerrero, P.E., General Manager Date: February 28, 2023 CITY OF REDLANDS Name: Charles M. Duggan r., Cityager Date: v-7/2 3 Page 5 of 5 ExhibitA Partnership Principles Partnership Principles Bunker Hill Basin Regional Recycled Water Coalition July 14, 2023 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this Partnership Agreement for the Bunker Hill Basin Regional Recycled Water Coalition (Coalition) is to outline the decision -making process among the agencies, articulate guiding principles for Coalition conduct, describe how consultants will be managed, and explain how new partners can be added as the partner agencies embark on beneficial projects and processes to serve the Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). The Guiding Principles derive from and include by reference the Memorandum of Understanding for the Mitigation of Salt Loading in the Bunker Hill-B Management Zone by and Between San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, East Valley Water District, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, and the City of Redlands (Coalition MOU). This Partnership Agreement is valid through submittal of the Salt Mitigation Implementation Plan to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, anticipated to occur in June 2025. Following submittal of the Salt Mitigation Implementation Plan, the Coalition shall revisit the Partnership Agreement and either amend the existing agreement or create a new agreement to best capture the next phases of the Coalition's efforts and corresponding commitments. 2.0 Coalition Partners The Coalition is made up of the following four agencies: ■ San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (San Bernardino Valley) ■ East Valley Water District (EVWD) ■ City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) ■ City of Redlands (Redlands) The core parties that make up the Coalition are described below. Coalition Boards/Councils The respective legislative bodies of the four agencies have designated representatives as Steering Committee members. Coalition Steering Committee The Steering Committee is responsible for determining appropriate salinity management strategies for the Bunker Hill-B GMZ. The following describes the current recycled water recharge operations of each Steering Committee agency. ■ San Bernardino Valley is constructing the Regional Recycled Water Facilities which includes a recycled water conveyance system and a groundwater recharge facility known as the Weaver Basins. The conveyance system will allow recycled water to be conveyed from EVWD and SBMWD facilities to the Weaver Basins. ■ EVWD is constructing Sterling Natural Resource Center, a new water reclamation facility that will recycle wastewater from EVWD's service area, convey it through San Bernardino Valley's recycled water conveyance infrastructure, and recharge it via Weaver Basins into Bunker HiII-B GMZ. ■ SBMWD is developing the Tertiary Treatment System, which will produce recycled water from the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) for beneficial use in and around the WRP (plant use and irrigation). Recycled water will also be conveyed through San Bernardino Valley's recycled conveyance system for recharge via Weaver Basins into Bunker HiII-B GMZ. ■ Redlands has existing Waste Discharge Requirements for treatment and discharge of recycled water from its service area into Bunker Hill-B GMZ. Phase 2 expansion of its Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility will increase recycled water production for distribution to recycled water end users and/or discharge to the Redlands Basins. The Coalition believes that through their cooperative work, they can treat and discharge recycled water in a manner that will maximize benefits to the Bunker Hill-B GMZ, their agencies, and their ratepayers. A map of the three recycled water projects located in the Bunker Hill basin is included as Figure 1 Coalition Administrator San Bernardino Valley has been determined as the Administrating Agency for the Coalition by the members of the Steering Committee. San Bernardino Valley will coordinate among the four agencies in development of a Bunker Hill Basin Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study). 3.0 Responsibilities The primary responsibilities of each party of the Coalition are identified below. Coalition Boards/Councils Each respective legislative body for the four Coalition agencies will be responsible for: ■ Receiving updates on the Feasibility Study and directing its Steering Committee members as it deems appropriate. ■ Approving an updated Memorandum of Understanding (or similar arrangement) outlining the Coalition's next steps following completion of the Feasibility Study. Coalition Steering Committee The Steering Committee shall be responsible for: ■ Participating in execution of this Partnership Agreement and development and implementation of an Outreach Strategy for Coalition activities. ■ Selecting an engineering firm to prepare the Feasibility Study. • Collaborating on the Feasibility Study for a regional approach to salinity management in Bunker HiII-B GMZ, to be completed by June 2025. • Reviewing and providing comments on the Feasibility Study. • Considering and approving any potential scope enhancements to the Feasibility Study, and sharing the additional costs equally at 25 percent, if any. • Collaborating on development of a Salt Mitigation Implementation Plan for Bunker HiII-B GMZ to be completed and submitted to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board by December 2025. Coalition Administrator San Bernardino Valley will be responsible for: ■ Serving as point -of -contact for coordinating with Coalition consultants, including managing any necessary Request for Proposals and procurement processes, as well as entering into an agreement with each of the Coalition consultants. • Day-to-day oversight of the Coalition consultants (grant writer, facilitator, engineer, and others as needed). ■ Tracking and invoicing of costs associated with consultant work, along with billing of equal share (25 percent each) to Coalition parties. • Coordinating with consultants on monthly progress reports to the Steering Committee. • Ensuring Title XVI planning grant obligations are met and reimbursements received (if awarded). 4.0 Decision Making The Steering Committee will seek to make decisions through consensus. Consensus is a form of decision -making that concludes only when all participants reach agreement. This does not mean that all participants must provide an unqualified "yes" on a decision; however, all parties must agree to support and implement it. To facilitate decision -making discussions when consensus is not immediately met, the following levels of consensus can be referenced to communicate how comfortable Steering Committee members are with moving forward with a decision. 1. I can say an unqualified "yes"! 2. I can accept the decision. 3. I can live with the decision. 4. I do not fully agree with the decision, however, I will not block it and will support it. 5. I do not agree with the decision and feel the need to stand in the way of this decision being accepted. If any members communicate that they are a level four or five on the consensus scale, the Steering Committee shall take the time to hear and consider additional ideas and reasoning. Figure 1: Map of Regional Recycled Water Projects Redlands Basins Regional Recycled Water Pipeline •--• Alternative Recycled Water Pipeline • WRF Upper Santa Ana Valley - San Bernardino Groundwater Basin - Basins 0 2,750 5,500 N Feet Weaver Basins Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2023. Additional sources provided by CA DNWR, 2019; USGS, 2022. In support of consensus -based decision -making, the Coalition parties agree to come to discussions with an open mind, view differences of opinions as helpful rather than harmful, and avoid changing their mind only to reach an agreement and avoid conflict. In the event a decision cannot be made through consensus and a majority vote is required, each agency will receive one vote, all of which will be weighted equally, and the decision with the most votes will move forward. 5.0 Membership Should an existing Coalition partner choose to exit the Coalition prior to completion of the Salt Mitigation Implementation Plan in December 2025, all monetary contributions from the date of execution of the Coalition MOU shall be forfeited. The Coalition MOU and Cost Share Agreement shall be amended to reflect the new Coalition membership. Should a new water or recycled water agency in the Bunker Hill Basin desire to join the Coalition during this timeframe, that new partner shall pay an equal share of all monetary contributions from the date of execution of the Coalition MOU. This share shall be held by the Coalition Administrator for use in Coalition -directed activities or redistribution among the existing partners as a reimbursement for early phase work. The Coalition MOU and Cost Share Agreement shall be amended to reflect the new Coalition membership. 6.0 Success Factors and Barriers to Success In April 2023, the Coalition partners identified how to define success for the Coalition's efforts and anticipated challenges the group will face. The following categories were used to define both the success factors and barriers: • Governance/Decisions Making • Stakeholder/Outreach • Technical • Regulatory • Schedule • Funding The activity responses were discussed at the Steering Committee meeting on April 20, 2023, and have been used to develop the Guiding Principles discussed below. 7.0 Guiding Principles Members agree to the following guiding principles to inform and guide Steering Committee deliberations, foster constructive discussions, promote a clear and shared set of expectations, and encourage collaboration. Dedicated Participation and Respectful Engagement Commitment to Collaborate. All members agree to work together in a constructive manner to meet key milestones. Understand that all agencies are equal and agree to support partner projects. Strive to reach consensus on positions of shared interest and proactively identify barriers for discussion and, where possible, resolution at the earliest opportunity. Once decisions are made will support successful implementation. Equitable Cost Share. All members agree to work collaboratively to develop a fair and equitable cost sharing agreement. No one is to benefit at the expense of others, and all parties agree to negotiate in good faith. Per the Coalition MOU, all members agree that future cost responsibilities for salt mitigation shall be based on the mass loading of salts to the basin by the members' recycled water contributions and overall benefit to the basin and its stakeholders, as calculated through a mutually agreeable Antidegradation Analysis or similar effort. Commitment of Time. Strive to attend meetings consistently; we need everyone at the table throughout. Contribute your thoughts and share our time so everyone can participate. Respect Others and the Process. Seek opportunities to share your perspective and understand the perspectives of others. Listen intently to what others are saying. Be honest and fair, and as candid as possible. If you hear something you do not understand, ask questions to clarify. If you hear something you do not agree with, help people understand your concerns. Support an Effective Process Rely on Credible Information. To foster effective dialogues, members agree to mutually support a transparent and inclusive process where parties commit to providing and relying on credible data and clear criteria to inform decision -making and to draw on the advice of the Feasibility Study consultant. Equitable Allocation of Assimilative Capacity. All members agree to work collaboratively to develop a fair and equitable allocation of assimilative capacity. All members agree to strive for consistency in their approach to permitting with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and have shared permitting expectations to ensure consistency in permit conditions and requirements across partner agencies. Support the Schedule. Provide timely responses and input to communication and deliverables and be transparent and timely in the delivery of pertinent information. Commit to meeting key milestones and provide adequate time for members and stakeholders when requesting information. State -of -the -Art Analysis. Commitment to a science -based process for identifying and evaluating technical alternatives and salinity management strategies. Be proactive and creative about potential solutions and benefits to regional stakeholders. Invest in Stakeholder Engagement Transparency. Commitment to address groundwater salinity at regional level, sharing information freely among partners and stakeholders. Strive for Consistent Communication. All members agree to support the development and communication of united messaging to stakeholder groups (including regulatory agencies) and collaborate on the direction of the messaging specific to the stakeholder. COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR BUNKER HILL-B MANAGEMENT ZONE FEASIBILITY STUDY This Cost Sharing Agreement for the preparation of a Feasibility Study related to the Mitigation of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS, Salt) Loading in the Bunker Hill-B Management Zone is entered into and effective on the 9th day of March 2023 among the following listed Signatories: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District ("Valley District"), East Valley Water District ("EVWD"), City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department ("San Bernardino"), and City of Redlands ("Redlands"), collectively referred to as the "Parties". Recitals WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board's Recycled Water Policy encourages public agencies to recycle municipal wastewater, including in the development of groundwater recharge projects, to enhance the State's existing water supply; and WHEREAS, the Parties, together with a number of other water agencies, are working together to develop a collaborative regional plan — the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt & Nutrient Management Plan — that increases the use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment and other purposes, while also managing groundwater quality to provide the maximum benefits to the State; and WHEREAS, the Parties believe that through their cooperative work, they can treat and discharge recycled water in a manner that will maximize benefits to the Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone, the Parties, and their ratepayers; and WHEREAS, using recycled water to replenish the Bunker Hill-B Groundwater Management Zone provides a drought tolerant water supply that improves water supply reliability for the Parties and the region and also provides a drought buffer for those agencies in the event of a prolonged drought; and WHEREAS, the Parties will collaborate on a Feasibility Study (conceptual design and engineering, benefits analysis, economic modeling for cost share) for a regional desalter, to be completed by September 2024; and WHEREAS, the Parties believe that there is potential to pursue and apply for available and qualifying grants, such as the WaterSMART FY2023 Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Grant Program. WHEREAS, the Feasibility Study is expected to serve as supporting documentation for future funding pursuits; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to establish and agree to a framework for sharing costs associated with the preparation of the Feasibility Study and related facilitation services. Page 1 of 5 Agreements NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of the last signature to this agreement, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2024, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. Termination or expiration of this Agreement will not excuse any Party from payment of costs incurred under this Agreement prior to the termination or expiration date. 2. Feasibility Study Steering Committee. The Parties will collaborate via committee made up of the General Managers of each of the four Parties, or their designees ("Steering Committee"), the purpose of which to be shall oversee and direct the selection of a consultant and preparation of the Feasibility Study. To support the work of the committee, the Parties intend to engage a consultant to provide facilitation services. The costs of the Feasibility Study preparation and of the associated facilitation services will be shared equally among the parties. All decisions shall be made on a unanimous basis. 3. Agreement to Share Costs. Each Party will be responsible for 25% of the invoiced costs associated with the development of the Feasibility Study, the associated facilitation services, and grant assistance services. Upon selection of final consultants for this work product, this Agreement will be amended to include as an exhibit the final scope of work and estimated budget for each of those consultant services. 4. Administering Agency: An Administering Agency will be appointed by the members of the Steering Committee by unanimous agreement of each Party's designated representative. The Administering Agency will be responsible for day-to-day oversight of the consultant, invoicing of costs, and providing progress reports to the Steering Committee. Valley District will be the initial Administering Agency. 5. Contracting for Feasibility Study. The Administrating Agency shall, in cooperation with the Steering Committee, prepare a Request for Proposals, identify appropriate consultant(s), and enter into a contract for the preparation of the Feasibility Study. 6. Contracting for Grant Assistance. The Parties agree to pursue qualifying grants to assist with potential funding for planning, design, and future construction of the regional desalter project. The Parties agree to apply any potentially awarded grants towards the costs of the regional desalter project. 7. Invoicing and Payment of Costs. The Administering Agency will submit invoices to each of the Parties for work based on the cost -share percentages specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. Invoices will be provided to the Parties quarterly, and are payable within 30 days of receipt. 8. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended from time to time. No alteration, amendment, or variation of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by all Parties. Page 2 of 5 9. Notice. All notices, requests, demands, or other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be addressed as follows: SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Heather Dyer, General Manager 380 East Vanderbilt Way San Bernardino, CA 92408 heatherd@sbvmwd.com EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Michael Moore, General Manager/CEO 31111 Greenspot Road Highland, CA 92346 mmoore@eastvalley.org CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT Miguel Guerrero, General Manager PO Box 710 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Miguel.Guerrero@sbmwd.org CITY OF REDLANDS John Harris, Director, Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department 35 Cajon St Suite 15A Redlands, Ca 92374 10. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a civil action to enforce any obligation under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (including but not limited to reasonable expert witness fees and costs) incurred in connection with such litigation. 11. Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matters hereof, and supersedes and replaces any prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, by and between them with respect to such matters. 12. Arms Length Negotiation. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is the product of mutual arms -length negotiations and accordingly, the rule of construction, which provides that the ambiguities in a document shall be construed against the drafter of that document, shall have no application to the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. Page 3 of 5 13. Titles & Captions. Titles and captions are for convenience of reference only and do not define, describe or limit the scope of the intent of the Agreement or any of its terms. Reference to section numbers are to sections in the Agreement unless expressly stated otherwise. 14. No Third Party Beneficiary. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the Parties or by any third person to create the relationship of principal and agent, or partnership or joint venture, or any association between the Parties, and none of the provisions contained in this Agreement or any act of the Parties shall be deemed to create any relationship other than as specified herein, nor shall this Agreement be construed, except as expressly provided herein, to authorize either Party to act as the agent for the other 15. Counterparts. This Memorandum may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 16. Authority to Execute. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal authority to execute and deliver this Agreement for or on behalf of the parties to this Agreement. Each Party represents and warrants to the other(s) that the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such Party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this instrument as of the Effective Date set forth above. Page 4 of 5 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT By: Name: AKor}4.ve.� �� r Date: 319 )20 7 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By: Name: Micha I Moore, General ManagerlCEO Date: / / CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT By Name: Miguel J. Guerrero, P.E., General Manager Date: February 28, 2023 CITY OF REDLANDS By: 2-1.4Q Name: Charles M. Duggan Jr., Cit "Ma der Date: V -7/2 3 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A Feasibility Study Final Scope and Cost Estimate Scope of Work The following Scope of Work is consistent with the scope of services included in the RFP and includes refinements and additional detail where needed. Task 0 Project Management Meetings 0.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ■ Manage project efforts including budget and schedule updates. ■ Conduct internal project coordination and manage resources. ■ Prepare monthly invoices and progress reports. ■ Project duration is assumed to be 18 months, with the Final Feasibility Study complete within 16 months followed by two months of limited work during USBR review. 0.2 ROUTINE COORDINATION WITH COALITION ■ Conduct one hour, monthly virtual meetings with the Coalition to provide updates on project progress, discuss project methodologies, review data needs, present interim results, and other coordination needs. The budget is based on 11 monthly meetings; additional Coalition meetings during the project will be used for workshops scoped in other tasks. ■ Conduct 30 minute bi-weekly check -in meetings with the Project Manager to discuss project status and coordination needs. The budget is based on 32 check -in meetings. 0.3 ALTERNATIVES REFINEMENT WORKSHOP Conduct a three-hour in -person Alternatives Refinement Workshop with the Coalition. The purpose of the workshop will be to: ▪ Review and discuss preliminary alternatives developed in Task 2.1. ▪ Discuss potential refinements to preliminary alternatives and identify new preliminary alternatives, as needed. ▪ Select up to five alternatives for further evaluation and review data needs and identify data sources that may be needed for further evaluation of alternatives. ▪ Develop a comprehensive list of evaluation criteria and associated numerical scoring rubric to be applied during the alternatives analysis in Task 2.2. 0.4 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING WORKSHOP Conduct a three-hour in -person Alternatives Screening Workshop with the Coalition. The purpose of the workshop will be to: ■ Review and discuss results of the Draft Alternatives Analysis developed in Task 2.2. Discuss potential refinements to the Draft Alternatives Analysis, as needed. ■ Review preliminary results of alternatives evaluation scoring and discuss whether adjustments to scoring or weighting factors are needed to calibrate the evaluation. ■ Discuss alternative weighting factors to be used for a sensitivity analysis, if desired. 1 0.5 ALTERNATIVES SELECTION WORKSHOP Conduct a two-hour in -person Alternatives Selection Workshop with the Coalition. The purpose of the workshop will be to: ■ Review and discuss the Updated Alternatives Analysis developed in Task 2.2, incorporating feedback from the Alternatives Screening Workshop. ■ Review results of updated alternatives evaluation scoring and sensitivity analysis. ■ Select a preferred alternative to be carried forward. ■ For the selected alternative, discuss options for adaptive management and potential offramps to other strategies in response to actual future conditions, as appropriate. 0.6 DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REVIEW WORKSHOP Conduct a two-hour in -person Draft Feasibility Study Review Workshop with the Coalition. The purpose of the workshop will be to review the content of the Draft Feasibility Study and receive comments and feedback from the Coalition. 0.7 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS Prepare presentation materials and conduct up to six (6) meetings with regional stakeholders. Meetings are assumed to be one -hour virtual meetings. The purpose and agenda of the meetings will be defined in collaboration with the Coalition but could be conducted at key project milestones. It is assumed that the Facilitator will coordinate strategy and schedule meetings and the WSC Team will prepare and present slides with technical content. 0.8 QA/QC Perform comprehensive quality control of all work items being prepared for delivery to the Coalition. Task 1 Kickoff and Data Collection 1.1 KICKOFF MEETING ■ Participate in a one -hour virtual kickoff meeting. Prepare short presentation on strategy for project delivery, data request, and other relevant items. ■ Key outcomes of the meeting will be: ▪ Shared goals and objectives for the project, including salt removal targets/ranges. ▪ Preliminary list of conceptual salinity management alternatives to be explored. 1.2 DATA COLLECTION ■ Review materials associated with the project, including Bunker Hill Basin Regional Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Understanding, Cost Share Agreement, Cumulative Antidegradation Analysis, SNRC Engineering Report and Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD), San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant ROWD, Redlands Water Reclamation Plant ROWD, and other documents as provided. 2 Task 2 Alternative Salt Mitigation Strategies 1.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ■ Beginning with preliminary alternatives discussed at the Kickoff Meeting, identify conceptual alternative salt mitigation strategies for consideration by the Coalition, including, but not limited to, construction of a regional recycled water advanced water treatment (AWT) facility, disposal of brine, expansion of surface water recharge, creation of regional pretreatment program, and others. ■ Develop preliminary planning -level concepts for each alternative, including potential location, sizing, infrastructure, treatment technology, brine disposal requirements, and phasing/timing. Articulate the specific objective and water supply and water quality benefits from the implementation of each alternative. ■ Compile explanatory charts, maps and graphics to support the discussion and refinement of alternatives at the Alternatives Refinement Workshop. Deliverables: Preliminary alternative materials will be provided to the Coalition for review two weeks prior to the Alternatives Refinement Workshop. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ■ Refine alternatives as discussed in the Alternatives Refinement Workshop. ■ Complete benefit/cost analysis for up to four (4) alternatives, including planning level cost estimates for capital costs, annual operation (including brine disposal fees), maintenance, replacement cost estimate, and life cycle costs. ■ Applying the evaluation criteria developed in the Alternatives Refinement Workshop, evaluate and score the various alternatives to support selection of the preferred alternative moving forward. ■ Update the Draft Alternatives Analysis to incorporate feedback from the Alternatives Screening Workshop. Deliverables: Provide the Draft Alternatives Analysis to the Coalition for review two weeks prior to the Alternatives Screening Workshop. Deliverables: Provide the Updated Alternatives Analysis to the Coalition for review two weeks prior to the Alternative Selection Workshop. Task 3 Draft Feasibility Study Due to potential grant funding for the project from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the Feasibility Study will be prepared in compliance with the USBR Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards (WTR 11-01). Compile identification and analysis of alternative salinity management strategies into a Draft Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study will include the following components: ■ Introduction. Identification of project sponsors and description/definition of study area showing the regional recycled water systems. ■ Statement of Problems and Needs. Describe key water resource management problems and needs for which the regional project will solve. Describe current and projected water supplies, including water rights, and potential sources of additional water other than the project. 3 Describe current and projected water demands, including imbalances. Describe water quality concerns for the current and projected recycled water supply and recharge activities. ■ Water Reuse Opportunities. ▪ Identify the sources of water available for reclamation in the study area, including the three planned recycled water projects in the regional program. Describe or categorize all uses for recycled water and identify associated water quality and treatment requirements. Summarize the current water market available, including existing and potential users, expected use, peak use, on -site conversion costs and, if necessary, desire to use reclaimed water, any consultation with potential reclaimed water customers, and the market assessment procedures used for the three projects. - Assumption: the Regional Recycled Water Concept Study and the respective ROWDs will be used to provide this content and that no additional analysis of recycled water markets is needed. ▪ Discuss water quality considerations of what may prevent implementation of the proposed recycled water recharge, as well as water quality improvements (TDS and other constituents of concern) that may accrue from a regional salinity management program. ▪ Identify methods or community incentives for salinity management associated with water reclamation and methods to eliminate obstacles which will inhibit the recharge of reclaimed water. ▪ Identify all jurisdictional water and wastewater agencies in the service area and the role they might play in salinity management. ▪ Describe any current salinity management in the study area and the projected wastewater and disposal options. ▪ Summarize current water reclamation and demineralization technology in use in the study area and opportunities for the development of improved technologies. ■ Description of Alternatives. ▪ Describe the range of salinity management alternatives considered in Task 2.1. State the specific objectives all alternatives are designed to address, including groundwater replenishment, reuse, and water quality improvement. Quantify the water supply and water quality benefits of the alternatives, including TDS and other constituents of concern as applicable. - Assumption: Groundwater replenishment alternatives and benefits will be based on the SNMP modeling scenario results and new model runs will not be performed for this project. ▪ Describe the proposed project including cost estimate, annual operation, maintenance, replacement cost estimate, and life cycle costs. Estimated costs to be presented in terms of dollars per million gallons (MG), and/or dollars per acre-foot of capacity, to facilitate comparison of alternatives. Describe any necessary waste -stream discharge treatment and disposal requirements. Describe one or more alternative technologies, including emerging technologies. ■ Economic Analysis. Analyze the proposed project relative to other water supply alternatives that could be implemented by the Coalition in lieu of a salt mitigation project needed to support groundwater recharge with reclaimed water. Describe conditions that exist in the area and provide future projections with and without the project. Provide a cost comparison of salt 4 mitigation alternatives. Describe other salt mitigation alternatives with appraisal level cost estimates. Provide a description of the qualitative benefits of the project. ■ Selection of the Proposed Project. Include justification of why the proposed project is the selected salinity management alternative. Analysis of whether the proposed project would address the reduction, postponement, or elimination of development of new or expanded water supplies; reduction or elimination of the use of existing diversions from natural watercourses or withdrawals from aquifers; reduction of demand on existing Federal water supply facilities; and reduction, postponement, or elimination of new or expanded wastewater facilities. ■ Environmental Consideration and Potential Effects. Include sufficient information to assess the compliance with National Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act. Discuss how the project will affect water supply and quality. Discuss public involvement and potential effects the project will have on historical resources, including mitigation measures. — Assumption: Existing environmental documents for the recycled water projects and the Upper SAR HCP will be referenced to provide the information needed for this section. If supplementary environmental information is needed, WSC can obtain the support of an environmental subconsultant. ■ Legal and Institutional Requirements. Identify any legal or institutional, state, and/or local requirements or barriers to implement the salinity management project. Analysis of any water rights issues potentially resulting from implementation of the project. Discuss the need for multi- jurisdictional or interagency agreements, any coordination undertaken, and any planned coordination activities. Discuss permitting procedures. Describe any unresolved issues associated with implementation and how and when such issues will be resolved. Identify current and projected wastewater discharge requirements. Describe rights to wastewater discharges. - Assumption: It is assumed that there will be no water rights issues resulting from the implementation of the project. Should potential water rights issues be identified, it is assumed that legal counsel for the Coalition members can provide legal support to inform this section of the Feasibility Study. ■ Financial Capability of Sponsor. Demonstrate financial capability of the Coalition prior to construction. Proposed schedule and milestones for project implementation. Describe the willingness of the Coalition partners to each pay for its share of capital costs and the full operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. Describe the funding plan including analysis of the project's construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. Describe all Federal and non -Federal sources of funding and any restrictions on such sources. — Assumption: WSC will coordinate with the Coalition's Facilitator to incorporate the results of their funding and financing evaluation. ■ Research Needs. Describe any research needs and objectives to be accomplished for the salt mitigation project. Describe the basis for Reclamation participation. Identify parties who will administer and conduct research. Identify the research timeframe. Deliverables: Provide the Draft Feasibility Study to the Coalition for review three weeks prior to the Draft Feasibility Study Review Workshop. 5 Task 4 Final Feasibility Study 4.1 FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ■ Review and incorporate Coalition comments on the Draft Feasibility Study. Prepare and circulate a Final Feasibility Study for review and approval by USBR for funding under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. ■ Provide additional information and/or necessary additions should USBR staff deem the Feasibility Study inconsistent or incomplete during their review. ■ Coordinate with USBR staff as needed to facilitate the submission and review of the Feasibility Study. ■ It is assumed that any final edits from the Coalition or USBR comments will be discussed at one of the routine meetings in Task 0.2 and that a separate Final Feasibility Study Review Workshop will not be needed. Deliverables: Provide the Final Feasibility Study to the Coalition for review prior to submitting it to USBR. Deliverables: If comments are received from USBR, update the Feasibility Study and provide a Revised Final Feasibility Study to the Coalition and USBR. 6 Bunker Hill Basin Salinity Feasibility Study 7/19/2023 N11U.1SC Task No. Task Description .5 a 2 U Jeffery Szytel 0) CO 4) O0 li Laine Carlson U/) a) T , Q� Aaron Morland c m T ° 0 0 a) lY Michael Cruikshank Q Robert Morrow Q a CCL Antonia Estevez-Olea WSC 0) ,J Q E Q �� I Patricia Parks 0) _, Q E Q �w UJ Heather Freed >, -6 Q - Q 7) 0 C u_ Justin Sutton C E Q o Kay Merrill - O o_ cn 0 0 Frederick Franklin WSC Labor Fee Trussell Labor Hours Labor Fee Total Labor Hours ALL FIRM Total Labor Fee Expense A otal Fee Billing rates, $/hr $380 $335 $185 $295 $335 $220 $175 $220 $220 $170 $140 0 Project Management and Meetin • s di 4111 0.1 Project Management 6 12 40 ------ 20 $ 17,100 78 $ 17,100 $ - $ 17,100 0.2 Routine Coordination with Coalition 28,280 16 $ 3,696 128 $ 31,976 $ - $ 31,976 0.3 Alternatives Refinement Workshop 10 20 10 4 $ 10,560 12 $ 3,607 56 $ 14,167 $ 1,200 $ 15,367 0.4 Alternatives Screening Workshop $ 10,560 12 $ 3,607 56 1 $ 14,167 $ 1,200 $ 15,367 0.5 0.6 Alternative Selection Workshop Draft Feasibility Study Review Workshop 10 20 10 4 4 $ 10,560 $ 6,640 8 8 $ 2,452 $ 2,452 52 $ 13,012 $ 9,092 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 14,212 $ 10,292 36 0.7 0.8 External Stakeholder Coordination QA/QC 12 12 12 $ 9,780 8 $ 2,310 44 $ 12,090 $ - $ 12,090 12 12 0 $ 4,020 $ 97,500 64 $ 18,123 12 462 $ 4,020 $ 115,623 $ - $ 4,800 $ 4,020 $ 120,423 SUBTOTAL 6 108 184 52 0 0 0 20 16 1 Kickoff and Data Collection _ 1.1 Kickoff Meeting 6 4 6 2 $ 4,800 13 $ 3,035 31 $ 7,835 $ - $ 7,835 1.2 Data Collection 6 6 6 $ 4,890 3 $ 809 21 $ 5,699 $ - $ 5,699 SUBTOTAL 0 12 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 $ 9,690 16 $ 3,843 52 $ 13,533 $ - $ 13,533 2 Alternative Salt Mitigation Strate • ies 2.1 Alternatives Development 22 32 20 24 $ 24,470 64 $ 15,152 162 $ 39,622 $ - $ 39,622 2.2 Alternatives Analysis 32 64 22 20 $ 35,210 70 $ 15,414 216 $ 50,624 $ - $ 50,624 SUBTOTAL 0 54 96 42 0 44 0 8 0 0 0 $ 59,680 134 $ 30,566 378 $ 90,246 $ - $ 90,246 3 Draft Feasibilit Stud 3.1 Draft Feasibility Study 16 60 8 12 40 12 16 $ 33,340 120 $ 27,216 284 $ 60,556 $ - $ 60,556 SUBTOTAL 0 16 60 8 0 12 40 0 12 0 16 $ 33,340 120 $ 27,216 284 $ 60,556 $ - $ 60,556 4 Final Feasibilit Stud 4.1 Final Feasibility Study 8 24 6 6 8 4 8 $ 13,610 29 $ 6,363 93 $ 19,973 $ - $ 19,973 SUBTOTAL 0 8 24 6 0 6 8 0 4 0 8 $ 13,610 29 $ 6,363 93 $ 19,973 $ - $ 19,973 COLUMN TOTALS 6 198 374 120 12 62 48 8 16 20 42 $ 213,820 363 $ 86,111 1269 $ 299,931 $ 4,800 $ 304,731