Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PW06-147 - Original - R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. - Habitat Conservation Plan - 02/24/2006
Records M,a-r1.a- geme33'n , t%KENTDocument WASHINGTON CONTRACT COVER SHEET This is to be completed by the Contract Manager prior to submission to City Clerks Office. All portions are to be completed, if you have questions, please contact Mary Simmons, City Clerks Office. Vendor Name: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Contract Numberfi)©(o —/ q7 This is assigned by Mary Simmons Vendor Number: Project Name: Habitat Conservation Plan Contract Effective Date: Date of the Mayor's sianature Contract Termination Date: June 30, 2008 Contract Renewal Notice (Days): Number of days required notice for termination or renewal or amendment Contract Manager: Kelly Peterson Department: Engineering Provide additional work to the Habitat Conservation plan and complete the associated Environmental Impact Statement. ADCL7832 07/02 KENT Wn5MINOTON CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Kent and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. organized under the laws of the State of Washington, located and doing business at 15250 NE 95th St., Redmond, WA 98052-2518, Phone. (425) 556- 1288/Fax: (425) 556-1290, Contact: Dudley Reiser(hereinafter the "Consultant") I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. Consultant shall perform the following services for the City in accordance with the following described plans and/or specifications: The Consultant shall be providing some additional work to the Habitat Conservation Plan and complete the associated Environmental Impact Statement. For a detailed d escription, see the Scope of Work which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time those services are performed. II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, Consultant shall complete the work described in Section I by June 30, 2008. III. COMPENSATION. A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Two Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty Four Dollars and eleven cents ($302,324.11) for the services described in this Agreement. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the work described in Section I above, and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed supplemental agreement. The Consultant agrees that the hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work performed, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this Agreement. The City shall provide payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Consultant and reserves the option to only pay that CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT- 1 (Over$10,000) portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement and that the Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on the signature block of this Agreement. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project, which may be used by the City without restriction. If the City's use of Consultant's records or data is not related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VIII. INSURANCE. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by this reference. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-2 (Over$10,000) IX. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The City will provide its best efforts to provide reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. X. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents, drawings, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City to the Consultant will be safeguarded by the Consultant. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon the City's request. The city's use or reuse of any of the documents, data and files created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. XI. CITY'S R IGHT O F I NSPECTION. E ven though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement,t he w ork in ust in eet the approval o f t he C ity and s hall b e subject t o t he C ity's general r ight o f inspection to secure satisfactory completion. XII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK Consultant shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this-Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Waslungton If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement. D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3)business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in tlus Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-3 (Over$10,000) E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement. However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement,which shall become effective on the last date entered below. CONSULTANT: CITY OF KENT: By: By: gnature) - (signature) Print N e: r Print Name: S tte Cooke Its ei� Its Ma or (Title) (Title) DATE: Q—�] 1 —� l DATE: 2/�S'�G NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CONSULTANT: CITY OF KENT: Dudley Reiser Larry R. Blanchard R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. City of Kent 15250 NE 95th Street 220 Fourth Avenue South Redmond, WA 98052-2518 Kent, WA 98032 (425) 556-1288 (telephone) (253) 856-5500 (telephone) 425) 556-1290 (facsimile) (253) 856-6500 (facsimile) APP OVED AS TO FORM: Aajfa ,_ ent aw ep ent R2 Resource-Habitat Consery Plan&EIS/Peterson CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-4 (Over$10,000) DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement; The questions are as follows: 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex,race,color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this , a 1 day of ���or ..Qr 200(,. By: For: Title: Date: \O EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS- 1 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES. April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White,Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines. EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS-2 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the Agreement. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on the (date) , between the firm I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. Dated this day of , 200 By: For: Title: Date: EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS-3 EXHIBIT A SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 CLARK SPRINGS WATER FACILITIES CITY OF KENT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN -REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET- R2 Resource Consultants R2 Resource Consultants,Inc. (Contractor)has been assisting the City of Kent(City) in the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP) and Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for their Clark Springs Water Facilities Project. The overall objective of this work is to obtain an Incidental Take Permit(ITP) from the Services(NOAA Fisheries,U S.Fish and Wildlife Service)that will afford protection to the City for the continued operations of the Clark Springs Facilities under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act(ESA). This work is being coordinated with the Thompson Smitch Consulting Group(TSCG)who is also under contract to the City. R2's original Statement of Work(SOW)was submitted in November 2003 and identified seven(7) tasks needed to support preparation of the HCP and EIS. The TSCG defined three phases involved in securing an ITP via an HCP, including a Negotiation Phase (Phase 1), an EIS Management and Preparation Phase (Phase 2), and a Signing Phase (Phase 3). The first four tasks of this SOW are considered part of Phase One Activities, and the last three tasks are part of Phase Two. R2's original budget focused on activities related to the first two phases. The tasks included: • Task 1 —Existing Information Analysis • Task 2—Agency Meetings/Field Reconnaissance • Task 3—Stakeholder Meetings • Task 4—Preparation of HCP • Task 5—Preparation of EIS • Task 6—Assist with Preparation of Implementing Agreement • Task 7—Ad Hoc Meetings and Respond to Technical Issues As of September 7, 2005,R2 has essentially completed Task I and major portions of Tasks 2, 3,and 4. A Preliminary Draft HCP is nearing completion(I"drafts of Chapters 1-6 have been completed). However, a number of tasks have required a greater than anticipated effort to complete resulting in the need to request supplemental funds to support R2's continued assistance to the City of Kent in completing the HCP. A description of and justification for additional funds to support these tasks is presented below. SCOPE OF WORK - SUPPLEMENTAL This Supplemental SOW is to provide funds for R2 to continue to support the City of Kent in the preparation of an HCP and EIS for their Clark Springs Water Facilities Project. The original SOW was developed and budgeted around a stringent time schedule City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP I SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 that targeted the preparation of an HCP and EIS by late 2004-early 2005,with acquisition of an ITP in early to mid-2005. However, a number of technical issues were identified as part of Task 1 analysis that needed to be addressed prior to proceeding with the initial drafting of the HCP. This required substantially more meetings with the City of Kent and other contractors,and increased (because of a prolonged schedule)the number of meetings with the Services. A brief description of these issues is provided below. Task 1. Existing Information Analysis Under this task,R2 identified,compiled, assembled and reviewed information and data relevant to the Rock Creek watershed and specifically to the operations of the Clark Springs Water Facilities Project R2 specifically reviewed other studies completed on the Rock Creek watershed including those related to: • Hydrology Analysis (Hart Crowser) • Hydrologic Model(HSPF) Analysis (MCS Engineering) • Geomorphology Analysis (Pentec) • Groundwater Flow Model(MODFLOW)Analyses (Hart Crowser) • Fish Habitat Survey(Pentec) • Fish Surveys—Juvenile Salmonids(Pentec—MCS) • Instream Flow Study(Instream Flow Incremental Methodology—IFIM) (MCS— Hart Crowser) • Spawning Surveys(MCS) R2's preliminary review of the existing information suggested that additional,detailed studies would not be required in order to move forward with the HCP, and developed a budget to complete this task accordingly. However, the detailed review process identified two areas for which additional technical analysis were required and which were not included in the original budget. These included: • Refinements in Hydrology and HSPF modeling—R2 identified several inconsistencies in the HSPF model calibration process that required additional evaluation. The review process included a detailed review of the hydrology data used in the HSPF modeling,refinement of the hydrology data sets, and review of subsequent HSPF model output. Close interaction including at least 4 meetings with the City of Kent and MGS-Engineering were required. The overall review and refinement process spanned a period of approximately three months during which time R2 scientists (Alan Olson) and Senior Engineer (Michael Ramey)worked close with the City of Kent(William Wolmski and Kelly Peterson) and MGS-Engineering (Bruce Barker). • PHABSIM Review, Site Reconnaissance,and Additional Data Collection — as part of the PHABSIM review, R2 completed a site reconnaissance with Michael McDowell of MCS Environmental During this trip, R2 identified the need to collect additional PHABSIM data to more fully represent the full range of habitat types present in Rock Creek. R2 subsequently developed a City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 2 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 1006 scope of work to complete this additional data collection and analysis and to integrate into the other transect information. The City of Kent provided supplemental funds to complete this work.However, this resulted in the need for further adjustments in the schedule, as well as to present new PHABSIM results to the City of Kent and the Services. • Low Flow Operations Test. During late-July 2004, R2 recommended that Kent conduct a low flow operations test to compliment the moderate flow operations tests that were conducted previously. These tests occurred over a 4-day period during the last week of July. The unanticipated tests,analysis, and meetings resulted in a better understanding of how water supply withdrawals and augmentation affect stream flows in Rock Creek under low flow conditions. R2 completed the detailed review of hydrology, HSPF model refinements,the site visit and study plan development,and the low flow operations test under the overall original budget for the project. No additional budget requested. Task 2. Monthly Technical Meetings and Task 3. Stakeholder Meetings R2's original budget was based on completion of monthly technical meetings over a 12 month period, a total of 12 meetings scheduled. Costs were based on attendance by the Project Manager at 6 meetings, all 12 meetings by the Deputy Project Manager In addition, 4 half-day(4 hour)meetings were scheduled and budgeted to be attended by both the Project and Deputy Project Managers for attendance at Stakeholders meetings. To date,R2 has participated in 47 meetings that include the meetings with the City of Kent and contractors to address the issues noted under Task 1, as well as Stakeholder meetings(2), meetings with the Services to present technical results and review draft sections of the HCP, as well as internal meetings with TSCG and City of Kent. Cost to Complete BudEet Request—Meetings Since work is still ongoing on the HCP and will continue with the preparation of the EIS, additional Technical Meetings will be required At this time,we anticipate requiring a rrunimum of an additional 10 meetings to be attended by the Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager to support the HCP. These will include meetings with the Services and two Stakeholder meetings. Requested costs for R2's continued support at HCP meetings are- $18,006.50. This amount does not include meetings related to preparation of the EIS,which will be covered under Task 5. Task 4. HCP Preparation City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 3 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 As originally scoped, scheduled and budgeted,this task was to provide for the preparation of both a Public Review Draft and the Final HCP for the Clark Springs Water Facilities. However, the unforeseen delays noted above have prolonged the preparation of the Public Review Draft, although it is nearing completion. Moreover, portions of the budget originally assigned for this task were needed to address the technical issues, as well as to allow preparation and attendance at the greater than anticipated number of technical meetings As a result, we have expended the budget for this task. Cost to Complete Budget Request—HCP Preparation R2 has completed and submitted preliminary drafts of Chapters 1-5 to the Services. Chapter 6 has been submitted to the City of Kent for review and subsequent to incorporation of edits,will then be sent to the Services for review. Chapters 7 and 8 will be completed in October-November. Thus,we anticipate an initial Public Review Draft will be completed in early January. A public review and comment period will occur in early 2006, and R2 will need to respond to comments and prepare a Final Draft HCP in mid-2006. Supplemental costs for R2 to complete the Public Review Draft and the Final Draft HCP are estimated at$44,214.00. Task 5. Prepare EIS R2 has not commenced work on the EIS,pending completion of the Public Review Draft of the HCP. However,R2 has recently used a small portion of the original Task 5 budget to support continued attendance at meetings(See above) and preparation of sections of the HCP. Cost to Complete Budget Request—EIS Preparation On October 7,2005, Alan Olson (R2), Jon Hale (Jones and Stokes), and Ted Gresh (Jones and Stokes)met with City of Kent staff(Mike Mactutis, Kelly Peterson, Dave Brock, and Brad Lake)to discuss the EIS process and a proposed team for completing the process (Figure 1). Proposed subcontractors to complete preparation of the EIS include the following consulting firms: • Jones and Stokes—Project management;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)coordination, soils, and socioeconomics • Biota Pacific—Wildlife,botanical, and wetlands (the latter two resource areas to be subcontracted to Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc.) • Heritage Research Associates (HRA)—Cultural Resources • Karen Bums,Technical Editor City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 4 SOW-R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 -M MwFS R2-R2 Resource Consultants,Inc. J&S-Jones and Stokes age BP-Biota Pactf c - BRA-Historical Research Associates Ted Gresh(J&S) SEA-Smayda Environmental Associates =Peterson- ��:-City of Kent-City of Kent of Kentity of Kent Jon Hale(J&S) ,Primary Contractor' Representative ' Alan Olson(R2) SIM _uTechn�civAr6s Fish and Aquatics-Also Olson(RZ) R .�'p'8.: `,a}" - - - -'t I drolo /R' Clair Yoder Pa SnvolVCment ' Y gY Q- (R2) Editor-Karen Burns Socioeconomic-A Renmek(J&S) Word Processing-Loyce Panos(112) Ted Gresh(J&S) Geology/Sods-(J&S) Graphics-Karee Oliver(R2) Terrestrial-Doug Woodworth(UP) GIS-Joetla Zablotney(R2) Cultural Resources-Gail Thompson(IRA) Wetlands/Botanical-Kathy Smayda(SEA) Figure 1. Organizational chart for completing the Clark Springs HCP EIS. City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 5 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31,2006 Ted Gresh of Jones and Stokes is proposed as the EIS project manager. We propose a non-R2 staff member as project manager for two primary reasons First,the NEPA coordinator for the Services,Kathe Hawe, strongly recommended that the HCP project manager and EIS project manager be different people because of the potential perception of conflict of interest by stakeholders and because the level of effort that would be needed to revise both the draft HCP and draft EIS simultaneously to final documents would be high. Second,Mr Gresh and Jones and Stokes have substantial experience managing EISs with the Services As project manager,Mr. Gresh will be the principal contact between the Services and the EIS preparation team and will be responsible for directing the technical authors and staff assigned to EIS document preparation Nevertheless, R2 as the primary contractor will have overall responsibility for delivery of the EIS product. Consequently,R2 proposes to include an R2 staff member,Alan Olson, as R2's representative during all strategic EIS decisions and to assure that contract scopes, schedules,and budgets are followed Mr. Olson will be cc'd on all emails between EIS team members and between the EIS team and the Services or provided brief summaries of substantive telephone discussions,but is not intended to participate(except as the fish and aquatics technical lead)unless needed to help resolve issues that develop. On October 10`s,Kelly Peterson requested that R2 and other EIS team contractors prepare scopes of work (SOWS) and budgets for completing the EIS. This proposal responds to that request for work to be completed by R2 and other EIS team contractors. The proposed scopes of work,budgets, and resumes for Jones and Stokes, Biota Pacific/SEA,HRA, and Karen Burns are attached to this proposal Except where specifically noted, the remainder of this SOW only discusses work to be performed by R2. Under the original SOW and budget for the HCP/EIS (dated November 18,2003), R2 estimated an EIS task budget (Task 5) of$51,933. Since that time, R2 has re-evaluated the subtasks that would need to be completed as part of the EIS and level of effort that would be needed to complete these subtasks. A number of factors have been considered in this re-evaluation: • Experience acquired during preparation of the HCP has indicated the project is more complex than originally anticipated, • The timeline for completing the project is longer than originally anticipated and has resulted in the need to escalate staff billing rates; • There is a better understanding of the level of resource areas,NEPA coordination, and technical editing needed to complete the EIS compared to the original SOW and budget; • The Service's desire that the EIS/NEPA coordinator be different than the HCP coordinator; and • Costs related to managing subcontractors were not anticipated in the original SOW and budget. The following outlines the 7 subtasks to be completed by R2 as part of the overall EIS. City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 6 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 Subtask 1. Meetings. This subtask assumes 14 meetings with the City of Kent, TSCG, and/or the Services (average of 6 hours per meeting, except 3 meetings with the City of Kent to be conducted by telephone averaging 3 hours per meeting). Subtask 2. Scoping/Alternatives. Jones and Stokes will have the lead role in conducting public scoping,preparing a scoping report, and preparing descriptions of the Alternatives. R2 effort is limited to reviewing these documents and attendance at one public scoping meeting We assume there will be no more than 3 Alternatives (No Action,the Proposed HCP,one Alternative Action) considered for the EIS. Subtask 3. Draft EIS Preparation. R2 will prepare the Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) and Chapter 4 (Environmental Effects) sections for Fish and Aquatic Resources and Hydrology/Water Quality. R2 will lead the effort for preparing Chapter 5 (Lists) with support from technical resource authors. R2 will conduct all necessary GIS analyses and map preparation for all resource areas. We assume the Fish and Aquatic Resources and Hydrology/Water Quality sections for Chapter 3 will be drawn primarily from the HCP and require little development of new materials In contrast, depending upon the Alternatives selected for analysis in the EIS, the Hydrology section of Chapter 4 may require additional HSPF modeling and analysis of alternative effects on hydrogeology, which are not included in this proposal. If in the future it is determined that additional HSPF modeling and hydrogeological analysis is needed,we recommend that the City of Kent utilize experts already familiarized with the project(i.e., Bruce Barker of MCS Engineering and Michael Kenricks of Geoengineers). R2 proposes to help the City of Kent in the coordination of these additional technical analyses, if they are necessary. Jones and Stokes will take the lead in the preparation of Chapters I (Purpose and Need), Chapter 2 (Alternatives), and the Summary. Jones and Stokes will also have overall responsibility for document coordination of resource sections and individual chapters in the overall document As the prime contractor for this EIS,R2 will participate in all strategic decisions made during preparation of the document and will support Jones and Stokes in the coordination of the document preparation by being available for meetings, telephone discussions, and emails between Jones and Stokes and technical specialists. Subtask 4. Public Comments. Jones and Stokes will be taking the lead in organizing public comments received following release of the DEIS We assume approximately 100 comments in 30 to 40 comment letters will need to be addressed R2 staff will support this effort by addressing comments related to Fish and Aquatic Resources and Hydrology/Water Quality and supporting Jones and Stokes in coordinating comment responses among resource staff and the Services. Depending upon the nature of the comments, some outside technical support(e g.,Michael Kenricks) or support from the City of Kent may be needed to address comments concerning the hydrogeology in the basin,HSPF modeling, or the City's water supply operations. Subtask 5. Final EIS. R2 staff will implement revisions to the DEIS for sections they prepared(i e , Fish and Aquatics and Hydrology)as part of preparing the Final EIS. R2 will also lead the revisions needed for Chapter 5 (Lists)with some support from technical City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 7 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 resource leads,as necessary. Similar to Subtask 3,R2 will participate in strategic decisions and support Jones and Stokes in coordinating revisions to be completed. R2 will also have overall responsibility for document production. Subtask 6. Record Of Decision. Jones and Stokes will have primary responsibility for preparation of the ROD. R2 effort is limited to reviewing this document. Subtask 7. EIS Project Management. This task includes estimated effort for R2 staff representation during NEPA coordination(4 hours per month). R2 has also included under this subtask effort for project administration and clerical work. EIS Schedule and Deliverables Table 1 provides an overall proposed timeline for completing the EIS and Record of Decision(ROD) The schedule assumes that the EIS team has approval to start work by March 6, 2006 and the Notice of Intent is published by May 29, 2006. Table 2 provides a list of work items, deliverables,and proposed completion dates. The overall anticipated completion date for the EIS and draft ROD is December 2007 The Services may need an additional 45 to 60 days to publish the ROD The project schedule assumes: • The Services will need 10 weeks to revise and publish the NOI • 3-week review periods by Kent and the Services for each draft section • 3-week revision periods by the consultant team • A minimum 60-day public comment period for the draft EIS Cost to Complete EIS Budget Request Tables 2a and 2b provide an effort and cost breakdown for each of the Subtasks outlined above Our total estimated cost for R2's role in completing the Clark Springs Water Supply HCP EIS is $92,830.50. The total estimated cost for completing the EIS is $277,641 50 of which$184,811 are for subcontractor costs and markup on subcontractor costs. Additional assumptions concerning the supplemental budget request include: • For the Draft EIS and Final EIS Costs we assume production of two complete review documents and one complete public document for each. Electronic versions in PDF format will also be created for the public document. • Costs do not include copying,binding, or shipping of the public DEIS or FEISi. • Review comments on a draft document by different staff from the Services are consolidated in a single document. • Review continents on a draft document by different staff from the City of Kent are consolidated in a single document. • Each review consists of one round of comments and revisions. i Costs for printing and distributing copies of the EIS are usually the responsibility of the applicant(rather than the Services) The applicant may choose to use the federal Government Printing Office or a commercial printer Tum-around time is generally more rapid through a commercial printer. City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 8 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 • Markup is 10 percent on expenses and subcontractor costs • No substantial delays(i.e.,more than one or two months)will occur in the schedule. Task 6—Assist With Implementing Agreement R2 shall work closely with the TSCG in preparing an Implementing Agreement(IA)for the HCP. Cost to Complete IA Budget Request To date no effort has been expended on this task. The expected cost to complete is $4,614.50, approximately the cost estimated during the original proposal. Task 7—Ad Hoc Meetings and Respond to Technical Questions This task has been expended. No additional budget requested at this time. Total Costs to Complete the Project The total cost to complete each task of the project estimated as of August 31, 2005 are: COSTS -Total Cost to Complete Costs by Task are: • Task 2—Monthly Agency Meetings: $15,527.00 • Task 3 — Stakeholder Meetings- $2,479.50 • Task 4— HCP Preparation- $44,214 00 • Task 5— EIS Preparation: $277,641 50 • Task 6—Implementation Agreement 4,614.50 Project Cost To Complete Total: $344,476.50 As of November 30, 2005 Task balances totaled $20,017 31 and$22,125.08 dollars were expended between August 31 and November 30, 2005. Consequently, the Total Supplemental Budget Request is$302,324.11. See attached Tables 1 and 2 for a detailed cost breakdown. City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 9 SOW—R2 Resource Consultants January 31, 2006 Table 1. Proposed EIS Schedule. Date of Work Item Deliverable Completion Subtask 2 FR Notice of Intent Draft FR Notice to Services March 17,2006 Notice of Intent Published May 29,3006 Scoping Report Scoping Report to Kent and Services July 14,2006 Alternative Descriptions Alternatives to Kent and Services July 28,2006 Subtask 3 Preliminary ADEIS to Kent 3 wk review April 7,2006 Draft Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) Preliminary ADEIS to Services(3 wk May 19,2006 review Preliminary ADEIS to Kent 3 wk review August 18,2006 Draft Chapter 2(Alternatives) Preliminary ADEIS to Services(3 wk Sept 29,2006 review Draft Chapter 3(Affected Preliminary ADEIS to Kent 3 wk review April 28,2006 Environment) Preliminary ADEIS to Services(3 wk June 912006 review Draft Chapter 4(Environmental Preliminary ADEIS to Kent 3 wk review Sept 8,2006 Effects) Preliminary ADEIS to Services(3 wk October 20,2006 review Administrative DEIS ADEIS to Services 5 wk review) December 1,2006 Camera-ready DEIS and draft Notice Camera-ready and draft NOA to Services January 26,2007 of Availability Draft EIS Production and Public Release February 23,2007 Public Comment Ends 60 days) Aril 24,2007 Subtask 4 Draft Comment Summary Draft Comment Summary to Kent and May 15,2007 Services 3 wk review Final Comment Summary Final Comment Summary to Kent and June 26,2007 Services Subtask 5 Preliminary Administrative FEIS Preliminary AFEIS to Kent 3 wk review July 20,2007 AFEIS AFEIS to Services 3 wk review Set 7,2007 Camera-ready FEIS and NOA Camera-ready FEIS and draft NOA to November 2, Services 2007 Final EIS Production and Public Release Nov 30,2007 Subtask 6 Draft ROD Draft ROD to Services Dec 28,2007 1 An extended review period is provided because of the Holiday Season. City of Kent-Clark Springs HCP 10 0 'a m ' r� a 14 N h y O n O O O F U 1D $ N d N NI olr N H H N oC ffi H N M H S N H H H H N H H `o � Y k Y Is y V ^ H vyi O O P O $ Ir V.' rm n U Vf � e+i � � N bO T LL N H H N a a` x• 0 ai $ g eH $ 8S e8 e8 NS e8 e8 e8 `" 8 ^ 8 $ 8 � 8 O O � N N N D• t1 OJ s c V _ N N H N H N Vy .Ri F d m � 4 N N T` HAY I O O O O O O O O N O N H H N H H H y y N O H N L y pp �+f m N l0 rat ' H (/] "fi V 9 L 1 R a s � $ °0° 8 off off off off off off off off n8 off = 8 r 8 8 p O H M H M N H N H O H i L vNv�� Q m V y H N H y w a � 'Q � e8 08 08 08 e8 08 08 08 08 off o8 08 08 Y •V w i d O � Ni H H N N H C = J s N �g Q 6 T C V )" 0 � 91 xi N � �• O 4 q e.l J � ❑ ry a 5 &0 z 06 F a oao caw H ¢ ux � c5 fy gig a � °� 3 HH a ° N a 0 A eNh b T O W y O W 'Ii M O O < O d 11 H N H W' y H O pp O T O O N M O _ N N N N NI N P1 H AI F H N N H H H M H N H H H N N H H N N g H W W N C � 5 M W S S S S S S S S N S S S S S N S O YQ� Ifs O O x � edu Hy ��e ee e C p O S S S S S S S S S N S S S N Vi S VOi N W 'qO V N O H' C C P N P O N OW O e� VWV N r PI N f/x r 42 tDo 16 N x g S S S SSS S S S S p Sp S pSp S S � e m m n m FyV F Y x y y N � S S S S S S S S vpi S S S S S S S yej N b ONp o �y4y.1. N a L y m H$ N H y H H H N H N W N N H N N N NH' O IE IE � Haa � x o S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W O g P V V O N O r P Q WV e � �+ `• F O r U O S • U'� � � SS S SSSS S S S S S S S g S o o < e o soi s 5�j��y O • H' o o O O O O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 o r e r r e C V C y W G C S .. . . . H pGp w €A'y '• a Z N G:� W � Q 'S � H `• a`; • b� O a x s '� F e C ° < o G e a a rC yF' G „OU u N o S aryP V w n wF H OU FNa F RJ ResoarnConsuhasta,Tu. Table 2a. Labor Hours and Casts 3J-Jan-06 City of Kent Clark Springs Water Supply HCP EIS TASK 01 TASK 02 TASK 03 TASK 04 TASK 05 TASK 06 1 TASK 07 ScoPleg/ I Pubhc Project Mee0n s Altemativn DEIS Commenh i FEIS ROD Mane event nearly _ TOTAL PERSONNEL Rate RwcShS ISn/Cah$ ttn/Csuf Hn/csh5 Hmicsh$ I RrOCwS Rn/Csh$ Hn/Csts$ Dudl Reiser,Ph D $165 00 12 4 8 0 B 0 8___ _ 40 Prmu al loth a 1 $I980 W $660 W SI320 W SOW $1 2000 5000 SI 20 W $6600 W Mmhael Ram PE $14200 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 10 _ Pto3eaHydrolqgat_ $000 SOW $85200 $000 _ $56800 $OOO SOW TI,42000 Tm N hten ak $7400 0 0 32 6 8 0 0 46 Aquasc Ecologwi__-,--_------______ $000 $000 $2,36800 5444 W 5592 W SOW SOW $3,401 W Alan Olson $1 W W 75 16 80 60 48 8 72 359 Sr Fah Biologist __ ___ __- $7500.00 S16010 W $SOW W S6 WO W S4,80000 SBW 00 S7 W _-_535,900 W Ieetn 7eblom $IW W 0 0 52 0 28 OI 0 _ 80 GIs Mao et $000 $000 E5 2W W SO W $2,800 W SOW S0 W $e 000 W Clam Yoder S86 W 0 0 ]Do 24 40 0 0 164 HdrolocEn eer $000 $000 1 $860000 $2064DO $3,44000 so DO so DO f14104DO Kame Oliva $74 W 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 GWh./Data Coord __ $D W ----so Do S1,776 W _ $0 W $1,776 W $0 W SOW $3,552 W Adam W bra t $SBW 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 &ol st $D OD $000 EO W $000 $000 $0 W SOW ----Eo Oo Iod nreckmnd $86 W 0 0 0 0 D 0 46 _ 46 Adminmmaion/Conuacttn $D W SOW SOW $0 W S0.W 5000 $3 956 W 53,956 W _______ _ _ ___ _ __ Lo n Panos $58 W 0 0 1 W 20 Ell I 0 784 Word Process $0.W $000 $5 BW W S1,16000 $3480 W $232 W SOW $10,672 W Rna Torkdl. $51 W 0 0 0 0 0 01 40 Clencal $000 SOW SOW 1 $0 W $000 $o W S2,04000 $2 040 W Total Labor Noun 87 20 402 110 22D 12 166 1017 Total Labor Costs S $9,48000 S3 260 W $33 916 W S9 668 W $18,776 W Sl 032 W S14 151600 $89,648 W Table 2b. Other Direct Costs(ODCs)and TOTAL COSTS City of Kent Clark Springs Water Supply HCP EIS TASK el TASK 02 TASK 03 TASK 04 TASK OS i TASK 06 TASK 07 _ saoping/ Publk Project I Meedals _Allernanves DEIS Commenn_ _FEIS _ __ ROD_ MmaKement ITEM __ _ _ _ —_— —�TOTAL Es erases Travel,Miss Su Iles Subsistence I Communmatsons MCI GTE $0 W $OW $000 f0 W 1 $0 W $000 St W W $1 W W Couna/ShjppmgSUPS,FcdEx $0 DO $000 __$20000 SOW $200 DO $000_ T2WW __T600W Munlleneuus Ex ses $0 DOED 00 EOOO t SO fqT $0 W $000 $O W SO W Subtahl E: ensn SI S0 00 $0 00 S200 00 $000 5200 00 Soft I S300 00 1 570000 Subconhacter Cosh Jones and Stokes i $107 939 00 Peer&Bsota/Sma du Envuonmrntal Amomates I 539,672 W H.W.ul Resemch Assocsales 1 $1379900 Karen Bums i S66WW Subcontmctw Subtotal 5000 $000 $000 S0W SOA01 $OW Sees 516B 01000 11%Marku uo Es erne Subcontractor 1 $000 Sees 52000 $OW S20M 5000 1 $3000 $16,87100 R2 E ul ment Usa a(Field and OBke — —_-- ----- R2 4wd Tmck teahl $0 5Omde $532 50 $0 W SO DO50.W SO OD $0 W $OW 553250 Com uta Si Ohr SOW $0 DO5440 00i 50.W $240 W sow SO DO WOOD Network Scanner HP b a e $0 00 SO W EO W SOW SOW sow SOW _ Saw Commumcmmnsfax '5$I/ae SOW EOW EOW SDW $OW SOW $0 DO SDW GBC eo0atm Bmdm Su hes $t SOlset $0 W $D OD SOW SD W $OW SO OD EO W $D W roducuon $10/00 S50 W EO W SS W W S50 W ES W W S50 W 550 W $1 W W Subtotal R2 E ut ment Us e$ —T $50E 50 SOW S94D 00 f50 00 T740 W S50 00 $SOAO $2,412 50 PROJECTTOTALS Tefal ODCs$ _ _ __ _ $582 50 _ SOAO _ S1s160J10 550 00 S961 00 1 _ $1100 $380 00 _ $187,99350 TOWLabw CoshS 59A8000 52,26000 $37 16001 59,66800 $16,77fi OOt 51,03200 SI4,51600 _ S89618.00 TOTAL COSTS S I SIO,062 50 1 82,260 00 1 $35 076 00' 59,718 00 $19,736 D0 .1 081 00 $14 89600 5277 641 50 File CltyOe(etd HCP g EIS Sup Coate Ida Sheet:HCP EIS CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 OF 1 Date 113012000 Introduction to the Scope of Work R2 Resources of Redmond,Washington,has retained Jones & Stokes to assist in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The Draft EIS will evaluate a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)developed by the City of Kent,Washington (City),for the operation of a water supply system located within the Rock Creek watershed The City has hired R2 Resources to coordinate the production of the HCP on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)so they may obtain Incidental Take Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(13)of the Endangered Species Act. In addition to meeting the requirements of NEPA and the ESA, the EIS will also document compliance with the related environmental impact analysis requirements of all associated federal and state statutes and executive orders: The following Scope of Work(Scope)details the tasks R2 Resources is contracting Jones&Stokes to perform as a subconsultant and lists deliverables and assumptions for each task. Jones&Stokes has broken the Scope into 5 tasks: ■ Task 1—Project Initiation • Task 2—Prepare Draft EIS ■ Task 3—Prepare Final EIS ■ Task 4—Public Involvement ■ Task 5—Project Management The associated budget details the overall cost for the project and assumes the project will be completed by April 2007 1 Task 1 . Project Initiation Task 1.1. Review Project Materials In order to understand the project history and work and analysis that has been completed to date,Jones &Stokes will conduct a site visit to the Clark Springs System and meet with City staff,review project history and documents,and gather any maps and materials that may be included in the Draft EIS Jones & Stokes will use the meeting with City staff to begin developing a possible alternative to the proposed action,a list of the environmental elements to be considered in the EIS,and descriptions of other projects that should be reflected in the cumulative effects analysis Deliverables ■ List of the environmental elements to be considered in the EIS ■ List of recommended projects that should be considered in the cumulative effects analysis Assumptions ■ The project area to be evaluated in the Draft EIS will be the Clark Springs Watershed. ■ The Study area will include the entire Rock Creek Watershed and the City. ■ The project coordinator will attend one on-site meeting to become familiar with the site and to discuss development of a conceptual alternative. ■ Jones and Stokes NEPA coordinator will attend one client meeting in Kent that will require 8 hours which includes travel and preparation ■ A screening analysis of alternatives will not be necessary. Task 1.2. Draft Purpose and Need Jones& Stokes will, in coordination with the City and NMFS/USFWS,develop a draft purpose and need statement that identifies the problems to be addressed,the intent of the proposed action, and the City's primary goals and objectives for requesting an Incidental Take Permit from NMFS and USFWS. Jones and Stokes will send a draft purpose and need statement to the attendees of the internal scoping meeting Based upon the comments received following agency and client review,Jones and Stokes will prepare a revised draft purpose and need statement to be distributed to the City and Services approval and inclusion in the NOI 2 Deliverables ■ Draft purpose and need statement Assumptions ■ Jones and Stokes will provide two iterations of the purpose and need: a revised draft based on input from the City and a final draft based on agency review and comment. ■ City and agency review will occur within the allotted times defined in the overall project schedule developed by R2 Resources. ■ Jones&Stokes will receive one set of consolidated comments,each,from the City, NMFS,and USFWS. Task 1.3. Prepare Notice of Intent (N01) Jones& Stokes will draft a NOI for submittal to NMFS/USFWS The NOI will contain information based on the purpose and need,a preliminary description of the alternatives,an announcement of the dates for a public scopmg period, and the date for the public scopmg meeting.Jones and Stokes will use this information for an announcement/advertisement to be published locally Deliverables ■ Draft NOI for submittal to NMFS/IJSFWS. • Announcement of scoping period to be published locally(i.e.,the South County Journal or other media outlet to be agreed upon with the Services) Assumptions ■ Jones and Stokes will provide three iterations of the NOI, a draft,a revised draft based on input from the City, and a final draft based on agency review and comment. ■ NMFS/USFWS will prepare the final NOI and be responsible for its publication in the Federal Register. • Interested party letters will be mailed by NMFS/USFWS. 3 Task 2. Prepare Draft EIS Task 2.1. Chapter 1—Purpose and Need Jones&Stokes will write Chapter I of the Draft EIS Chapter I will include the purpose and need for the federal action,the City's purpose and need for the proposed action,and describe the environmental review process necessary to meet federal permit and consultation requirements.Chapter I will also describe the structure of the EIS document. Task 2.2. Chapter 2—Discussion of Alternatives NEPA requires that a Draft EIS consider a range of alternatives that could accomplish the proposed action's purpose and need The range of alternatives is important so that the Draft EIS can present the environmental impacts in comparative form and provide a clear basis for a choice by decision-makers and the public. Jones&Stokes will write Chapter 2 based on the input received on alternatives during the internal and public scopmg periods. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS will include a full description of one no-action alternative,up to two action-alternatives(the preferred alternative and one additional action alternative), a brief description of alternatives considered during scopmg but eliminated from further evaluation,and alternatives identified during scopmg that are outside the lead agency's jurisdiction. Chapter 2 will also include a list of the identified actions to be considered in the evaluation of cumulative effects.Any past,present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may cause environmental impacts that would be considered incremental impacts,when added to impacts caused by the proposed action,will be included in the cumulative effects analysis. Task 2.3. Socioeconomic Evaluation This Scope assumes that socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed action will require an evaluation in the Draft EIS Because NEPA requires an evaluation of direct, indirect,and cumulative impacts of the proposed action, it is likely that this evaluation will extend beyond the proiject area and include the area serviced by the Clark Springs facility. Based on concerns expressed at the Internal scoping meeting, Jones&Stokes will need to evaluate the potential direct,indirect,and cumulative impacts to neighborhoods, community cohesion,community facilities, and social groups, as appropriate, and assess potential economic effects on the local and regional economy,tax base,and employment/income for each of the alternatives being evaluated in the Draft EIS in Chapter 4(environmental consequences). Jones& Stokes will use U.S census data,aerial photography,and existing mapping to identify relevant population demographics,businesses,and nearby neighborhood and community facilities to describe 4 the existing characteristics of the project that will be included in Chapter 3. Potential direct,indirect, and cumulative affects for each of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS will be discussed in in Chapter 4. Task 2.4. Soils Evaluation Jones&Stokes will evaluate localized zones where soil instability could pose either safety or environmental concerns. Jones&Stokes will review existing sods information for the project area(i.e. Ecology's soil data website,King County Soils Survey),and identify zones where construction is proposed within highly erodable soil. In order to satisfy NEPA and SEPA,Jones and Stokes will review existing soils information for the project area(i e Ecology's soil data website,King County Soils Survey,previously conducted geotech information)and conduct a site visit to determine existing conditions in the project area as well as determine potential affects from the proposed action.As part of this task, Jones and Stokes will: ■ Provide a general description of the site I ■ Identify any steep slopes on the site • Describe general soil types and any surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity ■ Identify locations of potential erosion as a result of the proposed action,and ■ Propose measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth, if necessary The Consultant will incorporate the results of these reviews in Chapters 3 and 4 of the EIS. Task 2.5. Summary and Summary Table Jones and Stokes will prepare a Summary section that accurately descnbes the project,presents a summary of major environmental impacts,and discuss any areas of controversy or unresolved issues at the time the Draft EIS is published. Jones and Stokes will also prepare a Summary Table that will be matrix built from the issues and impacts for each environmental element presented in Chapter 4 and displayed against each of the alternatives The table will present the results of the analysis in a way that that provides a quick understanding of the major conclusions from the environmental analysis Deliverables ■ Draft EIS Summary • Draft EIS Summary Table 5 Task 2.6. Coordinate Document Production Jones&Stokes will coordinate with R2 resources,technical writers for each section of the Draft EIS, the document production team,and the City to develop the Draft EIS. It is expected that the following outline will be used: Summary and Summary Table Table of Contents Chapter 1—Purpose and Need Chapter 2—Discussion of Alternatives Chapter 3—Affected Environment Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences Chapter 5—Cumulative Impacts List of Preparers List of Agencies and Organizations Consulted References Cited Glossary Abbreviations/Acronyms Appendices Chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft EIS will include an evaluation of the following environmental elements: Fish and their Habitat Groundwater and Hydrology Wildlife and their Habitat Socioeconormcs and Public Services Human Health Soils Wetlands Vegetation and Listed Plants Cultural Resources 6 Task 2.7. Coordinate All Reviews and Revisions Jones&Stokes will coordinate all reviews and revisions of the preliminary drafts of the Draft EIS prior to its release to the public. First the City,then the federal lead agencies,will review each chapter of the document as they are completed Their comments will be incorporated and following the their review of each section of the document,a compete draft will be circulated for final agency review Jones&Stokes will coordinate with R2 Resources,the document production team,and the technical writers to incorporate and/or respond to all client and agency comments If necessary,Jones&Stokes will facilitate a meeting to discuss and agree upon all revisions made(and not made)in response to agency and city comments. Deliverables • Two(2)complete review documents ■ One complete Draft EIS for public review Assumptions ■ City and agency review will occur within the allotted times defined in the overall project schedule developed by R2 Resources. ■ The Draft EIS will analyze the proposed action,one no action alternative, and one additional action alternative. ■ Jones& Stokes will receive one set of consolidated comments,each,from the City, NMFS,and USFWS following their review of each chapter of the document and following the final review of the complete Draft EIS. ■ Jones&Stokes is not responsible for time and material costs associated with document production ■ Jones&Stokes is not responsible for time and material costs associated with graphics production for the document Task 2.8. Prepare Notice of Availability for Draft EIS Jones& Stokes will draft a Notice of Availability(NOA)for submittal to NMFS/USFWS. The NOA will announce the date the Draft EIS will be available for public review and the duration of the public comment period If a public meeting is to be held,the NOA will provide the date,time,and location for the meeting.Jones and Stokes will use this information for an announcement/advertisement to be published locally Deliverables ■ Draft NOA for submittal to NMFS/USFWS. 7 ■ Announcement of Draft EIS Comment Period to be published locally(i.e.,the South County Journal or other media outlet to be agreed upon with the Services). Assumptions ■ Interested party letters will be mailed by NMFS/1JSFWS. ■ NMFS will prepare the final NOA and be responsible for its publication in the Federal Register. ■ The City will pay advertising costs associated with publication of the NOI locally. Task 3. Prepare Final EIS Task 3.1. Review, Compile, and Sort Comments Jones&Stokes will review,compile,and sort comments received in response to the Draft EIS by topic and identify a technical writer responsible for determining an appropriate response for each comment. Jones& Stokes will provide responses for NEPA related comments and comments associated with the soils and socioeconomic analysis Jones&Stokes will coordinate with each technical writer responsible for developing responses to comments associated with their analysis.Jones&Stokes will track comments and their responses in a matrix as responses are being developed Once all comments are finalized,Jones & Stokes will write a comment response document to be incorporated in the Final EIS. Deliverables ■ Comment Response Matrix ■ Response to Comments Document Assumptions • The document production team will scan all written comment letters,as they arrive, and emailed to Jones&Stokes in PDF format. ■ Original copies of written comment letters will be mailed to Jones&Stokes at the end of the comment period for inclusion in the admm record. ■ Budget for this task assumes a maximum of 100 comments will be received on the DEIS. 8 Task 3.2. Incorporate Comment Responses into Final EIS Jones&Stokes will coordinate with R2 Resources, the document production team,the technical writers,NMFS,USFWS and the City to update the Draft EIS based on the comments received during the public comment period Jones&Stokes will coordinate all reviews and the necessary document revisions of two complete drafts of the Final EIS prior to the document's release to the public Jones&Stokes will make revisions to the Summary,Summary Table,Chapters 1,Chapter 2,and the socioeconomic sections of Chapters 3,4,and 5 based on comments received during the Draft EIS comment period and in response to any comments received from the City and the Agencies during review of the FEIS. The first complete draft of the Final EIS will be delivered to the City for their review.Following the City review,Jones&Stokes will coordmate with R2 Resources,the document production team,and the technical writers to incorporate and/or respond to all City comments Following the incorporation of the City's comments,the second complete draft of the Final EIS will be submitted for agency review by NMFS and USFWS. Following the agencies' review,Jones& Stokes will coordinate with R2 Resources, the document production team,the technical writers,and the City to incorporate and/or respond to all agency comments. Deliverables ■ Two(2)complete Final EIS review documents. ■ One complete Final EIS for public review. Assumptions ■ No new alternatives will need to be addressed resulting from the public comment period ■ City and agency review will occur within the allotted times defined in the overall project schedule developed by R2 Resources ■ Jones&Stokes will receive one set of consolidated comments,each,from the City, NMFS, and USFWS ■ Jones&Stokes is not responsible for time and material costs associated with document production. Task 3.3. Prepare Draft NOA for the Final EIS Jones&Stokes will draft a NOA for submittal to NMFS/USFWS The NOA will announce the date the Final EIS will be available for public review Jones and Stokes will use this information for an announcement/advertisement to be published locally. 9 Deliverables ■ Draft NOA for submittal to NMFS/USFWS. ■ Announcement of Final EIS Comment Period to be published locally(i e,the South County Journal or other media outlet to he agreed upon with the Services) Assumptions ■ NMFS/USFWS will prepare the final NOA and be responsible for its publication in the Federal Register. ■ Interested parry letters will be mailed by NMFS. ■ The City will pay advertising costs associated with publication of the NOA locally. Task 3.4. Prepare Record of Decision (ROD) and NOA The USFWS and NMFS will document their decisions on the issuance of an Incidental Take Permits by preparing an ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion,ESA Section 10 Findings Documents,and a NEPA ROD Jones&Stokes will provide assistance as requested to address comments on the Final EIS and address any agency questions during their preparation of the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion and ESA Section 10 Findings. Jones& Stokes will prepare a preliminary draft ROD. Deliverables ■ Coordinate technical assistance in response to questions raised by NMFS and USFWS in preparing the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion and ESA Section 10 Findings Documents ■ Draft ROD to be submitted to NMFS/USFWS. Assumptions • NMFS will prepare the final ROD. 10 Task 4. Public Involvement Task 4.1. Public Scoping Meeting Jones&Stokes will perform all necessary preparation and logistics for one Public Scoping meeting. Budget for this task includes preparation of all materials and required notifications associated with public scoping meetings as required by NEPA,and facilitation of the public scoping meeting The scoping meeting will be structured to provide the public with an opportunity to recommend issues to be addressed in the EIS,ask questions,and comment on the range of alternatives being considered for evaluation in the Draft EIS. Jones&Stokes will also maintain the active public mailing list, including all interested or affected agencies and individuals commenting during the scoping process or during public review of the Draft EIS The public mailing list will be used for distribution of the NOA for the Draft EIS and Final EIS, and public meeting announcements. Following the meeting,Jones&Stokes will summarize and document all comments received at the scoping meeting. Deliverables ■ Preparation and facilitation for one public scoping meeting • Comment summary memo ■ Create and maintain an active public mailing list. ■ Jones and Stokes NEPA coordinator will attend and facilitate one public meeting in Kent during the Draft EIS comment period This meeting will require 8 hours that includes travel and preparation. ■ Jones&Stokes is not responsible for time and material costs associated with graphics production for this meeting Task 4.2. Scoping Report Following public scoping,Jones &Stokes will prepare a scoping report to summarize all internal and public scoping activities The purpose of the report will be to identify issues that will be addressed in the EIS,describe the alternatives identified during the scoping process,specify which alternatives will be evaluated in the Draft EIS,and identify the alternative that NMFS/USFWS has selected as the Preferred alternative Assumptions ■ Descriptions of the proposed action contained in the HCP are sufficient to be included in the scoping report. 71 Deliverables ■ Scoping Report Task 4.3. DEIS Comment Period Public Meeting Jones&Stokes will perform all necessary preparation and logistics for one public meeting during the public comment period Budget for this task includes preparation of materials and producing the required notifications associated with public meetings as required by NEPA Deliverables ■ Coordinate and prepare for one public scoping meeting. ■ Jones&Stokes is not responsible for time and material costs associated with graphics production for this meeting. ■ The City will pay advertising costs associated with announcements for the public meeting Task 5. Project Management Task 5.1. Contract Management Budget allocated under this task will be used to coordinate with R2 Resources,the City,and other project staff throughout each of the tasks in this Scope to ensure information is distributed and shared appropriately and to provide monthly progress reports to be included with monthly invoices. Deliverables ■ Monthly invoices and monthly progress reports Assumptions ■ R2 Resources will develop and maintain the overall project schedule Task 5.2. Project Meetings (9) In addition to the meetings defined previously in this Scope,Jones&Stokes will attend a maximum of nine(9)project meetings during the project 12 Deliverables ■ Attendance at up to nine(9)project meetings. Assumptions ■ A schedule of meetings and their purpose has not yet been determined. ■ Each client meeting will require 8 hours of one person's time that includes meeting preparation • Jones&Stokes will not be responsible for running client meetings. ■ Project coordination meetings with R2 Resources can be conducted via phone and are budgeted under task 5.1. Task 5.3. Agency Meetings (5) In addition to the agency meetings specifically outlined in this Scope,Jones &Stokes will attend a maximum of five(5)agency meetings during the project. Deliverables ■ Attendance at up to five (5)agency meetings. Assumptions ■ A schedule of meetings and their specific purpose has not yet been determined. ■ Agency meetings will require 8 hours of one person's time that includes meeting preparation. ■ Jones&Stokes will not be responsible for facilitating agency meetings. Task 5.4. Administrative Record Management (4 hours/month) Jones&Stokes will prepare and assemble the administrative record and furnish it to NMFS after the ROD is signed The administrative record will include all of the information and analyses either generated or obtained from other sources,or used to support documentation and analyses The administrative record will be located in a physical file at the Jones& Stokes Portland Office and be indexed by topic to the extent possible Deliverables ■ Creation and maintenance of the Administrative Record. 13 � � W e ev ^ N (_u O_ 00 m b 0 0 W U rn O O'O OEO;O Oi OEOEO'O w O•u'l'•M: _ O M a0 CD•.(D:CiIE(O OEa"m Cn O.O•wP 10 COO o: -w N t0 t0 O• OJ y ro i INTO p f0 N 'COE 1f);ri cd a0..- OCT •� M:�•M C CO 1� V [7E• (O 1�J0 � to :Vi �•.1A?1A !A :EA CA.Vi b9 CA tA:fA fA M fA fA Y9 t,Y•» O C.7 pp tK �p O 6o9:W 000:.M.eq.1:co: am O O. COD cc 7 tOD [OD O E .j CO. In:Il1.N.M:O: CI O C O:C0,10 :O':O m- dCO; :N V m'� M.t9 (O a0 m tn:�E V c] th a0,1� V mE f0 GG � C9• :fA 1A Vi HY fR• .t9 fA � to EA t9;M fR � fA f9 N9 Vi ME O U ry N — �O• � aD E m O ap N O s0 U) E I w i i i i i e a. c ..i...i 1 1. i .a i .e. .a n i••1 ....i 1 1... c y E i E us m 2 c L > to ° Wol 3 N c o i ....1• •1 i• ; •i > e e •d•• •i .•1• i•• i• 1 IL 7 Q t) E Vi N rn d U c rn Et to > e w Y e.. y... ...F.._i-.i.....i. u •i A .........s .p. ...i i ._I... 1._•1... K W w v N m E (� cc E E w i i i i E •••���N H - b• e •1 1 1 ••1 •Y••••A• 9 ••O•••O r i 1 1 E i•• LU :v 7 IT'N•V: •O:N •7 Ia: OEaD'O n m a U m o f y1 _ = d i E E a R F i : .U) NE Eu): N•LL WE C CO m o OID o U m 0 O 0. u,: . o:a a ¢ 0'U Q aE .rn .2 2• o N m• :c Z �i E m d; m c Q mji C. S d u o E Z'' m 2 u �i: m'^ u E a E �' o ai >.o' f`2 w E °-' N o E'8 �.? o m Z o m c rn rn m w cm � ,a`? E 0 �• m � EwmO aE$ c:«. ' > P mmQBm E O: 8' �' m E�: m c c 70 Q. rni m t r °: �E c c m m m N. Mm 2 >. y = CL c aci a • :m m c>? n.= a m �t 0 v �• ayEiE � io'mE 8•o"`�' 8 g m a>>• 8 d E r c W a 1q o•m rn 0 uL) a � s.a a aF�.a a v ¢¢ m . 0a0r'ncuNi N � o � Jon Hale Associate Principal/NEPA Specialist, Jones & Stokes Mr Hale transitioned from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service ;,`yoar5 of E r�en tic _b '�` f `' "`_,"�1� (USFWS) to Jones & Stokes in early 2003 where he was a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator for the primary`Mork Location.Portland,OR Western United States. Jon provided NEPA expertise and = Key Areas of Expene r e-c guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service Offices inCahformal, Project Planning Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii and the Pacific . Project Management Islands Prior to this Regional level position, Jon was NEPA • NEPA Comphance specialist in the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Service ' ESA Compliance Office In this position he provided NEPA management for " Facilities Management Military Base Closure permitting actions relating to mining, municipal water supply, Environmental Cleanup •. forestry, agriculture irrigation, and more Prior to this, Jon was a • Spill Response key participant in the closure of Midway Naval Facility and Fisheries Management conversion to a National Wildlife Refuge Jon also conducted Sea Turtle Telemetry • Aquaculture contaminants surveys for property acquisitions, managed • Research SCUBA Diver programs that put biologists on fishing vessels to collect fisheries Habitat Restoration data, managed a program that put biologists on offshore petroleum Remote Operations platforms to organize the capture of sea turtles during platform Substantial Time Cross-Cultural Expp Seaerience removal operations using explosives, was assistant manager for a shrimp farm, and participated on a Resource Conservation and Education Recovery Act (RCRA) team for Johnston Atoll, that addressed • Bachelor of Science,Marine Biology,Texas A&M plutonium contamination, dioxins, lead contaminated ash, and University,Galveston petroleum contaminated soil Jon was also a member of the Coast Related project Experience Guard's Regional Spill Response Team for Hawaii and Pacific Area • Port of Vancouver Expansion Perouttmg and NEPA EIS—Port of Vancouver,Clark County,Washington Key SkiiIs • Elliott State Forest Habitat Consenation Plan NEPA • NEPA— Jon has managed EISs, EAs, and CEs. His NEPA EIS—Oregon Department of Forestry,Coos County, Oregon experience is diverse, ranging from Department of Defense . Daybreak Mine Expansion Habitat Conservation Plan actions, to port development, forest management, fisheries, and NEPA EIS—IL Stmedahl&Sons,Inc,East transportation, and development planning He has held Fork Lewis River,Clark County,Washington positions in the USFWS as Pacific Regional NEPA • Green Riper Water Supply and Watershed Protection Coordinator and as Field Office NEPA Specialist, and assists Habitat Consenation Plan and NEPA EIS—Tacoma Water Department,King County,Washington in teaching NEPA courses He is knowledgeable in all aspects . Simpson Washington Timberlands Habitat of NEPA from pre-scoping to record of decisions Consenation Plan and NEPA EIS—Simpson Timber Com• Environmental Cleanup — During base closure at Midway Counties Washington rays Harbor,and Thurston Naval Facility, Jon served on the base realignment and • Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan closure (BRAG) team throughout the entire project, and and SEPANEPA EIS—Seattle Public Utilities,King worked on-site during project implementation On-site work County,Washington • Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Facilities involved oversight of removal of 110 underground fuel Management Planning—U S Fish and Wildlife storage tanks, subsurface petroleum remediation, DDT and Service,Pacific Islands PCB contaminated soils remediation, landfill investigations • Naval Air Facility Midway Island Base Closure and and closure, asbestos removal, lead-based paint removal, Transfer—U S Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of the Nary,Pacific Islands marine sediment investigation, marine debris cleanup, . Johnston Atoll Resource Conservation and Recovery demolition of 114 buildings,and habitat restoration Act Implementation—U S Fish and Wildlife Service ■ and Department of the Air Force,Pacific Islands Area Facilities Management Planning-Following Midway Navy • Manager,Bottomfish Fishery Observer Program— base closure,Jon was a key participant in the development of National Marine Fisheries Service,Northwestern long-range plans for the newly created Midway Atoll National Hawaiian Islands Wildlife Refuge This required planning for all programs in a • Manager,Offshore Petroleum Production Platform Small city. Jon's key contributions Observer—National Marme Fisheries contributions related to fuels Service,Gulf of Mexico,Galveston management, hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and municipal solid waste The challenge of this effort was Memberships and Registrations compounded because of the extreme remote location. • Member-International Association of Impact - ----- -------- Assessment P,1 0 Jules&Swkeg Tee! Gresh Land Use Planner, Jones & Stokes Ted is a land use planner specializing in environmental issues, stsf> rirr -' documentation, and permitting He has worked on policy and land • Environmental Permitting use issues related to municipality compliance with the federal Policy and Land Use Planning listing of Pacific salmon under the Endangered Species Act Endangered dangeredSpeciesAssessmentandConsultation Support (ESA), including habitat and watershed impacts He also uses his NEPA Documentation expertise with geographic information systems (GIs) to provide Spatial Analysts,CAD,GIS spatial analysts to assess environmental conditions in urban areas and to produce quality maps for the environmental documents and Education _ 6 MS,,Community&Regional Planning,University of public meetings Ted works on projects requiring land use analysis Oregon,2001 for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, • BA,Communications,University of New >l development or updating of Cntical Areas Ordinances(CAO),and Hampshire,1989 ; assessment of baseline conditions In January of 2000, Ted was Recant Project Exper ence the lead author of a scientific paper published in Fisheries, the . Port of Vancouver Expansion Pertaining and HCP, Journal of the American Fisheries Society, which estimated the NEPA EIS,Port of Vancouver,Clark County, , amount of marine derived nutrients delivered to freshwater Washington ecosystems by historic salmon and steelhead runs. ' Critical Areas Ordinance Development for the City of Ridgefield,Washington • Downtown Brookings—Highway 101 Transportation 6<ey Skills Solutions Project for ODOT in Brookings,Oregon • Land Use Planning—Ted was the lead planner on an update cancan Areas Ordinance for he City of Camas, 1; P P Washington to the City of Ridgefield's CAO Ted mapped additional Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials(MEMO) critical areas found during field visits and develop three Program for the Lower Columbia River Estuary protection area scenarios, refined the critical areas mapping Partnership in Longview,Washington based on the protection scenario selected, and reviewed the Critical Areas Washington ceDevelopmentfortheCityof P Battle Ground,Washington Draft CAO written by the City • Longview Futures Project for the Lower Columbia • GIS Analysis—Ted used aerial photography to create a map River Estuary Partnership in Longview,Washington of Longview's current impervious surface cover. Assumptions based on land use types and current zoning were then used to estimate the future impervious surface cover and map buildout patterns Ted used the impervious surface mapping data created for the Longview—NEMO project and, combined with a simple water quality model, estimated the potential nutrient loads lamed by stormwater runoff from residential, industrial, and commercial land uses Ted also provided GIS support for the update of the City of Battle Ground's Critical Areas Ordinance Ted used existing GIS data, combined with data created during field visits by biologists, to develop an existing conditions map for each of the five environmental resources addressed in the CAO These layers were used in a spatial analysis to estimate potential impacts to existing buildable lands based on the potential resource protection areas • NEPA Compliance—Ted is currently the NEPA manager for the Port of Vancouver's Columbia Gateway HCP, EiS, a complex, multi-stakeholder project. Ted also coordinated the preparation of the NEPA analysis and documentation for the Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Downtown Brookings — Highway 101 Transportation Solutions Project Ted also prepared materials for public involvement (including open houses and stakeholder committee meetings), scheduled and participated in meetings with ODOT and other key stakeholders, and led the effort to incorporate public input as part of the Revised EA 0 Jones&Stokes Janes&Stakes Ann M. Rennick, AICP Project Planner, Jones & Stokes Ann Rennick recently joined the Bellevue branch office of Jones Key Areas of Experience & Stokes Prior to joining Jones & Stokes she was a Land Use -Land Use Perm tReview Planner with the City of Bellevue where she worked on land use Environmental Analysis applications including design review, conditional use permits, ' Comprehensive Planning Policy and Code Analysts- clearing/grading reviews for restoration projects and development ,. Ordinance and Policy Development in protected areas, SEPA determinations,shoreline permits,PUDs Design Guidelines and boundary line adjustments. Prior to that Ann was a senior '', Public Meetings/involvement, s a planner with the City of Mercer Island where she supervised r- � �k' Education associate planners and was responsible for the coordination of the ` ,.. I to,Urban elam,mgipublic Policy,University of, ' City's long range planning objectives on proposed code revisions t= ' California,Los Angeles,1996 „" r including updating and improving the City's downtown design and B S,Applied Behavioral Sciences,University of '..,, 993 development guidelines Ann has also held positions as Associate California,Davis, scat Planner, PlanningCoordinator and Planner with other • Commercial Real Estate Development Certificate Program,University of Washington,2004 : municipalities in Washington and Oregon Memberships and Registrations • American Planning Association Key Skills American Institute of Certified Planners Community Planning — Ann has experience in land use Recent Project Experience planning, design review, comprehensive planning, • Comprehensive Plan EIS10-Year Update,Snohomish., environmental policy and other planning topics. County Public Involvement—Ann has led public hearings,meetings, proposed Sewer Lake Lme Replacement Project EIS; , City of Mercer Island and workshops, with the goal of facilitating effective public Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan Update input and increasing the public's awareness and understanding of planning and the design process r Jones Stakes Jones&Stakes David C. Johnson Wetland Biologist, Jones & Stokes David Johnson specializes in wetlands surveys, wetland �K�y A,,,;� , - , delineations,regulatory compliance and permitting at the state and cuaiids S iui ;' federal levels, monitoring wetland mitigation, writing scientific wetland Mitigation s and regulatory reports, and conducting field hydrology studies He Endangered species Act Permitting has experience in permitting under Section 401 of the Clean Water Habitat Assessment Act and has conducted wetlands surveys using the U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1987 Welland Delineation Manual Education David also performs field hydrologic studies, including B S,Biology,University of Minnesota,1997 construction,installation,and manual and electronic monitoring of Recent Project Exper,ence observation wells, to delineate the boundary of a wetland BE Review,U S Army Corps of Engineers containing hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and questionable • Reference Biological Evaluation for Bank , hydrology He uses the three-parameter approach of soils, Stabilization within Navigable Waters,U S Army eers vegetation, and hydrology, and hydrology studies for wetlands CBE/ESorps of Engmplia m a ; ` BElBSA compliance for 82 Avenue NE/224 determinations Street improvement Proi ect,Pierce County Granite Falls Alternate Route Wetland Delineation and Critical Areas Report,Snohomish County Key Skills • 201"Street SE Wetland Delineation and Critical Areas Report,Snohomish County • Endangered Species Act — David reviews biological Scriber Creek Wetland Mitigation Monitoring,City assessments submitted as part of applications for U S. Army of Lynnwood Corps of Engineers permits All projects requiring a Corps Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission Line Wetland permit (Section 404 or 10) must be evaluated for potential and Stream Delineation,Bonneville Power effects to species listed as threatened or endangered under the A Timbetran E Timberline Express Wildlife Surveys,Timberline Endangered Species Act(ESA) Lodge • Vegetation and Habitat Survey — David conducts field ` Aquatic Studies for the l-90 Upgrade Project, WSDOT, surveys for mapping vegetation and habitat communities in . 228°iRail Gradc Separation Wetland Delmeation ` the Pacific Northwest and Critical Areas Report,City of Kent • • SR 522 Wetland and Stream Delineation and Wetland Delineations, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Critical Areas Report,City of Kenmore Permitting — David conducts wetland and stream • Leech Creek Stormwater Facility Welland delineations,vegetation inventories,and wetland function and Delineation and Permitting Constraints Analysis,City value assessments, for local, state, and federal agencies His of Tacoma experience includes preparing wetland and stream delineation Vegetation and Habitat Survey for all of Port of Portland property,Port of Portland reports, conceptual mitigation plans, and JARPAs These + ESA Endangered Species Survey,University of applications are submitted for Section 404 and Section 10 California-Merced Permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and ESA Compliance for Downtown Kent Road Hydraulic Project Approval Improvement Projects,City of Kent 76 Jones&Stokes BIOTA PACIFIC ' 3 Environmental Sciences, Inc. Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc. Scope of Work Clark Spring Water Supply System EIS City of Kent 17 January 2006 Introduction For the Clark Springs Water Supply System EIS, Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences, Inc. (Biota Pacific)will be the lead sub-consultant to R2 Resource Consultants (R2). A portion of the work under Biota Pacific responsibility will be conducted by Smayda Environmental Associates Inc (SEA) as a sub-consultant to Biota Pacific. Biota Pacific will take the lead in conducting the Effects Analysis for wildlife,while SEA will conduct the analysis for botanical and wetlands. Task 1: Prepare Affected Environment section of the EIS The Affected Environment section will include a detailed description of the biology and status of selected amphibian species and the bald eagle and the existing conditions of botanical and wetland resources in the project area. General descriptions of the biology and status will be provided for the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Pacific fisher, and gray wolf Information concerning the location of sensitive wildlife species or habitats will be acquired from the Priority Habitat and Species database maintained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. No field work is proposed for preparing the Affected Environment section of the Draft EIS. Existing data regarding the occurrence of rare plants, wetlands, priority habitats, and noxious weeds will be collected from sources including the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and King County. GIS analytical support is anticipated for WNHP data analysis and wetland assessment. One field visit will be made to the watershed site and two wetlands located near the confluence of Rock Creek and the Cedar River. The King County Wetland Rating System will be applied to these two potential wetland mitigation sites, to confirm their wetland categories and general functions. The WDOE Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (1999) or comparable method will be used to determine the baseline condition of selected wetland functions at the two sites Task 2: Prepare Effects of Alternatives section of the Draft EIS The no-action alternative, HCP alternative, and one additional action alternative will be analyzed to determine their effects on wildlife resources The analysis will divide amphibians into two life history strategies: amphibians that spend most, if not all of their life in water (aquatic amphibians) and those that use aquatic habitats primarily for breeding (aquatic breeding amphibians) A detailed effects analysis will be conducted for each amphibian life history group and the bald eagle. A general discussion will be provided describing the potential effects for the northern spotted owl, marble murrelet, Pacific fisher, and gray wolf and the justification for excluding them from detailed analysis. The effects of the alternatives on wetland functions will be determined by analysis of projected changes to selected wetland functions using the WDOE Methods for Assessing Wetland - Functions (1999). The Draft EIS section describing the effects of the proposed action and no- Page 1 BIOTA PACIFIC Environmental Sciences, Inc. -' Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc. action alternatives on botanical and wetland resources will be prepared. GIS analytical support is anticipated for wetland assessment. Task 3: Prepare final EIS Comments on the DEIS will be reviewed and considered. Revisions to the proposed action will be evaluated for effects to wildlife, botanical and wetland resources Responses to public comment on the effects to these resources will be prepared, as requested The effects to wetland functions will be determined by analysis of projected changes to selected wetland functions using the WDOE Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (1999) GIS support is anticipated for wetland function assessment. The Final EIS, including affected environment and effects of alternatives, will be prepared. Assumptions • No new project facilities, no change in project footprint. • No field work is required for the wildlife assessment. • Biota Pacific is not required to participate in the public scoping meetings. • Biota Pacific participates in the equivalent of two 8 hour meetings/conference calls per task. • Amphibians can be described and assessed in two life history classifications (aquatic and aquatic breeding amphibians) rather than individually. • The bald eagle is the only wildlife species addressed in detail, other than amphibians. • The biology of the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Pacific fisher and gray wolf are generally described and dismissed from detail effects analysis. • GIS support will be provided by R2 References Hruby, T, T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanica, R. Gersib, L Remelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon, E. Teachout, A Wald, and F Wemmann 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I- Rroenne and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. WA State. Department Ecology Publication #99-115. July 1999. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Hruby, T. 2004 Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington. Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August 2004. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Page 2 i BIOTA PACIFIC Environmental Sciences,Inc. Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc. Preliminary Cost Proposal for Clark Springs Water Supply System EIS Wildlife and Botanical Analysis Task 1: Draft EIS: Affected Environment Labor Aguire and review existing data Senior Biologist hours 2 $98 $196 Botanist hours 16 $105 $1,680 Field visit,watershed and wetlands Botanist hours 8 $105 $840 WDOE wetland rating, 2 wetlands Botanist hours 8 $105 $840 Wetland function assessment Botanist hours 16 $105 $1,680 Effected environment text Habitat overview Senior Scientist hours 8 $118 $944 Wildlife species biology and status Senior Scientist hours 10 $98 $980 Senior Scientist hours 14 $98 $1,372 Intermediate Scientist hours 19 $68 $1,292 Botanical and wetland Botanist hours 24 $105 $2,520 Meeting/Project coordination Senior Scientist hours 16 $98 $1,568 Botanist hours 4 $105 $420 Expenses (cost plus 10%): data acquisition/copy/mail/phone $250 $275 mileage mile 345 $0.485 $184.06 Total Task 1: $14,791 Task 2: Draft EIS: Effects of Alternatives Labor. Effects of Alternatives, analysis and text wildlife Habitat Senior Scientist hours 2 $118 $236 Senior Scientist hours 10 $98 $980 amphibians Senior Scientist hours 2 $118 $236 Senior Scientist hours 24 $98 $2,352 Intermediate Scientist hours 4 $68 $272 bald eagle Senior Scientist hours 2 $118 $236 Senior Scientist hours 8 $98 $784 other wildlife Senior Scientist hours 6 $98 $588 botanical and wetland Botanist hours 48 $105 $5,040 Wetland function assessment alt. Botanist hours 16 $105 $1,680 Meeting/Project coordination Senior Scientist hours 16 $98 $1,568 Botanist hours 6 $105 $630 Expenses- copy/mad/phone $200 $220 mileage mile 195 $0.485 $95 Total Task 2: $14,917 Page 3 BIOTA PACIFIC Environmental Sciences, Inc. �_� Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc. Task 3: Final EIS Labor: Analysis of propose action revisions Senior Scientist 12 $98 $1,176 Botanist hours 12 $105 $1,260 Public comment review and response Senior Scientist hours 2 $118 $236 Senior Scientist hours 18 $98 $1,764 Intermediate Scientist hours 14 $68 $952 Botanist hours 12 $105 $1,260 Revised wetland function assessment Botanist hours 8 $105 $840 Meeting/Project coordination Senior Scientist hours 16 $98 $1,568 Botanist hours 6 $105 $630 Expenses: copy/maillphone $200 $220 mileage mile 120 $0 485 $58 Total Task 3: $9,964 Total all Tasks: $39,672 Page 4 BIOTA PACIFIC MARTEN E.VAUGHN Senor Wildlife Biologist EDUCATION. B.S, 1976,Washington State University,Wildlife Biology M A, 1979, Southern Illinois University, Zoology Doctoral Studies, 1981-1984 University of Washington, Forest Ecology AREAS OF EXPERTISE. Wildlife habitat assessment and management, Forest ecology and sustainable resource management Development and negotiation of mitigation plans and settlement agreements EMPLOYMENT HISTORY.• BIOTA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES. 1999 to present. President and Senior Wildlife Biologist. • Project Manager, Family Forest Foundation HCP, Lewis County, Washington Currently directing the preparation of a multispecies HCP and supporting NEPA EIS for up to 200,000 acres of non- industrial private timberlands The HCP will replace current Washington Forest Practices rulkes for riparian management. • Technical Consultant, Puget Sound Energy, Baker River Hydroelectric Project, Washington. Advised client and assisted multi-stakeholder group with the assessment of terrestrial impacts, development of mitigation measures and negotiation of a settlement agreement for the FERC relicense of a two-dam hydroelectric project • Project Manager, American Forest Resources, Teanaway LOP I HCP, Ellensburg, Washington. Currently leading the development of joint Landowner Option Plan (LOP) under Washington Forest Practices Rules and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the federal ESA for the northern spotted owl on 50,000 acres of commercial timberland in Kittitas County, Washington. • Technical Consultant, Elliott State Forest HCP and EIS, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. Participating as part of a consultant team supporting the development of a multi-species HCP and NEPA EIS for the Elliott State Forest. Providing guidance on the development of conservation measures for fish and wildlife. • HCP Terrestrial Team Leader, Tacoma Water Division, Green River Multispecies HCP Developed and negotiated terrestrial resource conservation measures for inclusion in a multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan for the Green River watershed. Conducted technical analyses of project effects on wildlife,and worked with legal counsel to co-author the supporting Implementation Agreement • Audit Team Member, Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Audits. Served on teams of resource professionals assembled by Pricewaterhouse Coopers Audited private timberlands in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Michigan and Ohio for compliance with SFI principals relating to fish, wildlife,water quality,aesthetics and public education. • Project Manager, Weyerhaeuser Landowner Landscape Plan, Southwest Washington. Assisted landowner with technical design, writing and regulatory compliance for a landscape-level fish and wildlife habitat management plan for 106,000 acres in Southwest Washington. • Project Manager, Goodwin Quarry Wildlife Impact Assessment, Whatcom County, Washington. Prepared an assessment of potential wildlife impacts from the expansion of an existing rock quarry surrounded by forestland,agricultural land and residential development. Biota Pacific, 2005 Vaughn, Martin E. Page 2 • Wildlife Task Leader, U S Army Corps of Engineers, Howard Hanson Dam Biological Assessment. Served on a team of biologists and engineers preparing ESA Section 7 Biological Assessments for the continued operation of a federal flood control dam on the Green River in Washington, and for the seasonal raising of the reservoir to store water for municipal water supply. BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED. 1985 to 1998 Associate and Manager of Wildlife Sciences. Mr. Vaughn was responsible for the management of multi-disciplinary environmental protects,supervision of the Wildlife Sciences Division in Washington, Oregon and California, and contribution of technical expertise in the fields of wildlife biology, forest ecology, and environmental regulations He managed a number of projects dealing with impact assessment, mitigation planning, and applied research • Project Manager and Lead Scientist, Murray Pacific Corporation Mineral Tree Farm Multispecies HCP, Lewis County, Washington Wrote and negotiated the first all-species HCP to be approved by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act The HCP is an ecosystem-based plan for the management of 53,000 acres of private commercial timberland to benefit fish and wildlife. • Project Manager, Weyerhaeuser Company Millicoma Tree Farm HCP, Coos Bay, Oregon Managed preparation of the first timberlands HCP in Oregon. The HCP addresses the management of spotted owl habitat on 209,000 acres of private commercial timberland in Coos and Douglas counties. • Project Manager, Multiple Clients, Spotted Owl Surveys, Western Oregon, Washington and California. Management of spotted owl surveys on private timberlands from 1989 to 2001 for several landowners, including Weyerhaeuser Company, Rayonier, Crown Pacific, Murray Pacific, Port Blakely Tree Farms, John Hancock Company, Willamette Industries, Boise Cascade, Sierra Pacific Industries, Champion International, and Fruit Growers Supply Company. • Project Manager, Puget Sound Power& Light Company White River Hydroelectric Project Wildlife Mitigation Plan, King County, Washington. Prepared a wildlife mitigation plan to comply with requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). • Project Manager, Snohomish County Public Utility District Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project Terrestrial Resource Mitigation Plan, Sultan River, Washington Prepared a wildlife mitigation plan to comply with requirements of the FERC. • Project Manager, Seattle City Light Right-of-Way Vegetation Studies, Western Washington. Managed assessments of the potential for using fertilized grasslands and enhanced wetlands to control woody vegetation beneath powerlme rights-of-way. PUGET SOUND POWER& LIGHT COMPANY. 1979 to 1985. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for environmental review, permitting and monitoring of utility company activities, including several proposed and existing hydroelectric projects Served as liaison officer for the licensing of new hydroelectric projects and handled day-to-day environmental and regulatory matters at existing dams Dealt extensively with the FERC, federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes and the public on utility-related environmental issues. Supervised the preparation of several FERC license applications and coordinated supporting studies of fisheries, wildlife and cultural resources. Also initiated the first comprehensive historic assessment of an operating hydroelectric project in the region. Biota Pacific,2005 BIOTA PACIFIC DOUGLAS R.WOODWORTH Senior Wildlife Biologist EDUCATION: B. S , 1981,Washington State University,Wildlife Biology MEMBERSHIPS: The Wildlife Society The Pacific Seabird Group Society for Northwest Vertebrate Biology EMPLOYMENT HISTORY., BIOTA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1999 to present Principal and Senor Wildlife Biologist. ■ Project Manager (2004-present) Hancock Forest Management (HFM) Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet Project, Washington. Supervised and conducted spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat evaluation and surveys on forest lands managed by HFM. ■ Technical Consultant, Elliott State Forest EIS, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. Participating as part of a consultant team preparing a NEPA EIS for the Elliott State Forest Responsible for the assessment of impacts to the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. ■ Project Manager(1999-present) Weyerhaeuser Company Spotted Owl Survey Project, Washington and Oregon Supervise the activities of crews conducting surveys on Weyerhaeuser property in Washington and Oregon in support of commercial timberland management regulatory compliance ■ Project Manager (1999-present) Weyerhaeuser Company Marbled Murrelet Survey Project, Washington Supervise crews conducting habitat assessments and surveys on Weyerhaeuser property in Washington and Oregon in support of commercial timberland management regulatory compliance. ■ Project Manager (1999-present) Crown Pacific Marbled Murrelet Surveys, Washington. Supervise habitat assessment and surveys in Whatcom County,Washington. ■ Project Manager (2003-present). Trillium Corporation, Seagrass Cottages Seabird Impact Assessment, Washington Prepared an impact assessment for a proposed residential development on waterbirds. The assessment provided detailed information on 21 species of waterbirds with special status,along with mitigation recommendations • Team Member, Confidential Client, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Plan Developed mitigation options and assisted with the development of a restoration plan dealing for the marbled murrelet. • Project Manager (2003). Washington Forest Protection Association Barred Owl Literature Review. Reviewed and summarized literature on barred owl ecology and distribution, with emphasis on the Pacific Northwest. Addressed interactions between the barred and spotted owls (including competition,predation and hybridization)that may impact the recovery of the spotted owl Included a review of literature on the historic range overlap in Latin America, and studies of geographic range overlaps between other congeneric species capable of hybridizing Biota Paciric, 2005 Woodworth, Douglas R. Page 2 ■ Project Manager (2002-2003), Bear Mountain Ranch, Master Plan Development, Chelan County, Washington Produced a wildlife and habitat mitigation plan in consultation with the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Compiled mitigation measures from the Master Plan Development Application, SEPA Checklist and public hearings to protect and develop habitat within the development, including mule deer winter range and travel corridors ■ Project Manager (1999-2001) Crown Pacific Hamilton Tree Farm Habitat Conservation Plan, Washington Developed management options to protect fish and wildlife habitat values on approximately 85,000 acres in Whatcom and Skagit counties,Washington ■ Project Manager, Crown Pacific Canyon Creek and L2 Biological Assessments, Whatcom and Skagit counties, Washington Prepared two Biological Assessments for proposed road construction across the Mt Baker—Snoqualmie National Forest. BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED, 1990 to 1998 Wildlife Biologist. Mr. Woodworth was responsible for management of multi-disciplinary environmental projects, supervision of junior and seasonal wildlife staff in Washington. ■ Project Manager(1992-1998)Weyerhaeuser Company Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet Surveys, Washington Supervised the activities of crews conducting surveys of spotted owls and marbled murrelets in Washington in support of commercial timberland management regulatory compliance • Project Manager Crown Pacific Illabot Divide Biological Assessment, Skagit County, Washington. Prepared a BA for proposed road construction across the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. ■ Project Manager Trillium Corporation Bald Eagle Communal Winter Night Roost Management Plan, Western Washington Supervised bald eagle winter night roost surveys, reviewed historical survey results from previous surveys, and developed a bald eagle communal winter roost management plan. ■ Project Manager Murray Pacific Corporation Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet Surveys, Western Washington Supervised spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat assessment and survey activities on Murray Pacific property in Washington Surveys were conducted to support commercial timberland management and the development and monitoring of a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP). ■ Task Leader Weyerhaeuser Company Spotted Owl Site Management Plans, Washington. Reviewed information concerning spotted owl activities, proposed forest management activities and various federal recovery and management plans that pertain to specific spotted owl site centers, and developed a management plan to avoid incidental take under the Endangered Species Act. ■ Task Leader U.S. Forest Service/Weyerhaeuser Company Land Exchange Project, Western Washington Supervised surveys for spotted owls and marbled murrelets on federal lands included in the proposed land exchange, reviewed habitat requirements and known occurrences of threatened and endangered wildlife species within the exchange area, and assessed the potential impacts of the exchange in a draft Biological Evaluation for the U. S. Forest Service. ■ Task Leader Hydro West Group, Inc Hydroelectric Projects in the Nooksack, Skagit and Snoqualmie River Basins, Washington. Wildlife studies coordinator assisting with wildlife mitigation planning and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC)Additional Information Request responses ■ Project Manager, Weyerhaeuser Company Bald Eagle Nest Site Management Plans, western Washington. Directed field visits to bald eagle nests, literature searches, and the writing of management plans for each of five nest sites located on commercial timberlands. - Biota Pacific, 2005 BIOTA PACIFIC WAYNE F.BUCK Wildlife Biologist EDUCATION. B. S., 1990,University of Washington, Forest Resource Management EMPLOYMENT HISTORY.• BIOTA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1999 to present. Intermediate Wildlife Biologist. • Task Leader (1999-present), Weyerhaeuser Company Marbled Murrelet Survey Project, Washington. Supervised field crews conducting marbled murrelet surveys in support of commercial forest management • Task Leader (2005) Hancock Forest Management (HFM) Marbled Murrelet Project, Washington. Supervised and conducted marbled murrelet habitat evaluations and surveys on forest lands managed by HFM • Project Manager, Fountain Street Wildlife Report, Seattle, Washington. Conducted a field visit and prepared a report detailing the possible impacts to wildlife caused by the proposed construction of four single-family homes for Stenson Construction. • Project Manager, Hazelwood Elementary School Wildlife Report, Newcastle, Washington Conducted a field visa, prepared a report detailing the possible impacts to wildlife caused by the proposed construction of an elementary school, and responded to public comments for the Renton School District. • Project Manager, Benson Hill Elementary School Wildlife Report, King County, Washington. Conducted a field visit and prepared a report detailing the possible impacts to wildlife caused by the proposed construction of an elementary school for the Renton School District. • Project Manager, Omni Construction Wildlife Report, Seattle, Washington. Conducted a field visit and prepared a report detailing the possible impacts to wildlife caused by the proposed construction of five single-family homes for Omni Construction • Project Manager, Quality Rock Gravel Pit Expansion, Little Rock, Washington. Prepared wildlife review and assessed potential impacts to local wildlife in reference to the proposed Quality Rock gravel pit expansion. • Project Manager, Crown Pacific,various road-use permit Biological Assessments, Whatcom, Skagit and Snohomish counties, Washington. Prepared Biological Assessment that assessed potential impacts to local wildlife in reference to the granting of a number of road-use easements by the U.S. Forest Service to the Crown Pacific Corporation. BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED 1991 to 1999. Wildlife Biologist. • Project Manager, Pleasant Harbor Manna Expansion, Brinnon, Washington. Prepared Biological Assessment for the potential impacts to bald eagles resulting from the expansion of a marina. Additionally, prepared management plans for osprey and bald eagles in reference to the same project. Biota Pacific 2005 Buck,Wayne F. Page 2 • Project Manager, Quinault Casino Wildlife Review, Ocean Shores, Washington. Prepared wildlife review and assessed potential impacts to local wildlife in reference for the proposed Quinault Gambling Casino. • Project Manager, Landmark, Inc., Fir Glen Wildlife Study, Redmond, Washington Conducted wildlife study on 13-acre development site Provided expert testimony during public hearing in reference to potential impacts on pileated woodpeckers • Task Leader, Crown Pacific Hamilton Tree Farm Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared air quality section • Team Member, Crown Pacific Hamilton Tree Farm Habitat Conservation Plan. In his capacity as wildlife biologist, helped prepare species accounts and assess impacts. • Team Member, Murray Pacific Corporation Cowlitz and Nisqually River Basins Watershed Analyses, Lewis County, Washington Conducted the Level 1 aerial photograph interpretations for the Riparian Function Module assessment of the East Fork Tilton Watershed Analysis • Team Member, Weyerhaeuser Chehalis and Willapa Watershed Analyses, western Washington. Conducted Level 1 aerial photograph interpretations for the Riparian Function Module of the Willapa and Chehalis River Watershed Analyses • Task Leader, ITT Rayonier SEPA Timber Harvest Environmental Impact Statement, western Washington Conducted marbled murrelet surveys in support of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for a proposed timber harvest • Task Leader, Rayonier Timberlands Operating Company Habitat Conservation Plan, Olympic Peninsula,Washington. Supervised and conducted spotted owl site monitoring surveys in support of timber operations and the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan • Field Biologist, U.S. Forest Service/Weyerhaeuser Company Land Exchange Project, western Washington Trained for and conducted wolf howling surveys in support of a Biological Evaluation for a proposed land exchange • Task Leader (1991-1996), Weyerhaeuser Company Spotted Owl Survey Project, Washington. Supervised field crew, provided technical support, agency coordination, and database management for the spotted owl survey program conducted in support of commercial forest management. • Field Biologist, Quadrant Corporation/Taiyo-American Corporation Beaverdam Country Club and Residential Development SEPA Environmental Impact Statement, Issaquah, Washington Assisted in on-site water quality monitoring and periodic storm event water quality sampling to develop pre-construction baseline conditions. • Task Leader, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Lyle,Washington Prepared terrestrial species portion of Biological Assessment for potential impacts to bald eagles and peregrine falcons that may result from construction of railroad siding in the Columbia Gorge,Washington • Biologist, Murray Pacific Corporation Cowlitz and Nisqually River Basins Watershed Analyses, Lewis County, Washington. Prepared SEPA checklist for the Connelly, Mineral, and North Fork Mineral,and West Fork Tilton Watershed Analyses. • Task Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Weyerhaeuser Company NEPA Environmental Assessment, Willamette Timberlands, Oregon. Prepared sections on land use and social and Biota Pacific 2005 I Buck,Wayne F. Page 3 economic conditions for environmental consequences section of environmental assessment prepared in reference to a habitat conservation plan. I Biota Pacific 2005 KATHLEEN W. SMAYDA Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc 139 NE 61st Street Seattle,WA 98115 15' M (206)522-6199 kwsmayda@aol com Ms Smayda has conducted vegetation and wildlife studies in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska for over 20 years Her experience includes assessment of wetlands,riparian, and upland vegetation,rare plant surveys,wetland delineation, habitat mapping,and wildlife surveys She has prepared biological assessments for plant and animal species and has developed detailed habitat protection,mitigation and enhancement plans. Ms. Smayda is knowledgeable of county,state and federal regulations regarding wildlife and vegetation resources,and has worked extensively with agencies and non-governmental organizations to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act,U S.Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permitting,Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification,and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensmg of hydroelectric projects. EDUCATION M.S.Botany, 1982. University of Washington,Seattle,Washington B S.Biology, 1978 Marlboro College,Marlboro,Vermont CERTIFICATIONS Habitat Evaluation Procedures(HEP),U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985 Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands,National Wetlands Science Training Coop, 1990 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Wallula Power Project, Washington Prepared wildlife,wetlands, and vegetation assessments for a proposed 1,300 MW natural gas combustion turbine power plant to meet the requirements of the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Prepared vegetation maps,conducted rare plant and weed surveys,performed wildlife surveys,delineated wetlands, evaluated wetland functions and values,and evaluated potential effects of project construction and operation on these resources. Negotiated settlement agreement with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation plan that included timing restrictions near raptor nests,wetlands enhancement at the McNary National Wildlife Refuge, and revegetation of disturbed areas with native shrub-steppe species. Client: Wallula Generation, LLC Soda Lake, Wyoming Performed vegetation mapping,vegetation surveys,and wetlands delineation and functions and values assessment at a 650-acre constructed lake and wetland. Designed and conducted surveys for nesting and juvenile waterfowl and wading birds. Assisted in preparation of USACE 404(b)(1) and Nationwide 38 permit for proposed sediment capping project at the site,including monitoring of effects to wetlands and wetland restoration planning Client The ReTec Group, Inc. K Smayda resume 03/02/2005 1 Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, Oregon Evaluated botanical and wildlife resources of the Deschutes River basin using a modification of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT)methodology. Served as team leader and facilitator for technical team composed of stakeholders,agency, and non- governmental organization representatives. Prepared terrestrial resources assessment for FERC competing license application,including a comprehensive habitat protection, mitigation,and enhancement plan for the project Worked closely with U S Fish and Wildlife Service,Bureau of Land Management,NRCS,and U S.Forest Service representatives to develop proposed upland,riparian,and shoreline enhancement plans for public and private lands. Chent. Warm Sprigs Power Enterprises Baker River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, Washington Prepared wildlife and botanical resources chapters of an Environmental Assessment evaluating the effects of relicensmg of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project. Assessed the effects of continued project operation with and without implementation of proposed protection,mitigation, and enhancement measures as developed by the terrestrial resources working group Developed a draft Biological Assessment for proposed and listed threatened and endangered species Chent• Puget Sound Energy Rare Plant Surveys,-selected Pacific Northwest sites Designed survey plans,researched existing information on plant species occurrence, reviewed herbarium specimens,evaluated potential habitat,and conducted field surveys for a variety of threatened,endangered, and sensitive plant species. • Sandy Beach Road EA, AK • Willamette Falls Project,OR • St.Maries River Site EA,ID • Methow Valley Imgation • Coeur d'Alene Tribal Fish Hatchery District,WA EA,ID • Wallula Power Project,WA Riparian Revegetation Plans, selected Washington and Oregon sites Developed revegetation plans for riparian and salmon stream enhancement projects using native plant species. Revegetation plans incorporated considerations for soil stabilization, stream shading,wildlife habitat value,and land use requirements Plant materials, installation requirements, maintenance and monitoring specified as appropriate for each site. • Bear Creek,Clallam Co,WA • Hylebos Creek,King Co.,WA • Chimacum Creek,Jefferson Co.,WA • Gamble Creek,Kitsap Co,WA • Thornton Creek,King Co,WA • Salmonberry Creek,Kitsap Co.,WA • Maplewood Creek,King Co,WA • North Santiam River,OR Habitat Management Plans, various Washington sites Developed habitat management plans for private landowners and development authorities for mitigation of the effects of construction projects on fish,wildlife,riparian,and wetlands habitat. Evaluated critical areas conditions,habitat functions and values,and effects of proposed activities. Developed alternatives for habitat protections,enhancements, mitigation,and monitoring Negotiated agency requirements for amount of compensatory mitigation,location of suitable mitigation sites,and appropriate implementation and monitoring standards. Clients: Confidential K Smayda resume 03/02/2005 2 City of Kent HCP SEPA EIS Cultural Resource Sections—Historical Research Associates,Inc. HRA will perform four tasks for the cultural resources portions of SEPA EIS.The work (Task 1) will begin with background research into previous cultural resources studies and recorded archaeological and historical sites for the HCP area HRA staff will check records at the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, along with historical federal survey maps and information on the area's prehistory, history, and Indian land use. During this task,HRA may make a field visit to observe the Project area. Task 2 will comprise Section 106 consultation with the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the interested tribes, which are expected to be the Muckleshoot Tribe and the not-federally recognized Duwamish Tribe Consultation will consist of preparing drafts of three rounds of letters to be sent to the agency and tribes to address the Area of Potential Effects, the inventory and evaluation of resources,and Project effects and mitigation measures. HRA staff will attend up to three meetings with DAHP and the tribes to discuss these topics The meetings could be held at agency or tnbat offices or at the Project area Task 3 will consist of analyzing background information and preparing sections for the Draft EIS on the methods and results of the cultural resources work. The report will include information on existing conditions for cultural resources, followed by potential Project effects and possible mitigation measures. Task 4 will consist of the cultural resources sections for the Final EIS. HRA will plan to attend up to two project meetings. SEES - Zzassoss ■ ; | - - | -l...Tg f § ` . ! 8 8 S 8 - »„ ,s! - ® || 00 ]! ®82 ,$ § ( �! 2 a 7 _ „»! , ! ,,, | k § 0 IT _ ƒ� LU \� § } , Be , , », ,sa ■ �e, :., ,. ! ! |! ` � ! "■ `-® !!§| ! | , . ;�e• | § | � � ){}}{ \ 2 - f 9 0m■!!)| )�� ` ! ` ° ! ) !!� • - (�� ° | !!_/; §} !}| }}J! r:= GAIL THOMPSON TITLE Vice President Senior Associate Cultural Resource Specialist EXPERTISE Cultural Resources Indian Tribal Concerns EDUCATION Ph.D.,Anthropology, 1978 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Master of Arts, Anthropology, 1971 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Bachelor of Arts, cum laude with honors,Anthropology, 1969 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Dr. Gail Thompson has more than 25 years of experience in cultural resource planning throughout the western states and Alaska. Her work has included studies in archaeology, history, and American Indian issues for numerous projects in hydroelectric power, energy, natural resource, industrial, transportation, military, commercial, and residential developments. GAIL THOMPSON—Page 2 BONNEVILLE POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION LINE WORK,WESTERN WASHINGTON Principal in charge and cultural resource specialist for cultural resource assessments of several projects,including Covington-Maple Valley No 2 and Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission Lines. CITY OF RENTON QUENDALL LANDING DEVELOPMENT,RENTON,WASHINGTON Principal in charge of historical resource assessment for proposed commercial development and interstate lughway exchange. NORTHWEST PIPELINE COMPANY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM EXPANSION, WASHINGTON STATE Cultural Resource Specialist for assessment of numerous facilities;work included survey,test excavations,Native American consultation,management plans,data recovery,salvage excavation, and construction monitoring. SIGNATURE POINT APARTMENTS AND GREEN RIVER CONDOMINIUM,KENT,WASHINGTON Principal Investigator for cultural resource assessment. STATE ROUTE 18 INTERSECTION HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT,AUBURN, WASHINGTON. Principal in charge of historic resource assessment and Section 4(f) evaluation of proposed intersection development. SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES CEDAR RIVER WATERSHED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN,KING COUNTY WASHINGTON Cultural resource specialist for preparation of cultural resource management plan based on compiling information from previous consultant and utility drafts, addressing agency and tribal comments. CITY OF NEWCASTLE CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW,WESTERN WASHINGTON Cultural Resource Specialist for City's review of proposed residential development. SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES LAKE YOUNGS TREATMENT FACILITY,KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Principal Investigator for cultural resource assessment of proposed water treatment facility. CrrY OF TUKWILA,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON Principal Investigator for preparation of archaeological sensitivity map,review of draft cultural resource regulations,presentation on Indian tribal relations, and cultural resource assessment and construction monitoring of community center. Karen S. R. Burns Clark Springs HCP Environmental Impact Statement Scope of Work: Karen Sums will provide editing services for the draft and final EIS documents. These services include review of the documents for formatting,grammar,style, and references Ms Burns will also review the document for clarity and concision of the technical discussions. Budget: Task 1 Editorial review of the draft EIS 80 hours Task 2. Editorial review of the final EIS.40 hours Total budget: 120 hours;$6,600.00 10/17/05 RUN 14:4a HAA 42542744Ua bzeve burns LYJUU4 Karen S. IL Burns Editor SERVICES Editing of scientific documents,including environmental impact statements and habitat conservation plans, since 1995: ■format(is the structure of the document consistent, logical and well organized; do tables and graphs follow their citations;are references properly cited) ■grammar(spelling,subject/verb agreement, syntax, sentence construction) ■style(especially necessary when document is written by multiple authors) ■references(ensuring that all citations are referenced and that references are prepared in a standard and uniform format) BACKGROUND Freelance editor, 1997 to present. Clients include Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc., Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences, Inc,R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.,Adolfson Associates, Inc., Caimcross and Hempelman, P.S. Edit a variety of technical documents, including executive summaries, habitat conservation plans, and environmental impact statements. Publications editor,Beak Consultants Incorporated, 1995 to 1997. Served as document coordinator and technical editor. Also wrote company style guide and consulted with authors on technical writing. Free-lance writer, 1990 to 1995. Self-employed in Paris, France(1990 to 1994) and Kirkland, Washington(1994 to 1995). Wrote marketing brochures, employee manuals, technical manuals,and magazine articles for a diverse clientele,including(in France) Groupe Bull, Schlumberger, France Telecom, and Alcatel; and (in Washington) Weyerhaeuser and Weaver Associates. Corporate communications writer and manager,Honeywell Aerospace, 1981 to 1990. Wrote and produced newsletters,brochures,videotapes, and directories. Acted as media liaison Managed national advertisement campaign and served on board to administer a $500,000 charity fund. RATE'S $55 per hour Karen S.R. Burns,4525 103"Lane,ME,Kirkland, Washington 98033 phone:425 927 047S w fax:425 827 4408 0 email:ksrburns@aol com EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Commercial General Liabilitv insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations,personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 11 85 There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial General Liability insurance for liability arising from explosion, collapse or underground property damage. The City shall be named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 1185 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. 2. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington 3. Professional Liabilitv insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Commercial General Liabilitv insurance shall be written with limits no less than$1,000,000 each occurrence, $1,000,000 general aggregate and a $1,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit. 2. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. EXHIBIT B (Continued ) C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty(30) days prior written notice by certified mail,return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A M. Best rating of not less than ANH. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall famish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Contractor. DATE A(;ORD,. ^uLER 6TIFIC TE 01F Lit--tBlLiT i INSUG"w�A- NCE 07/OS/05Dmrr) PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION USI Northwest of Washington- w ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1800 HOLDER THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Seattle, WA 98154 20 5-3100 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURERA U S F &G Insurance R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. INSURER B Unigard Insurance Company 15250 NE 951H Street lusuRER c US Specialty Insurance Company Redmond, WA 98052 INSURER D INSURER E COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR AD01 POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LTR INSRE TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE fMMiDDffYi DATE(MM;DDIYYI. LIMITS A GENERAL LIABILITY BK41-Jr15360 07/01/05 07101,06 EACH OCCURPENCE $1,000,000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY DAMAGE TO RENTED $1,000,000 PREMISES ao me CLAIMS MADE F—x1 OCCUR MED EXP(Any one person) $10 00O PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $1 000 O00 GENERAL AGGREGATE s2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $2000000 POLICY X PRO [71- JECT LOC B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BA608342 07/01/05 07101/06 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $1,000,000 X ANY AUTO (Ea accident) ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULEDAUTOS (Per person) $ X HIREDAUTOS BODILY INJURY $ X NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) PROPERTYDAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHERTHAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY AGG $ EXCESSIUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ _ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND BKO1415360 07101105 07101106 WORY C LIMIT X OFIR 7N- EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE (WA Stop Gap) EL EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 If yes,describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 C OTHER Professional US051119001 07/01/05 07/01/06 $1,000,000 per claim Liability $1,000,000 and aggr. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS I VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: Habitat Conservation Plan for the Clark Springs Water Facilities. The City of Kent is named as additional insured on the General Liability Policy, with respects to operations of the named insured. Coverage is primary. Other insurance maintained by the certificate holder Will not be called upon to contribute. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION City of Kent DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL _4,5_ DAYS WRITTEN Don Wickstrom,P.E. NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL 220 Fourth Ave.S. IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER,ITS AGENTS OR Kent,WA 98032 REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED EPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25(2001/08)1 of 2 #M159410 6DOJU o ACORD CORPORATION 1988 Policy Number: 111111160 Liability Coverage a Enhancement - Architects and Engineers El'innoCIRACnlT YUUIIULIYILIY 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. This endorsement modifles Insurance provided under the following. LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. 1. The following replaces the final paragraph of (a) Your negligence,or SECTION II.WHO IS AN INSURED,1. (bi The negligence of another person or However, no person or organization is an insured organization for whom you are with respect to the conduct of any current or past liable; partnership, joint venture, limited liability company or trust that is not shown as a Named (2) "Bodily injury", "property damage', Insured in the Liability Coverage Part "personal injury' or "advertising injury" Declarations This provision does not apply to you, for which such person or organization for your participation in any past or present has assumed liability in a contract or .unnamed joint venture", or if that person or agreement, except for liability for organization is otherwise an insured under damages that such person or Paragraph 2.below. organization would have in the absence of the contract or agreement, 2. The following is added to SECTION II. WHO IS AN INSURED,2.. (3) 'Property damage"to: Person Or Organization Required By (a) Property owned, used or occupied Written Contract by, or loaned or rented to, such person or organization, Any person or organization that you agree to add as an insured under this Liability (b) Property over which such person or Coverage Part in a written contract or organization is for any purpose agreement that is made before, and in effect exercising physical control;or when, the "bodily injury" or "property (c) "Your work' performed for the damage" occurs or the offense that causes the "personal injury' or"advertising injury' is insured,or first committed,but only with respect to that person's or organization's liability arising out (4► "Bodily injury', "property damage', of "your work" for that person or 'personal injury" or "advertising Injury' organization. arising out of any architect's, engineer's or surveyor's rendering of, or failure to However, such person or organization is not render, any "professional service', when an insured with respect to any: such person or organization is an architect,engineer or surveyor (1) "Bodily injury', "property damage', 'personal injury" or "advertising injury' 3. The following is added to SECTION II. WHO IS AN that does not arise out of INSURED CUBF2609 0903 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office with its permission Page 1 of 3 Copyright,Insurance Services Office,Inc 2001 "Unnamed joint venture" means any joint venture in which you are a member or partner where: a. Each and every one of your co-ventures In that joint venture Is an architectural, engineering or surveying firm,and b. That joint venture is not named in the Liability Coverage Part Declarations "Your premises" means any premises, site, or location owned or occupied by,or rented to,you "Your project" a. Means any premises, site or location at, on, or In which"your work' Is not yet completed, and b. Does not Include "your premises' or any location listed in the Schedule of Premises All other terms of your policy remain the same. CUBF 26 09 09 03 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office with its permission Page 3 of 3 Copyright,Insurance Services Office,Inc 2001