HomeMy WebLinkAboutContracts & Agreements_209-2023COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR BUNKER HILL-B MANAGEMENT ZONE
FEASIBILITY STUDY — AMENDMENT 01
Amendment 01 for 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 17th day of October 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".
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into Cost Sharing Agreement for the Bunker Hill-B
Management Zone Feasibility Study, dated March 9, 2023 ("Agreement"), which provides for a
25% cost share of the invoiced costs associated with the development of the Feasibility Study;
and
WHEREAS, Section 1 of the Agreement establishes the expiration date of the agreement as
December 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 of the Agreement directs that 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; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2023, the Parties selected WSC/Trussell as the final consultant team for
development of the Feasibility Study. The Parties and WSC/Trussell agreed to a final cost of
$304,731 for consultant services. The consultant team has estimated a project delivery timeline
of November 2023 — April 2025.
WHEREAS, the Feasibility Study seeks to:
1. Complete a robust analysis of feasible salinity management strategies to inform confident
decisions making,
2. Achieve strong consensus and alignment on the preferred strategy to enable effective
implementation, and
3. Define a lasting solution with a clear path forward that can adapt to changing conditions,
which may include a regional desalter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Section 1 of the Agreement shall extend the effective date of this agreement to December
31, 2025 to allow for completion of the Feasibility Study and submittal of follow-up
materials to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Page 1 of 2
redirect Local Resource Investment Program (LRIP) payments at the request of LRIP parties. Each
Party is ultimately responsible for mitigating salinity impacts from their respective recycled water
projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this instrument as of the Effective Date set
forth above.
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Heather Dyer Digitally signed by Heather
Y iDyer,MS,MBA
By: MSS MBA 0800'023.11.1416:21:01
Name: Heather Dyer
Date: 11/14/2023
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
By:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF REDLANDS
By:
Name:
Date:
Page 2 of 2
2. The final scope of work and estimated budget for WSC/Trussell's services attached hereto
shall be incorporated into the Cost Sharing Agreement as Exhibit A.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this instrument as of the
Effective Date set forth above.
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name: Mich oceiee
Date: ? 2.3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
B y:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF REDLANDS
By:
Name:
Date:
Page 2 of 2
redirect Local Resource Investment Program (LRIP) payments at the request of LRIP parties. Each
Party is ultimately responsible for mitigating salinity impacts from their respective recycled water
projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this instrument as of the Effective Date set
forth above.
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
vie-/
By:
Name: Miguel J. Guerrero
Date: Nov 14, 2023
CITY OF REDLANDS
By:
Name:
Date:
Page 2 of 2
2. The final scope of work and estimated budget for WSC/Trussell's services attached hereto
shall be incorporated into the Cost Sharing Agreement as Exhibit A.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this instrument as of the
Effective Date set forth above.
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
By:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF REDLANDS
By: at-44/ Vic,
Name: Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City aan ger
Date: November 8, 2023
Page 2 of 2
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
4 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 IJSBR 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.
to 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 af 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.
e 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 protected water demands, including imbalances. Describe water quality
concerns for the current and protected 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 thls
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 FICP 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 ail 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
Bunter len Parm falthly Feulb0lty Stud,
7/19/2023
W SC
Task No. Task UescnpNon a o
_ .
/away ufrl
:,
1
5
Y
A
Orr C.a..
o m }
8 L
ri.` q _ p o g
c a
of
o s`U o:a
Lane I arrive I Illim Ieunowwl
WSC
o o
yN
a
oafs
e
�'
14.0.1 41
I
S
m
�• u
'a
u
14v1" faaw
6
E
<
Y
ti
aptw.r
I
0
a
'v
I Raman
Tlussell
E'
WSC p Labor
LaborFn �; Hours
{
Tout I. hint
Latwr Fec
nou!a
y
ALL FIRMS
Total Labor j
Fapensn inlet Fee
Fee
_
9: •nq rah, 3.hr
iJe0
5735
ifH5
i:Js
5]]5
3220
5173
i2:0
52:0
SILO
i140
0
Projrcl Management
and Meetings
0 I
0.2
0.3
Frn;ect Manegumunt
Routine Coer6na8on w!B+
Coalition
Alternatives Retinernent
5
12
40
46
20
10
20
4
S 17,100
f 28,208
10,560
16
12
5 3.895
5 3,607
78
123
56
$ 17,100 S •
$ 31,976 $ •
$ 17.100
$ 31,976
0p
0.5
0.0
0.7
0.8
Workshop
P11emaCrts Screening
Wwkehop
Alternative Selecesn
Workshop
DIM Feasibility Study
Review Workshop
Edamal Stakeholder
CcordinaSen
12A7O0
10
10
10
20
20
ID
ID
4
4
$
$ 10,560
1 10,580
12
8
5 3,607
5 2.452
56
52
$ 14,167 $ 1,200
f 14,167 $ 1,200
$ 13,012 $ 1,200
$ 15,367
$ 15.367
$ 14,212
S 10,292
$ 12,000
0
12
4
4
6 6,640
8
$ 2,452
36
$ 9.092 $ 1,200
12
12
12
S 9,780
0
5 2.310
44
$ 12,090 $ -
184
52
12
12
0
0
0
0
20
16
1 4,020
$ 97.500
64
S 18,123
12
462
$ 4,020 $ •
1 115,623 $ 4.800
$ 4,020
$ 120.423
SUBTOTAL
6
109
1
Kickoff and Daly
Collection
1.1
1.2
kickoff Meeting
Dela Collection •
6
6
4
6
6
2
S 4,800
1 4,090
I3
3
S 3,335
5 809
31
21
S 7,835 S •
S 5,699 $ -
1 7,835
S 5,899
SUBTOTAL
0
12
10
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
S 9.630
16
S 3,843
52
S 13.533 S -
S 13533
2
Alternative Salt
MI40a60n S1ra1eO1e8
2.1
22
All0ind11v OS Ce: e1PPn'en!
Alternatives Analysis
22
32
32
84
20
22
24
20
B
S 24,470
S 35,210
64
_ 70
5 15.152
5 15.414
162
276
1 39,622 $ •
$ 50624 $ •
S 39,622
S 50,824
SUBTOTAL
0
54
96
42
0
44
0
8
0
0
0
1 59.680
134
S 30.566
37a
$ 90,246 S -
$ 90.246
3
Draft Feaslb.Jlty Study
3.1
Pratt Fea9b6ly 7.1o0
16
6D
8
12
40
12
16
S 33,340
120
5 20.215
2B4
S 60.566 f •
1 60.556
SUBTOTAL
0
16
60
6
0
12
40
0
12
0
16
S 33,340
120
$ 27.218
284
S 60,558 1 -
S 60.556
4
Final Feasibility Study
4.1
Fnal Feasb,l. Iv Shirty
8
24
o
6
8
4
9
S 13.610
29
5 0.361
93
S 19,973 1 •
1 19.973
SUBTOTAL
0
a
24
6
0
6
0
0
4
0
8
S 13.619
29
S 6.363
93
S 19.973 S -
1 19.973
COLUMN TOTALS
1
153
3/4
120
12
62
41
6
16
20
42
$ 213,820_ 323
S 16.111
1269
1 299,931 S 4.500
3 304.731