Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
4 4
4 4. We Communicate in a clear and timely manner. We pride ourselves on being responsible, approachable, clear, and professional. As technical experts, we must always strive to present complex information in a manner that leads to effective decision making. Communication skills are essential to ensuring maximum efficiency for activities such as conducting meetings, reporting to regulators, and providing data, information, or presentations to deci sion makers as well as stakeholders. Our team leaders have extensive experience working for, communicating with, and speaking on behalf of multi‐stakeholder groups, such as the Chino Basin Watermaster and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, among others.
5. Ensure that we have subject matter experts assigned to perform Senior Technical Review and QA/QC of Reports and Deliverables. We execute every project to ensure that our methods, data, and results can hold up to peer ‐ review, regulatory scrutiny, and court processes. To ensure high‐quality deliverables, our Project Manager will be responsible to ensure that principal‐level technical experts review the team’s work to ensure they meet the intended goals and objectives of the project and are prepared to the highest technical standards and are communicated in a clear and concise manner.
6. We perform regular project management reviews of the scope, schedule, and budget to track progress and report out on key project milestones and financial status. We will i nvolve the City at the first indication of a challenge with the scope, schedule, or financial status, and work together to resolve the challenge.
The project manager and primary contact for our team is Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton with Tom Dodson and Associates, located at: Tom Dodson and Associates: P.O. Box 2307, San Bernardino, California 92406. Phone: (909) 882-3612
C. APPROACH
In this Section, we describe our team’s approach to developing the AMMP, including our understanding of the Project, our articulation of the steps to accomplish the City’s objectives, the technical approach to implementing the work, our project management approach, and our project budgeting approach.
Project Understanding
The AMMP approach, which is iterative in nature, is valuable in that it will allow the City to develop and implement a “right size” approach to characterizing and analyzing local physical and operational conditions. The level of analysis and monitoring performed over time can be tailored to the local physical conditions (hydrogeologic and biologic), the robustness of available data and analytical tools, and the feasibility of filling data gaps and enhancing analytical tools to support adaptive management. Based on our team’s experience, the development of an AMMP is a multi-year process that evolves over multiple phases.
The RFP describes the following work to be performed by the consultant in developing an AMMP for the City:
• Assess the hydrologic and operational feasibility of diverting discha rge from the current point of discharge on Cooper’s Creek
• Identify the potential impacts to biological resources downstream of the Cooper’s Creek discharge point • Assess the feasibility of implementing operation and mitigation alternatives • Develop a monitoring program to assess baseline conditions and support an adaptive management plan • Assist the City in seeking and applying for funding opportunities • Any additional services required or recommended to secure approval of the AMMP
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
5 5
5 Technical Approach
The RFP defines a two-phase approach to developing the AMMP and performing the above listed work. We have reviewed the recommended phases and tasks and have developed a recommended technical approach to accomplish the work that includes all of the required tasks. Below we describe our articulation of the necessary steps to accomplish the City’s objectives for preparing an AMMP and define an alternative phased approach to completing the work.
Steps to accomplish the City’s Objectives
Based on our team’s experience in developing and implementing similar adaptive management programs, we have articulated the following 12 steps as the approach to developing the AMMP:
1. Describe the Project and the objectives/requirements of the AMMP. This includes describing/defining the recycled water operations, change petition, future recycled water reuse, study area, and goals and objectives of the City.
2. Collect and review all relevant data, information, reports, and models/analytical tools ( surface water and groundwater).
3. Characterize the historical extent/health of the biological resources within the Cooper’s Creek floodplain up to the present day.
4. Characterize all factors that could have supported or affected the extent/health of the biological resources over time (e.g., surface-water discharge, groundwater levels, climate, pests, fire, etc.). Describe the relationships of these factors to the extent/health of the biological resources and define preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability.
5. Characterize the data and models (or analytical tools) that are available for assessing and projecting future hydrogeologic and biologic conditions and identify gaps in the available data and tools. Define approaches to improve the available data and tools. This step will include a r eview of the County of Riverside’s Flow Ecology Investigation and its associated modeling tool/results.
6. Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. This report will summarize the results and conclusions of all prior steps, will describe preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability (e.g., depth to groundwater, surface-water discharge, etc.), and define a scope of work for (i) baseline monitoring /data collection and (ii) using existing, or developing new, models/tools for assessing the hydrologic and operational impacts and feasibility of reducing discharge to Cooper’s Creek.
7. Assess the hydrologic feasibility of diverting at the current point of discharge. This would include performing predictive model simulations of the surface-water and groundwater hydrology of Cooper’s Creek with and without the Project and comparing the model results against the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. Depending on the state of existing models and tools, this task may include:
o Construct and calibrate (or update) a surface-water model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical discharge in Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future discharge in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios.
o Construct and calibrate (or update) a groundwater-flow model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions within the alluvial aquifer and regional aquifer beneath Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios.
8. Define potential project operations or other management actions to mitigate impacts to biologic resources.
9. Assess the engineering/operational feasibility of alternative project operations and management actions. This would include defining facility descriptions, level 5 cost opinions, and a CEQA checklist.
10. Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operatio nal Feasibility Report. This report will summarize the results and conclusions of steps 7 through 9.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
6 6
6 11. Concurrent with steps 7 through 10, implement the first year of the baseline monitoring program defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report.
12. Using the information from steps 1 through 10, prepare the AMMP report. This report will include the following chapters, at a minimum:
o Background.
▪ Project Description and Regulatory Requirements
▪ Description of the study area and Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report]
▪ Objectives of the AMMP
o Predicted changes in Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report]
o Preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report]
o Monitoring program. This section will describe the monitoring program to track the extent/health of the Cooper’s Creek riparian habitat and the factors that could affect it. The initial years of monitoring preceding Project startup (and the historical characterization) will be considered “baseline” conditions. The monitoring program will consider outcomes of the initial year of baseline monitoring performed pursuant to the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The monitoring program will be designed to compare the monitoring data versus the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability , which could trigger mitigation measures. o Potential mitigation measures. This section will provide a list of potential strategies to mitigate adverse impacts to the riparian habitat in the event that such impacts are identified by the monitoring program a nd attributed to Project implementation. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report] o Annual reporting. This section will describe the commitment to prepare annual reports that document the monitoring program and data analysis. The AMMP will include an annotated table of contents for the Annual Report.
o Process to update the AMMP. This section will describe the process to revise the AMMP in the future based on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program. R evisions could include modifications to the monitoring program or the metrics for habitat sustainability.
In parallel to the technical work, the Team can provide support to the City in applying and negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying grant opportunities.
Project Phases
The RFP defines a two-phase approach to developing the AMMP. We recommend organizing the above 12 steps into the following three phases:
1. Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP. Phase 1 includes steps 1 through 7 through the completion of the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report.
2. Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Re duced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring. Phase 2 includes steps 8 through 11. This phase should be performed in two-parallel processes:
a. Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility b. Phase 2B - Implement First year of Baseline Monitoring
3. Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. This Phase includes step 12.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
7 7
7 Grant Funding and USBR
The RFP requires that the AMMP meet all of the requirements of the Bureau of Reclamation reporting requirements of Title XVI-Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The purpose of such a requirement is to be able to obtain grant funding, or comply with any grants received from the USBR to perform the project. Some elements of the Title XVI reporting are outside the scope of work envisioned for developing the AMMP. For these items, it is assumed that the City will provide or prepare the requisite information for Title XVI compliance. Alternatively, this work can be added to the scope at a later date, if requested by the City. The following items required for Title XVI compliance are not included in our proposed approach/scope of work.
• Providing a Crosswalk from the AMMP to a Title XVI Compliant format • Detailed description of current and projected water supplies, demands, or water quali ty concerns • Detailed description of water reclamation, recycling, and desalination opportunities • Description of technology options
• Economic Analysis
• Selection of Recycled Water Reuse project (we are focused on selection of discharge alternatives only) • CEQA considerations on the above bullets
• Legal and Institutional requirements for recycled water use • Financial capability of City to implement project
• Research needs beyond the data gaps and tools needed to assess hydrogeologic and biologic impacts of reduced discharges
Project Management Approach
TDA’s project management will keep our internal, subconsultant, and City staff engaged and meet the project goals and objectives on time and within budget. Our proactive project management plans include monthly updates (or other frequencies as appropriate), coordinating team meetings, and oversight by our team’s Principal-in-Charge and Project Managers. West Yost has developed additional tools to help our project managers and team maintain accountability and project momentum. In our view, the most important tool at our disposal is internal review for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), to ensure that the work product meets the standards we deem acceptable for the work product at hand.
The internal QA/QC will be undertaken by our team’s Principal -in-Charge and Project Managers, between West Yost and Tom Dodson & Associates. The internal reviewer will conduct detailed technical review of the approach, technical findings, and project deliverables. Additionally, we value flexibility in our project management approach to meet the needs of the client, in this case the City of Beaumont, to ensure that the communication levels, management styles, and review processes meet the client’s expectations.
Project Budget Approach
Our team has extensive experience in developing and implementing multi-year adaptive monitoring and management programs. Preparing cost estimates for multi-year, multi-phase work can be challenging because the scope of work in later phases is directly impacted by the conclusion of preceding phases. For this reason, we have prepared a budget (See Cost Proposal under separate cover), that provides a detailed line -item estimate for the tasks in Phase 1 and a range of potential costs for the tasks in Phases 2 and 3, based on our experience in performing similar work.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
8 8
8 D. FIRM PROFILE
Tom Dodson and Associates
Tom Dodson and Associates (TDA), incorporated in 1983, is a small environmental consulting and regulatory compliance firm located in San Bernardino. The principal partners, Tom Dodson (President) and Kaitlyn Dodson -Hamilton (Vice President), are directly involved in day-to-day operation of the firm and are also involved in each project undertaken by TDA. This approach provides the company owners with direct knowledge and oversight for each project, thus ensuring that each project receives the firm’s high standard for product quality. A common theme of all TDA projects is compliance with environmental requirements while meeting project schedules. TDA works with clients to meet schedules and identify reasonable and ethical environmental requirements. For every project, TDA has found there is a mutually acceptable balance between development goals and the need to protect the environment. TDA strives to define this balance for clients and regulators and present workable solutions that both parties can accept as the basis for implementation of projects.
With over 50 years of collective experience in environmental problem -solving, TDA has been remarkably successful in meeting objectives.
West Yost
TDA has partnered with West Yost in response to this proposal. TDA shall serve as project manager overseeing the tasks required to meet the needs to the scope of services discussed under “G. Scope of Services,” while West Yost shall serve as the expert team performing the majority of the project tasks.
West Yost is a consulting engineering firm that was founded in 1990. Our focus is exclusively water, wastewater, recycled water, groundwater, and stormwater. We have broad
experience in providing planning, design, construction
management, and program management services in these
areas.
West Yost is headquartered in Davis, California, and has about 225 staff members in nine offices in California, Oregon, and Arizona. Our staff includes certified or registered professionals in chemical, civil, control systems, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineering; wastewater treatment and
regulatory compliance; geology, engineering geology, and hydrogeology; architecture; GIS; cybersecurity and risk management; asset management and condition assessment;
project management; and construction management and
inspection services.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
9 9
9 West Yost’s groundwater team offers a full-service approach across the entire spectrum of disciplines from which we can build diverse, multi-disciplinary teams with the skills and experience that will bring innovative and efficient solutions to meet the unique needs of our clients. Our areas of
expertise include: groundwater management planning
(including SGMA compliance); hydrogeologic investigations; surface and groundwater modeling; land subsidence
management; salt and nutrient management planning;
development and implementation of monitoring programs;
monitoring and management of groundwater dependent
ecosystems; water rights compliance and reporting;
regulatory and permitting assistance; database management; well rehabilitation and new municipal and ASR well design; managed aquifer recharge (MAR); and funding assistance.
Jacobs Engineering
TDA has a relationship with Jacobs because of Lisa Patterson —their California and Southwest Operating Divisions Lead — who previously worked for TDA for more than 20 years. In total, Lisa Patterson has teamed with TDA for about 30 years as an Ecologist, Biologist, and Regulatory Specialist. Jacobs has proven expertise guiding clients through the environmental permitting and regulatory compliance process in challenging environments throughout the United States. Jacobs combines decades of experience in permitting projects in areas of sensitive water resources, threatened and endangered species and vital natural resources. In addition, Jacobs has the tools to identify potential impacts to biologic resources and develop monitoring program to characterize baseline condition pursuant to Phase 1: Tasks 5 and 6, and Phase 2b.
E. FIRM LOCATION
Tom Dodson and Associates
Mailing Address: PO Box 2307, San Bernardino, CA 92406 Physical Address: 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92405
F. PROPOSED TEAM
Tom Dodson & Associates
Tom Dodson, MA will serve as the Tom Dodson & Associates Principal-in-Charge. Tom is the President of Tom Dodson and Associates since its incorporation. He has more than 40 years of experience in the environmental consulting world. He personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of projects and acts as a resource person in working with clients, governmental agencies, and decision -makers in finding solutions to complex problems. He negotiates with regulators at the federal, state, and local level, and designs formal presentations to committees. He serves as program manager on many projects undertaken by the firm and maintains close contacts with subconsultants and specialists who can provide technical information, as needed, in a timely manner.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
10 10
10 Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, will serve as the Tom Dodson & Associates Project Manager. Kaitlyn is an Environmental Specialist for Tom Dodson and Associates. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton has more than eight years of experience at TDA in environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA and NEPA compliance. She has over 10 years of part-time experience providing support at TDA in research and mapping for CEQA, NEPA, and regulatory purposes at TDA.
Ms. Dodson-Hamilton personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of CEQA and NEPA projects, as well as regulatory permits for the State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She works in conjunction with Tom to work with clients, governmental agencies, and decision -makers to find solutions to complex problems. For this Project, she will be the CEQA lead, in preparation of the necessary CEQA documentation to complete Phase 2. Tom and Kaitlyn will work in conjunction to accomplish this task based on the results of Phase 1.
West Yost
Samantha Adams, MESM will serve as the West Yost Principal-in-Charge. Samantha will be a secondary point of contact for the City and will support the Project Manager by ensuring that the requisite West Yost project team resources are available and that work is performed in accordance with the approved project approach, or as directed by the City and TDA. Samantha has 17 years of professional experience in water resources management and has overseen the development of numerous groundwater management plans, salt and nutrient management plans, and monitoring and reporting programs throughout the Santa Ana River watershed and elsewhere in southern California.
Andy Malone, PG will serve as the project Technical Advisor and QA/QC Reviewer. Andy has over 25 years of professional experience in water resources consulting and in geologic sciences. His technical expertise includes basin characterization, hydrogeologic and hydrologic analyses, aquifer mechanics, land subsidence, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and development of monitoring program s to support groundwater management. Andy currently serves as the technical advisor for the Chino Basin Watermaster’s Prado Basin Habitat and Sustainability Program, for which he has served an integral role in developing and implementing the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program since 2014.
Veva Weamer, MS will serve as the Lead Project Scientist for the development of the AMMP. Veva has 15 years of experience in groundwater management. Her expertise includes SGMA compliance, surface and groundwater monitoring program design and implementation, groundwater dependent ecosystems, database management, water quality monitoring and analysis, salt and nutrient management planning, and regulatory compliance reporting. Veva is the project manager the Chino Basin Watermaster’s Prado Basin Habitat and Sustainability Program, for which she has served an integral role in developing and implementing the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program since 2014.
Eric Chiang, PhD will serve as a project scientist, supporting review of models, developing modeling approaches, and supporting data management. Eric has 30 years of experience in the water resources industry focused on research and application of numerical groundwater and surface wat er modeling, 3D Visualization, software development, data management, planning and decision analysis, and GIS. Eric is West Yost’s chief groundwater and surface water modeler. In addition, he develops and applies HydroDaVE – a cloud based groundwater and surface water data management system that enables users to remotely
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
11 11
11 manage, visualize, analyze, and share groundwater, surface water, climatic data, model results, and gridded data sets (like NDVI) on a map based user interface.
Carolina Sanchez, PE will serve as the project engineer to support surface water data analysis and modeling.
Carolina has over nine years of experience in water resources engineering and groundwater management.
Her expertise includes recharge master planning, surface water mod eling, salt and nutrient management planning, Watermaster services, leading multi-stakeholder groups through decision making processes, and groundwater management planning.
Lucy Hedley, MESM will serve as the project engineer to support data collection and analysis. Her areas of expertise include regulatory support and compliance reporting, management of field groundwater and surface water monitoring programs, analysis of water quality data, implementation of salt and nutrient management plans, utilization of visual tools to analyze the interactions between surface water and groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and database management. Lucy currently serves as a project scientist for the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program.
Jacobs
Lisa Patterson will serve as senior project biologist, assessing potential impacts to biological resources utilizing the existing discharge point under a reduced base flow regime as outlined in the RFP to develop a monitoring program to characterize baseline habitat conditions. Lisa will work with the West Yost and TDA teams to develop a monitoring plan to determine the impacts on biological resources from further reductions in flow. With over 30 years of experience, Lisa is a Senior Ecologist and an expert delivering environmental work with IEUA, Water Districts, Light and Class 1 Rail clients nationwide. She is a regulatory specialist and is responsible for preparing and obtaining regulatory permits, managing compliance of regulatory permits, and conducting a wide range of studies and evaluations for absence or presence of endangered species (plants and animals), habitat assessments, biological assessments, impact analyses, mitigation plans, implementation plans, construction monitoring, general biological surveys protected species studies. replacements.
Daniel Smith will serve as project biologist, performing the fieldwork and surveys necessary to support the development of the monitoring program. Daniel will also assist in any write ups resulting from the survey results. Daniel has 13 years of direct environmental consulting experience with BNSF Railway Company, supporting BNSF’s Structures Division. He has conducted and/or assisted in conducting protocol USFWS and CDFW threatened and endangered sp ecies surveys and jurisdictional waters assessments. He has also prepared permit applications and monitored permit compliance, providing full project cycle management and reporting. Daniel has conducted jurisdictional waters delineations conforming to USAC E and RWQCB standards on project sites throughout California.
Individual Resumes can be found as Attachment 2 to this Proposal.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
12 12
12 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
F. REFERENCES
Our Team has compiled 6 project references to demonstrate our team’s experience with similar projects. For each project, client contact information is provided (name, agency, email, phone number). All projects were active within the last five years. The projects included are:
TDA References
INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
Chino Basin Program (CBP) Environmental Impact Report (2021 -2022) PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, Daniel Smith, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez, Mark Wildermuth, Garrett Rapp, Lauren Sather, and Samantha Adams) and many other technical subconsultants.
REFERENCE: Ms. Elizabeth Hurst, Chino Basin Program Manager • Tel: (909) 993-1646
• Email: [email protected]
• Address: 6075 Kimball Avenue Chino, CA 91708
Team Member Affiliations:
Tom Dodson & Associates
West Yost
Jacobs
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
13 13
13 The CBP was submitted for Proposition 1 – Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) funding and was awarded $206.9M in conditional funding in July 2018. Under the WSIP, the CBP is proposed to be a 25 -year conjunctive use project that proposes to use advanced water purification to treat and store up to 15,000 AFY of recycled water in the Chino Basin and extract the water during call years. TDA prepared the Program Environmental Impact Report, and served as Project Manager overseeing the preparation of all technical studies, providing input to the Grant Feasibility Studies, and reviewing the Hydrology Studies prepared by West Yost in support of IEUA’s Chino Basin Program. The preparation and processing of this PEIR was notable for the short time available to prepare, process and certify the PEIR (essentially two mo nths) and team with another IEUA on-call environmental firm (Rincon) to successfully complete the effort in order to stay in the running to receive up to about $210 million dollars from the State. TDA and Rincon worked together seamlessly to produce this document and relied upon a variety of sources to produce a document with 4,534 pages, including technical appendices.
The biological resources research, and preparation of the biological resources assessment and extensive responses to biological resources comments on the EIR were prepared by Jacobs in conjunction with TDA. The City of Ontario has chosen to file a legal challenge to this CEQA document which is currently in process. Regardless, this effort was commendable by the whole of the Project Team, and exemplifies the efficiency and collaboration of the Project Team that TDA worked with to complete this effort.
CHINO BASIN WATERMASTER
Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) and Optimum Basin Management Program Update (OBMPU) Environmental Impact Report (2000-present)
PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, Daniel Smith, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez, Mark Wildermuth, Garrett Rapp, Lauren Sather, and Samantha Adams) and many other technical subconsultants.
REFERENCE: Mr. Edgar Tellez Foster, Water Resources Management and Planning Director • Tel: (909) 484-3888
• Email: [email protected]
• Address: 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730 The OBMP was developed in a collaborative public process that identified the needs and wants of all Stakeholders of the Chino Groundwater Basin, described the physical state of the groundwater basin, defined a s et of management goals, characterized impediments to those goals, and developed a series of actions that could be taken to remove the impediments and achieve the management goals. In 2000, TDA prepared the PEIR for the OBMP, and has prepared all subsequent CEQA documentation for the Chino Basin Watermaster, including the current OBMPU. TDA was given from December 2019 through March 2020 to prepare and initiate processing of a major EIR which would typically require six to nine months — more than the time allotted. TDA developed the strategy to meet the deadlines; organized the project team and assigned technical studies to be prepared over a short period of time; and creatively assisted IEUA, the CEQA Lead Agency, to complete the AB 52 consultation process. TDA must acknowledge that our team member WEI (now West Yost) made major contributions to our ability to meet this schedule. We published an Initial Study in February 2020; published the SEIR by the end of March of 2020. This Project Description for this doc ument was revised and therefore, the document is being recirculated to address these updates. TDA has collaborated with Jacobs, and West Yost to work towards a final draft that will be ready for circulation summer of 2023. As the environmental consultant f or the Chino Basin Watermaster and IEUA for the past 20+ years, TDA understands the need for meeting deadlines, understanding agency collaborations and agency mechanics, and applies this to all new client relationships.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
14 14
14 SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT
Aliso Creek Discharge Reduction Feasibility Investigation (2022 -2023) PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez and Mark Wildermuth)
REFERENCE: Rick Shintaku, General Manager
• Tel: (949) 499-4555, ext. 3156
• Email: [email protected]
• Address: 6075 Kimball Avenue, Chino CA 91708
South Coast Water District (District) proposed the Aliso Creek Urb an Runoff Recovery, Reuse and Conservation Project (Project) to capture and reuse urban runoff in Aliso Creek in Laguna Beach, California. The District constructed the diversio n and related treatment plant improvements to enable the diversion, treatment, a nd conveyance of the diverted water for non-potable uses in its service area. The District had not been able to divert water from Aliso Creek due to dry -weather creek discharges being less than the permitted minimum 4.77 cfs bypass flow requirement when n on-potable water demand for creek water occurs. TDA, in conjunction with Jacobs and West Yost, aided the District in its process to amend its diversi on permit. The scope consisted of assess the hydrologic and operational feasibility of continuing to diver t at the current point of diversion and at two other points of diversion located downstream from the current point of diversion. This effort included a field survey and research: to identify (but not assess) potential impacts to biologic resources of at th e existing and potential new downstream points of diversion under a reduced base flow regime; and development of a monitoring program to characterize baseline biologic and hydrologic conditions. This effort has been completed, and the District has moved forward with the monitoring program recommendations to establish a baseline and determine the point at which future diversions would cause significant downstream impacts.
West Yost Associates References
CHINO BASIN WATERMASTER, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (2014 to Present – ongoing project)
TEAM: Veva Weamer, Andy Malone, Eric Chiang, Lucy Hedley REFERENCE: Peter Kavounas, General Manager,
9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730,
[email protected], 909-484-3888
Challenge. The Prado Flood-Control Basin in southern Chino Basin (Prado Basin) is the largest riparian forest in southern California and provides critical habitat for several threatened or endangered species.
Depth to groundwater is relatively, which allows for grou ndwater/ surface-water interaction. The Chino Basin Watermaster is implementing groundwater-supply programs that include controlled overdraft of the southern basin, which could result in groundwater -level declines near the Prado Basin. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the groundwater-supply program identified the lowering of groundwater levels as a potential adverse impact to the riparian vegetation in the Prado Basin that consumptively use shallow groundwater.
Project Details. To ensure that the riparian habitat will not incur unforeseeable significant adverse effects, the Watermaster developed and implemented an adaptive management program (AMP) that includes: (i) convening a committee of stakeholders
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
15 15
15 to supervise the AMP, (ii) conducting a comprehensive monitoring program, (iii) annual reporting on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program, and (iv) adapting the AMP and the monitoring program as appropriate to ensure habitat sustainability. West Yost developed the AMP from 2014 to 2016, which included design and construction of 16 monitoring wells located near the riparian habitat to track changes in groundwater levels within the shallow or perched aquifer systems.
The monitoring program, which has been implemented by West Yost since 2016, provides for the annual collection and analysis of:
• The extent and quality of the riparian habitat over time, which includes acquisition and analysis of remote -sensing data from the Landsat program (NDVI), high-resolution aerial photography, and field vegetation surveys. • High-frequency groundwater level data to characterize groundwater level trends regionally and near the riparian habitat. • Groundwater and surface water quality data to characterize the groundwater/surface water interactions that are important to sustainability of the riparian habitat.
• Other factors that could potentially impact the habitat, including surface-water, precipitation, temperature, wildfire, and pests, among others.
• Groundwater-flow model projections of future drawdown to identify areas of prospective impacts on riparian habitat.
Successful Outcomes
• The Watermaster has published seven annual reports as of 2023. • The findings have demonstrated:
o There is no trend in degradation of the riparian habitat that is contemporaneous with decreasing groundwater levels. o The observed changes in habitat greenness (increases and decreases) can be attributed to trends in climate, stream discharge, and the presence (or not) of an invasive pest that harms trees.
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY, RIVERSIDE, CA
Monitoring and Reporting Services for the WRCRWA Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program (2018 to Present – ongoing project)
TEAM: Veva Weamer, Lucy Hedley
REFERENCE: Mallory Gandara, Water Resources Specialist, 14205 Meridian Parkway, Riverside, CA, 92518, [email protected], 951-571-7296
Challenge. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) Santa Ana River Diversion Canal (OCWD Canal) is an unlined canal located within the Prado Flood Control Basin that provides crucial surface water diversion to the OCWD wetlands. The OCWD wetland is home to several critical habitat and endangered species such as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Santa Ana Sucker. The Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCWA) treatment plant often discharges its treated wastewater (effluent) into the canal, between the Santa Ana River Diversion Point and the OCWD wetlands. In 2012, WRCWA petitioned for the State Water Board to eliminate its effluent discharges. However, the State Board identified c oncerns that reduced discharge has the potential to impact the riparian habitat downstream of the WRCWA discharge location.
Project Details. To address the State Board concerns, WRCRWA developed the 2017 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program (AMMP), the objective of which is to establish baseline conditions (Phase 1), and, after discharges are reduced,
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
16 16
16 determine if the reduction of effluent discharge negatively impacts the quality of riparian habitat downstream of the discharge (Phase 2). The AMMP consists of quantitative and qualitative vegetation monitoring of riparian habitat, performing annual survey of Least Bells’ Vireo nesting/territory locations, the construction of monitoring wells, and hydrologic monitoring.
WRCWRA contracted with West Yost in 2018 to perform the hydrologic monitoring, which consists of measuring groundwater and surface water levels via pressure transducers with dataloggers. In 2020, the West Yost scope of work was expanded to include partnering with a biology subconsultant to analyze the annual monitoring data and characterize the current hydrologic and riparian habitat conditions to document the baseline condition of the system prior to reducing WRCRWA’s discharges. The results are documented in an annual report that is submitted to the State Board.
Key Findings
Key findings from Phase 1 include:
• Vegetation monitoring reports from fall 2021 and early summer 2022 showed healthy habitat, dominated by native riparian habitat.
• Riparian habitat can access the shallow groundwater, (less than 15 feet below the groundwater surface) making it a groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE).
• Groundwater elevations are mainly controlled by regional recharge and pumping rather than daily variations in WRCWRA effluent discharge or flow in the OCWD canal.
• In the Oxbow Pond, shallow groundwater is the main source of surface water and was found to have no relationship with the effluent discharge.
In the next phase of work, these findings will inform the long-term monitoring necessary to assess impacts to the habitat as the discharges are reduced.
SAN JUAN BASIN AUTHORITY,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO/RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA
Water Rights Compliance, Groundwater Management, and Monitoring and Reporting Programs (2010 to Present, ongoing project) TEAM: Samantha Adams, Eric Chiang, Carolina Sanchez, Lucy Hedley REFERENCE: Dan Ferons, General Manager of Santa Margarita Water District, 26111 Antonio Parkway, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, 92688, [email protected], 949-459-6590
Challenge. The San Juan Basin is a narrow alluvial basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in south Orange County, CA, which, from a water rights perspective, is regu lated by the State Water Resources Control Board as flow of an underground stream. The Authority holds a Permit for Diversion and Use of Water, which outlines numerous terms and conditions under which the SJBA may extract and use water from the San Juan Basin, including: limits on pumping; monitoring protocols for groundwater pumping, levels, storage, and quality, and riparian vegetation; protection against seawater intrusion; maintaining adequate water in storage, and maintenance of water levels that support riparian vegetation.
Project Details. West Yost was retained in 2010 to implement the SJBA’s water rights monitoring and reporting program.
West Yost’s routine services include: implementing and adapting field groundwater and surface -water monitoring programs, collecting environmental datasets from numerous cooperating entities, managing and analyzing the data, preparing annual reports, submitting water-level data to the DWR in compliance with CASGEM, managing biology sub -consultants,
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
17 17
17 participating in the Authority’s Technical Advisory Group through preparation of meeting materials and attendance at meetings, and preparing presentations to the SJBA’s Board of Directors. West Yost also prepares the annual Adaptive Pumping Management (APM) Plan, which sets annual pumping limits that ensure protection of water levels that are supportive of riparian vegetation and protective against seawater intrusion. Other non -routine groundwater management services include: well siting investigations, geophysical investiga tions, surface and groundwater modeling, and evaluation of groundwater management alternatives.
Successful Outcomes
• In 2013, West Yost prepared the San Juan Basin Groundwater Management and Facilities Plan, which expanded the Authorities monitoring and reporting program beyond what is required by water rights permits to improve water resources management.
• In 2014, water levels were declining due to a combination of prolonged drought and pumping. As a result of the expanded monitoring program, West Yost was able to detect the onset of seawater intrusion and make recommendations for measures to stop and reverse it.
• In 2016, West Yost developed the Adaptive Pumping Management Plan, a first of its kind report for the San Juan Basin, which sets annual pumping limits based on current basin storage and climate conditions to ensure compliance with the SJBA’s water rights permit. It includes monitoring protocols that allow for adaptation during the year, and over time. • In 2023, West Yost updated and recalibrated the integrated surface and groundwater flow model of the San Juan Basin to support the development of the 2023 APM Plan, support development and implementation of recharge project concepts, and support development of strategies to optimize pumping in the riparian habitat area and associated mitigation strategies, if needed.
Jacobs References
• Aliso Creek Discharge Reduction Feasibility Investigation, South Coast Water District (2022 -23) o See TDA reference and description of services.
• Biological Survey, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Optimum Basin Management Program, and Optimum Basin Management Program Update, Chino Basin Watermaster (2000-Present) o See TDA reference and description of services.
• Biological Survey, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Chino Basin Program (2022), Inland Empire Utilities Agency o See TDA reference and description of services.
G. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The full scope of services is provided as Attachment 1, per the RFP.
H. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The graphic on the following page depicts the estimated project schedule. For teach task the graphic shows the task duration in months.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
18 18
18 We estimate the work will take at least three years to complete and up to three and a half years to c omplete. The precise schedule beyond Phase 1 is difficult to predict as the exact scope of work in Phases 2 and 3 will be dependent on the outcomes of the prior phase.
We assumed a start date of October 1, 2023. The schedule shows:
• Phase 1 work will take one year to complete (October 2023 through September 2024) • Phase 2 work will take about one and a half to two years to complete:
o Shorter estimate: October 2024 through April 2026
o Longer estimate: October 2024 through September 2026
• Phase 3 work will take about one year to complete
Based on the projected schedule, the AMMP could be complete sometime between August 2026 and February 2027.
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Phase 1 - Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings
Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI) Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek
Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts
Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report
Phase 2 - Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings
Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges
Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions
Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report
Phase 2B - Implement Baseline Monitoring
Task 15 - Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program Task 16 - Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP Phase 3 - Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings
Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP
Task 19 - Implement Second Year of Baseline Monitoring Program Legend:Earliest start date Possible Extended Schedule if Phase 2 takes longer to complete 2026
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Schedule to Prepare City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 2023 2024
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q1
2027
Q3 Q4
2025Proposal Phase/Task
19
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
19 19
19 I. OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
TDA and our Project Team members have no outstanding contracts with the City of Beaumont.
J. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SERVICES
Other Work to Support the City’s Change Petition and Approval of the AMMP In parallel to the technical work in Phases 1, 2, and 3, the Team can provide support to the City in applying a nd negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying grant opportunities. This work will be performed at the direction of the City on an as-needed basis.
K. LIABILITY INSURANCE
TDA will furnish professional liability insurance that will go into effect at the time of contract execution to include liability at a minimum of one million per occurrence, worker’s compensation, and vehicle coverage including comprehensive and collision insurance naming the City of Beaumont as additional insured.
20
ATTACHMENT 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Tom Dodson and Associates
P.O. Box 2307
San Bernardino, California 92406
(909) 882-3612
In Partnership with:
West Yost
23692 Birtcher Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 420-3030
and
Jacobs
(Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team)
Proposal Due Date and Time:
July 25, 2023
2:00 p.m.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
1 G. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The full scope of services is provided under a separate cover, per the RFP.
This section describes the proposed scope of services to develop the AMMP. As presented in Section C – Approach, our recommended approach is to perform the steps to complete the AMMP in three Phases as follows:
• Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP • Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring • Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Continue Baseline Monitoring
As noted in Section C, the recommended phasing and order of tasks is different than the order of work presented in the RFP. To help the City understand how the recommended scope of work maps to the Phases and Tasks in the RFP we prepared a table (Table 1) to show how each task of the recommended scope of work maps to the phases and tasks identified in the RFP. To the extent that an item in the recommended scope of work is understood to be in addition to the tasks in the RFP, Table 1 identifies the Task as “ADDITIONAL WORK”.
The scope of work for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is below. Phase 1 is described in detail below whereas Phases 2 and 3 are described at a conceptual level that is subject to change based on the outcomes of the preceding phases and tasks.
Following the description of the three Phases is a characterization of additional tasks that can be performed by the team to support the City in applying for and negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying and applying for grant opportunities – as requested in the RFP. These are tasks that would be relevant to all phases of work to develop the AMMP.
PHASE 1 – CHARACTERIZE HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF AMMP.
Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer Phase 1 of the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes holding a project kick-off meeting, conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress, and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors). This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested.
Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria. The objective of this task is to work with City staff to describe the project (recycled water operations, change petition, future recycled water reuse, study area), define the City’s goals and objectives for adaptive management and project performance. The team will hold one meeting with the City to draft the information, document the goals, objectives, and criteria in a draft task memorandum (TM), hold one meeting to review City comments, and produce a final TM that addresses the City comments. This TM will serve as a guidance document to support various efforts throughout the project.
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
2 Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology. The objective of this task is to collect, review, and analyze all available data relevant to surface water flow and wastewater discharge (climate/precipitation, water conservation, discharge, surface water flow, groundwater levels, etc.). Explanatory graphics will be prepared to characterize historical surface water flow and groundwater conditions and the relationship to the factors that contribute to short term and long-term variations in the observed record.
Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI). The objective of this task is to collect historical Normalized Difference Vegetation Index information (NDVI) information that can be used to characterize the time history of the extent and health of the riparian habitat in Cooper’s Creek. NDVI is calculated from radar imaging collected by NASA satellites. NDVI data is available for a nearly 40-year period and can be used to develop a detailed understanding of how the riparian habitat has changed over time. Explanatory graphics will be prepared to characterize historical habitat conditions and the relationship to the factors that contribute to short term and long-term variations in the observed record.
Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources. The objective of this task is to collect and analyze available data on the biological resources in the project area. The team will review the prior biologic resources assessment used to obtain the City’s existing discharge permit, review habitat conditions in the field, collect and review reports and data from other relevant investigations. This information will be used to identify the potential impacts to biologic resources when the City reduces its discharges to Cooper’s Creek. Exhibits will be prepared to characterize the biologic resources.
Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek. The objectives of this task are to characterize all the factors that could have supported or affected the extent/health of the biological resources over time, describe the relationships of these factors to the extent/health of the biological resources, and define preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. In this task, any data gaps that exist will be identified. The impacts, proposed metrics, and data gaps will be documented for review and input by the City. The team will conduct one meeting with the City to refine the characterization of potential impacts, sustainability metrics, and data gaps. The City’s comments will be used to update this information for inclusion in the Phase 1 report in Task 8.
Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts. The objective of this task is to collect and assess all available surface and groundwater models or analytical tools that could potentially be used to assess hydrogeologic impacts of reduced discharge to Cooper’s Creek. This will include a review of the County of Riverside’s modeling and related work for the Flow Ecology investigation into Cooper’s Creek. An outcome of this task will be articulation of the level of analysis necessary to support development of the AMMP (what is the “right size” level of work to support the City’s project) and characterize the ability to use the existing surface and groundwater models/tools in Phase 2 to assess reduced discharges to Cooper’s Creek.
Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The objective of this task is to prepare a detailed report summarizing the results and conclusions of Tasks 2 through 7. The report will describe preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability and define a scope of work for (i) baseline monitoring/data
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
3 collection and (ii) using existing, or developing new, models/tools for assessing the hydrologic and operational impacts and feasibility of reducing discharge to Cooper’s Creek. The Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report will form the technical basis for analyzing the feasibility of alternative discharge scenarios in Phase 2. The report can also be used to support applications for grant funding of future phases of work.
PHASE 2 – ASSESS FEASIBILITY OF REDUCED DISCHARGE AND PERFORM INITIAL BASELINE MONITORING In this phase of work the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report will be implemented. This work will be performed in two-parallel processes:
• Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility • Phase 2B - Implement First year of Baseline Monitoring
The tasks to complete Phase 2 are:
Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors).
This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested.
Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges. The objective of this task is to use surface and groundwater modeling tools (numerical or analytical) to perform predictive model simulations of the surface-water and groundwater hydrology of Cooper’s Creek with and without the Project and comparing the model results against the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. Depending on the state of existing models and tools as documented in Phase 1, this task may require the City to:
• construct and calibrate (or update) a surface-water model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical discharge in Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future discharge in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios. • Construct and calibrate (or update) a groundwater-flow model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions within the alluvial aquifer and regional aquifer beneath Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios.
Once the models are ready for use, we will meet with the City to define the alternatives to be simulated. The alternatives could include those identified in the RPF or other options developed based on the outcomes of Phase 1 work. The consultant team will prepare interim work products to present the work as it is developed to obtain feedback from the City and refine the analysis, as appropriate. The work will be documented in technical memorandum.
Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources. The objective of this task is to define conceptual projects, operation schemes, and management actions to mitigate any impacts identified in the analysis in Task 10 and to meet the goals and objectives defined in Phase 1 for biologic resources. The team will work with the City to determine which level of impact to mitigate and use the models to simulate the
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
4 mitigation actions to determine if the mitigation actions achieve the desired effect. The outcomes will be documented in technical memorandum.
Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions. The objective of this task is to perform engineering feasibility assessments of the operational alternatives and mitigation actions analyzed in Task 11 that successfully achieve the desired mitigation goals. This will include describing the facilities, developing level 5 cost opinions, and characterizing implementation feasibility.
Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives. The objective of this task is to compile and process either an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with the CEQA for the feasible operational alternatives and mitigation actions identified in Task 12. Because the modeling work and habitat assessments, including downstream impacts, have not yet been identified, it is unknown whether significant impacts will be identified requiring the preparation of an EIR, or whether all impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. With this in mind, our approach would be to prepare an Initial Study checklist to screen out issues that can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, and if necessary, compile a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address any significant environmental impact issues. TDA will undertake the preparation of the CEQA documentation and will coordinate with the City to determine the scope necessary to reach full compliance with CEQA.
Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report. The objective of this task is to prepare a compiled report of the findings from tasks 10 through 13.
Task 15 – Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring Program. The objective of this task is to perform the first year of baseline monitoring pursuant to the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report (Task 8 deliverable). The outcomes of the monitoring will be used to inform the AMMP developed in Phase 3. This is additional work that was not included in the RFP. The purpose of performing baseline monitoring prior to development of the AMMP is that the Phase 2 feasibility work could take longer than a year to perform, depending on the modeling tools needed to support the feasibility assessments.
This will allow the City to collect more robust baseline information in the AMMP, and could speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced.
Task 16 – Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP. The objective of this task is to detail the scope and budget to prepare the AMMP document. The purpose is to ensure that the final phase of work is adequately budgeted.
PHASE 3 – PREPARE ADAPTIVE MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN AND CONTINUE BASELINE MONITORING In this phase of work the consultant team will prepare the AMMP. Phase 3 could also include an additional year of baseline monitoring in parallel to the development of the AMMP.
The tasks to complete Phase 3 are:
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
5 Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors).
This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested.
Task 18 – Prepare the AMMP. The objective of this task is to prepare the AMMP pursuant to the scope of work defined in Phase 2, Task 16. This report will include the following chapters, at a minimum:
1. Background.
o Project Description and Regulatory Requirements
o Description of the study area and Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report]
o Objectives of the AMMP
2. Predicted changes in Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat. This section will summarize the information documented in the Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report.
3. Preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. This section will be based on the information in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report and any refined information developed in Phase 2.
This section will also define specific and measurable criteria for determining ecological success of mitigation and to determine if Project impacts are offset.
4. Monitoring program. This section will describe the monitoring program to track the extent/health of the Cooper’s Creek riparian habitat and the factors that could affect it. The monitoring program will consider outcomes of the initial year of baseline monitoring performed pursuant to the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The monitoring program will be designed to compare the monitoring data versus the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability, which could trigger mitigation measures.
5. Potential mitigation measures. This section will provide a list of potential strategies to mitigate adverse impacts to the riparian habitat in the event that such impacts are identified by the monitoring program and attributed to Project implementation. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report]
6. Annual reporting. This section will describe the commitment to prepare annual reports that document the monitoring program and data analysis. The AMMP will include an annotated table of contents for the Annual Report.
7. Process to update the AMMP. This section will describe the process to revise the AMMP in the future based on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program. Revisions could include modifications to the monitoring program, metrics for habitat sustainability, and need for mitigation actions.
Other sections will be added, as needed or directed by the City, such as to meet the requirements of the USBR Title XVI requirements.
Task 19 – Implement second year of Baseline Monitoring Program. The objective of this task is to perform the second year of baseline monitoring pursuant to the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report (Task 8 deliverable). This is additional work that was not included in
Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services
6 the RFP. The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP to potentially will allow the City to potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced.
Proposal Phase/Task RFP Phase/Task Notes
Phase 1 - Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 1 only Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria
Phase 1, Task 2 - Establish Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards This task will not develop performance standards at the level of detail described in the RFP. The detailed, numeric performance standards are set in Phase 3, Task 18
Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology
Phase 1, Task 3 - Review Stream Discharge Data for Coopers Creek and Assess Changes in Discharge due to Climate Change and Water Conservation Excludes development of a hydraulic diversion model - See Proposal Phase 2, Task 10
Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI)n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK Recommended additional work to support understanding historical changes in vegetation health
Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources
Phase 2, Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources and Develop Monitoring Program to Characterize Baseline Condition
Recommend this is a Phase 1 Task
Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek
Phase 2, Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources and Develop Monitoring Program to Characterize Baseline Condition
Recommend this is a Phase 1 Task
Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts
Phase 1, Task 4 Investigate and Review Modeling and Related Work for the County's Flow Ecology Investigation
Additional work is for assessing availability of tools to assess impacts to groundwater that support downstream biological resources, specifically groundwater dependent ecosystems Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report
Phase 1, Report not assigned to a Task in the RFP
Phase 2, Task 8 - Development of Monitoring Plan
Phase 2 - Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 2 only Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future
Discharges
Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges
This task could include additional work beyond that envisioned in the RFP, depending on the usability of the available surface and groundwater modeling tools to assess the impact of
reduced discharges.
Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources
Phase 2, Task 7 - Identification of Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions
Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges
Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges
Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report
Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges
This report serves as the updated AMMP, based on results of Phase 2 work
Phase 2B - Implement Baseline Monitoring
Task 15 - Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK Recommended additional work to support understanding of baseline conditions to be documented in the AMMP.
Task 16 - Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP
n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK The purpose of the additional work is to ensure that the final phase of work is adequately budgeted
Phase 3 - Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 3 only Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP Phase 2, Task 9 - Development of Performance Metrics Phase 2, Task 8 - Development of Monitoring Plan
Phase 2 - RFP did not have a task explicitly for preparing the AMMP report Task 19 - Implement Second Year of Baseline Monitoring
Program
n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP to potentially will apotentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced.
Table 1. Mapping of Proposal Phases and Tasks to RPF Phases and Tasks to Prepare the AMMP
ATTACHMENT 2: RESUMES
FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Tom Dodson and Associates
P.O. Box 2307
San Bernardino, California 92406
(909) 882-3612
In Partnership with:
West Yost
23692 Birtcher Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 420-3030
and
Jacobs
(Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team)
Proposal Due Date and Time:
July 25, 2023
2:00 p.m.
TOM DODSON &
ASSOCIATES
Tom Dodson
1 of 3
Summary
Tom Dodson is the President of Tom Dodson and Associates, an environmental consulting firm in San Bernardino, California. He has more than 40 years of experience in land use planning, and environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA, NEPA, regulatory compliance, expert witness testimony and communication/facilitation for resolution of environmental issues. He personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of projects and acts as a resource person in working with clients, governmental agencies, and decision-makers in finding solutions to complex problems. He negotiates with regulators at the federal, state and local level, and designs formal presentations to committees.
Mr. Dodson has served as a facilitator in resolving environmental issues for several agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, San Bernardino County, City of San Bernardino, and other agencies. Mr. Dodson also provides expert witness testimony on land use and environmental issues on a variety of court cases, primarily in CEQA litigation, takings, land use and regulatory cases. He serves as program manager on most projects undertaken by the firm and maintains close contacts with subconsultants and specialists who can provide technical information, as needed, in a timely manner.
Mr. Dodson also serves as the environmental advisor/consultant to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, San Bernardino International Airport Authority, Inland Valley Development Agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cities of Murrieta and El Monte, and several other agencies. Mr. Dodson has focused much of his career on CEQA compliance for water agencies, particularly those in the Inland Empire and throughout Southern California.
Relevant Experience
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA, 1999-Present)
As environmental consultant to the IEUA, TDA prepared the Program EIR for the Optimum Basin Management Program which evaluated the whole program that is proposed to be implemented to remove groundwater contamination from the Chino Basin. This EIR was prepared to meet court mandated deadlines and was certified in a timely manner by the IEUA. TDA has continued consulting with IEUA and recently completed a Program EIR for IEUA Facilities Masters Plans, which examined the long-term implementation of wastewater, recycled water and organic waste management programs. TDA is currently working or has recently worked with IEUA on the following: the RP-5 expansion, TDA is working with IEUA to obtain the RMPU regulatory permits, and is overseeing Native American monitoring for Baseline and Napa Laterals. TDA also recently completed the 2017 annual CDFW O & M Report. Site selection, due diligence, and CEQA documentation are part of the tasks that TDA has assisted with on this project. Additionally, and most recently, TDA, in conjunction with West Yost, has assisted the Chino Basin Watermaster , in conjunction with West Yost, with the Addendum to the Optimum Basin Management Program Local Storage Limit Solution Addendum that was approved by the IEUA Board in March of 2021.
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD)
Tom Dodson is the primary environmental consultant for MSWD. Over the past 15+ years Tom has assisted MSWD with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists MSWD with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with MSWD and recently completed the West Valley Water Reclamation Program EIR, which was approved by the MSWD Board in 2019 with Title
President /
Environmental Specialist
Education
M.A., Geography, University of
California, Berkeley, 1973
B.A., Geography, University of
California Berkeley, 1968
Experience
30+ years
Tom Dodson
2 of 3
full support from their Board. Tom oversaw the evolution of this this Program EIR from inception to approval. The certification of this EIR will allow/has allowed MSWD to construct a new wastewater treatment facility, along with a conveyance system that would connect existing sewered areas to the new facility as well as areas that are served by individual septic systems, which have contributed to water quality degradation within the Coachella Valley groundwater basin Garnet Hill Subbasin MZ4.
Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA)/San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) (1992-Present)
Environmental manager for the IVDA and SBIAA in their role as the redevelopment and reuse agency for Norton Air Force Base located in San Bernardino, California. Assisted the Air Force in completing its first and only air conformity determination for reuse of a closing military base. The analysis was used in presentations to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the Conformity Regulations to exclude transfers of military bases from conformity findings. TDA has been involved in every facet of base closure, working closely with the Air Force Base Closure Agency (AFBCA) at Norton and in Washington D.C. to complete the Final EIS and issue the Record of Decision. This support effort includes endangered species management programs at the former Base and consultations with the State and Federal government under endangered species laws.
Negotiation of Stream Alteration Agreements and Section 404 Permits Since 1988 Mr. Dodson has been involved in numerous projects that required acquisition of Stream Alteration Agreements from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Section 404 Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This includes several permits in Big Bear Valley, along the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, and southern California in general.
Various Water Agency Projects
TDA has worked on CEQA Projects to completion ranging from Categorical Exemptions to Initial Studies and in minimal cases, Environmental Impact Reports including, but not limited to the following water agencies, water masters, districts, and private water companies:
• Monte Vista Water Company
• Elsinore Valley Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutri ent Management Plan)
• Eastern Municipal Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
• Chino Basin Watermaster
• San Antonio Water Company
• San Gabriel Valley Water Company
• Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District
• Sheep Creek Water Company
• City of Ontario
• East Valley Water District
• East Orange County Water District
• Big Bear Community Service District
• Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency
• Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton
1 of 3
Summary
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton is an Environmental Specialist for Tom Dodson & Associates, an environmental consulting firm in San Bernardino, California. She has more than 10 of experience in research and mapping for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), and regulatory purposes at Tom Dodson & Associates. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton has more than seven years of experience at TDA in environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA compliance. Ms.
Dodson-Hamilton personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of CEQA and NEPA projects, as well as regulatory permits for the State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She works in conjunction with Tom to work with clients, governmental agencies, and decision-makers to find solutions to complex problems. Mrs. Dodson-Hamilton has focused much of her career on CEQA compliance for water agencies, particularly those in the Inland Empire and throughout Southern California. She serves alongside Tom as an environmental consultant to San Bernardino International Airport Authority, Inland Valley Development Agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District, Mission Springs Water District, and several other agencies. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton attends meetings and hearings and prepares presentations for nearly all reports for which she is the author.
Relevant Experience
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)
TDA is one of two primary consultants for IEUA. Over the past 7+ years Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists IEUA with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with IEUA and recently completed a Program EIR for IEUA Facilities Masters Plans, which examined the long-term implementation of wastewater, recycled water and organic waste management programs. Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the CEQA and NEPA for a variety of IEUA projects. TDA also assists IEUA with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. Project in which Kaitlyn has co-authored include:
FMP Program EIR, Lower Day Basin Project, Fontana Water Company Recycled Water Improvement Project, and Pomona Intertie Project; all of which have been successful in accomplishing full compliance with both CEQA and NEPA and other regulatory requirements, such as Corps of Engineers and endangered species permits. Additionally, and most recently, Kaitlyn, has assisted the IEUA with the Chino Basin Program EIR that was approved by the IEUA Board in May 2022.
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD)
Tom Dodson is the primary environmental consultant for MSWD. Over the past 7+ years Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists MSWD with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with MSWD and recently completed the West Valley Water Reclamation Program EIR, which was approved by the MSWD Board in 2019 with full support from their Board. Kaitlyn was the main author of this Program EIR with Tom overseeing the evolution of the Project. The certification of this EIR will allow/has allowed MSWD to construct a new wastewater treatment facility, along with a conveyance system that would connect existing sewered areas to the new facility as well as areas that are served by individual septic systems, which have contributed to water quality degradation within the Coachella Valley Title
Environmental
Specialist
Education
B.A., English, with
Honors, University
of California
Riverside, 2011
Experience
January 2015 to
present
Contact
W: (909) 882-3612
C: (909) 645-5478
E: [email protected]
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton
2 of 3
groundwater basin Garnet Hill Subbasin MZ4). More recently, TDA worked with MSWD on a new 300-000 gallon reservoir project, for which an Initial Study was prepared and approved by the District Board in September of 2021.
Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA)/San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) Tom Dodson is the Environmental Manager for the IVDA and SBIAA in their role as the redevelopment and reuse agency for Norton Air Force Base located in San Bernardino, California. As such, Kaitlyn has worked closely with both IVDA and SBIAA on several projects. Over the past 7+ years, Kaitlyn has, in conjunction with Tom, prepared environmental documents to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. These projects include: SBIAA Land Exchange Environmental Assessment, SBIAA Unical Addendum, IVDA (in conjunction with the City of Highland and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) 3rd Street / 5th Street Roadway Improvements Project, and most recently, Kaitlyn worked closely with SBIAA on the Eastgate Building I Environmental Impact Report, which was approved by the Board in October of 2018. Kaitlyn also works closely with SBIAA to compile their Hazardous Waste Manifests to ensure SBIAA pays the appropriate fees to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Currently, Tom and Kaitlyn are working with the IVDA, City of Highland, City of San Bernardino, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and East Valley Water District to prepare the Airport Gateway Specific Plan, which would create a buffer between the airport and residential land uses to the north, and with a goal of providing greater economic development in this area.
City of Highland, Various CEQA/NEPA Documents
Over the past 6+ years, Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with the preparation of environmental documents to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a few City projects. The City retained TDA’s services for the 3rd Street / 5th Street Corridor Improvements Project. The City, IVDA, and SMBMI proposed to improve the roadway and infrastructure conditions for 3rd Street/5th Street and several intersecting local roadway segments within the City of Highland. TDA compiled an Environmental Narrative for the three agencies to apply for funding through the Economic Development Agency and assisted with NEPA compliance for the Environmental Assessment. TDA also compiled an Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City.
The documentation in the Initial Study was compiled to meet CEQA and NEPA requirements. The IS/MND was adopted by the City Council. The EDA recently approved the project and granted funding for the project. Additionally, TDA compiled another IS/MND for a second roadway improvement project along Victoria Avenue between Highland Avenue and 3rd Street that include storm drain improvements, which was also approved by the City Council.
Various Water Agency Projects
TDA has worked on CEQA Projects to completion ranging from Categorical Exemptions to Initial Studies and in minimal cases, Environmental Impact Reports including, but not limited to the following water agencies, water masters, districts, and private water companies:
• Monte Vista Water Company
• Elsinore Valley Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan)
• Eastern Municipal Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan)
• Chino Basin Watermaster
• San Antonio Water Company
• San Gabriel Valley Water Company and Fontana Water Company • Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District and Sheep Creek Water Company • City of Ontario
• East Valley Water District
• East Orange County Water District
• Big Bear Community Service District
• Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency
• Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
WEST YOST
Samantha Adams, MESM
Samantha has 17 years of professional experiences in water resources management.
Her technical expertise includes salt and nutrient management planning, groundwater management planning, Watermaster services, regulatory support and compliance reporting, development and implementation of field monitoring programs, and database management.
Samantha has extensive experience leading multi-stakeholder groups through collaborative decision-making processes that rely on complex technical information and regulatory compliance considerations. She has managed, developed and negotiated, and/or implemented salt and nutrient management compliance plans for the Eastern MWD, Elsinore Valley MWD, Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, City of Beaumont, South Orange County Wastewater Authority, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and Coachella Valley Water District.
EXPERIENCE
Maximum Benefit Demonstration for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (2014 – ongoing), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (District), Lake Elsinore, CA: Project Manager and Lead Scientist. Led the development of a maximum benefit demonstration to raise the total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration objectives for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The District was seeking new, maximum benefit based TDS and nitrate concentration objectives so it can have the flexibility to develop and invest in a water resources plan that optimizes the management and use of all its water supply assets to achieve a reliable water supply in an environmentally sound manner. The District’s maximum benefit proposal is designed to facilitate the maximum reuse of recycled water, to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater in the Elsinore GMZ and downstream GMZs for future generations, and to be consistent with Executive Order 68-16, Water Code Section 13241, and State Board orders and policies that promote recycled water reuse.
Samantha was responsible for: developing the technical basis of the demonstration; developing alternative salinity management alternatives for evaluation; managing a team of scientists that are using numerical groundwater modeling tools to develop TDS and nitrate concentration projections for the Elsinore GMZ; developing a long term compliance strategy to verify that the beneficial uses of the Elsinore GMZ will be protected under the maximum benefit program; leading negotiations with the Santa Ana Regional Board; and stakeholder outreach. The proposal was accepted by the Regional Board staff in February 2020 and the team completed the process to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan to incorporate the new maximum benefit objectives and management plan. Samantha now serves as the Principal-in-Charge of the team leading the implementation phase.
STAFF TITLE: Scientist Manager I
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 17
EDUCATION
Master of Environmental Science
and Management (MESM), Water
Resources Management, Donald
Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management,
University of California, Santa
Barbara, 2006
BS, Environmental Science,
University of Notre Dame, 2002
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Groundwater Resources
Association of California (GRA)
National Groundwater
Association
Samantha Adams, MESM | Page 2
Compliance Strategy for the Use of Recycled Water at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Perris, CA: Project Scientist assisting the EMWD with the development and implementation of a compliance strategy for its recycled water use at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA). The EMWD delivers about 3,000 acre feet
per year of tertiary treated recycled water to the SJWA to maintain their wetland habitat. The total dissolved solids (TDS) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) concentrations of recycled water exceed the water quality objectives of the underlying management zone. As such, the Regional Board required mitigation of the salt loading if the discharge of recycled water to groundwater was greater than a de minimis impact. Samantha was part of the team that developed a
technical work plan to characterize the potential for impacts using cone penetrometer tests to demonstrate whether a
continuous layer of clays exists beneath the SJWA, preventing the infiltration of recycled water to the water table. Samantha managed the implementation of the project, which was
completed and presented to the Regional Board in 2011.
As a result of the study, the EMWD can continue to deliver recycled water for use at the SJWA.
Watermaster Engineering Services, Beaumont Basin
Watermaster (2005 – 2012), Beaumont, CA: Project
Scientist provided engineering and hydrogeologic support services to the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, the
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, the South Mesa
Water Company, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and other groundwater pumpers in the Beaumont Basin adjudication, including development of the physical solution incorporated into the stipulated agreement in 2004 and subsequently
served as the Watermaster Engineer from 2005 through
2012. As a Project Scientist, Samantha was responsible for the implementation of the Watermaster database, coordinating the production and groundwater level monitoring program, maintaining the Watermaster website, and preparation of the Watermaster Annual Report to the Court.
FY 2021/22 Basin Planning Priorities to Update the Santa Ana River Watershed SNMP, Basin Monitoring Program
Task Force (administered by the Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority), Riverside County, CA: Principal Scientist for regulatory and technical support in assessing the Santa Ana River Basin Plan SNMP for compliance with the 2019
Recycled Water Policy. For this project, West Yost prepared an updated watershed wide groundwater monitoring program,
a surface water monitoring program, and recommendations for updated technical methods to assess assimilative capacity through periodic computation of ambient water quality.
Administrative and Technical Services, Borrego Springs
Watermaster, Borrego Springs, CA: Samantha serves as
Executive Director for the Borrego Springs Watermaster. The Watermaster was created as an arm of the Court through
a Stipulated Judgment in the adjudication of groundwater rights for the Borrego Springs Subbasin (Basin). The Basin was adjudicated to enable the sustainable management
of its groundwater resources in a manner consistent with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
including requiring a 75 percent reduction in groundwater use over 20 years. As Executive Director, Samantha is
responsible for organizing, overseeing, and/or performing the administrative and management aspects of the Judgment,
Rules and Regulations, and Groundwater Management Plan, including running Board, Technical Advisory Committee,
and Environmental Working Group meetings; providing
accounting and financial services (banking, reporting,
audits); preparing the annual budget; document and website management; annual water rights accounting and reporting to Court; and all technical activities (implementation of field monitoring programs, data collection and database management, groundwater modeling, periodic recomputation of sustainable yield, and SGMA compliance reporting).
Water Rights Compliance and Basin Management
Monitoring and Reporting Program (2010 – ongoing),
San Juan Basin Authority (SJBA), Various, CA: Principal in Charge and previously served as the Project Manager
(2013 – 2019) and Project Scientist (2010 – 2012) for the SJBA’s water rights compliance and basin management
monitoring and reporting programs from. The objectives
of the program are to collect, analyze, and report on the data used to demonstrate compliance with the SJBA’s water rights diversion permit, estimate groundwater storage and recommend annual pumping limits, evaluate the threat of seawater intrusion, and assess riparian vegetation health along San Juan Creek. As the project manager, Samantha
directed the design and implementation of the field
and cooperative data collection program, supported the
preparation of the annual report of compliance to the State Board, oversaw CASGEM compliance, managed biology
subconsultants, managed the implementation of a watershed wide surface and groundwater monitoring program in support of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the San Juan Creek, participated in Technical Advisory Group meetings, supported the development of the annual budget, and gave monthly presentations to the Board of Directors. In 2016, she managed the development of the Adaptive Pumping
Management Plan, a first of its kind report for the San Juan Basin, that sets annual sustainable pumping limits based on current basin storage and climate conditions. Samantha now serves as the technical advisor to the team that manages the SJBA programs.
Andy Malone, PG
Hydrogeologist
Andy is a Hydrogeologist with over 25 years of professional experience in water resources consulting and in geologic sciences. His technical expertise includes sedimentary geology, tectonics, basin characterization, hydrogeologic and hydrologic analyses, aquifer mechanics, geographic information systems (GIS), and database design and implementation. Andy develops investigative strategies for hydrogeologic studies, leads stakeholder technical committees, manages projects and staff, works to increase the technical expertise of the company, and mentors and guides junior staff as they develop into the next generation of expert water resources professionals.
At present, Andy is managing engineering services for the Chino Basin Watermaster, where he is leading sophisticated hydrogeologic investigations in pumping induced land subsidence, groundwater/surface water interactions, and the monitoring of groundwater dependent ecosystems; leading an effort with the Six Basins Watermaster to develop and implement an improved water resources management program in the Six Basins to maximize the beneficial use of the groundwater basin; leading an effort to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Spadra Basin; leading all technical services for the newly established Borrego Springs Watermaster; and, developing a groundwater monitoring program in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin to support a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.
Earlier in his career, Andy was the Lead Geologist in the development of a hydrogeologic conceptual model of the Chino Basin that was subsequently translated into a very well calibrated numerical groundwater flow model. Andy continues to work with the modeling team to refine the conceptual model based on new geologic and monitoring data and to use the model to inform numerous basin management initiatives, such as the management of land subsidence. Andy’s professional experience also includes employment as a Field Geologist for the Indiana State Geological Survey and as a geology instructor at Saddleback College in Southern California.
EXPERIENCE
Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Chino Basin Watermaster, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties, CA: Project Manager. Andy is conducting ongoing investigations to determine whether the groundwater management plan in the Chino Basin is having adverse impacts on a groundwater dependent riparian habitat in the downgradient portion of the basin. The investigation is a monitoring and mitigation requirement of the EIR for the groundwater management plan. The intent of this investigation is to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of riparian habitat, and if degradation of the riparian habitat is documented, to provide information on the cause(s) of that degradation. If the cause(s) of degradation are attributed to the implementation of the groundwater management plan, the data from the investigation will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation STAFF TITLE: Principal Geologist II
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 25
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Professional Geologist,
California No. 8700
EDUCATION
MS, Geological Sciences, Indiana
University Bloomington
BA, Geological Sciences,
University of California, Santa
Barbara
BA, Environmental Studies,
University of California,
Santa Barbara
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
National Ground Water
Association
Groundwater Resources
Association of California (GRA)
South Coast Geological Society
Andy Malone, PG | Page 2
Lead Technical Consultant, Borrego Springs Watermaster, Borrego Springs, CA: Lead Technical Consultant for the
Borrego Springs Watermaster. In this role, Andy leads a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and an Environmental Working Group (EWG). TAC responsibilities include making recommendations to the Board on all technical matters,
including the periodic redetermination of Sustainable
Yield and the implementation of a 75% ramp down in
groundwater pumping through 2040 to achieve sustainability.
EWG responsibilities include making recommendations to
the Board on all environmental matters as it implements the Stipulated Judgment to comply with the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act. Major activities and areas
of interest of the EWG include groundwater dependent
ecosystems, management of fallowed lands and the potential for participating in biological mitigation projects, addressing improperly abandoned wells, and management of non native (invasive) species for water conservation purposes.
Wasteload Allocation for the Santa Ana River Watershed, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority – Basin Monitoring Program Task Force, Orange County, CA: Project Manager.
Andy led this study of the existing wasteload allocation for the Santa Ana River Watershed. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the existing wasteload allocation for Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW) discharge of total dissolved solids (TDS) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) was compliant with the water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (Basin Plan). To conduct this study, Andy and the modeling team updated and used the
Wasteload Allocation Model (WLAM)—a numerical computer
simulation model of surface water discharge, quality, and streambed recharge. The WLAM simulated updated plans for wastewater discharge and stormwater conservation and used a set of elegant procedures and explanatory data graphics to evaluate the existing wasteload allocation with respect to the surface water and groundwater standards in the Basin Plan. The Regional Board uses the results of the wasteload allocation studies to review and revise the Basin Plan and POTW discharge permits if necessary.
measures. Andy and his team designed the monitoring
program and investigation, and they are now implementing it. The investigation includes remote sensing and field surveys of the riparian habitat, the construction of monitoring wells and ongoing monitoring of water levels and quality, monitoring of surface water discharge and quality, monitoring of climatic trends, and analysis of other factors that can affect riparian habitat such as pests and wildfire. These data are analyzed and reported annually to a Watermaster subcommittee, which is led by Andy. The annual reports
include recommendations for modifications to the monitoring program and a proposed budget for the following fiscal year.
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
(SNMP) Update, Coachella Valley Water District,
Coachella, CA: Project Manager and Principal Geologist.
The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy requires
the stakeholders in the Coachella Valley to develop an
SNMP that sustainably manages salt and nutrient loading in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) to
protect its beneficial uses. In 2015, the Coachella Valley stakeholders submitted an SNMP to the Regional Board
(2015 SNMP); however, the Regional Board found the 2015 SNMP insufficient. Of concern to the Regional Board was the insufficiency of the proposed monitoring program to fill data gaps and adequately characterize the spatial and vertical distribution of water quality conditions; lack of an antidegradation analysis to support salt and nutrient loading from the use and recharge of Colorado River water; and the absence of proposed implementation measures to
manage salt and nutrient loading on a sustainable basis. Of concern to the Coachella Valley stakeholders was the ability for continued use and recharge of Colorado River water, which is a critical source of supplemental water to support the sustainability of the Basin and the economy of the
Coachella Valley. In 2020/21, Andy led a multi stakeholder effort, including the Regional Board staff, in the development of a workplan to update the 2015 CV SNMP (CV SNMP
Development Workplan). The workplan includes a major
redesign of the SNMP groundwater monitoring program and a technical process to set numeric TDS objectives for the Basin.
The Regional Board approved the proposed groundwater
monitoring program in February 2021 and approved the CV SNMP Development Workplan in October 2021. Currently,
Andy is leading a multi-stakeholder effort to implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan.
Veva Weamer
Veva has 15 years of professional experience in environmental and geological science.
Veva is a Supervising Scientist with a focus on the managing the implementation of various regulatory compliance programs for agencies in Southern California. Her areas of expertise include database management, data analysis, water quality monitoring and analysis, salt and nutrient analysis, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and groundwater and surface water monitoring program implementation and evaluation.
Veva graduated from California State University, Fullerton in 2005 with a Bachelors in Geological Sciences. In 2007, she completed her Master’s in Environmental Studies degree from California State University, Fullerton with an emphasis in water resources management. Her master’s research involved the quantification of groundwater movement and aquifer characterization of the Harper Lake Basin located in Mojave Desert, California, using GIS tools and bore log data. Veva was awarded the 2006 Prem K. Saint award for outstanding work in hydrogeology for her research.
EXPERIENCE
Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Manager.
Veva leads the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (PBHSP), which is implemented by the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee (PBHSC). The PBHSC is comprised of Chino Basin Stakeholders. The key element of the PBHSP is an adaptive monitoring program intended to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of the riparian habitat in the Prado Basin Management Zone in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, and to provide information on the cause(s) of riparian habitat degradation if documented. Data from the monitoring program will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation measures if the cause(s) of degradation are conclusively attributed to Peace II Implementation.
The monitoring program consists of integrated programs for the monitoring of riparian habitat and monitoring of factors that can potentially affect riparian habitat, which include groundwater, surface water, weather, and climate. Data from the monitoring program is analyzed, interpreted, and reported on annually. The annual reporting and analysis form the basis to adjust the monitoring program, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the PBHSP. Veva is responsible for managing all components of the monitoring program for the PBHSP. Veva is also responsible for writing an annual report that discusses and interprets the monitoring data and any related groundwater- modeling results, describes recommended measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to the riparian habitat (if applicable), and recommends activities for the subsequent year monitoring program. Veva presents the annual report contents to the PBHSC to facilitate Stakeholder input and suggested revisions for the recommendations for the monitoring program and mitigation measures, if necessary.
Veva is also responsible for preparing the subsequent fiscal year budget for the PBHSP based on the recommendations for modifications to the monitoring program in the annual report.
STAFF TITLE: Principal Scientist I
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 15
EDUCATION
MS, Environmental Studies,
California State University,
Fullerton, December 2007
BS, Geological Sciences, California
State University, Fullerton, June
2005
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Groundwater Resources
Association of California
Veva Weamer | Page 2
attain hydraulic control of the Chino-North Groundwater Management Zone, which is a requirement of the maximum- benefit commitments in the Watermaster’s and IEUA’s Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Chino Basin are related to hydraulic control and Chino Desalter pumping.
West Yost used the Chino Valley Model and other modeling tools to assess the potential for a temporary loss of hydraulic control from various scenarios of pumping reductions at the Chino Desalter wells. The results were used to prepare new regulatory hydraulic control definitions related to Chino Desalter pumping and the updated Mitigation Plan for
Temporary Loss of Hydraulic Control. The 2022 Mitigation Plan was submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Board in June 2022. Veva developed the various scenarios to simulate with the modeling tools, reviewed results with the Watermaster, IEUA, and the Chino Basin Desalter Authority, and helped prepare the 2022 Mitigation Plan that was submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Board.
FY 2021/22 Basin Planning Priorities to Update the Santa Ana River Watershed SNMP, Basin Monitoring Program
Task Force (administered by the Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority), Riverside County, CA: Project Manager and Senior Scientist. Veva provided regulatory and technical support through a stakeholder process to assess the Santa Ana River Basin Plan SNMP for compliance with the 2019
Recycled Water Policy. For this project, West Yost prepared an updated watershed-wide groundwater monitoring program,
a surface water monitoring program, and recommendations for updated technical methods to assess assimilative capacity through periodic computation of ambient water quality.
Veva is the Project Manager leading the development and preparation of the updated surface water monitoring program for the Santa Ana River to assess compliance with the TDS and nitrogen surface water objectives in the Basin Plan.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS/
PROCEEDINGS
Weamer, V.M. (2020) Utilizing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Monitoring Groundwater
Dependent Ecosystems with Satellites and Groundwater
Level Data. Presented at the Groundwater Resources
Association Western Groundwater Congress Goes Virtual
Hollywood. September 14-17, 2020.
Weamer, V.M. (2021) Utilizing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Monitor Groundwater
Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). Presented at the
Groundwater Resources Association of California, The
Future of Water Conference. February 23-24, 2021.
Monitoring and Reporting for the Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Program to Evaluate the Potential Effects of Reduction of Treated Wastewater Discharged by
Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority
(WRCRWA), West Riverside County, CA: Project Manager.
Veva led the adaptive monitoring program to evaluate trends in groundwater and vegetation near and downstream of the discharge location of WRCRWA treatment plant to determine whether the planned reduction in wastewater discharge
will cause declining groundwater levels and/or reduction in the riparian vegetation health. West Yost helped setup and performed high-frequency groundwater elevation monitoring at nine dedicated monitoring wells and surface water level monitoring at the Oxbow Pond and coordinate the bi-
annual vegetation monitoring. Annual reports are prepared summarizing the monitoring results, conclusions, and
recommendations. Thus far the monitoring and reporting is for Phase One prior to the reduction in wastewater discharge.
Preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan,
Spadra Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA),
Walnut, CA: Project Manager. Veva led the development
of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Spadra
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which was a
collaborative effort of the Walnut Valley Water District and the City of Pomona. The Spadra Basin is a groundwater
basin located in eastern Los Angeles County. The project included supporting the GSA in stakeholder engagement;
preparation of a hydrogeologic database; monitoring well construction to fill data gaps; construction and calibration of a groundwater-flow model; development of sustainable management criteria for the basin; evaluation of sustainability of future “Baseline” conditions; description of new projects or management actions to achieve sustainability for four “Basin Optimization Scenarios”; conduct modeling evaluation of the Basin Optimization Scenarios; preparation of long-term cost analyses for Baseline and Basin Optimization Scenarios; identification of the preferred Basin Optimization Scenario; and preparation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan
through a public-review process. The final GSP for the Spadra Basin was completed and adopted in May 2022.
Updated Plan for Mitigation of Temporary Loss of
Hydraulic Control in the Chino Basin, Chino Basin
Watermaster and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA),
Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Senior Scientist. Veva supported
development of a 2022 update to the 2005 Mitigation Plan of Temporary Loss of Hydraulic Control in the Chino Basin (2022 Mitigation Plan), required by the Santa Ana Regional Board. The operation of the Chino Desalters is necessary to
Carolina Sanchez, PE
Carolina has eight years of professional experience in the water resources industry.
Her skills include groundwater monitoring, numerical analysis, water resources, and GIS. As a Senior Engineer, Carolina is involved in a variety of projects. Her tasks include: analysis of groundwater level and water quality data; data management; California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) compliance; developing charts and contour maps to characterize groundwater flow systems and associated water quality; conducting hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of groundwater recharge using imported, recycled, and storm waters; modeling groundwater production trends; creating tables, charts, and maps to analyze and characterize surface water discharge and associated water quality; and reconnaissance-level design of surface water management facilities.
EXPERIENCE
Development of a Strategic Plan for the Six Basins, Six Basins Watermaster, Lake Forest, CA: Project Engineer. Carolina supported the development of the Strategic Plan for the Six Basins Watermaster. The objective of the Strategic Plan is to develop a water-resources management program that sustains and enhances the water supplies available to the Six Basins parties in a cost-effective manner and in accordance with the Six Basins Judgment. This effort began in early 2012 and included the preparation of a comprehensive “state of the basin” report and the articulation of the issues, needs, and wants of the Watermaster Parties—individually and collectively as a group.
This information was used to define Strategic Plan project alternatives. The evaluation of the alternatives required the use of surface water and groundwater computer- simulation models. Carolina developed a project economic forecasting tool to estimate the annual water supply cost for each party for the “no strategic” plan, or baseline case, and for alternative management plans being considered in Strategic Plan development. She was responsible for analyzing water production trends; hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of increased stormwater diversion and recharge at the San Antonio and Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds; and the preparation, of maps, charts, and tables to communicate the results of groundwater model simulations of the Strategic Plan alternatives. She also worked on the final report, documenting the development of the Strategic Plan, and a planning proposal for the implementation of the Strategic Plan. Currently, she is working on the implementation of the Strategic Plan, which includes developing planning scenarios for the Six Basins Parties, coordinating with groundwater modelers, and coordinating with the environmental consultants for the preparation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.
San Juan Basin Groundwater and Desalination Optimization Program, San Juan Basin Authority, Orange County, CA: Project Engineer. Carolina supported the San Juan Basin Groundwater and Desalination Optimization Program. In this project, her team evaluated the physical and economic feasibility of projects to increase recharge in the basin with storm and recycled waters, implemented a seawater extraction barrier, and optimized production schemes to adaptively manage groundwater storage STAFF TITLE: Senior Engineer I
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 8
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Professional Civil Engineer,
California, No. 85598
EDUCATION
MS, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University
BS, Civil Engineering,
Loyola Marymount University,
Los Angeles
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Groundwater Resources
Association of California
Technical Board, Thirst Project
Carolina Sanchez, PE | Page 2
Authority (VVWRA). The VVWRA is experiencing high-
groundwater conditions at its Victor Valley Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Specifically, Ponds
1-6 located at the lowest elevations on site are continuously filled with shallow groundwater. West Yost prepared maps, hydrogeologic cross-sections, Piper diagrams, and tables of water chemistry results. These work products were analyzed to demonstrate that demonstrate that (1) the surface water in Pond 6 is shallow groundwater that originates primarily from effluent discharged to the upgradient percolation
ponds and (2) the quality of water in Pond 6 does not
exceed the effluent limitations in the VVWRA’s Waste
Discharge Requirements permits.
PUBLICATIONS
Choy, J., Moran, T., McGhee, G., Szeptycki, L., Nelson, R., Rohde, M., Maynard, J., Sanchez, C., Van Siembrouck, P., Porath, M., Carlson, J. Water in the West: Understanding California’s Groundwater website (2014) Accessed:
December 18, 2020.
https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS/
PROCEEDINGS
Sanchez, C., Malone, A., Abelson, J. (2020) Enhancing
Groundwater Basin Management through MS4 Permit
Compliance. Presented at the Groundwater Resources
Association Western Conference.
Sanchez, C. (2022) How to Comply With Non-Existent
Objectives? The Need for and Development of a Salt and
Nutrient Management Plan in the Upper Temescal Valley.
Presented at the California WateReUse Conference.
Sanchez, C., Rapp, G. (2022) Leveraging Existing
Information to Assess the Potential Impacts of Managed
Aquifer Recharge Projects. Presented at the 11th
International Symposium On Manager Aquifer Recharge.
in wet and dry climate cycles. Other key components of the feasibility study were to evaluate the regulatory challenges of implementing the recycled water recharge projects and issues associated with recharging water in an impaired
basin. Carolina was involved in performing the surface water modeling to calculate new yield; coordinating with the
groundwater flow modelers; analyzing MT3D groundwater
quality modeling results; and calculating recycled water underground retention time. She was also involved in
preparing preliminary designs and operating plans for a new in-stream rubber dam system to turn a stream into 2.5-mile- long recharge basin.
Recharge Master Plan Update (RMPU), Chino Basin
Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Engineer.
Carolina supports the implementation of the 2013
Amendment to the 2010 RMPU. The 2010 RMPU utilized
state-of-the-art surface water models, developed to estimate stormwater recharge in spreading basins and in localized recharge facilities that will be constructed to comply with the 2010 Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4)
permits. The investigation also determined the existing recharge capacity for imported and recycled waters and
future recharge capacity requirements. Subsequent to
the approval of the 2010 RMPU, the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plans were released, and the groundwater
production projections were substantially less than assumed in the 2010 RMPU. A Stakeholder Committee (Steering
Committee) was formed to conduct further analysis of the projects recommended in the 2010 RMPU, to introduce and analyze new yield enhancement and production sustainability projects, and to develop a finance and implementation
plan for the recommended projects. The 2013 Amendment
was approved by the stakeholders and the Court. Carolina is responsible for the preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic design work to refine recharge projects and for reviewing interim submittals from design contractors.
In 2018, Carolina was the Project Engineer for the
development of the 2018 RMPU. The work to develop the
2018 RMPU included working with Watermaster Staff to
lead the Steering Committee meetings and workshops and
presenting technical information to the Chino Basin pools and Board. Carolina was also responsible for characterizing projected availability and cost of imported water, identifying the need for additional recharge capacity in the Basin, and preparing the report. The 2018 RMPU was approved by the Watermaster Board in September 2018 to meet the October 2018 deadline of the Court submittal.
Shallow-Groundwater Characterization Study (2021).
Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, CA:
Project Engineer and Manager. Carolina led a hydrogeologic study for the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation
Lucy Hedley
Lucy has five years of professional experience in the water resources industry. Her technical expertise includes data management, water quality analysis, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and geospatial analysis, and ground and surface water monitoring program implementation. As a Project Scientist and Manager, she has experience in estimating spatially distributed groundwater contaminant concentrations through kriging, analyzing Landsat NDVI data for vegetation monitoring, and managing large water quality databases, as well as experience in the collection of surface water and groundwater quality samples, measurement of groundwater levels, and installation of pressure transducers and data retrieval. While working on her master’s degree, Lucy was awarded a Sustainable Water Markets Fellowship in 2017 from the Catena Foundation to study innovative ways to manage water and achieve multi benefit solutions. For her thesis project, she worked as part of a team for Legacy Works Group and Friends of the Teton River to develop a watershed management plan for the Teton Valley, ID, and to create a program to increase incidental groundwater recharge in the valley.
EXPERIENCE
Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee (PBHSC), Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Scientist.
Lucy serves as a project scientist for the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (PBHSP). The key element of the PBHSP is an adaptive monitoring program intended to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of the riparian habitat in the Prado Basin Management Zone in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, and to provide information on the cause(s) of riparian habitat degradation, if documented.
Data from the monitoring program will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation measures if the cause(s) of degradation are conclusively attributed to groundwater management practices in the Chino Basin. The program consists of monitoring of riparian habitat and the factors that can potentially affect riparian habitat health, which include groundwater levels/quality, surface water, weather, climate, invasive species, and fire. Each year, data from the monitoring program is analyzed, interpreted, and reported. The annual reporting and analysis form the basis to adapt the monitoring program, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the PBHSP. Lucy is responsible for managing the field program data, collecting and analyzing other relevant data, including Landsat radar data and vegetation monitoring data. These data are used to prepare explanatory charts and maps of the health of the Prado Basin vegetation. Lucy contributes interpretation of the integrated data sets and any related groundwater-modeling results; and presents the annual report conclusions to the PBHSC to facilitate Stakeholder input to the PBHSP.
Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program State of the Basin Report, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Manager. Lucy was the project manager for the preparation of the 2022 State of the Basin Report, in which she managed a team of scientists, engineers, and geologists to prepare the STAFF TITLE: Associate Scientist I
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 5
EDUCATION
Master of Environmental Science
and Management (MESM), Bren
School of Environmental Science
& Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara
BS, Biology with a minor in
economics and specialization in
environmental studies, Davidson
College
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Groundwater Resources
Association of California
Lucy Hedley| Page 2
such as reporting for various regulatory requirements and analyses to understand changes in the basin as groundwater management strategies are implemented over time.
Upper Temescal Valley Salt and Nutrient Management
Plan, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Lake Elsinore, CA: Responsible for assisting in the implementation of the SNMP monitoring program by collecting biweekly and monthly water samples at seven surface water monitoring stations during the winter/spring and summer/fall. These samples are delivered to and analyzed by the EMWD laboratory. Lucy has also assisted with quarterly groundwater quality sampling. The data collected during these surface water and groundwater sampling events are being used to prepare an SNMP to support EVMWD and EMWD’s recycled water discharge and reuse plans in the Upper Temescal Valley. The data collected as part of this monitoring program are used to estimate current ambient water quality and assimilative capacity, and project future TDS and nitrogen concentrations.
Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge
Program, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga,
CA: Lucy oversaw the collection of quarterly groundwater elevation data at 32 wells in the Chino Basin for the purpose of monitoring the impact of recycled water recharge on basin water levels. In addition to collecting manual groundwater elevation measurements in the field, Lucy maintained and downloaded pressure transducers and data loggers that
measure piezometric head. These data are submitted to
the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on
behalf of the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater
Recharge Program, pursuant to a recharge permit with co permittees—the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. The program is part of a comprehensive water supply program to enhance water supply reliability and improve groundwater quality in Chino Basin by increasing the recharge of stormwater, imported water, and recycled water.
PUBLICATIONS
Burchenal, K., Campbell, M., Hedley, L., Honn, E., Reeder, T. (2018). Augmenting Summer Streamflow; Innovative
Approach in the Teton River, Idaho. The Water Report.
Issue #173. Envirotech Publications.
six sections of the report. The report is a court-ordered document, prepared pursuant to the Chino Basin Optimum
Basin Management Program (OBMP) and subsequent
implementation plans and agreements. The State of the Basin Report demonstrates: the current physical state of the Chino Basin with regard to climate, basin production, groundwater recharge, groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and land subsidence. It is intended to demonstrate the Watermaster’s, progress in implementing the OBMP since July 2000 when
the Chino Basin Watermaster commenced implementation
of the investigations, monitoring programs, and management strategies defined in the OBMP. The report features detailed exhibits that characterize and interpret key hydrogeologic conditions. Lucy is also responsible for preparing the data and analysis within the reports groundwater quality section, which includes analysis of potential contaminants of concern in the Basin, a geospatial analysis of multiple point-source contamination plumes, and exhibits characterizing the
ambient TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Basin. In addition to processing and analyzing the data and compiling the exhibits for the groundwater quality section.
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Monitoring Program
(SNMP), San Juan Basin Authority, Various, CA: Project Manager Lucy is responsible for the implementation of the watershed wide groundwater and surface water monitoring program that supports the San Juan Creek SNMP. The work plan for this monitoring program was completed in 2016 and included over 30 surface and groundwater monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Lucy is responsible for the field implementation of the program, as well as the data analysis and project reporting. As part of the field implementation of the program, Lucy is responsible for working with field staff to coordinate the collection of samples in the field; reviewing the data in the HydroDaVESM database; and modifying the monitoring program to meet its objectives and to improve field implementation logistics for long term implementation.
Lucy is also responsible for collecting, compiling, and checking recycled water, surface water, and groundwater data collected from other entities performing monitoring in the watershed. Lucy prepares annual reports on the analysis and interpretations of the data collected for the program.
Chino Basin Watermaster Groundwater and Surface Water
Database, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga,
CA: Lucy is responsible for the management and
maintenance of the Chino Basin Watermaster’s database. She manages a team of scientists that collect, compile, and upload all publicly available datasets online, and coordinates with public and private entities within the Chino Basin on a routine basis to keep the database up to date. Lucy is responsible for the review and QA/QC of all data collected and uploaded to the database. The Chino Basin Watermaster database
is critical to support a variety of Watermaster functions,
Eric W.H. Chiang, PhD
Eric’s experience has focused on research and application in the areas of numerical groundwater and surface water modeling, 3D Visualization, software development, data management, planning and decision analysis, and geographic information systems (GIS). Eric develops and applies several computer software packages, notably Processing MODFLOW, a graphical user interface for groundwater and surface water flow and transport modeling with MODFLOW, MODPATH, MT3D, GSFLOW, SEAWAT, and PEST. He applies Processing MODFLOW in many modeling projects to assist in planning, decision making, regulatory compliance, and to facilitate stakeholder involvement and understanding.
In addition, he develops and applies HydroDaVE – a cloud based groundwater and surface water data management system that enables users to remotely manage, visualize, analyze, and share groundwater, surface water, climatic data, and model results on a map based user interface. He incorporates innovative remote sensing or model based data in HydroDaVE, such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to quantify vegetation and Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) and Global Circulation Models (GCMs) to provide historical and future daily/hourly precipitation estimates. Eric has extensive experience in several modeling software programs including MODFLOW, GSFLOW, PRMS, HYDRUS, MT3DMS, RT3D, SEAWAT, PEST, UCODE, GSLIB, ArcGIS, SURFER, and GRAPHER, and he is well versed in the SQL Database and several programming languages such as C, C#, C++, Python, Fortran, Visual Basic, and R.
Eric was a Professor at the University of the Free State, South Africa where he authored and published 3D Groundwater Modeling with PMWIN, a textbook that covers Processing MODFLOW and computer codes for groundwater flow and contaminant transport simulation. In addition, Eric served as a University Instructor at the University of Bremen, Germany where he taught Applied Groundwater Modeling short courses from 1996 to 2004.
EXPERIENCE
2015 and 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation for the Chino Basin, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Engineer. The safe yield of the Chino Basin is re calculated pursuant to the Peace Agreement and Watermaster rules and regulations. For the 2015 investigation to recalculate the safe yield of the Chino Basin, Eric obtained all historical precipitation and temperature data from surface stations and radar estimates, PRISM, and spatially disaggregated and bias corrected projections of precipitation and temperature from NASA for the available GCM projections. Eric compared historical and GCM projected precipitation information at various locations in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed to determine the reliability of using GCM based projections of precipitation to compute stormwater recharge and the deep infiltration of precipitation and applied water. This information was used in the estimation of safe yield in the Chino Basin. Eric served as the project engineer for the 2020 investigation to recalculate the safe yield of the Chino Basin. The 2020 safe yield estimate was STAFF TITLE: Principal Scientist II
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 30
EDUCATION
PhD, Civil Engineering, University
of Kassel, Germany
MS, Civil Engineering, University
of Stuttgart, Germany
BS, Civil Engineering. National
Central University, Taiwan
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Groundwater Resources
Association of California
National Ground Water
Association
International Association of
Hydrological Sciences
Eric W.H. Chiang, PhD | Page 2
PRMS. A benefit of GSFLOW is that both headwater, valley settings and groundwater can be simulated simultaneously so that flows throughout a watershed can be simulated
comprehensively.
One Dimensional Model Simulation of Aquifer System
Deformation at the PX Site, Chino Basin Watermaster,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lead Modeler. A numerical,
one dimensional, aquifer system compaction model was
constructed and calibrated using the lithology data of the PX site located in the northwestern portion of the Chino Basin (Northwest MZ 1) – an area that has experienced gradual and persistent subsidence for decades. The objective of the model was to explore the future occurrence of subsidence in Northwest MZ 1 under various basin management scenarios of groundwater production and artificial recharge, and to identify potential subsidence mitigation strategies.
Maximum Benefit Demonstration for the Elsinore
Groundwater Management Zone, Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District, Lake Elsinore, CA: Lead
Groundwater Modeler. Eric provided modeling for developing a maximum benefit demonstration to raise the total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration objectives for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in the
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The District is seeking new, maximum benefit based TDS and nitrate concentration objectives such that it can have the flexibility to develop and invest in a water resources plan that optimizes the management and use of all its water supply assets to achieve a reliable water supply in an environmentally sound manner. The District’s maximum benefit proposal is designed to facilitate the maximum
reuse of recycled water, to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater in the Elsinore GMZ and downstream GMZs for future generations, and to be consistent with Executive Order 68 16, Water Code section 13241, and State Board orders and policies that promote recycled water reuse. Eric is responsible for developing a numerical groundwater model to develop TDS and nitrate concentration projections for the Elsinore GMZ, based on the EVMWD’s Integrated Resources Supply
Plan. The groundwater model is being developed with the Processing MODFLOW software, authored by Eric.
prepared consistent with the sustainable yield requirements in the SGMA and when it was also subjected to peer review.
The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation report was published on May 15, 2020.
Update of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
(SNMP) for the Chino Basin, Chino Basin Watermaster,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lead Water Quality Modeler.
The objective of the SNMP study was to demonstrate the
long term impacts of recycled water reuse and recharge
on the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the Chino Basin during prolonged future droughts. This work included the development of a series of numerical models, including complex fate and transport water quality models (land surface, streams, vadose zone, and groundwater) that simulated the water flow and TDS and nitrate transport
processes for the entire Chino Basin, including the historical, current, and future loading associated with land use
management for agriculture and dairy operations. The
specific models used included R4, Hydrus 2D, MODFLOW,
and MT3D. Eric developed software to iteratively run
the models to honor feedback loops in the system. This
enables the projected changes in groundwater quality to be represented in projected water supply and recycled water quality, the return flows of which contribute to subsequent changes in groundwater quality and Santa Ana River quality (the feedback loop). This model is the most detailed and sophisticated TDS and nitrate simulation ever done for the Santa Ana Watershed.
Integrated Surface and Groundwater Model, Santa
Margarita Water District (District), CA: Lead Modeler.
The District retained West Yost to provide engineering and hydrogeologic services to support a preliminary design
report and environmental documentation for the San Juan Watershed Project (Project) that included work to evaluate the amount of new stormwater recharge generated by the
Project, to develop groundwater pumping plans to recover the new recharge, and other hydrogeologic tasks. Eric
served as the lead modeler for developing an integrated surface water and groundwater model for the San Juan
Watershed and San Juan Creek groundwater basin to support the advanced planning, design and implementation of the Project; ensured that the facilities and associated operating plans were reliably developed; provided accurate estimates of Project yield and unit cost of the new yield; assessed environmental responses; and developed the detailed
information needed to obtain permits and allocate new yield of the Project. Using the Processing MODFLOW software as well as climate data, such as PRISM and CIMIS, collected and stored in the HydroDaVE System, the model was built with the USGS coupled surface water and groundwater flow model called GSFLOW. GSFLOW is based on USGS’s groundwater flow model MODFLOW and precipitation runoff modeling system
JACOBS
Total Years of Experience:
32 Education: B.S., Biology AB
Thesis Graduate Studies,
California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
Specialized Knowledge:
ü Expertise in avian (bird)
surveys and monitoring;
fish surveys; habitat and
wildlife inventory and
mapping
ü Extensive academic
background includes
ecology, local flora and
fauna, biology of
ecosystems, conservation
of natural resources,
politics and planning
Credentials:
ü Certified Inspector,
Sediment and Erosion
Control
ü Certified CRAM Practitioner
ü USACE District(s): San
Francisco, Albuquerque
ü U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Federal 10(a)
Recovery Permit (TE-
832945-3) to survey for
coastal California gnat
catcher (Polioptila
Californica Californica)
ü California Department of
Fish and Game MOU –
Conduct surveys for
Southern Rubber Boa
(Charina Bottae
Umbratica)
ü Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner
ü State Water Resources
Control Board
ü Wetland Policy and
Delineation Training
ü Conflict Management and
Resolution Facilitator
CALIFORNIA & SOUTHWEST OPERATING DIVISIONS LEAD
| LISA PATTERSON
Lisa is a Senior Ecologist and an expert delivering environmental work with IEUA, Water Districts, Light and Class 1 Rail clients nationwide. She is a regulatory specialist and is responsible for preparing and obtaining regulatory permits, managing compliance of regulatory permits, and conducting a wide range of studies and evaluations for absence or presence of endangered species (plants and animals), habitat assessments, biological assessments, impact analyses, mitigation plans, implementation plans, construction monitoring, general biological surveys protected species studies. With over 30 years of experience, she conducts wetland delineations and has secured regulatory permits for various IEUA and Class 1 rail projects ranging from facility expansions, emergency repairs, maintenance activities, and structure replacements. Additionally, Lisa has worked on public-private infrastructure projects. Projects including: IEUA OBMP thru OBMP, Program Maintenance Projects, Cajon 3MT, Structures maintenance 2000-2020, BNSF- Caltrans Richmond Connector, and San Joaquin Corridor PEIR.
RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE
Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster OBMPU:
Role: Biological Surveying/Permitting, Biological Resources Analysis Preparation, and Permit Compliance
Responsibilities: Lisa compiled the Program Biological Resources Report (BRR)for the Optimum Basin Management Program Update (OBMPU). This effort included compiling biological data from the entire Chino Basin to draft a BRR that analyzed the potential impacts to biological resources within the whole of the Basin. Additionally, this effort required drafting extensive mitigation measures that would apply to future individual OBMPU Projects in some cases, and in others, would minimize impacts from the whole of the OBMPU. This effort utilized my extensive knowledge of biological resources and regulatory procedures within the Chino Basin area, and ultimately enabled me to compile a comprehensive Program BRR.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Operation and Maintenance Long Term LSAA Agreement Compliance (Throughout the Chino Basin in Southern California) – Conduct Biological Surveys, Report Preparation, and Compliance assistance and Reporting: Years Worked on Project: 10 Years. I have worked with IEUA for the past 15 years assisting them with the development and long term permitting for routine maintenance in 18 ground water recharge facilities throughout the Chino Basin. Each year pre-maintenance general biological and focused burrowing owl surveys must be conducted. The maintenance activities must be documented, and at the end of each maintenance year a report must be prepared documenting the survey conducted, the results of the surveys, and the maintenance completed.
BNSF, Caltrans Division of Rail, Richmond Connector, CA Role: Biological Surveying/Permitting and Permit Compliance Responsibilities: Biological surveys and jurisdictional delineations were conducted in order to prepare the Natural Environmental Study (NES) for Caltrans to utilize in the CEQA documents. Regulatory Permits were obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Contra Costa County Flood Control. A mitigation plan was developed and will be implemented within the next year.
BNSF, South Territory
Role: Structures Permitting
Responsibilities: BNSF Structures moved their permitting approach to a territorial approach. Lisa has been permitting the entire south territory including California, Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas, and Colorado for regulatory permitting associated with structure maintenance and replacement since the program began. This project involves developing environmental documentation for facilities maintenance on BNSF properties. The regulatory permit includes, but are not limited to Section 404, 401, NPDES, Air Quality, Floodway, and Endangered Species permitting.
BNSF, Engineering Services
Role: Emergency and On-Call Environmental Compliance
Responsibilities: Providing environmental permitting and compliance support as an on call consultant for emergencies and pop-up coordination for BNSF since 1995. Emergency projects include derailment or safety issues such as homeless encampments and bird nests on signal masts or interfering with routine maintenance; and regulatory compliance including QA/QC for NPDES permitting. These services have involved various resources, various emergent situations, and a wide breadth of environmental coordination and permitting.
Southwest Team Primary Support Staff
Lo
c
a
l
Su
p
p
o
r
t
S
t
a
f
f
Kurt Sanderson | Site Evaluation/Project Management,
Permitting, SWPPP Compliance, and Project Compliance
Local Geography: CA
USACE District(s): San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles 18 years of experience
Education: B.S., Biology, Ohio University
Credentials: BNSF Contractor Certification; Union Pacific Railroad Contractor Certification; e-RAILSAFE (BNSF)
Specialized Knowledge:
• BNSF structures documentation and permitting
experience
• NEPA/CEQA, Clean Water Act, Section 401, 402, and 404 • Endangered Species Act surveys, monitoring, and
reporting
Why Kurt was chosen for this team: Kurt brings over 5 years working with BNSF on projects within threatened and endangered species field surveys, jurisdictional waters delineations, and CA state and federal permit preparation and monitoring for environmental compliance on large-scale projects. Kurt lead international development analysis and site evaluations for over 15 years focusing on environmental development, US threatened and endangered (T&E) species, and US jurisdictional waters programs, environmental contract and plans development, and environmental construction compliance.
Daniel Smith | Permitting, Focused Surveys, SWPPP
Compliance, and Monitoring
Local Geography: CA
USACE District(s): San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Albuquerque
13 years of experience
Education: B.A., California State University Fullerton
Credentials:
• Certified Inspector Erosion and Sediment Control
• BNSF Contractor Safety Orientation Certification
• OSHA 10-Hour
• Yellow-billed Cuckoo Survey Workshop and Training
Sessions, Southern Sierra Research Station
• Willow Flycatcher Survey Training Workshop, Southern
Sierra Research Station
• Desert Tortoise Survey Techniques Workshop, Desert
Tortoise Council
• Union Pacific Railroad Contractor Orientation
Certification
Specialized Knowledge:
• BNSF structures documentation and permitting
experience
• Federal and California Endangered Species Act surveys, monitoring, and reporting
• NEPA/CEQA, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404
• Agency and client coordination and consultation
Why Daniel was chosen for thus team: Daniel has 13 years of direct environmental consulting experience with BNSF Railway Company, supporting BNSF’s Structures Division. He has conducted and/or assisted in conducting protocol USFWS and CDFW
threatened and endangered species surveys and jurisdictional waters assessments. He has also prepared permit applications and monitored permit compliance, providing full project cycle management and reporting. Daniel has conducted jurisdictional waters delineations conforming to USACE and RWQCB standards on project sites throughout California.
COST PROPOSAL AND FEE RATE SCHEDULES
FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Tom Dodson and Associates
P.O. Box 2307
San Bernardino, California 92406
(909) 882-3612
In Partnership with:
West Yost
23692 Birtcher Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 420-3030
and
Jacobs
(Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team)
Proposal Due Date and Time:
July 25, 2023
2:00 p.m.
Tom Dodson & Associates, in partnership with West Yost and Jacobs, has prepared a detailed proposal to develop an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AMMP) for the City of Beaumont (City). Our team carefully reviewed the RFP and have prepared an approach and scope of work that we believe will result in the development and approval of a robust AMMP that will serve as the framework for implementing the City’s recycled water program.
This document is our cost proposal to implement the “B. Approach” and “Attachment 1: Scope of Services” that are described in our full project proposal.
As presented in the full proposal, our recommended approach is to perform the tasks to complete the AMMP in three Phases as follows:
• Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP • Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring • Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Continue Baseline Monitoring
As described in our schedule (Section I), the three phases will take three to three and a half years to implement.
The duration is largely dependent on the outcomes of the Phase 1 work.
Our project team has extensive experience in developing and implementing multi -year adaptive monitoring and management programs. Preparing cost estimates for multi-year, multi-phase work can be challenging because the scope of work in later phases is directly impacted by the conclusion of preceding phases. However, we recognize that it is necessary for the City to be able to plan and budget the multi-year effort. We have prepared a planning level budget for the City that includes:
1. A detailed line-item labor hours and cost estimate for the tasks 8 tasks defined in Phase 1 (Table C-1, enclosed)
2. A range of budget-level costs for the remaining tasks in Phases 2 and 3, based on our experience in performing similar work (Table C-2 and Table C-3 below)
3. Table C-4 summarizes the recommended budget to complete the project
The total labor hours estimated to complete Phase 1 is 1,165 hours and the total cost estimated to complete Phase 1 is $267,160. The range of costs to complete Phase 2 is $270,000 to $629,000. The range of costs to complete Phase 3 is $82,000 to $141,000. The labor hours and cost of work in Phases 2 and 3 will need to be determined as the project is implemented – the cost to perform Phase 2 would be determined as a deliverable of the Phase 1 work. The cost estimates and budget level recommendations were made in consideration of the fixed rate schedules for each project team, which are included in Attachment 1.
As shown in Table C-4, we recommend the City budget $997,160 for all phases of work in the first four years but initially issue a task order for consulting services only the cost of the Phase 1 work ($267,160). The recommended budget is based on the upper-end range of costs to provide maximum flexibility to the City as the project evolves.
Please note that the scope of work includes a few tasks that were not explicitly described in the RFP and may be deemed additional work by the City. These items are summarized as follows:
• PHASE 1
o Historical Analysis of NDVI (Phase 1, Task 4) – Cost: $18,691. We believe that NDVI is an important dataset to invest in to develop a historical characterization of the extent and health of riparian habitat in the study area and that the use of this information will lead to a better understanding of the factors that have contributed to the habitat condition over time. • PHASE 2
o Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program (Phase 2, Task 15) – Cost $20,000 to $40,000. Due to duration of time to set up AMMP, this task is recommended to be performed to support the understanding of Baseline conditions considered in the AMMP , and it could potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. o Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP (Phase 2, Task 16) – Cost $10,000 to $12,000. Supports City in developing budget for the final phase of work based on outcomes of Phase 2.
• PHASE 3
o Implement second year of Baseline Monitoring program (Phase 3, Task 1 9) – Cost $22,000 to $43,000. The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP will allow the City to potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced.
Our team is open to negotiating the scope, schedule, and cost of the project to meet t he City’s needs. Prior to entering into contract, we would propose to work with the City to review the proposed scope of work and ensure we are in alignment on the project needs and objectives. We can identify key milestones as well as “off -ramps” that would lead to revisiting the scope if initial investigations and analysis warrant a change to the project or approach. Through this process, the scope, schedule, and cost are refined as necessary to establish a final budget that considers any necessary contingencies to address challenges that may arise. Our goal will always be to perform the minimum, most-efficient work necessary to develop a robust, scientifically credible work product that will serve the City’s needs.
We are available to commence work immediately after execution of the contract and can co mplete the required work within the desired schedule and allotted budget subject to the assumptions stated in this proposal.
We thank you again for the opportunity to serve.
Sincerely,
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton
Vice President, TDA
Enclosures:
Table C-1 - Work Breakdown Structure and Fee Estimate to Perform Phase 1 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development
Table C-2 - Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 2 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development
Table C-3 - Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 3 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development
Table C-4 - Recommended Budget to Develop the of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
Attachment 1 – Consultant Rate Sheets
Sub-
task
Phase/
Task
Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings $38,690 $300 $38,990 Kick-off meeting with City (1)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $4,224 $200 $200 $4,424 Monthly check in calls (12)4.0 18.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 52.0 $10,734 $10,734 Presentation to City Council (1)1.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 1.0 18.0 $4,139 $100 $100 $4,239 Monthly project management activities (12)6.0 48.0 6.0 24.0 6.0 12.0 102.0 $19,593 $19,593 Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria $13,636 $200 $13,836 Prepare for and meet with City to define goals, objectives, and criteria 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 23.0 $5,216 $200 $200 $5,416 Document goals, objectives, and criteria in a draft TM 4.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 23.5 $5,072 $5,072 Meet with City to review draft TM 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 $1,436 $1,436 Prepare final TM 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 $1,912 $1,912 Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology $39,975 $200 $40,175 Coordinate with City to collect all available data on factors affect surface water flow (climate, water supply, etc.)1.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 25.0 $6,144 $6,144 Organize data into a project database 2.0 1.0 8.0 40.0 51.0 $12,006 $12,006 Prepare explanatory graphics to characterize flow and factors that influence it 1.0 6.0 2.0 30.0 8.0 47.0 $11,042 $11,042 Perform and document field reconnaissance to observe field surface water conditions 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 $5,928 $200 $200 $6,128 Prepare summary findings about the factors that have influenced surface water flow over time 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 20.0 $4,855 $4,855 Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI)$18,691 $0 $18,691 Review and document all NDVI from Landsat imagery for the study area from 1984 to 2023 4.0 20.0 24.0 $5,532 $5,532 Define Areas for analysis of NDVI Time Series and compile time series data from 1984 to 2023 1.0 4.0 22.0 27.0 $6,280 $6,280 Prepare explanatory graphics to characterize NDVI for various periods of interest 1.0 2.0 6.0 9.0 $2,206 $2,206 Prepare summary findings about the factors that have influenced NDVI variability over time 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 $4,673 $4,673 Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources $27,404 $0 $27,404 Coordinate with City to collect prior biologic resources reports and define extent of field survey 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 19.0 $4,268 $4,268 Research background biological data to establish area habitat conditions 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 4.0 21.0 $4,798 $4,798 Perform field survey of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 40.0 $7,738 $7,738 Prepare exhibits documenting historical extent of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 28.0 $5,300 $5,300 Prepare exhibits documenting current extent of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 28.0 $5,300 $5,300 Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek $32,218 $200 $32,418 Prepare draft list of factors that have influenced biologic resources over time and describe relationships 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 37.0 $7,210 $7,210 Prepare list a potential impacts to biologic resources from reduced discharge 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 24.0 12.0 49.0 $10,390 $10,390 Develop draft metrics for habitat sustainability 1.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 27.0 $6,359 $6,359 Identify data gaps in current monitoring efforts that prevent assessment of habitat impacts 0.5 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 14.5 $3,630 $3,630 Meet with City to review the information and receive comments 1.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 21.0 $4,629 $200 $200 $4,829 Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts $22,955 $0 $22,955 Coordinate with City to identify and collect available surface water and groundwater models 2.0 1.0 4.0 7.0 $2,021 $2,021 Review, assess, and summarize SW Flow Ecology models and projections 8.0 2.0 16.0 26.0 $7,498 $7,498 Review, assess, and summarize other available models and projections 8.0 2.0 16.0 26.0 $7,498 $7,498 Scope out plan to use/improve develop models for Phase 2 analysis 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 20.0 $5,938 $5,938 Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report $49,505 $200 $49,705 Prepare initial monitoring workplan 2.0 12.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 40.0 $9,715 $9,715 Prepare draft report 1.0 2.0 4.0 32.0 4.0 30.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 10.0 115.0 $27,280 $27,280 Meet with City to review report 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 24.0 $5,346 $200 $200 $5,546 Finalize report based on City comments 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 31.0 $7,164 $7,164 Other Additional Work to Support City in Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP Approval $22,786 $200 $22,986 Regulatory support for change petition 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 4.0 8.0 44.0 $11,476 $200 $200 $11,676 Outreach and communication 4.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 22.0 $5,666 $5,666 Support grant opportunities 2.0 4.0 16.0 2.0 24.0 $5,644 $5,644 Phase 1 Totals 44 129 12 53 243 72 205 70 16 8 20 199 95 1,165 $265,860 $1,300 $0 $1,300 $267,160 Phase/
TaskSub-Task
Total Program Costs
Principal
Geologist
II
Table C-1. Work Breakdown Structure and Fee Estimate to Perform Phase 1 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Other Direct Charges (ODCs)
Description
Admin.
IV
Field
Tech.
Associate
Geologist
I
Principal
Scientist I
Equip-
ment
Rental
Geologist
II
Senior
Engineer II
I
Scientist
Manager I
Person
Hours
Total ODCs
Grant
Funding
Specialist
Phase/
Task
Sub-
taskTravel
Labor Hours and Cost
TDA
Environ-
mental
Specialist I
Environ-
mental
Specialist
II
West Yost Jacobs
Snr.
Environ-
mental
Manager Biologist
Total Labor
Labor Cost
Table C-2 Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 2 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development
Task Range of Costs Recommended
Budget
Task 9 Project Management and Meetings $25,000 to $45,000 $45,000 Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational
Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under
Current and Future Discharges
$50,000 to $200,000 $200,000
Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project
Mitigations to Biologic Resources
$10,000 to $12,000 $12,000
Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of
Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions
$50,000 to $75,000 $75,000
Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project
Alternatives
$50,000 to $150,000 $150,000
Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge
Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility
Report
$20,000 to $30,000 $30,000
Task 15 – Implement first year of Baseline
Monitoring Program
$20,000 to $40,000 $40,000
Task 16 – Prepare scope of work and cost
estimate to prepare the AMMP
$10,000 to $12,000 $12,000
Other Additional Work to Support City in
Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP
Approval
$20,000 to $25,000 $25,000
Totals Range: $255,000 to $589,000 $589,000
Table C-3 Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 3 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development
Task Range of Costs Recommended
Budget
Task 17 Project Management and Meetings $10,000 to $13,000 $13,000 Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP $30,000 to $60,000 $60,000
Task 19 - Implement second year of Baseline
Monitoring Program
$22,000 to $43,000 $43,000
Other Additional Work to Support City in
Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP
Approval
$20,000 to $25,000 $25,000
Totals Range: $82,000 to $141,000 $141,000
Table C-4 Recommended Budget to Develop the of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Phase/Task Recommended Budget
Phase 1 $267,160
Phase 2 $589,000
Phase 3 $141,000
Totals $997,160
TO M DODSON &
ASSOCIATES
AND
JACOBS
City of Beaumont
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
1 FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Tom Dodson & Associates (TDA)
Labor: Time spent on behalf of a client will be charged as follows:
Environmental Specialist I (Tom Dodson) $165 / hour
Environmental Specialist II (Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton) $115 / hour Environmental Specialist III $85 / hour
Environmental Specialist IV $60 / hour
Biologist III / Monitor $65 / hour
Admin / WP / Graphics (Christine Camacho) $55 / hour
Legal Expert Witness (Tom/Kaitlyn) $240 / hour
The above reflects hourly rates that shall remain in place with no changes proposed during the first two years of the Master Contract. Rates may increase by $10 per hour for each of the above roles under TDA’s umbrella for the duration of the contract.
Other Direct Costs: All other direct costs (travel, supplies, printing, etc.) may be charged at actual cost. There will be no mark-up on ODCs. Mileage will be billed at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standard mileage rate for business travel. For 2023, this rate is $0.65 per mile. Subcontractors will be billed at cost.
Jacobs
Labor: Time spent on behalf of a client will be charged as follows:
Name 2023
Lisa Patterson, National Senior Environmental Manager 262.44 Daniel Smith, Biologist 107.30
Loc Truong, Environmental Project Manager 145.58
Madelynn Bartelloni, Environmental Planner 81.29
Other Direct Costs: All other direct costs including travel, printing, mileage, are charged at actual cost. Mileage will be billed at the current IRS mileage rates, which is currently $0.65 per mile. – The 2024 and 2025 rates are anticipated to be increased by 1% each year from the 2023-2025 rates.
Text
WEST YOST
2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
(Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026)
POSITIONS 2023 2024 2025 2026
ENGINEERING
Principal/Vice President /$338 /$348 /$359 /$369
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager II /$334 /$344 /$354 /$365 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I /$319 /$329 /$338 /$349 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$307 /$316 /$326 /$335 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$288 /$297 /$306 /$315 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$272 /$280 /$289 /$297 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$259 /$267 /$275 /$283 Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$231 /$238 /$245 /$252 Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$215 /$221 /$228 /$235 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$201 /$207 /$213 /$220 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$173 /$178 /$184 /$189
Engineering Aide /$101 /$104 /$107 /$110
Field Monitoring Services /$125 /$129 /$133 /$137
Administrative IV /$152 /$157 /$161 /$166
Administrative III /$138 /$142 /$146 /$151
Administrative II /$115 /$118 /$122 /$126
Administrative I /$92 /$95 /$98 /$101
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager II /$334 /$344 /$354 /$365
Engineering Tech Manager I /$332 /$342 /$352 /$363
Principal Tech Specialist II /$315 /$324 /$334 /$344
Principal Tech Specialist I /$305 /$314 /$324 /$333
Senior Tech Specialist II /$291 /$300 /$309 /$318
Senior Tech Specialist I /$279 /$287 /$296 /$305
Senior GIS Analyst /$252 /$260 /$267 /$275
GIS Analyst /$239 /$246 /$254 /$261
Technical Specialist IV /$254 /$262 /$269 /$278
Technical Specialist III /$228 /$235 /$242 /$249
Technical Specialist II /$203 /$209 /$215 /$222
Technical Specialist I /$178 /$183 /$189 /$195
Technical Analyst II /$152 /$157 /$161 /$166
Technical Analyst I /$128 /$132 /$136 /$140
Technical Analyst Intern /$103 /$106 /$109 /$113
Cross-Connection Control Specialist IV /$180 /$185 /$191 /$197 Cross-Connection Control Specialist III /$162 /$167 /$172 /$177 Cross-Connection Control Specialist II /$144 /$148 /$153 /$157 Cross-Connection Control Specialist I /$133 /$137 /$141 /$145 CAD Manager /$201 /$207 /$213 /$220
CAD Designer II /$176 /$181 /$187 /$192
CAD Designer I /$156 /$161 /$166 /$170
See page 2 for important additional information on rates
LABOR CHARGES
(DOLLARS PER HOUR)
2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
(Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026)
POSITIONS 2023 2024 2025 2026
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager /$322 /$332 /$342 /$352
Construction Manager IV /$283 /$291 /$300 /$309
Construction Manager III /$224 /$231 /$238 /$245
Construction Manager II /$211 /$217 /$224 /$231
Construction Manager I /$197 /$203 /$209 /$215
Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 1)/$221 /$228 /$234 /$241 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 2) /$213 /$219 /$226 /$233 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 3) /$191 /$197 /$203 /$209 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4)/$172 /$177 /$182 /$188 Apprentice Inspector /$156 /$161 /$166 /$170
CM Administrative II /$112 /$115 /$119 /$122
CM Administrative I /$83 /$85 /$88 /$91
Field Services /$221 /$228 /$234 /$241
LABOR CHARGES
(DOLLARS PER HOUR)
■ Hourly rates include Technology and Communication charges such as general and CAD computer, software, telephone, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside Services such as vendor reproductions, prints, shipping, and major West Yost reproduction efforts, as well as Engineering Supplies, etc. will be billed at actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness, research, technical review, analysis, preparation and meetings billed at 150% of standard hourly rates.
Expert witness testimony and depositions billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A Finance Charge of 1.5% per month (an Annual Rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice.
2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
(Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026)
EQUIPMENT CHARGES
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 /day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 /day
Emergency SCADA System $35 /day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater)$1 /mile
Gas Detector $80 /day
Generator $60 /day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 /day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient)$55 /day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 /day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 /day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 /day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 /day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 /day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 /day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 /day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 /day
Stainless Steel Wire per foot 0.03$ /day
Storage Tank $20 /day
Sump Pump $24 /day
Transducer Components (per installation)$23 /day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 /day
Tube Length Counter $22 /day
Turbidity Meter $30 /day
Vehicle (Construction Management)$10 /hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 /day
Water Quality Meter $50 /day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 /day
Well Sounder $30 /day
BILLING RATES
California Levine Act Statement
California Government Code Sec�on 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any Beaumont City Council Member from par�cipa�ng in any ac�on related to a contract or applica�on if he or she receives any poli�cal contribu�ons totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision from the business or applicant.
The Levine Act also requires a member of the Beaumont City Council who has received such a contribu�on to disclose the contribu�on on the record of the proceeding.
Current Beaumont City Council Members are listed at:
htps:// www.beaumontca.gov/29/City-Council
Proposers are responsible for accessing this link to review the names prior to answering the following ques�ons.
1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any poli�cal contribu�ons of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or applica�on, or the an�cipated date of any Council ac�on?
___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s):
___ NO
2. Do you or your company, or any agency on behalf of you or your company, an�cipate or plan to make any poli�cal contribu�on of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council ac�on related to your proposal or applica�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s):
___ NO
Answering yes to either of the two ques�ons above does not preclude the Beaumont City Council from awarding a contract or approving an applica�on or any subsequent ac�on. It does however, preclude the iden�fied Council Member(s) from par�cipa�ng in any ac�ons related to your proposal or applica�on.
_________________ _____________________________
Date Signature of authorized individual
_____________________________
Company/Applicant Name
City of Beaumont | 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 | (951) 769-8520 | BeaumontCA.gov ✔
✔
08/11/23
Tom Dodson & Associates
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Willdan Financial Services for a Variety of Development Impact Fee Studies in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $79,080
Description Award an agreement with Willdan Financial Services for professional services to conduct a development impact fee study.
Background and Analysis:
The City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on June 30, 2023, for selection of qualified firms to update the City’s Development Impact Fee Studies, Sewer Capacity Fee Study and proposed updated Development Impact Fees. The City assesses a variety of development impact fees on new development to mitigate City-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities.
The City received two (2) responses to the RFP: David Taussig & Associates (DTA) and Willdan Financial Services. Below is a detail of the cost proposals for each vendor.
Willdan Financial Services DTA
Development Impact Fee Study $49,680.00 $56,920.00
Sewer Capacity Fee Study $17,280.00 $10,000.00
Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study $21,120.00 $8,500.00 Out-of Pocket Expenses inc. $2,500
Total $88,080.00 $77,920.00
Discount offered for 2+ Studies ($9,000.00)
Any Additional Fee Studies $7,500.00
Total $79,080.00 $85,420.00
The evaluation team consisted of three (3) executive staff members whose scoring have been included below.
Interviews were held on August 8, 2023, and August 9, 2023, and the selection of Willdan Financial Services was presented to the RFP sub-committee on August 9, 2023.
Willdan Financial Services was selected as the best candidate due to their understanding of the project, related experience, and overall approach to performing the services.
Fiscal Impact:
The Development Impact Fee and Transportation Facilities Impact Fee studies have been included in the current year budget within GL 100-1200-7068-0000. The funding for the Sewer Capacity Fee Study will be paid from project WW -03.
WW-03 Wastewater Rate Study Project Accounting Summary
Funding Summary
Funding Year Funding Source Amount
2021-2022 Wastewater $200,000.00
Total Project Funding = $200,000.00
Budget Summary
Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget
Project Management $185,000.00 ($69,811.79) ($55,186.45) $115,188.21 Preliminary Services $15,000.00 ($12,897.00) ($8,654.06) $2,103.00 Environmental $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Design $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Construction $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Management $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Permits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Project Summary Totals $200,000.00 ($82,708.79) ($63,840.51) $117,291.21
RESPONDING FIRMS LOCATION
BEST
POSSIBLE
RANKING
Rater No.
1 Rater No.
2 Rater No.
3 Total
Ranking
Score
Final
Rank
Willdan Financial Services Temecula, CA 1 93 78 83 85 1 David Taussig & Associates (DTA)Temecula, CA 1 97 79 62 79 2
TOTAL RANKING BY RATER
Recommended Action:
Approve a professional services agreement with Willdan Financial Services at a not to exceed cost of $79,080 to conduct a variety of development impact fee studies.
Attachments:
A. RFP For Development Impact Fee Study
B. Professional Services Agreement for Development Impact Fee Study C. Final Score Sheet
D. Levine Act – Conflict of Interest
Request for Proposals
for
Development Impact Fees Study
Proposals Due By:
5:00 P.M
Monday, July 17, 2023
Contact:
Grace Wichert
Procurement and Contracts Specialist
[email protected]
RFP Available:
www.publicpurchase.com or
https://www.beaumontca.gov/949/Bids-and-RFPs
Website:
www.beaumontca.gov
Address:
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone:
951.769.8520
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
1 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Beaumont ("City”) requests written responses to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for selection of qualified firms (“Consultant”) to complete a comprehensive review and evaluation of current Development Impact Fees (DIF). The City would like to reevaluate its development impact fees and make any necessary changes to ensure they are aligned with the current impact on City services, staffing and facilities.
Responses must conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposal (RFP). The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any proposal, withdraw or amend this RFP or reject any proposal that does not comply with this RFP or City policies.
2. THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
The City was incorporated in November 1912 and is located in the San Gorgonio Pass portion of western Riverside County. It is bounded on the west by Calimesa and unincorporated areas, on the north by unincorporated county areas (Cherry Valley), on the south by unincorporated county areas and the City of San Jacinto, and on the east by the City of Banning. The land area within the City’s boundary is approximately 30 square miles.
The City of Beaumont is rated one of the safest cities in southern California. The City has its own police department. Fire and paramedic services are contracted through Riverside County. The City of Beaumont has been one of the fastest growing cities in California over the past 15 years and has a population of approximately 55,000. An average of 500 new homes have been permitted annually since 2013 and the population has grown by approximately 1,500 residents each year. Beaumont has seen significant growth in its quality of workforce with educational levels and technical skills. The community has also seen growth in its household income levels.
As a result of this growth, the City must continue to provide residents with the quality of life they expect. This involves expanding park and recreational amenities, maintaining a quality police force to keep pace with growth, construction of regional surface transportation projects, and to perform economic development activities to diversify the city’s tax base and increase employment opportunities in the region.
The City Government
The Beaumont City Council is comprised of five Council members, each sharing equal voting powers on all items coming before the Council. Council members are elected to at-large positions for four-year terms, with elections held in November of even-numbered years. The City Council meets annually to select one of its members to serve as Mayor and another to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for one year but no more than two consecutive years.
The City Council provides legislative and policy direction to the City Manager, who implements their decisions to direct the activities of the City. The City Council responds to issues and concerns of the community by allocating resources, developing policies, and formulating strategies that support the vitality and economic viability of the City. All of their decisions must be made at public meetings.
The City Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney and members of all advisory boards, commissions, and committees. The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Beaumont Financing Authority, Beaumont Utility Authority, and the Beaumont Parking Authority.
3. BACKGROUND
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
2 Founded at the turn of the 20th century, Beaumont is proud of its rich history and rural charm.
The town served as a welcome “stopping-off point” for early travelers making their way from the Mohave desert to Los Angeles, and later for L.A. residents eager to vacation in Palm Springs.
Some, however, set down roots, drawn by the beautiful mountain vistas; clean, crisp air; and the abundance of cherry and apple orchards.
Beaumont provides the very best of rustic, rural beauty and charm, combined with the planned growth, abundant recreational opportunities, and rich community life offered by the finest Southern California cities. The progressive city of over 54,000 people, sits at 2,612 feet in elevation between Riverside and Palm Springs in the Inland Empire. The city operates 18 city- owned parks, including a 20-acre sports park as well as an extensive trails system. The Beaumont School District, with 12 schools, has an outstanding reputation, and it ranks highly in the Pass Area. The city is rounded out with various local service clubs, a state-of-the-art community recreation center, a library, two four-star golf courses, and multiple churches.
The City interacts with numerous other government agencies, including but not limited to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Transportation, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Federal Railroad Administration, the U.S. Economic Development Administration, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
4. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to select a qualified consultant to update the City’s Development Impact Fee Studies and Sewer Capacity Fee Study and Propose updated Development Impact Fees for the City of Beaumont. The City assesses a variety of development impact fees on new development to mitigate City-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities. The City’s impact fee program must comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600).
5. SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Service outlined in Exhibit A is provided as a guideline and is intended to identify the City’s initial expectations and requirements. Consultant may suggest modifications to the proposed Scope of Services and shall expand the scope to include additional and/or optional tasks if deemed necessary.
6. TERM
The term of the agreement shall be determined upon need of services and consistent with the City’s policies. The initial period of the contract is for the duration of the project or a maximum of three (3) years subject to agreement terms and the Beaumont Municipal Code. City may elect to extend the term, if necessary, as approved by City Council.
7. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The proposal shall clearly address all the information requested herein. To achieve a uniform review process and obtain the maximum degree of comparability, it is required that proposals be organized and contain all information as specified below.
A. Cover Letter: Maximum of two (2) pages serving as an Executive Summary which shall include an understanding of the scope of services. The RFP shall be transmitted with a cover letter that must be signed by an official authorized to bind the trustee contractually.
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
3 The letter accompanying the RFP shall also provide the name, title, address, and telephone number of individuals with the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the consultant. The cover letter constitutes certification by the consultant, under penalty of perjury, that the trustee complies with nondiscrimination requirements of the State and Federal Government. An unsigned proposal or one signed by an individual unauthorized to bind the trustee may be rejected.
B. Introduction/Information: Introduction of the service proposal, including a statement of understanding for the types of services contemplated. Provide a discussion on how the objectives of the scope of services will be accomplished. Provide the name of the firm submitting the proposal, its mailing address, telephone number, and the name of the individual to contact if further information is required. Any participating firms and proposed sub-consultants shall be identified and included in the proposal (all sub-consultants must be approved by City prior to signing the agreement with City).
C. Approach: The firm’s approach to delivering the scope of services. Provide a description of the firm’s approach to communicating effectively with City staff and officials, other jurisdictional stakeholders, and the public, to facilitate successful delivery of assigned tasks.
D. Firm Profile: Provide a description of the firm, including number of professional personnel, years in business, office location(s), organizational structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, sole practitioner, etc.), areas of particular expertise, etc.
E. Location of principal office that will be responsible for the implementation of this contract.
F. Proposed Team: Provide a summary description of all personnel who will be involved in this project, their roles and responsibilities, and their experience in similar past projects.
The proposal must name a project manager. In addition to this summary, full resumes limited to 2 pages per proposed team member must be provided as an attachment to the proposal.
G. References: Provide at least three (3) references from previous cities, counties or other agencies for similar work completed within the last five (5) years, which include: name, address, contact person and phone number for the agency, length of time services were provided, staff assigned to each project by your firm, and a description of the services provided. All submitted materials shall become the property of the City of Beaumont.
H. Scope of Services: Provide a detailed outline of tasks, sub-tasks and deliverables that will be provided. Any additional items not mentioned in Exhibit A- Scope of Services but required to obtain final approval, shall be included in the proposal as additional items for consideration. The fully recommended Scope of Services should be presented as an attachment to the proposal and shall be in a logical format that can be easily attached to the Professional Services Agreement (Exhibit B).
Costing should include:
• Fixed prices, including out-of-pocket expenses, for all costs associated within the scope of this proposal
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
4 • Detailed hourly rates of all members of the project • Individual costs for the following studies:
o Development Impact Fee Study
o Sewer Capacity Fee Study
o Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study
o Additional Fee Studies deemed necessary
• Additional billable costs for non-specified tasks
• Total fees and expenses for the entire scope of the project • Any area which proposers believe should be included in the scope of work in this proposal, but which is not stipulated in this RFP, and identifies the costs associated with the services rendered
I. List of all current/outstanding contracts, their status and the completion date for each contract.
J. Any other information which should be considered, such as any special services or customer service philosophy, which define your firm’s practice.
K. The firm will be required to maintain an active City of Beaumont Business License and professional liability insurance including general liability at a minimum of one million per occurrence, worker’s compensation, and vehicle coverage including comprehensive and collision insurance naming the City of Beaumont as additional insured. The proposal shall state whether such license and insurance will be in force at time of contract execution.
8. SUBMITTAL
Two (2) bound copies, one (1) unbound copy and one (1) color digital pdf copy (flash drive) of the proposal must be submitted no later than July 17, 2023 by 5:00 P.M. The cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. Proposal must be titled “RFP for Development Impact Fee Study.” All proposals shall be submitted to:
City of Beaumont
c/o Grace Wichert
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Electronic submittals of the proposal will not be accepted. Proposals received after the stated date and time will not be accepted. Once submitted, proposals, including the composition of the consulting staff, cannot be altered without prior written consent of the City.
All costs associated with the preparation of any proposal shall be the sole responsibility of the proposer. Each proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 25 pages, using a minimum 12-point font size excluding cover, tabs, and attachments for scope of services and 2-page resumes.
9. SCHEDULE
Event Date
RFP Issued Friday, June 30, 2023
Proposals Due Monday, July 17, 2023 @ 5:00 P.M.
Interviews (if required) TBD
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
5 Award Date TBD
10. CONFIDENTIALITY
Prior to the proposal submittal deadline, all proposals will be designated confidential to the extent permitted by the California Public Records Act. After the proposal submittal deadline, all responses will be regarded as public records and will be subject to review by the public. Any language purported to render confidential all or portions of the proposals will be regarded as non- effective and will be disregarded.
11. AMENDMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right to amend the RFP by addendum prior to the final proposal submittal date.
12. CITY OF BEAUMONT RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
This RFP does not commit the City of Beaumont to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred with the preparation of a proposal or contract for services described herein. The City may, in its sole discretion and without any obligation to act reasonably, reject any and all proposals, waive informalities and minor irregularities in any proposal reviewed, negotiate with any qualified source submitting a proposal, extend deadlines, and/or request additional information. Subsequent to negotiations, prospective trustees may be required to submit revisions to their proposals. The City may reject any proposal that does not conform to the instructions provided in this RFP.
Additionally, the City reserves the right to negotiate all final terms and conditions of any proposal received before entering into final contract.
The City reserves the right to postpone selection for its own convenience, to withdraw this RFP at any time, and to reject any and all proposals without indicating any reason for such rejection.
As a function of the RFP process, the City of Beaumont reserves the right to remedy technical errors in response to the RFP and to modify the published scope of services and scope of work.
Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will not be returned.
13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Trustee shall disclose any personal or professional financial, business, or other relationships with the City that may have an impact on the outcome of this contract or any resulting project.
The trustee shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract.
14. PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION
The City intends to engage the most qualified trustee available that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the City’s needs. City staff will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals:
Criteria & Scoring
Points
Understanding the scope of services 15
Demonstrated professional skills and credentials 15
Related Experience 15
City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study
6 Approach to performing this type of service 15
Approach to communication and reporting 15
Familiarity with City requirements and state laws 15
Cost 10
Total 100
The City may request a qualification interview with the highest ranked consultant(s) prior to determining the final ranking. This selection will be conducted according to the City’s adopted procedures. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.
CONTACT WITH ANY CITY EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN THE CONTACT NAMED IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND WILL BE CAUSE FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL.
Attachments
A. Exhibit A- Proposed Scope of Services
B. Exhibit B- Professional Services Agreement (PSA)
Development Impact Fee Study
City of
Beaumont
T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com i A. Cover Letter
July 14, 2023
Ms. Grace Wichert
Procurement and Contract Specialist
City of Beaumont
550 E 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Re: Technical Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Beaumont Dear Ms. Wichert:
Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Beaumont (“City”) to conduct a development impact fee study. Willdan’s project approach helps to ensure the preparation of an impact fee study that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny. Given Willdan’s unmatched impact fee experience, we are particularly well positioned to serve the City and help achieve established long-term goals. Outlined below are the advantages and benefits that Willdan will provide to the City.
Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Cities of Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, Indian Wells, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Pomona, Rialto, Fountain Valley, McFarland, Riverbank, Morgan Hill, Hollister, and Pismo Beach, as well as the County of Riverside. These fee programs were approved by their respective Councils. Willdan is also currently assisting the cities of San Jacinto and Murrieta with their fee programs.
Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs. Willdan’s impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the development and/or update of all fee types and is fortunate to be in a position that will provide a tremendous benefit to the City. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community. In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums.
We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land-use categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City’s and stakeholder priorities. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and trans parent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took effect in 2022.
Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges. Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees has proven to be effective for Cities and Counties, the development community, and the public. Utilizing focus groups, with established guidelines, during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth.
Ms. Grace Wichert
Procurement and Contract Specialist
City of Beaumont
Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study
July 14, 2023 | Page ii
Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program. The Willdan team begins a project by evaluating the agency’s current capital planning policies and funding programs. Not all capital projects are amenable to funding from impact fee programs, and we identify sources that complement fee revenues to fully fund the capital improvement program. The team’s Principal-in-Charge James Edison and Project Manager Carlos Villarreal are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach.
We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to serve the City of Beaumont. To discuss any aspect of this submittal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison, who will serve as the primary contact for this proposal, his information is provided in the table below.
Contact Information
Proposal Contact
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA
Managing Principal
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 | Temecula, CA 92590
Tel#: (800) 755-6864 | Email: [email protected]
Willdan has reviewed the City’s sample agreement provided in the RFP and requests no changes to the terms and conditions; this includes meeting the required insurance limits. Furthermore, Willdan will obtain and maintain a City of Beaumont Business License for the duration of the project.
As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement.
Sincerely,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
Development Impact Fee Study iii
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Table of Contents
A. Cover Letter ................................................................................................................................................................ i B. Introduction/Information .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Understanding .......................................................................................................................................... 1 C. Approach .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 2 D. Firm Profile ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Firm Profile ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Willdan Financial Services .................................................................................................................................... 6 E. Principal Offices ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 F. Proposed Team ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Team Summaries ...................................................................................................................................... 8 G. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Recent Studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. Outstanding Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Project Commitment ............................................................................................................................................ 13 J. Other Information................................................................................................................................................ 14 EXHIBIT B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 K. Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Development Impact Fee Study Work Plan ....................................................................................................... 16 Project Timeline ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix ..........................................................................................................................................................................20 Resumes ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 James Edison, JD, MPP, MA ................................................................................................................................. 20 Carlos Villarreal, MPP ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Cost Proposal ...................................................................................................................... Under Separate Cover
Development Impact Fee Study 1
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
B. Introduction/Information
This section outlines Willdan Financial Services’ (“Willdan”) understanding of the City of Beaumont’s (“City”) desire to update its development impact fees, as well as identify the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach.
Project Understanding
As part of the larger financial planning effort for Beaumont General Plan, the City seeks to understand what the financial impacts of foreseeable future development will have on the City’s public services and infrastructure, and to identify potential gaps in funding for those necessary improvements. The City desires to update impact fees to ensure a fair and reasonable fee structure, while meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq). We are also current on the changes to requirements for impact fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which was passed in 2021 and took effect in 2022. The resulting fees will fund new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to establish development impact fees pursuant to State law. To accomplish this objective, this study will:
▪ Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards;
▪ Review and facility standards, capital facilities plans and costs, and development and growth assumptions; ▪ Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; and ▪ Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and
4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This po licy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.
Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Development Impact Fee Study 2
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
C. Approach
Summary of Approach
Willdan’s methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time, we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible.
Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency’s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing. Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the agency to adopt fees up to that amount.
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include:
▪ Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; ▪ Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; ▪ Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and ▪ Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule.
We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow.
Growth Projections
In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market-based projections of new development. By “long-range” we suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market -based projections provide a more realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development.
Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (second bullet above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Our approach recognizes three separate components of facility standards:
1. Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth. Examples include park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning;
2. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities.
Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the i ncreasing construction cost of public facilities; and
Development Impact Fee Study 3
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
3. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standard s were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program.
Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs
We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Typic ally, this is a two-step process: 1) identify total facility needs; and 2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
Total facility needs are often identified through a master facility planning process that typically takes place concurrent with or prior to conducting the fee study. Engineered facility plans are particularly important in the areas of traffic, wate r, sewer, and storm drain due to the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has e ngaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized as follows:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand New Development Demand This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development.
Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is appropriate when planned facilities would not serve existing development. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the ratio of the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing + New Development Demand
Development Impact Fee Study 4
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that work together to achieve the desired level of service.
Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks are examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often, facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing developm ent up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities, required to correct the deficiency, to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Calculating the Fee Schedule
At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee fo r that project. The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the particular study.
Related Approach Issues
Funding and Financing Strategies
In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a “wish list” of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency’s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non-fee funding.
We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program – the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing if another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues.
Economic Development Concerns
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have several strategies to address this concern, including:
▪ Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
▪ Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; ▪ Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; ▪ Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessment s and other types of financing districts; and
▪ Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.
If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policy -makers, and the public.
Development Impact Fee Study 5
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first, around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees.
Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input.
Program Implementation
Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures, such as:
▪ Regularly updating development forecasts;
▪ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; ▪ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; ▪ Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and ▪ Including an administrative charge in the fee program.
Development Impact Fee Study 6
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
D. Firm Profile
Firm Profile
Willdan Financial Services is an operating division within Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI), which was founded in 1964 as an engineering firm working with local governments. Today, WGI is a publicly traded company (WLDN). WGI, through its divisions, provides professional technical and consulting services that ensure the quality, value and security of our nation’s infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment.
The firm has pursued two primary service objectives since its inception—ensuring the success of its clients and enhancing its surrounding communities.
A financially stable company, Willdan has approximately 1,500 employees working in more than a dozen states
across the U.S. Our employees include a number of
nationally recognized Subject Matter Experts for all areas related to the broadest definition of connected
communities—including a team who will be committed to
contributing their expertise throughout the duration of the City of Beaumont’s Development Impact Fee Study
engagement.
Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy challenges for local communities and delivered industry -leading solutions that have transformed government and commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future accelerated by a change in resources, infrastructure, technology, regulations, and industry trends.
Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, is a national firm and is one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.
Our staff of nearly 80 professionals support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise. Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:
Willdan Financial Services
Services
▪ User fee studies;
▪ Cost allocation studies;
▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
▪ Real estate economic analysis;
▪ Feasibility studies;
▪ Municipal Advisory;
▪ Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services;
▪ Economic development strategic plans;
▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
▪ District Administration Services;
▪ Property tax audits;
▪ Tax increment finance district formation and amendment; ▪ Housing development and implementation strategies;
▪ Debt issuance support; and
▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.
In the past five years Willdan has
conducted over 125 Impact Fee Studies
Development Impact Fee Study 7
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Experience and Expertise
Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our commitment to public agencies and public solutions has helped us develop the broad finan ce expertise that will be utilized to support the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. Willdan has worked on virtually every aspect of municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and re-organization, the financing of infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under contract as a department head of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Willdan team members with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services.
Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team have worked with public agencies on many community development projects, including the full range of analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal impacts, infrastructure finance, and negotiations with private developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues surrounding impact fees.
Unique Qualifications
Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Beaumont with the proposed Development Impact Fee Study. The following are specific advantages that we will provide for the proposed engagement.
Project Dedication
Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consult ing Services group, to conduct the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study engagement. This team has coordinated or participated in numerous public stakeholder and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service -based charges.
Community Investment
Much of our success in developing impactful programs and studies is due to our experiences in meeting with citizen / stakeholder groups and elected officials. Our ability to explain technical information in a concise, understandable manner is a fundamental reason for our high degree of success. Willdan staff takes the time to include and inform the Community.
Proven Professionals
The Team’s quality is often as important as the consulting firm’s reputation. Willdan is known for its personal,
customized service. Our team will work with the City’s
professional staff to provide the long‐term service, that is our prime goal.
E. Principal Offices
The City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee study will be conducted from the Engagement Offices
Firm Prime Contact
Willdan Financial Services James Edison, Managing Principal 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland, California 94607
Tel #: (951) 587-3500 | Fax #: (951) 587-3510 Tel #: (510) 912-4687 | Email: [email protected]
The team presented within this proposal has
worked collectively on numerous projects, such
as the one requested by the City of Beaumont;
an established work practice between the team
members has been forged, this proven long-
standing system has benefited our clients.
Development Impact Fee Study 8
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
F. Proposed Team
Project Team Summaries
Our management and supervision philosophy for the project team is very simple: s taff every position in sufficient numbers with experienced personnel to deliver a superior product and convey results to decision makers in meetings, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for the Ci ty’s engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.
City of Beaumont Project Team
Key Team
Member
Project
Role Experience Responsibility to the
Engagement
James Edison,
JD, MPP, MA
Managing Principal
Principal-in-
Charge
Specializes in the nexus between public
and private, with expertise in public-private
partnerships.
26 years of public-sector experience
includes:
Local and regional economic impact studies
Fiscal impact evaluations
New government formation strategies
Creation of impact fees, assessments, and
special taxes to fund infrastructure and
public facilities
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow
of communication, and
management of the project
▪ Technical guidance
▪ Project oversight
▪ Quality assurance & control,
and
▪ Meeting and presentation
attendance
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Principal Consultant
Project
Manager
Possesses extensive experience
documenting nexus findings for
development impact fees, preparing capital
improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder
outreach, and analyzing the economic
impacts of fee programs.
17 years of experience supporting
adoption of fee programs funding:
▪ Transportation
▪ Parks and
recreation
▪ Library
▪ Utilities
▪ Sanitation / solid
waste
▪ Fire
▪ Law enforcement
▪ General government
▪ Utility
undergrounding
▪ Storm drainage
▪ Collect, interpret, and
disseminate key data
▪ Day to day contact
▪ Production of key elements of
the analyses
▪ Model development
▪ Report preparation, and
▪ Meeting and presentation
attendance
Staff Continuity
Mr. Edison has been assigned to serve as the City’s principal-in-charge; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups.
Resumes
Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented in the appendix, as requested by the City’s RFP.
Development Impact Fee Study 9
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
G. References
Provided below are client references for projects completed by Willdan and the project team members proposed herein, which demonstrates our ability to provide the requested services. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to excellenc e.
County of Riverside, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the County of Riverside with an update of its comprehensive impact fee program. The fee categories were broad and diverse including countywide facilities such as jail detention facilities and county parks and trails; unincorporated only facilities such as fire stations and libraries; and County planning area specific facilities including storm drain and traffic improvements. Other facilities needed to be differentiated between the Eastern and Western portions of the County due to separation by distance, as well as varying level of facilities by region.
The process was lengthy, initiated in January of 2008 and completed in November of 2014, involving significant efforts to inform staff of methodological differences between the Willdan method ology and the methodology of the previous consultant.
Willdan has recently, through competitive bid, been selected to update the County’s development impact fees, 2030 Nexus Study Update.
Client Contact: Ms. Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager II Riverside County Economic Development Agency
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501
Tel #: (951) 955-6619 | Email: [email protected]
Project Dates: 2020 Nexus Study Update: October 2007 - November 2014 2030 Nexus Study Update: September 2019 to Ongoing
Project Team: James Edison, Project Manager
Carlos Villarreal, Lead Consultant
City of Moreno Valley, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fee program in 2020. Their program included a variety of facility fee categories including arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. The nexus study justified fees that were significantly higher than the City’s current fees, partially because the fees had not been comprehensively updated in some time.
Willdan worked with City staff to recommend a phased approach to implementation, so that the City could increase their fees on a regular schedule providing developers with certainty specific to the fee amounts in the near future.
Upon completion of the comprehensive update, Willdan was retained again to create a fee to fund workforce development facilities and a public arts impact fee, which were both adopted by the City in late 2022.
Client Contact: Michael Lloyd, PE, Public Works Director 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Tel #: (951) 413-3100 | Email: [email protected]
Project Dates: August 2020 – December 2022
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge
Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager
Development Impact Fee Study 10
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
City of Indian Wells, CA
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fee program in 202 2. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park and storm drain.
The analysis also included a development impact fee comparison of six other neighbo ring municipalities within the Coachella Valley.
Client Contact: Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director
44950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Tel #: (760) 346-2489 | Email: [email protected] Project Dates: February 2022 – July 2022
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge
Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager
City of Morgan Hill, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan was initially retained by the City of Morgan Hill in 2010 to conduct a development impact fee and nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. T his project also included stakeholder outreach.
The City once again engaged Willdan to update their impact fees in October 2017, which was completed in July 2019.
This update included the following facilities: traffic (roads and bikeways), water, sewer, drainage, police, fire, p arks, library, and public facilities.
Client Contact: Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Tel #: (408) 779-7237 | Email: [email protected] Project Dates: March 2010 – July 2019
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge
Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees.
Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
Project Dates: April 2018 – March 2019
Project Team: James Edison, Project Manager
Carlos Villarreal, Lead Consultant
Development Impact Fee Study 11
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Recent Studies
The following table lists Willdan’s development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services in the past ten years.
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Antioch, CA City of Petaluma, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Artesia, CA City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Banning, CA City of Pomona, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Brea, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Calexico, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Calimesa, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Carpinteria, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA City of Clovis, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Compton, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Corona, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Covina, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of Selma, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Upland, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC City of Visalia, CA
City of Guadalupe, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Greenfield, CA Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Grover Beach, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Hawthorne, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Kings, CA
Development Impact Fee Study 12
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Hollister, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of San Joaquin, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA City of Lake Forest, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Lancaster, CA County of Solano, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Sonoma, CA
City of Livermore, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Long Beach, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of McFarland, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Madera, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of Menifee, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Mountain View, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Murrieta, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Newport Beach, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Oroville, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Pacifica, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Patterson, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM
Development Impact Fee Study 13
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
I. Outstanding Projects
Provided in the table below, are current project commitments for the team noted herein Current Projects
Client Project Percent Complete
County of Riverside, CA Impact Fee Study and Nexus Study 96% City of Wasco, CA Development Impact Fee Study 75%
City of Irwindale, CA Linkage Fee Study 73%
City of Riverbank, CA Park Impact Fee Study 57%
City of Newport Beach, CA Development Impact Fee Study 51% City of Pomona, CA Industrial Parcel Fee Study 46%
City of Grover Beach, CA Development Impact Fee Study 37% City of Bakersfield, CA Development Impact Fee Study 31% City of Chino Hills, CA Development Impact Fee Study 25% City of Murrieta, CA Development Impact Fee Study 5%
Project Commitment
Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 20 senior-level professional consultants.
While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City speci fic to the schedule and budget for this engagement.
Willdan (WGI) is composed of approximately 1,500 employees, including a cadre of public finance/economic experts.
If necessary, the team can recruit additional, qualified individuals from our full team roster to assist with the completion of this engagement to deliver the final materials on time and within budget. The professionals presented within this proposal have worked on numerous projects as a dedicated and committed team. We do not anticipate staffing changes during the course of the project, however, should the situation arise, any change in team members will be discussed with and approved by the City prior to a change being made.
Development Impact Fee Study 14
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
J. Other Information
Quality Control Procedures
Project Management Approach
At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on tim e, within budget and most importantly yield results that match our clients’ expectations. We will document discuss ions leading to important policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model.
Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate.
Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues will be highlighted, discussed, and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Beaumont. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.
Project Management
Define the
Project
Plan
the Project
Manage
the Project
Review the
Project
Communicate
the Project
▪ Identify the project
scope, set
objectives, list
potential
constraints,
document
assumptions.
▪ Define a course of
action and develop
an effective
communication
plan.
▪ Provide a forum for
applying the team’s
collective expertise
to solving difficult
analytical issues
that arise in
complex projects.
▪ Collaborate with the
project team and
client staff and
agree upon timeline
to meet the
estimated project
timeline.
▪ Assign workload
functions to
appropriately
qualified staff to
ensure milestones
are met, on time.
▪ Pre-schedule
quality control
meetings with the
project team to
maintain the
progressive motion
of the project.
▪ Manage the
execution of the
project.
▪ Direct existing and
upcoming project
tasks.
▪ Control and
monitor work in
progress.
▪ Provide feedback
to client and project
team.
▪ Identify and resolve
deviances from
project timeline.
▪ Review all work
product and
deliverables.
▪ Utilize structured
quality assurance
process involving
up to three levels of
review at the peer
level, project
manager level.
▪ Procure executive
officer level review.
▪ Communicate with
the client
regarding work
status and
progress.
▪ Ensure client is in
receipt of regular
status updates.
▪ Schedule regular
conference calls to
touch base.
▪ Inform client of
roadblocks, work
outside of
projected scope.
Development Impact Fee Study 15
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process
Our quality control program is incorporated as a required element of Willdan’s day -to-day activities. There are three levels of reviews incorporated for our deliverables:
1) Peer review;
2) Project Manager review; and
3) Final quality assurance
manager review.
Peer reviews involve one analyst
reviewing the work of another,
while project manager reviews
are conducted prior to delivery to
the quality assurance manager.
The quality assurance manager
then performs a final review. This
assures that our final product has
been thoroughly evaluated for
potential errors; thus, providing quality client deliverables, and high levels of integrity and outcomes.
The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with th e technical and managerial expertise to plan, organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the time and budget established.
Quality Assurance Goals
Goal Lead Task
Quality Assurance /
Control Process James Edison
▪ Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for maintaining a high level of quality in the professional services performed; Emphasize quality in every phase of work;
▪ Ensure efficient use of resources;
▪ Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and
▪ Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project.
Quality Control Plan James Edison;
Carlos Villareal
▪ Contract deliverables;
▪ Specific quality control procedures;
▪ Special quality control emphasis;
▪ Budget and manpower requirements;
▪ Overall project schedule and budget; and
▪ Project documentation requirements.
Development Impact Fee Study 16
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
EXHIBIT B
K. Scope of Services
Development Impact Fee Study Work Plan
Willdan will work with the City to establish its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws.
We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study. The following work scope applies to each of the three impact fee categories (impact fees, sewer and transportation) generally, with minor adjustments for each. Willdan assumes that all fee programs will be prepared concurrently, with the same target adoption date.
Task 1: Identify Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and discuss potential policy issues raised by the study. Kick-off meeting with staff to review data needs, policy issues, and schedule.
Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff’s attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:
▪ Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602;
▪ Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; ▪ Potential new impact fees for consideration
▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g., level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; ▪ Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; ▪ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
▪ Land use categories for imposition of fees;
▪ Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
▪ Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones; ▪ Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
▪ Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
▪ Implementation concerns and strategies.
Deliverables: (1) Information requests; and (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed).
Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development; and (2) identify a projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.
Description: Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt from fee program.
Consult with City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30 years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see Task 4). Consider projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other available sources - City staff to provide estimates and projections by zone if needed.
Development Impact Fee Study 17
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand. For example, identify population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to dwelling units and building square footage. Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:
▪ Available local data on facility demand by land use category; ▪ Approaches used by other agencies; and
▪ Support for other agency policy objectives.
Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from City staff prior to proceeding.
Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation.
Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.
Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional costs that might be eligible for funding by the DIF.
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies, if any.
Description: Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task 3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of capital projects from a master facility plan.
Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g., five years).
Distinguish between: (1) facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and (2) facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities).
Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices.
The revised facility costs will form the basis of the capital improvement program needed for compliance with AB 602.
This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis to identify total facility needs (including transportation facilities), existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Any such engineering/design work can be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or a third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate a reasonable cost estimate sufficient for use in the DIF study.
Development Impact Fee Study 18
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available for new facilities.
Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative funding sources that we will identify:
1. Funding from non-impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and
2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new development’s impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.
Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from City staff or note that funds are still to be identified based on a list of probable funding alternatives. If fees will fund debt service include financing costs in the total cost of facilities.
Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. Scope does not include a cash flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs.
Task 6: Comparison and Feasibility Analysis
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in Riverside County and an assessment of the effect of fees on development feasibility .
Description: Willdan will compare a total of four Riverside County jurisdictions to be selected by the City. Willdan will also provide an assessment of the effect of the fees on project feasibility, typically using a ratio calculation to development value compared to industry benchmarks.
Typically, Willdan prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments (such as residential, retail, etc.) to provide an “apples to apples” comparison, but the exact methodology will be determined in consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to four other jurisdictions.
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions, methodologies, and results.
Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects. Use facility costs per unit of demand multiplied by demand by land use category based on data developed in prior tasks.
Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review, that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category and all other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Following one (1) round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented and public stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session.
Prepare final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Note that as of January 2022, the Nexus study is adopted separately from the fees, and with a 30-day notice.
Fees will be calculating residential land uses in compliance with AB 602.
Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
Deliverables: If necessary, we will provide up to five (5) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one (1) Microsoft Word copy; and up to five (5) bound copies of the final report.
Development Impact Fee Study 19
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool
Objective: Provide interactive tool that will ensure predictable and intuitive fees that are easily accessible and understandable to customers interested in calculating fees on their own for a particular type of project .
Description: Create impact fee calculator in Microsoft Excel that can be used by City staff and developers to calculate impact fees associated with a development project . The tool will have an input page that allows a user to identify project characteristics that d rive the fee calculation. Results will be displayed by impact fee category and will be summarized in terms of the total amount due.
Deliverables: Microsoft Excel impact fee calculator model.
Task 9: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact Fee project team will attend up to four (4) in-person meetings throughout the City’s engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.
Optional: Optional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City.
Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City of Beaumont staff. We suggest that the City assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will: 1) Coordinate responses to requests for information; 2) Coordinate review of work products; and 3) Help resolve policy issues.
Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party.
Project Timeline
Willdan anticipates time is of the essence for the City to begin this engagement. Typically, an impact fee study requires approximately six months from notice to proceed to adoption. The proposed schedule can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule. This schedule applies to each of the three impact fee categories.
Scope of Services 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 4 11 18 25 Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues z1 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth z2 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards z3
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs z4
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives z5
Task 6: Comparison and Feasibility Analysis
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report z 6
Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool
Task 9: Meetings z 7
Deliverables:
z 2: Development Growth Projections (table format)z6: Draft Fee Tables & Text z 3: Project List z7: Administrative/Public Draft Report(s), Final Nexus Report, Slide Presentation March
City of Beaumont
Impact Fee Study
Project Schedule
February
z 1: Information Request, Meeting Agenda, Revised
Schedule, Summary of Policy Decisions
z4: Cost Estimates for Identified Facilities
z5: Fee Comparison
November December January.2024AugustSeptemberOctober
Development Impact Fee Study 20
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Education
Juris Doctorate,
University of California,
Berkeley, School of Law
Master of Public Policy,
Goldman School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts, magna
cum laude, Harvard
University
Professional
Registrations
Member of State Bar,
California
Affiliations
Council of Development
Finance Agencies
CFA Society of
San Francisco
Congress for the
New Urbanism
Urban Land Institute
Seaside Institute
International Economic
Development Council
26 Years’ Experience
Appendix
Resumes
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public- private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, provincial, regional, and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land us e economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U.S. and internationally. Mr. Edison’s public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development.
As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal u nderpinnings and technical requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of developers and project finance.
Related Experience
County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presented the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Mr. Edison is currently leading an update to the County’s development impact fees for 2030.
City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities.
City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in-charge of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.
City of Indian Wells, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal- in-charge for the City Indian Wells’ update to their development impact fees. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park, and storm drain.
City of Fillmore, CA – North Fillmore Specific Plan Nexus Study: Mr. Edison is currently assisting the City with an analysis of development impact fees needed to finance public facilities necessary for the development of the North Filmore Specific Plan. Public facilities included in this analysis include water, sewer systems, recycled water, and streets.
Development Impact Fee Study 21
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the role of principal-in-charge of an update to the City’s impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in- charge of an update to the City’s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.
City of Alameda, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alameda’s impact fee programs, as well as created a separate impact fee program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in-charge of the City’s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
City of Fremont, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.
City of Manteca, CA – Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City’s fire services impact fee program.
J. Edison
Resume Continued
Development Impact Fee Study 22
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Education
Master of Public Policy,
Goldman School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts, Geography,
University of California, Los
Angeles; Minor in Public
Policy and Urban Planning
Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Development Impact Fees
Public Facilities
Financing Plans
GIS Analysis
17 Years’ Experience
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Project Manager
Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Financial Consulting Group Principal Consultant, is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement , and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types.
Related Experience
County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst in the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He assisted in the preparation of the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fees and establish the necessary nexus. Mr. Villarreal is once again serving on the project team to update the County’s impact fees through 2030.
City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities . In 2022 the City added a public arts fee and workforce development facility fee.
City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.
City of Long Beach, CA – Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City’s existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility standards.
He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi-family residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the City’s impact fee project. The program included: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst to update the City of Carpinteria’s impact fees, which included highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees and Mr. Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager.
County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr.
Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and e xpanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.
Development Impact Fee Study 23
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
City of McFarland, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager updating the City’s development impact fee program. The study comprehensively updated the City’s fee program, incorporating new facility master planning and infrastructure costs necessary to facilitate expected development in the City through 2040. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.
City of Soledad, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City’s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as lead analyst assisting with an update to the City’s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categor ies. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. The City engaged Willdan again to update the study and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.
City of Oroville, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study updating the City’s development impact fee program, including parks, l aw enforcement, general government, fire suppression, and traffic facilities. The fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2015. The City engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.
County of Stanislaus, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County’s existing impact fee program. The program incl udes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.
County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA – Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study:
Mr. Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas.
C. Villarreal
Resume Continued
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
Development Impact Fee Study
City of
Beaumont
T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com 1
July 14, 2023
Ms. Grace Wichert
Procurement and Contract Specialist
City of Beaumont
550 E 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Re: Fee Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Beaumont Dear Ms. Wichert:
Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present the following cost proposal to the City of Beaumont (“City”) to conduct a Development Impact Study. This submission reflects our understanding of the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP).
Willdan is excited about this opportunity to serve the City. To discuss any aspect of our technical and/or cost proposal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison directly at (510) 912 -4687 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President/Director
Development Impact Fee Study 1
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Cost Proposal
As requested, below is an itemized estimate for each of the three fee programs specified in the City’s RFP. The tables below detail the work by task and staff.
Development Impact Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $49,680 to conduct the Development Impact Fee Study.
Sewer Capacity Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $17,280 to conduct the Sewer Capacity Fee Study.
J. Edison
Principal-in-
Charge
C. Villarreal
Project Manager Total
$ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 8.0 20.0 28.0 6,120$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 6.0 22.0 28.0 6,060 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 6.0 22.0 28.0 6,060 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 6.0 18.0 24.0 5,220 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 2.0 10.0 12.0 2,580 Task 9: Meetings 14.0 16.0 30.0 6,720 Total – Development Impact Fee Study 60.0 168.0 228.0 49,680$ City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Study
Fee Proposal
J. Edison
Principal-in-
Charge
C. Villarreal
Project Manager Total
$ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 1.0 2.0 3.0 660$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 3.0 8.0 11.0 2,400 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 9: Meetings 4.0 6.0 10.0 2,220 Total – Sewer Capacity Fee Study 16.0 64.0 80.0 17,280$ City of Beaumont
Sewer Capacity Fee Study
Fee Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study 2
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $21,120 to conduct the Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study.
Because there are certain elements common to all of programs, combining them will result in some economies of scale (combined trips, a single adoption meeting, etc.). Therefore, if the City selects Willdan for two or more programs, an overall discount of $9,000 will apply to the total. For example, all three fee programs above total $88,500, but Willdan can prepare them for a total of $79,800 when prepared together.
Notes
Please note the following:
▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at up to four in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council.
Attendance at more than four meetings will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses.
▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
J. Edison
Principal-in-
Charge
C. Villarreal
Project Manager Total
$ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 4.0 12.0 16.0 3,480 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 4.0 10.0 14.0 3,060 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 2.0 2.0 4.0 900 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 4.0 12.0 16.0 3,480 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 2.0 12.0 14.0 3,000 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 1.0 4.0 5.0 1,080 Task 9: Meetings 4.0 4.0 8.0 1,800 Total – Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study 25.0 72.0 97.0 21,120$ City of Beaumont
Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study
Fee Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study 3
City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24
Hourly Rates
Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.
Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President/Director $250
Managing Principal James Edison $240
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $210
Senior Project Manager $185
Project Manager $165
Senior Project Analyst $135
Senior Analyst $125
Analyst II $110
Analyst I $100
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
RFP NO. FIN23-24
TITLE: Development Impact Fee Study
RESPONDING FIRMS Location (1)Max Points --> Max Points -->15 15 15 15 15 15 10 100 Willdan Financial Services Temecula, CA 14 12 13 14 11 13 8 85 David Taussig & Associates (DTA) Riverside, CA 12 12 12 11 11 12 9 79 GRAND
TOTAL
Approach to
Communicat
ion and
Reporting
Familiarity with
City
Requirements
and State laws
Cost of Services
Approach to
Performing
Services
Demonstrated
Professional Skills &
Credentials
Related Experience
CITY OF BEAUMONT
EVALUATION
CRITERIA:
EVALUATION
CRITERIA:
Understanding of
Scope of Services
California Levine Act Statement
California Government Code Sec�on 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any Beaumont City Council Member from par�cipa�ng in any ac�on related to a contract or applica�on if he or she receives any poli�cal contribu�ons totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision from the business or applicant.
The Levine Act also requires a member of the Beaumont City Council who has received such a contribu�on to disclose the contribu�on on the record of the proceeding.
Current Beaumont City Council Members are listed at:
htps:// www.beaumontca.gov/29/City-Council
Proposers are responsible for accessing this link to review the names prior to answering the following ques�ons.
1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any poli�cal contribu�ons of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or applica�on, or the an�cipated date of any Council ac�on?
___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s):
___ NO
2. Do you or your company, or any agency on behalf of you or your company, an�cipate or plan to make any poli�cal contribu�on of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council ac�on related to your proposal or applica�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s):
___ NO
Answering yes to either of the two ques�ons above does not preclude the Beaumont City Council from awarding a contract or approving an applica�on or any subsequent ac�on. It does however, preclude the iden�fied Council Member(s) from par�cipa�ng in any ac�ons related to your proposal or applica�on.
_________________ _____________________________
Date Signature of authorized individual
_____________________________
Company/Applicant Name
City of Beaumont | 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 | (951) 769-8520 | BeaumontCA.gov 8/11/2023 Chris Fisher
Digitally signed by Chris Fisher
DN: cn=Chris Fisher gn=Chris Fisher c=US United States l=US United States o=Willdan Financial Services ou=WFS [email protected] Reason: I am approving this document
Location:
Date: 2023-08-11 07:31-07:00
Willdan Financial Services
4 4
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert Vestal, Assistant Director of Public Works DATE August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Second Amendment to the Professional Service Agreement with EXP U.S.
Services, Inc.
Description Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Services to EXP U.S. Services, Inc. for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019).
Background and Analysis:
On March 17, 2020, City Council amended the FY19/20 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget to include the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (Stage 1). Stage 1 was incorporated into the CIP in the amount of $5,000,000 with the source of funds being the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) via a cooperative funding agreement. On September 1, 2020, City Council approved the cooperative agreement and on September 22, 2020, the District fully executed the agreement. On December 15, 2020, City Council awar ded a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) to EXP U.S. Services, Inc. (EXP) to perform preliminary and final engineering services.
On November 15, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 1 which modified the scope of services to include additional hydraulic analysis and extended the term of agreement to February 16, 2024.
The second amendment to the professional services agreement is proposed to accommodate increases in subconsultant fees and extend the term of agreement by one (1) year with a new termination date of February 16, 2025. No additional services are proposed. EXP and subconsultants submitted a fee rate as part of the original bid response which was good for one year. EXP and subconsultants did not request a change in fee for the first year; however, due to inflation and operating costs, the subconsultants are now requesting the fee to be adjusted.
The following is a summary of the subconsultants requesting fee increases:
Subconsultant Original Fee (2020) Requested Fee (2023) DEA (Survey) $34,571.00 $41,962.96 (+21%)
Epic (Utilities and R/W) $45,720.00 $46,880.00 (+ 3%) Converse (Geotechnical) $22,255.00 $33,707.00 (+51%)
The proposed increase in fee for all three subconsultants is $20,003.96. The second amendment proposes a new not to exceed amount of $524,064.96 for the PSA. A summary of the allocation of funds for the original agreement and the proposed amendment is provided in the following table.
Agreement Summary Original Fee (2020)
Original Agreement $442,214.00
Amendment No. 1 $61,847.00
Amendment No. 2 $20,003.96_______
Total PSA: $524,064.96
Project Background and Update – During preliminary analysis, Berkshire Channel and other downstream facilities were determined to not have enough capacity to safely convey the ultimate design flow. EXP, Riverside County Flood Control, and City staff identified the need to evaluate a possible detention basin to mitigate for downstream limitations. The evaluation took an extended time due to the considerable size needed for a basin site and the limited availability of viable parcels. The preliminary results of the evaluation indicate that the modification to Berkshire Channel and potential downstream facilities may accommodate the design flow. The District tentatively approved the approach and the project is moving forward.
EXP is finalizing the hydrology and hydraulic study with Riverside County Flood Control.
Utility research and field survey have started. Once the Pennsylvania Widening project is completed, EXP’s field crew can finish the survey and begin preliminary alignment design. EXP is also researching the potential for CEQA exemption. Final design is anticipated to be completed in July 2024.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $500. The funding for this contract amendment would be paid from the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019) budget. Refer to following table for the accounting summary.
2019-019 MDP Line 2 Project Accounting Summary
Funding Summary
Funding Year Funding Source Amount
19/20 RCFC $100,000
20/21 RCFC $1,500,000
21/22 RCFC $3,400,000
Total Project Funding = $5,000,000
Budget Summary
Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget
Project Management $0 $0 $0 $0
Preliminary Services $0 $0 $0 $0
Environmental $0 $0 $0 $0
Design $550,000 ($504,061) ($84,657.17) $45,939
Construction $4,450,000 $0.00 $0.00 $4,450,000
Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0
Permits $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Summary Totals $5,000,000 ($504,061) ($84,657.17) $4,495,939
Recommended Action:
Approve a second amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S.
Services, Inc. to extend the term for one-year and a new not-to-exceed amount of $524,064.96.
Attachments:
A. Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S.
Services, Inc.
B. Professional Services Agreements with EXP (Original Agreement) C. First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S.
Services, Inc.
D. Levine Act Statement
STAFF REPORT COVER SHEET
Meeting date _____/_____/_____
Subject/Project:
______________________________________________________________ Please checkmark if all requirements for staff report submission are complete, or not applicable.
n/a
____ ____ Contract/Resolution/Ordinance reviewed by city attorney. ____ ____ Public Hearing (attached copy of notice).
____ ____ Presentation by a consultant/vendor.
____ ____ Power point presentation: Staff Consultant (circle one) ____ ____ Contract mailed to vendor for signature(s).
Date mailed: _____/_____/_____
NOTES: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Submitted by
________________________________
8 15 2023
EXP Contract Amendment
Robert Vestal
4