Loading...
06 June 24, 2013 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsTIME: DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1:30 p.m. Monday, June 24, 2013 LOCATION: BOARDROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside '&>-COMMITTEE MEMBERS ~ Andrew Kotyuk, Chair I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Frank Johnston, Vice Chair I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Bob Botts I Deborah Franklin, City of Banning Karen Spiegel I Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Adam Rush/ Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Tom Owings I Marcelo Co, City of Moreno Valley Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Daryl Busch I Al Landers, City of Perris Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V '&>-STAFF~ Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director '&>-AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ~ Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, lntermodal Programs, Motorist Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects related to Western Riverside County and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. COMM-WRC-00014 Rivenide County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: June 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda of June 24, 2013 The June 24, 2013 agenda of the WRC Programs and Projects Committee includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $ 250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7 -Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill to Complete the Final Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment Project Consultant(s): CH2M Hill, Inc. 1770 Iowa Street, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92501 Thomas lonta, Vice President RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, June 24, 2013 BOARDROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954. 2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1 . CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 24, 2013 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 22, 2013 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 213 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 213 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7 · AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILL TO COMPLETE THE FINAL PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-08, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. 02-31-043-00, with CH2M Hill to complete the Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS) and project report for the SR-79 realignment project for a amount not to exceed $4,494,074; 2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute amendments for non-cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $450,000 for a total amount not to exceed $31, 7 42, 166 (includes original contract and previous amendments of a contract value of $26, 798,092); 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non-funding agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee June 24, 2013 Page 3 8. FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 81 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1 ,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, to the existing Mira Loma, Riverside, and Riverside II buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AUTO CENTER DRIVE STREET SIGNAL PROJECT TIED TO GRADE SEPARATION Page 87 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-24-148-00 with the city of Corona (Corona) for the installation of a traffic signal at the northerly driveway of the West Corona Station and Auto Center Drive; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $235,865 in 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds to Corona in support of the traffic signal; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. COMMISSIONERS I STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 11 . ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1 :30 p.m., Monday, July 22, 2013, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET JUNE 24, 2013 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS ~ /Alli Alt-<... VVl 0 {/ '4-L--~c'l.JG,$@ I ! " ., .c /Jl4v-,IJyfl~ {.dL/)(J/f/) ll ~ P,,,6~/Z£h 75:.-~~~ , f;o ~ -~f)~fu 91 A-.tJV i .\\)Q Jk~w-1"1 /fkNµA Alo I<. w J /~1/J (Tr#;t.t'~ /411 I'~ 1 lhvo~, /~y-;,.,Jz.. ,. ,..., -J ."'1a..-~~~ ~ ~h1-(s.~ ~LA lkfA-Y4-uGv J &:i/f"-?v\. SQ1'~ , ~ (1~ , I u ,j)fai-..)5 _,/ JI /j_P.l _A ,I //A ~I J (~ o-........._ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL JUNE 24, 2013 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Corona City of Eastvale City of Jurupa Valley City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Norco City of Perris City of San Jacinto City of Wildomar Present F Cl ~ %' Absent D D D D D D o "' D D D D D AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday,April22, 2013 MINUTES 1 . CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Andrew Kotyuk at 1 :31 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Vice Chair Frank Johnston led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/ Alternates Present Members Absent Marion Ashley Tom Owings Ben Benoit Bob Botts Daryl Busch Berwin Hanna . :, Kevin Jeffries Frank Johnston Andrew Kotyuk Scott Mann Adam Rush Karen Spiegel 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 2013 M/S/C (Rush/Benoit) to approve the minutes as submitted. Abstain: Mann 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) design-build contract award, and discussed the following areas: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Two-step design-build procurement; Prior Commission actions; Factors in the evaluation; Benefits of best value design-build; Organization chart of the evaluation teams; Selection formula; Technical proposal score results; Atkinson/Walsh technical proposal highlights; Price score calculations; Contract price, present value, and price score results; Top two teams -side by side comparison; Negotiation of design refinements; Work authorization and project financing; and Procurement schedule . . ~ At Commissioner Karen Spiegel's request for clarification of costs, Michael Blomquist explained the difference between the contract price, adjusted proposed present value, and the refinements. In response to Commissioner Botts' question regarding the contingency amount, Michael Blomquist stated the contingency amount is 5 percent of the base value, determined using a risk-based concept. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, noted the standard contingency amount for construction projects is 10 percent. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 3 At Commissioner Botts' request, Michael Blomquist explained the basis of the adjusted proposal present value calculations. Michael Menchella representing Shimmick/Obayashi/FNF (SOF) expressed strong concern for the award of the agreement on the basis of a discrepancy of one and one half points on the technical proposal. He requested an extension of the protest period to allow SOF and the public to obtain scrutiny on this award and the technical scoring process. At Anne Mayer's request, Michael Blomquist summarized the protest process. In response to Commissioner Marion Ashley's question regarding extending the protest period, Anne Mayer stated she does not recommend extending the protest period because there would be an insufficient amount of time between the end of the protest period and the mail out date of the Commission packets to extend the date any further. An extension would also impact the financial close of the bond sales and TIFIA loan and the project schedule. Michael Blomquist noted a debriefing of the SOF team is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, April 23. Anne Mayer recounted for the Committee the Commission's decision to use a best value design-build process so the technical provisions were very important to the Commission for this project. At Commissioner Ashley's request, Michael Blomquist provided an overview of the California Public Records Act requests submitted by SOF and staff's timeframe for response. Commissioner Kevin Jeffries requested clarification that SOF will receive all documents requested by tomorrow. Michael Blomquist stated SOF will receive the majority of the information today and tomorrow and the balance on Wednesday due to need to redact certain information such as the alternative technical concepts in the proposals. In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's question regarding a bidder's ability to protest without the requested information, Michael Blomquist responded a formal protest can be made without the requested information. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 4 Paul Comower representing SOF restated SOF's desire for a fair and transparent process to find out· why the apparent low bidder did not receive the award for the project. He also noted the provision in the request for proposals regarding the stipend for the unsuccessful bidders. He restated SOF's request to extend the protest period. Anne Mayer stated the Commission's commitment to a fair and transparent process and this procurement was designed to ensure that. The procurement documents state if there is a protest, then that company will not receive its stipend. She then recounted for the Committee the lengthy discussions held by the Committee and the Commission regarding a stipend, which standard for design-build procurements. She then restated the impacts of granting an extension of the protest period. M/S/C (Botts/Benoit) to: 1 ) Award Agreement No. 12-31-113-00 to Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture, for the design and construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of $632,572,050, plus a contingency amount of $31,628,603, for a total amount not to-'&xceed $664,200,653; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work to be performed pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total not to exceed amount; 4) Authorize staff to issue a Notice to Proceed No. 1 in the amount of $10 million after execution of the agr•ment; 5) Authorize staff to issue a Notice to Proceed No. 2 for the remainder of the contract work after the successful sale of toll revenue and Measure A sales tax bonds and funding of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Transportation Investment Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. No: Jeffries RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 5 8. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented an overview of the scope of the amendment to the agreement for SR-91 project and construction management services. In response to Commissioner Rush's question regarding a dispute in the field, David Thomas responded Caltrans and the Commission will be involved in dispute resolution. Anne Mayer added the Commission, Caltrans District 8 director, and the chief engineer signed a cooperative agreement stating how disputes will be handled. M/S/C (Rush/Hanna) to: 1 ) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (Parsons) to provide project and construction management (PCM) services for Phase 2 of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes design-build project in the amount of $81,410,793, plus a contingency of $6.1 million for a total amount not to exceed $87,510,793, and a total authorized contract value, for Phase 1 and 2. of $147,595,337; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total authorized amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. 91 EXPRESS LANES OPERATOR AGREEMENT Michael Blomquist presented the scope of the 91 Express Lanes operator agreement. In response to Commissioner Botts' question regarding Cofiroute's experience and the decision for a sole source award, Michael Blomquist stated Cofiroute operates toll lanes around the world and discussed how the award is in the public interest and in the best interest of the Commission. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 6 M/S/C (Spiegel/Ashley) to: 1) Approve the 91 Express Lanes Operator Agreement between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), and Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) for operations and maintenance services for the 91 Express Lanes in an amount of$30,998, 133, plus a contingency amount of $3,099,813 for a total amount not to exceed $34,097 ,946; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the agreement; and 4) Forward to the c'ommission for final action. 10. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM REGIONAL ARTERIAL FUNDS -CITY OF PERRIS PROGRAMMING REQUEST Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, presented the programming request from the city of Perris for the Perris Boulevard widening project. Commissioner Ashley expressed his support for the project. M/S/C (Busch/Benoit) to: 1 ) Approve the request by the city of Perris to program Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial funds. in the amount of $1 .36 million for the Perris Bouleva'i'd widening project from Ramona Expressway to Perry Street; 2) Accept $2,388,000 million in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds from the Perris Boulevard project for reprogramming at the discretion of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 08-72-097-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 08-72-097-00, with the city of Perris to add TUMF funding for the construction phase; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 7 11. AMENDMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE DESIGN SUPPORT DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager, presented the scope of the amendment with STV Incorporated for design support during construction of the Perris Valley Line project. M/S/C (Benoit/Busch) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-10, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement 07-33-123-00, with STV Incorporated (STV) for design support during construction for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) in the amount of $6,841,749, plus a contingency amount of $1 million, for a total amount not to exceed $ 7 ,841, 7 49, and a total authorized contract value of $48,673,386; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project; and 4) . Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. COMMISSIONERS I STAFF REPORT 12A. Anne Mayer announced: • The May 8 Commission meetings will be very lengthy due to the Budget hearing, SR-91 CIP items, a number of closed session items, and the Executive Committee actions referred to the Commission for discussion; and • There will be a hearing on Wednesday, April 24 in Superior Court for the Perris Valley Line project. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 8 13. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled for June 24, 2013, at 1 :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 24, 2013 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill to Complete the Final SUBJECT: Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item ·is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-08, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. 02-31-043-00, with CH2M Hill to complete the Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS) and project report for the SR-79 realignment project for a amount not to exceed $4,494,074; 2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute amendments for non-cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $450,000 for a total amount not to exceed $31, 742, 166 (includes original contract and previous amendments of a contract value of $26,798,092); 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non-funding agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON: The SR-79 realignment project proposes to realign SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road in the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley. The realignment will improve regional and local mobility by providing a shorter, more direct, north-south route. In addition, the realigned highway will provide more separation between regional and local traffic, thereby improving overall traffic flow. Since the last project update to the Commission in December 2012, staff worked with its consultant team and Caltrans to complete all necessary environmental and Agenda Item 7 1 engineering studies in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/DEIS) approved for public circulation in February 2013. The DEIR/DEIS analyzed multiple alternatives, including the publicly expressed preferences of the affected local agencies. In addition to two build alternatives, the DEIR/DEIS discussed the alternatives that were considered, but that were eliminated from further discussion. Potential project phasing for each build alternative was also discussed. Two public hearings on the project were conducted in March 2013. Additionally, four public information meetings were conducted to more fully engage and inform the public of the project. Contract Amendments At its February 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved a contract with CH2M Hill for the development of the project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for a total amount of $2, 194,497. Since then, the Commission approved seven contract amendments. Of these seven amendments, only three amendments increased the value of the contract. Amendment No. 1 was for $13, 158,654, Amendment No. 5 was for $9,964,941, and Amendment No. 7 was for $1.48 million which brought the current total contract value to $26, 798,092. Amendment No. 1, approved by the Commission in January 2005, was to address the resource agencies request that additional build alternatives be included in the environmental document so that several paths through each area would be evaluated. From this request, additional segments and the mid-western alternative (now known as Alternative 2) were added to the project to create a more robust suite of alternatives to broaden the choices available in the alternative selection process and to include several avoidance alternatives to the sensitive vernal pool area. Amendment No. 5, approved by the Commission in April 2007, was necessary to add new tasks to perform the required field studies for the final alignments in the PR/ED documents. This included the continuation of required field studies on the mid-western alternative as well as additional engineering efforts such as geotechnical investigations in the hills south of Florida Avenue, traffic analysis for new construction staging options, additional utility coordination, and multiple environmental and cultural surveys and reports. Amendment No. 7, approved by the Commission in December 2012, was necessary to provide the funds for the completion and finalization of the DEIR/DEIS for public review and comment. Public circulation was a key milestone for the project. As part of the December 2012 action, the Commission requested staff to return in mid 2013, after the public comment period was completed, with a final Agenda Item 7 2 scope of work and cost estimate to take the SR-79 realignment project through the completion of the environmental phase and record of decision (ROD). Amendments 2, 3, 4, and 6 were administrative amendments to increase the term of the agreement or for reallocation of project tasks. These amendments did not increase the value of the contract. Requested Action Public circulation of the document was a key project milestone; however, significant work still remains to obtain final project approval and completion of the environmental phase. Approximately 200 comments and a petition with 646 signatures were received during the public comment period. Staff and the consultant team are compiling and will be addressing all comments received during the public circulation period. Responses to comments will be included in the FEIR/EIS and will be considered in the preferred alternative selection process. As mentioned in December, it was necessary to get through the public review process and understand the magnitude and number of comments and the resultant additional work, in order to prepare the scope for this amendment. Staff has been working with the consultant team to negotiate the scope, schedule, and cost to complete the final PR/ED approval that will culminate with the California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Determination and National Environmental Policy Act ROD. The major tasks associated with the Amendment No. 8 request are the following: • Reviewing, analyzing, and preparing responses to public comments; • Updating traffic analysis; • Continuation of cultural resources reporting for Section 106; • Preparation of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis; • Finalizing the project fact sheets; • Minor engineering adjustments on the final alignment once the preferred alternative is selected; and • Final preparation and distribution of the FEIR/EIS and ROD. The full description of the above tasks is in the attached scope of work and cost summary for the SR-79 realignment project that will take the project through the FEIR/EIS and ROD. Staff recommends the Commission approve Amendment No. 8 with CH2M Hill in the amount of $4,944,074, which includes a $450,000 contingency, bringing the total amount not to exceed to $31, 742, 166. Western County Measure A highway Agenda Item 7 3 funds are recommended for use for Amendment No. 8. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Yes !Year: I FY 2013/14 Amount: I $4,000,000 Budget: N/A FY 2014/15 $ 944,074 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Budget Adjustment: I No Hk1hway N/A GLA No.: jP003003 81101 210 72 81101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: I ~~ I Date: I 06/12/13 Attachments: 1) Draft Agreement No. 02-31-043-08 2) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Scope of Work 3) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Cost Proposal 4) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Schedule Agenda Item 7 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Agreement No. 02-31-043-08 AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE STA TE ROUTE 79 RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No.8 to the Agreement for Professional Services is made and entered into as of this day of , 2013, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and CH2M HILL ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement dated on or about February 13, 2002 for the purpose of providing professional engineering services in connection with the State Route 79 Re-alignment Project (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated January 12, 2005, for the purpose of providing additional compensation in order to include additional engineering and environmental studies, and other tasks, required to complete the Project Report and the Environmental Document for the Realignment of State Route Between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road, and to extend the term of the Master-Agreement. 2.3 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment No.2 to the Master Agreement, dated September 16, 2005, for the purpose of reallocating a portion of the compensation approved for the Services· ·'pursuant to Amendment No. 1, amending the Scope of Services, and providing additional compensation for the purpose of including aerial photography and mapping and additional cultural surveys for the Realignment of State Route 79 Project. 2 .4 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment No.3 to the Master Agreement, dated April 13, 2006, to amend the Scope of Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description, and. To provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 5 additional biological and cultural resources for survey support, field exploration work and other services for the Realignment of State Route 79 Project. 2.5 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement, dated March 22, 2007 to amend the Scope and Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description, and to provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing additional biological and cultural resources for survey support, field exploration work and other services for the, Realignment of State Route 79. ,,;;;> 2. 6 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement, datecf July 18, 200? to amend the Scope of Services, to include additiol)~I fasks, to inctude a new Schedule of Services, to extend the terrfrof the Master Agreement, and to provide additional compensation all for the Re,alignment>of State Route 79 Project. ,. 1"' "· 2. 7 The Commission ~nd Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated March 22c;,2010 to extend the term of the Master Agreement for the Realignment o(State Route 79 Project. 2.8 The Commission and Consultant:have entered into an Amendment No. 7 to the Master Agreement, dated December 17, 2012 to extend the term of the Master Agreement for the Realignment of State Route 79 Project. 2.9 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term. of the ME.tster Agreement, revise the Scope of Services, include an additional Schedule of Services, and provide additional compensation for Realignment of State Route 79 Project. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term.of the·Master Agreement shall be extended for an additional term of thirty-six months ending December 31, 2016 unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 3.2 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to include Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, required to provide Final Project Report and Final Environmental Document, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by reference. RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 2 6 3.3 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment shall be $4,944,074 (Four Million Nine Hundred Forty- Four Thousand Seventy-Four Dollars), as further set forth in Exhibit "B" attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by reference 3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through 7, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on following page) RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 3 7 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE STA TE ROUTE 79 RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: __________ _ Karen S. Spiegel Chair . . . APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger· LLP General Counsel 17336.00000\1514236.2 CH2M HILL Signature Name Title Exhibit A 8 17336.00000\1514236.2 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [attached behind this page] Exhibit A 9 SR79 AS Scope Master 05-30-13.docx RVPUBIHSHANE\714236.1 Exhibit 10 RVPUBIHSHANEI 714236.1 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [attached behind this page] Exhibit 11 SR79 Detailed Schedule Update 060713-rev .pdf RVPUB\HSHANE\714236.1 Exhibit 12 RVPUBIHSHANE\714236.1 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION [attached behind this page] Exhibit 13 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein. 1) ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. a) DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: i) DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears in Section 2 i)elow.) ii) MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is 1.0 , and is the sum of the following components: (1) (2) Direct Salary Costs Payroll Additives 1.0 included in overhead below The decimal ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. Exhibit C 17336 00000\1514236.2 14 (3) Overhead Costs 111.71 The decimal ratio of allowable Overhead Costs to the Consultant firm's total direct salary costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. (4) Profit Total Multiplier b) FIXED FEE. 9% 2.308 (sum of 1.1.2.1 1 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3 multiplied by the percentage of profit) ~ · .. i) The Fixed Fee,is the Profit as determined in Section 1.1.2.4. The Maximum Fixed Fee under this Agreement is Three Hundred Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($308, 190) c) ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct,Costs directly idektffiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shaf(be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional DireCt Costs are as follows: Per Diem Car mileage Rental Car Travel Photocopies (Black & White) Photocopies (Color) Photographs/ other reprographic Services Postage/Shipping Courier Service Exhibit C 17336 00000\1514236.2 15 REIMBURSEMENT RATE Actual Cost 0.565 or current IRS rate Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Other Rentals, supplies, purchases Actual Cost Travel by air and travel in excess of 200 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2) DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rate~hto be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: a) Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payme9t of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agr~~111ent, or is ot}Jerwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the pre'mium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. b) Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effeqtive :date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Consultant's adjustments to individual compensation. The Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing prior .,~o ~0, change .in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each ·>:1'sub$eqti,ent cnange. . POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES Senior C9nsultant/Technologist $62.38 -$125.05 Project Manager Task Manag~r/Sr. Engineer/Scientist/Planner/Consultant Staff Engineer/S8ientistJPlanner/Consultant Jr. Engineer/Scientist/Planner/Consultant Staff Technician/CADD Technical Editor Office/Clerical/Accounting Exhibit C 17336.00000\1514236.2 16 $62.38 -$125.05 $42.84 -$115.39 $39.47 -$64.21 $24.28 -$47.62 $23.34 -$49.64 $26.22 -$64.21 $15.75 -$47.62 c) The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants to the Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost proposal. 3) INVOICING. a) Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. b) Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. c) Base Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed. in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. d) A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. e) Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. f) Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. g) Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed ____________ _ Title Date Invoice No. Exhibit C 17336 00000\1514236.2 17 4) PAYMENT a) The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. b) The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. Exhibit C 17336.00000\1514236.2 18 ATTACHMENT 2 State Route 79 Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road Scope of Services and Cost Proposal for Final Project Report and Final Environmental Document Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission 19 May, 30 2013 Submitted by CH2M HILL 1770 Iowa Ave, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 Contents Task 1.0 Project Management ............................................................................................... 1 Task 1.1 Project Management .................................................................................. 1 Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings ..................................................... 2 Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings ...................................................................... 2 Task 1.4 Other Meetings ........................................................................................... 2 Task 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................ 3 Task 1.6 Progress Reporting and Invoicing ........................................................... 3 Task 1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................... 3 Task 1.8 Landowner Access ..................................................................................... 4 Task 1.9 GIS Data Management .............................................................................. 4 Task l.ES Environmental Streamlining Application ............................................. .5 Task 1.10 Project Website ........................................................................................... 5 Task 2.0 NEP A/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks ................................................................... 6 Task 2.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................... 6 Task 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection ............................................ 6 Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection ............................ 6 Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives ....... 6 Task 2.5 LEDPA ......................................................................................................... 6 Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(l) .......... 7 Task 3.0 Engineering .............................................................................................................. 8 Task 3.1 Location Hydraulic Study ........................................................................ 8 Task 3.2 Storm Water Data Report ......................................................................... 8 Task 3.3 Drainage Studies ........................................................................................ 8 Task 3.4 Utility Coordination .................................................................................. 8 Task 3.5 Geotechnical ............................................................................................... 8 Task 3.6 Task 3.7 Task 3.8 Task 3.9 Task3.10 Traffic Analysis .......................................................................................... 9 Conceptual Landscape Plan ................................................................... 10 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP ................................................ 10 Alternative Refinement ........................................................................... 10 Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 10 Task 3.11 Value Engineering ................................................................................... 10 Task 3.12 Draft Project Report ................................................................................. 10 Task 3.13 Aerial Mapping ........................................................................................ 10 Task 3.14 Final Engineering ..................................................................................... 10 Task 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies ................................................................... 11 Task 3.16 Right-of-Way Requirements ................................................................... 12 Task 3.17 Right-of-Way Data Sheets ....................................................................... 12 Task3.18 Right of Way Definition Drawings ........................................................ 13 Task 3.19 Final Project Report ................................................................................. 13 Subtask 3.19.1 Fact Sheets (Advisory and Mandatory) ................................... 13 Task4.0 Project Alternatives Description ........................................................................ 15 21 Task4.l Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports ..................................................................................... 15 Task4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document .................................................................................................. 15 Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports ...................................................................... 16 Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment.. .......................................................... 16 Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Document/Statement ............................................. 16 ' Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 18 Task 5.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 18 Task 5.5 Paleontological Inventory /Evaluation Report .................................... 18 Task 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report.. .............................................................. 18 Task 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report ........................................................ 18 Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment... .......................................................................... 18 Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report ................................................................. 18 Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis ........................................................................ 20 Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study ................................................................... 20 Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports ....................................................................... 20 Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis ............................................................... 20 Subtask 5.13.1 DBESP for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Narrow Endemic ' Plant Species, and Riparian/Riverine Areas .......................... 21 Task 5.14 Corridor Video Survey ............................................................................ 23 Task 5.15 Completion of Section 106 and Cultural Resources in the Final EIR/EIS ..................................................................................................... 23 Task 6.0 Environmental Document .................................................................................... 28 Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates ...................................................................... 28 Task 6.2 Administrative Draft EIR/EIS ............................................................... 28 Task 6.3 Draft EIR/EIS Preparation ..................................................................... 28 Task 6.4 Draft EIR/EIS Circulation ...................................................................... 28 Task 6.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................. 28 Subtask 6.5.1 Revised Scoping .......................................................................... 28 Subtask 6.5.2 Public Information Meeting ...................................................... 28 Subtask 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing .................................................. 28 Subtask 6.5.4 Public Hearings ........................................................................... 28 Subtask 6.5.5 Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing .................................................. 28 Task 6.6 Final EIR/EIS ............................................................................................ 29 Subtask 6.6.1 Response to Comments .............................................................. 29 Subtask 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable Finding ............. 29 Subtask 6.6.3 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ..................................................... 30 Subtask 6.6.4 Final EIR/EIS Preparation ......................................................... 30 Subtask 6.6.5 Final EIR/EIS Circulation .......................................................... 34 Task 6.7 Project Approval ...................................................................................... 3.5 Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan .......................... 35 Task 6.9 Route Adoption ........................................................................................ 37 Task 6.10 Notice of Determination and Record of Decision ............................... 38 Task 6.11 FHWA Major Project Requirements ...................................................... 39 Subtask 6.11.1 Project Management Plan (PMP) .............................................. 39 Subtask 6.11.2 Cost Estimate Review ................................................................ .40 22 . Task 7.0 Optional Tasks ....................................................................................................... 45 Task 7.1 Additional Document Revisions/Review Cycles .............................. .45 Task 7.2 Additional Project Management and Administration ....................... .45 Task 7.3 Additional unforeseen requests by Stakeholders ............................... .45 iii 23 Task 1.0 Project Management This Scope and Cost Proposal includes all activities remaining for the preparation of the Final Project Report (PR) and Final Environmental Document required for Project approval. This proposal recognizes the publication and circulation for comment of Draft Project Report (DPR) and the Draft Environmental Document (DED) occurred in February-March 2013. Prior to these milestones, several other engineering studies and environmental technical reports were completed (available at http://www.sr79project.info/library-links). This revised scope of work replaces the existing scope between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and CH2M HILL. This proposal includes task activities over the next 27 months and covers the period from July 2013 to October 2015 (see attached schedule). The cost proposal for the following tasks is based on the process requirements to prepare the final Project Report and Environmental Document. Should unforeseen issues arise that are not included in this scope of work, it may be necessary to again revise the proposed Project cost, scope, and schedule. CH2M HILL will provide regular progress reports with the status of each task and will notify RCTC if the level of effort for a given task has the potential to exceed the estimated level of effort and/ or cost. This information will be provided to RCTC as part of Task 1.6, Progress Reporting and Invoicing. This scope and cost proposal is based on the Project Description in the DED. As described in the Project Description, the design used in this scope includes consideration of four corridor alternatives, two utility relocation areas, and several hydrology easements. Two of the corridor alternatives (lb and 2b) have design options (lbl and 2b1) that lower the highway profile but do not alter the horizontal alignment. Each of the Build alternatives is composed of different combinations of the Project segments (A through N) identified for the Project. Any changes to the Project as defined in the November 21, 2007, version of the Project Description, unless explicitly discussed below, are not covered by this scope of work and accompanying cost proposal. In addition, responses to subpoenas, or litigation activities are not included in this scope of work. Task 1.1 Project Management As the prime consultant, CH2M HILL will modify subcontracts with subconsultants and direct and coordinate their work. Prime contract terms and conditions will be incorporated into the subcontract agreements, as required. CH2M HILL will be the primary contact for RCTC. Under this task, CH2M HILL will also address contractual issues with RCTC as necessary. CH2M HILL will continue to maintain the Project files. This task also includes general management activities associated with completion of the PR, Environmental Technical Reports, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Document (ED), and other work activities conducted as part of this scope of services. It is assumed that the schedule from NTP to ROD will be up to 27 months. 24 Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings will be held at RCTC in Riverside. The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss and resolve Project issues and coordinate activities required for the preparation of the Final PR and Final ED. Agendas will be prepared and distributed at least 5 working days prior to the meetings. Meeting minutes will be prepared and distributed within 5 working days after each meeting. It is assumed that there will be up to 27 PDT meetings during the remainder of this contract. The PDT meetings will be preceded by a Trend meeting one week prior to each PDT meeting. At the Trend meetings, CH2M HILL will present budget status and update RCTC on contractual issues and also any other issues that may affect scope, schedule, and budget for this contract. It is assumed that there will be up to 27 Trend meetings during the remainder of this contract. Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings Meetings will be held with various resource agencies involved in the Project. These will include RCTC, and may include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For the purposes of this scope of services and cost proposal, it is assumed that up to 18 resource agency meetings will be held through the remaining duration of this contract to facilitate coordination of the Final ED, the compliance with the NEPA/ 404 MOU, and preparation of MSHCP documentation. Task 1.4 Other Meetings Individual meetings will be held with various agencies and the public involved in the Project. The meetings covered under this task are large meetings where formal presentations are required. These may include presentations to City Councils, Homeowner Associations, Planning Commissions, RCTC Board, County Supervisors, or other entities. In addition, CH will also prepare exhibits, presentations, and maps for RCTC staff use as requested at such meetings. Question and Answer (Q&A) sheets and other Project announcements will be prepared and distributed to provide general updates to the public, or in association with certain designated meetings that will be attended by the public. An existing Stakeholder Mailing List will be maintained and updated to support distribution of Project Q&A sheets and announcements. Distribution methods include direct mailings and/ or electronic mail ( e- mail). Assumptions • It is assumed that up to 20 of these meetings will be required, either in terms of attendance or presentation material preparation. 25 • The Stakeholder Mailing List will be updated as necessary based on updated contact information received through the Project website and public meeting attendance. • Project newsletter distribution, direct mail announcements, and e-mail announcements are individually assumed to occur a maximum of two times per year. Task 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings Coordination with various stakeholders is anticipated to occur outside the scheduled PDT, resource agency, and other meetings. This coordination is anticipated to occur in the form of emails, telephone conference calls, or focused meetings. In addition, CH will also prepare exhibits, presentations, and maps for RCTC staff use as requested at such meetings. This coordination is anticipated to include various public and private entities including, but not limited to, the following: • Municipal Water District • Riverside County Flood Control • City of Hemet • City of San Jacinto • County of Riverside • Local developers • Native American Tribes • Riverside Transit Agency • Hemet-Ryan Airport It is assumed that up to 20 of these meetings will be required during the remaining duration of this contract. Task 1.6 Progress Reporting and Invoicing Progress reports will be prepared and submitted monthly with a brief narrative describing the work accomplished during the reporting period and a discussion of outstanding issues and action items. The reports will also include any concerns or substantive issues with recommendations for appropriate actions. The progress reports will correspond to the accounting cycles used for the preparation of invoices to facilitate Project oversight. Invoices will be prepared and include costs to date and percent complete. This scope anticipates up to 27 progress reports. CH2M HILL will develop and maintain a detailed schedule for the Project using Primavera and update it as needed, but at least monthly. Earned value reports and cash flow charts will be prepared for presentation at the Trend meetings. Task 1. 7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control CH2M HILL' s quality assurance/ quality control program will be implemented and maintained throughout the Project to ensure compliance with RCTC, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines in addition to ensuring technical and product quality. The Project Manager and senior staff will check and review deliverables prior to submittal. 3 26 Task 1.8 Landowner Access Private property access is required to conduct field surveys as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. CH2M HILL will assist RCTC, and those entities that also assist RCTC, with the identification of landowners for parcels requiring field surveys. This task will include the maintenance of a GIS-based database to track the status of landowner access approval and property access issues including the preparation of written letters requesting private property access. This task will also include notifying landowners of field activities via FEDEX letters notifying owners of upcoming surveys, coordinating appointments for those owners that want to attend our work, and for coordinating animal, keys for locked gates, and fences. As the majority of field surveys have been completed for the Project, a reevaluation of current land ownership by evaluating the County database is not anticipated. The following effort is included in this task: • 2013-14 survey: Up to ten field visits by biological staff for MSHCP Equivalency Analysis, Cultural Resources mitigation, and Conceptual Mitigation Plan preparation tasks Task 1.9 GIS Data Management A Project Geographic Information System (GIS) database has been developed by CH2M HILL to include information regarding Project description engineering information, land use, biological resources, and other data specific to the Project. CH2M HILL will develop and host an internal, secure web-based data management system to allow CH2M HILL staff and subconsultants use of Project GIS/Microstation data to facilitate the analysis for the preparation of both the environmental documents and Project Report. A new aerial base layer was received in April, 2013 from Riverside County. All relevant GIS and Microstation graphics in the Draft EIR/EIS and Draft Project Report will, as part of the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS and Final PR, be modified to include this new aerial base. Assumptions • GIS management activities include, data tracking, landowner access database, County GIS coverage database, all field survey data, data QA/QC and processing and organizing engineering data used for technical studies. • No new aerials will be flown for the Project. • This task is planned to support all Project tasks, and all products will provide data and mapping to all Project team members. • This task supports all disciplines of the Project team. No individual deliverables (reports) from this task are included. • No software or equipment will be purchased for this task. 27 Task 1.ES Environmental Streamlining Application This task is complete. Task 1.10 Project Website CH2M HILL will support the maintenance of the external Project website (www.sr79project.info) by providing Project-related information in the appropriate electronic format for easy upload conducted by Geographies, a firm under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Materials anticipated to be appropriate for posting on th.e Project website include Project text, Q&A Sheets, meeting notices, Project updates, and Project-related documents. All website materials will receive RCTC approval prior to being posted on the website. Assumptions • 2013: One website update is included • 2014: Two website updates are included • 2015: One website update is included • Final documents completed for the Project will be added to the website as completed. • Website development is not included in this task. • CH2M HILL will not host the website or develop electronic website pages. 28 Task 2.0 NEPA/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks These tasks will support obtaining required approvals per the NEPA/ 404 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Task 2.1 Purpose and Need This task is complete. Task 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection This task is complete. Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection This task is complete. Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives While this initial task is complete, potential project adjustments in response to public comments may need to be discussed with NEPA/ 404 team members. Agreement on such changes will occur in conjunction with the identification of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Task 2.5). Task 2.5 LEDPA This task will support the identification of the Section 404 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDP A). The process outlined in the 2006 Guidance for the implementation of the NEPA/ 404 MOU for Checkpoint 3 will be followed. CH2M HILL will assist Caltrans in the drafting of the correspondence necessary for initiation of Checkpoint 3, and will prepare the supporting information packet for Caltrans review and approval. This task will occur during the development of the Final EIR/EIS for the Project. Assumptions • A Final 404 Alternatives Analysis will be prepared in order to identify the LEDP A. • The Conceptual Mitigation Plan required in support of Checkpoint 3 activities is described under task 6.8.1.4 below. • The LEDP A is not necessarily the biologically preferred alternative. • It is assumed the LEDPA will also be the Preferred Alternative. The Draft Final EIR/EIS will document the LEDP A. • Coordination with the required agencies for Final Agreement approval will be included under the Resource Agency Meeting Task. 29 6 • The Preferred Alternative with the removal of Tres Cerritos interchange will need to be analyzed as part of the Final ED. Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) It is intended that the Final Agreement for the Project will include a response from the USACE that Compliance with Section 404(b)(l) for the Project will be obtained based on previous alternative screening activities. Assumptions • No independent document will be required for this approval. • The Project Description included in the DED is sufficient to document compliance with Section 404(b)(l). • Coordination with the required agencies will be included under the Resource Agency Meeting Task. • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not included in the Project NEPA/ 404 MOU process. Coordination or approval from these agencies is not expected to be required and, as such, is not included. 7 30 Task 3.0 Engineering These tasks include the preliminary engineering activities required for the preparation of the Project Report and the Environmental Document. Task 3.1 Location Hydraulic Study This task is complete. Task 3.2 Storm Water Data Report The Storm Water Data Report will be updated for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with the May 2012 version of the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. The Storm Water Data Report will be updated to include the Risk Level Determination and other attachments required for the PA/ED phase of the Project per the May 2012 Storm Water Data Report template. The Storm Water Data Report will include a Project description, define site data and storm water quality design issues, discuss any RWQCB agreements, describe proposed temporary pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used during the Project construction, describe proposed permanent treatment BMPs to be used on the Project, and provide estimated construction cost. Attachments as outlined in Appendix E of the Project Planning and Design Guide will be prepared. The Storm Water Data Report will be prepared based upon the Project Description as stated in the February 2013 Draft EIR/EIS. Deliverables • Storm Water Data Report (up to 10 printed copies with electronic copy per review cycle and up to 10 final copies with electronic copy). Assumptions • Two Caltrans review cycles are assumed. Task 3.3 Drainage Studies This task is complete Task 3.4 Utility Coordination This task is complete. Task 3.5 Geotechnical This task is complete. 31 Task 3.6 Traffic Analysis There is a need to update the traffic analysis to conduct the opening year evaluation, extend the horizon year, and to address the Sunnyvale court decision. To address these needs while managing the risk of delays caused by a comprehensive modeling update, the recommendation is to develop a supplement to the existing traffic report to include an opening year analysis and a revised horizon year analysis. The specific steps are as follows: • Update the horizon year traffic forecasts to 2040 using growth factors. • Develop backcast factors to use the previously-developed horizon year (2035) forecasts to create an opening year 2020 forecast. • Develop updates to the traffic operations analysis tools (e.g., TRAFFIX, VISTRO, or Synchro) to determine opening year LOS and update the horizon year LOS. • Prepare a 2004 NOP baseline analysis using future year changes in traffic volumes at the intersection level to address Sunnyvale. • Prepare a supplemental traffic study report, and then update all affected figures, tables and text in the Draft EIR/EIS for the Final EIR/EIS. Deliverables • A supplemental traffic study report (6 printed copies with electronic copy per review cycle and 6 final copies with electronic copy). • Update to all affected traffic figures, tables and text in the Draft EIR/EIS for inclusion in the Final EIR/EIS Assumptions • The new opening year (2020) and horizon year (2040) were confirmed in a meeting with RCTC and Caltrans on May 7, and they will not be revised • The proposed approach to update the traffic analysis to be consistent with the Sunnyvale ruling will be based on a "delta" analysis of project/ no project, and no additional 2004 models will be developed • No additional work will be required of CH2M HILL as a result of a need to update the Regional Transportation Plan or the Mid-County Parkway project • Two Caltrans review cycles are assumed • The traffic forecast model developed for the DEIR will be re-used, and needed year traffic volumes will be backcasted or forecasted to the required opening year and horizon year. A new traffic forecast model will not be required. 32 9 Task 3.7 Conceptual Landscape Plan This task is complete. Task 3.8 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP This task is complete. Task 3.9 Alternative Refinement. This task is complete. Task 3.10 Cost Estimate The construction cost estimate for the Preferred Alternative will be updated to current construction dollars (2013), which will then be escalated to reflect a beginning construction year of 2020. This estimate will be included as part of the Final PR. Structures costs will also be updated based on the new seismic design criteria, dated December 2012, see Task 3.15 for details. Additionally, a Cost Estimate Review will be conducted, as included in Subtask 6.11.2. Assumptions • Construction Cost Estimate will be provided for the preferred Alternative only. Task 3.11 Value Engineering This task is complete. Task 3.12 Draft Project Report This task is complete. Task 3.13 Aerial Mapping This task is complete. Task 3.14 Final Engineering Following the public review and comment of the Draft ED, the Preferred Alternative will be identified. Additional refinement will be made to the Preferred Alternative only for the Final PR. This task encompasses the general engineering work needed to finalize the design for the Preferred Alternative to support the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS and Final PR. This task will also include responding to comments from Caltrans on the Draft PR and responding to public comments on the Draft ED as they relate to the preferred alternative that will still be presented in the Final PR. Based on public comments it is assumed that the Tres Cerritos interchange will be removed from the project. The preferred Alternative will be updated showing the removal of this interchange as well as any other modifications needed to the upstream and downstream interchanges affected by this change. 33 10 To the extent possible, the modifications made to the geometrics made in the Right of Way Definition Drawings (RWDD) will be incorporated into the Preferred Alternative geometrics. Deliverables • 11x17 cut sheets of the preferred Alternative to be included in the Final Project Report (FPR). • Updated exhibits in the Final EIR/EIS showing the removal of the Tres Cerritos interchange as part of the preferred Alternative. Assumptions • The Preferred Alternative will be selected from one of the existing Alternatives already developed for the project and included in the Draft PR. It is assumed that the Tres Cerritos interchange will not be included in the Preferred Alternative. Any changes made to the geometrics of the preferred alternative will not go outside the existing APE for the project. • The Preferred Alternative geometrics and plans will be in metric units, as was dqne during the DPR and DEIR/DEIS phase. • Traffic analysis and roadway geometric changes to accommodate the removal of the Tres Cerritos interchange will be done for the preferred Alternative only. Task 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies Purpose The purpose of the APS plans is to develop a preliminary structure design for the purpose of establishing reliable cost estimate for the Preferred Alternative as part of the Final PR for the Project. Methodology There are a number of guidelines and procedures by Caltrans on the preparation of APSs. In general, the preparation of the APS shall follow the Caltrans Memo to Designers 1-8. Additional guidelines are provided by Caltrans -Office of Special Funded Project (OSFP) Information and Procedures Guide, dated December 2012. In order to establish a high reliability for the proposed design and the cost estimate, the design team for the APS plans must review a number of design parameters that may impact such design. A list of the design parameters may include the following: • Preliminary roadway design -alignment and profiles • Preliminary information on critical controls -vertical clearance and lateral clearance • Preliminary staging plans and detour plans (on and off the structure) • Utility survey and location maps • Route concept and future widening plan • Special railroad requirements • Special foundation requirements, including scour critical work • Special aesthetic treatment 11 34 • Environmental mitigation that may affect the structure type selection We will prepare three new APSs, which were not included in the DPR, as part of the Final PR. The three bridges are: • Ramona Expressway Undercrossing on Segment N • SR-79 / MCP Grade Separation Bridge on Segment N • SR-79 / Ramona Blvd Overcrossing on Segment N These APS reports will be added with the previously completed twenty-five APS reports and be a part of the Final PR. Deliverables • APSs for the three new bridges (6 printed copies with electronic copy per review cycle and 6 final copies with electronic copy). • Updated construction cost estimate. Assumptions • The existing 25 APSs prepared for the Draft PR and approved by Caltrans will not be changed. • The three new APSs will be prepared for the Preferred Alternative only. • Two Caltrans review cycles are assumed. Task 3.16 Right-of-Way Requirements This task is complete. Task 3.17 Right-of-Way Data Sheets Purpose To estimate the right-of-way acquisition costs for the Preferred Alternative for inclusion in the Final PR. Right of Way Data Sheets list the estimated cost of acquiring the right of way and permanent easements of each impacted parcel. It includes such costs as the value of the property taken, excess land damages, loss of goodwill, major rehabilitation, utility relocation, relocation assistance payments, clearance/ demolition, title and escrow, and condemnation costs. The Final Relocation Impact Document (FRID/FRIS)/Final Relocation Impact Study /Statement (FRIS) is required for all projects that displace persons, businesses, or farm or non-profit organizations. Its purpose is to assess the possible relocation impact an alternative might have on those displaces. The assessment will follow the requirements in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, Volume 4 and provide documentation specified for by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Deliverables • ROW Data Sheets will be updated for the Preferred Alternative by Epic Land Solutions. 12 35 Task 3.18 Right of Way Definition Drawings This task is complete. Task 3.19 Final Project Report Purpose To incorporate comments from the Draft PR and prepare a Final PR that will recommend formal Project approval. Methodology CH2M HILL will review and incorporate comments from Caltrans Headquarters and prepare Final Advisory and Mandatory Fact Sheets on the Preferred Alternative Deliverables • Final PR (up to 10 printed copies per review cycle; up to 10 final copies) • Electronic Copies of the Final PR Assumptions • Only minor adjustments to elements of the Preferred Alternative will be required that do not go outside the existing APE for the project and do not require any environmental re- validation • 2 Caltrans review cycles are assumed Subtask 3.19.1 Fact Sheets (Advisory and Mandatory) Purpose To incorporate comments from the Draft Advisory and Mandatory Fact Sheets, and receive final concurrence from Caltrans on all design exceptions. Methodology CH2M HILL will review and incorporate comments from Caltrans Headquarters and prepare Final Advisory and Mandatory Fact Sheets on the Preferred Alternative by the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Additional language and exhibits will be prepared to conclude that the interchange shown is the most logical type of interchange to use at these locations. Deliverables • Final Advisory and Mandatory Fact Sheets • Electronic Copy of Final Fact Sheets Assumptions • Caltrans will approve the Mandatory and Advisory design exceptions after one additional review by Headquarters that has been submitted. • Two review meetings with Caltrans will be needed to gain Caltrans approval. 36 13 • The design changes at the Esplanade and Sanderson A venue interchanges will not result in a project footprint that extends beyond the current APE or ROW limits. • The design changes at the Esplanade and Sanderson Avenue interchanges will not result in the formulation of, or the analysis of, a new project alternative. 14 37 Task 4.0 Project Alternatives Description Task 4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports This task is complete. Task 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document This task is complete. 38 15 Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports The following Environmental Technical Reports were prepared in association with the Project; most (with the exception of sensitive cultural resource reports) are available on the project web site: • Community Impact Assessment (Section 4[f]) • Draft Relocation Impact Report • Visual Impact Assessment • Area of Potential Effect Map (APE) • Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) • Archaeological Survey Report (appendix to HPSR) • Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) (appendix to HPSR) • Extended Phase 1 Testing Report (appendix to HPSR) • Joint Paleontological Identification Report/ Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) • Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) • Floodplain Evaluation Report • Water Quality Assessment Report • Initial Site Assessment • Air Quality Technical Report • Technical Noise Analysis • Natural Environment Study • Wetland Delineation Report • Biological Survey Reports (species surveys including burrowing owl, rare plants, riparian birds, vernal pool fairy shrimp, mammals, and general wildlife) The following reports need to be prepared or substantially revised: • Air Quality Localized Analysis for Criteria Pollutant Emissions described in Task 5.9 • Cultural Resources Analysis described in Task 5.15 • Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) described in Task 5.13.1 • Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Equivalency Analysis described in Task 5.13 • Relocation Impact analysis described Task 5.2 Noise Analysis as described in Task 5.10 Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment This task is complete. Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Document/Statement The Draft Relocation Impact Document/Statement is complete. The Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement will be prepared following identification of the Preferred Alternative. 16 39 Epic Land Solutions, under subcontract to CH2M HILL, will perform this task. The Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement ("final statement) will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and the "Uniform Act." The final report will include a description of the study area, focusing on any areas where right-of-way will need to be acquired for the project. It will discuss any affected neighborhoods, public facilities, non-profit organizations, and families having special composition (e.g., ethnic, minority, elderly, disabled, or other factors) which may require special relocation considerations. The reports will include the number and type of: • Residential Displacements • Multi-Family Displacements • Business/Nonprofit Displacements • Farms/ Agriculture Displacements The report will discuss: • The potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated availability of relocation resources • Any relocation problems specific to this Project and the alternatives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems • Potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees The report will list all of the proposed acquisitions in a table, differentiate residential and business acquisitions, and define each as either full or partial acquisition. The report will include an estimate of: • The number of households to be displaced, including the family characteristics (e.g., minority, ethnic, disabled, elderly, large family, income level, and owner/tenant status). As very few residents will be displaced, information on race, ethnicity, and income levels will not be included in the EIR/EIS to protect the privacy of those affected. • The numbers, descriptions, types of occupancy (owner/tenant), and sizes (number of employees) of businesses and farms to be displaced. The discussion should identify (1) sites available in the area to which the affected businesses may relocate, (2) likelihood of such relocation, and (3) potential impacts on individual businesses and farms caused by displacement or proximity of the proposed highway if not displaced. Because of the large local housing market that provides a variety of safe and sanitary replacement housing options and the limited number of relocations that are anticipated, mitigation measures are not expected to be extraordinary but will include a discussion comparing available (decent, safe, and sanitary) housing in the area with the housing needs of the displacees. The comparison will include (1) price ranges, (2) sizes (number of bedrooms), and (3) occupancy status (owner/tenant). 17 40 These reports will use existing available information in the market including professional services, R.E. Brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Deliverables • Final Relocation Impact Document Assumptions • Two Caltrans review cycles are assumed. • Two hard copies, and an electronic version of each submittal will be supplied, Incorporate Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement The Final EIR/EIS will summarize the information developed under this task. The information provided in the Final EIR/EIS will address impacts along the Preferred Alternative only. Existing information for all alternatives that is included in the Draft EIR/EIS will be retained but not updated. Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment This task is complete. Task 5.4 Cultural Resources The initial Cultural Resources task is complete. Task 5.15 describes additional effort needed to reach the Record of Decision (ROD). Task 5.5 Paleontological Inventory/Evaluation Report This task is complete. Task 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report This task is complete. Task 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report This task is complete. Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment This task is complete. Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report The Final Air Quality Technical Report and a Technical Report Addendum Memorandum are complete. Subsequent to the supplemental traffic analysis described under task 3.6 above, there will be a need to update the air quality study for the SR-79 project via preparation of a technical 18 41 memorandum. The air quality analyses to be updated will include the CO and PM hot spot analyses, MSAT analysis, and the Greenhouse Gas analysis. Deliverables • Air Quality Technical Memorandum Assumptions • The updated analyses will only be performed for those instances where the results analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS would change with the updated traffic conditions. • The technical memorandum will summarize the updated air quality analytical results. The Air Quality Technical Report will not be updated. • It is assumed that the air quality impact conclusion will not change compared to the Draft EIR/EIS for each of the analyses. Additional mitigation measures will not be required. • Air quality impact analysis approaches will remain the same as previously used in the technical report and Draft EIR/EIS. • It is assumed that a quantitative PM hot spot analysis is not required for the project. This scope of work includes the preparation of a stand-alone quantitative PM hot spot analysis report for interagency consultation. • Vehicle emissions will be estimated using EMFAC2011. A new version of CT-EMF AC that can incorporate EMFAC2011 output will be used if available for the MSAT emission estimates. Other updates related to recent regulatory and guidance changes are not included. • Two copies of the Air Quality Technical Memorandum will be submitted to RCTC and to District 8 in each of two review cycles. • Two Copies of the PM Hot Spot Analysis will be submitted to RCTC and to District 8 in each of two review cycles. • The finalized PM Hot Spot Analysis will be transmitted by Caltrans to the Transportation Conformity Working Group for approval. • Once the Air Quality Technical Report Addendum is completed and approved by RCTC and District 8, the Air Quality sections in the EIR/EIS will be updated with the new results from the Air Quality Technical Report Addendum. It is assumed that the EIR/EIS will only be updated for the sections where air quality analysis results would change with the traffic conditions. Air Quality Conformity Report A stand alone Air Quality Conformity Report will be prepared and submitted to RCTC and District 8 for review. Subsequent to Caltrans approval the document will be submitted to FHW A for review and approval. The Air Quality Conformity Report will use available analyses in the EIR/EIS, no additional analysis would be required. 42 19 Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis This task is complete. The Noise Study Report, dated July 2010, the Noise Abatement Decision Report, dated July 2010, and the Technical Report Addendum Memorandum, Noise Study Report, dated August 2010 are complete. Assumptions • No changes to the existing Noise technical reports and Final ED will be necessary. • The existing NADR was approved on July 28, 2010. In 2011, FHWA and Caltrans revised their noise analysis study policy. The grandfathering date was July 13, 2011. The new policy does not apply to this project. Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study This task is complete. Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports This task is complete. Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis The Project is required to evaluate the impacts to the criteria area of the MSHCP. This analysis is only required for the Preferred Alternative and will be described within a document referred to as an Equivalency Analysis. The MSHCP Equivalency Analysis will address the following: • Effects on habitats • Effects on Planning Species proposed for Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks 6 and 7 and Existing Constrained Linkage B • Effects on Core Areas (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map, Figure 3-2) • Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map) • Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management (such as increases and decreases in edge) Deliverables This document will be submitted/ reviewed after identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Project. The deliverables for the MSCHP Equivalency Analysis will include a separate bound report with two submittals, as listed below. The deliverables are the following: 20 43 • Draft MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, RCA, USFWS, and CDFG (Submittal 1) • Response to comments in table format • Coordination on comments (meeting/ email/ cbnference call) • Final MSCHP Equivalency Analysis with track changes from submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 2) The format and number of copies for each submittal are provided below: Submittal 1: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Draft MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to RCTC, RCA, USFWS, and CDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Draft MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: • One hard copy and one CD of the Final MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to RCTC, RCA, USFWS, and CDFG Assumptions • The NES will be submitted with the Equivalency Analysis to document impacts for the Project. The Biological Survey Reports completed for the Project will also be provided with the Equivalency Analysis. • An analysis of the acres for each Criteria Cell is not required for the Project. • A HANS application is not required for the Project. • A number of MSHCP Section 7.0 requirements have been addressed and resolved through previous coordination as part of the NEPA/ 404 MOU integration team. This includes siting and design discussions/justifications and avoidance/minimization requirements for survey species and riparian and riverine habitats. • Detailed mitigation plans for any species or habitat are not included in this analysis. • The Project will not require a minor or major amendment to the MSHCP. Subtask 5.13.1 DBESP for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, and Riparian/Riverine Areas Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) include discussions regarding the process for projects requiring a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). A DBESP is only required for the Preferred Alternative and will be described within a document referred to as the "Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, and Riparian/Riverine Areas." 44 21 A DBESP will be required for impacts to riparian/riverine areas since an avoidance alternative is not feasible. The DBESP will ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to covered species described in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. In this section, the MSHCP describes components of the DBESP to include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/ riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects It is anticipated that the 90 percent avoidance equivalency threshold for two Narrow Endemic Plant Species will not be met, and therefore, a DBESP will be required. These two plant species are Coulter's goldfields and smooth tarplant. In section 6.1.3, the MSHCP describes components of the DBESP to include the following information: • An expanded project description to include information demonstrating that although the proposed project would exceed the 10 percent Narrow Endemic Plant Species impact threshold, with proposed design and compensation measures, it would result in an overall MSHCP Conservation Area design and configuration biologically equivalent or superior to that which would occur under a project alternative within the impact threshold without these measures. • Demonstration that the biologically equivalent or superior alternative would provide benefits with respect to MSHCP Conservation Area design and configuration should be considered in the context of the following factors: • Effects on habitat with long-term conservation value to Narrow Endemic Plant Species • Effects on the populations of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species • Effects on linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is anticipated that the 90 percent avoidance equivalency threshold for LAPM will not be met, and therefore, a DBESP will be required. Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP pertains to additional survey needs and procedures, which includes the LA Pocket Mouse. In this section, the MSHCP describes components of the DBESP to include the following information: • Effects on conserved habitats supporting the identified species • Effects on the populations of the identified species • Effects on linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area • Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management 45 22 Deliverables This document will be submitted/ reviewed after identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Project. The deliverables for the MSHCP DBESP will include a separate bound report with two submittals, as listed below. The deliverables are the following: • Draft DBESP for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, RCA, USFWS, and CDFG (Submittal 1) • Response to comments in table format • Coordination on comments (meeting/ email/ conference call) • Final DBESP with track changes from submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 2) The format and number of copies for each submittal are provided below: Submittal 1: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Draft DBESP for submittal to RCTC, RCA, USFWS, andCDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Draft MSCHP DBESP for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Final DBESP for submittal to RCTC, RCA, USFWS, andCDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Final DBESP for submittal to Caltrans DBESP Assumptions • The wildlife agencies receive 60 calendar day review and response period prior to finalizing the DBESP. • Updated surveys are not part of this scope. Task 5.14 Corridor Video Survey A corridor video survey task is not included. Task 5.15 Completion of Section 106 and Cultural Resources in the Final EIR/EIS Applied Earthworks (AE), under subcontract to CH2M HILL, will perform the Cultural Resources Evaluations, Consultation, and Reporting required for completion of the Section 106 process and circulation of the Final EIR/EIS. Final Resource Evaluation and Treatment Resources Evaluation Planning. Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be completed for all historic properties that may be adversely affected prior to preparation of a Final EIR/EIS. This process is in progress, but requires 46 23 decisions from FHWA, Cal trans, and SHPO, along with further Native American consultation for bedrock milling archaeological sites, and additional archival research and reporting for one historical archaeological site before all evaluations can be completed. One built environment resource (the Colorado River Aqueduct) has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but will not be affected by the Project. This scope assumes that the prehistoric sites will be found eligible under multiple eligibility criteria. Because those sites eligible under multiple eligibility criteria will be directly affected by. Project construction, there will be an adverse effect and further treatments will be required to mitigate Project effects. Such treatments may include data-recovery, removing bedrock boulders with milling slicks to a location away from the Project where they can be preserved in perpetuity, or some type of regional cultural landscape study. Further consultation with the SHPO and the tribes will be required to determine the appropriate and acceptable treatments. Once agreement has been reached on the treatments that will be required, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 can be signed, thus officially completing the Section 106 process. The MOA must be signed before the Final EIR/EIS can be circulated, but the actual treatments proscribed in the MOA can be conducted after the ROD has been issued. The sections, below, identify the activities that will ultimately be required for resources evaluation, completion of the Section 106 process, and cultural resources sections of the Final EIR/EIS. Archaeological Evaluation. Completion of the archaeological site evaluations reported in the draft Archaeological Evaluation Report and Historic Resources Evaluation Report (AER/HRER) requires a decision by Caltrans regarding the approach to be used for evaluating National Register eligibility of the dozens of Bedrock Milling (BRM) sites in the APE. The Draft AER/HRER analyzed the prehistoric sites in the context of a potential archaeological district and in a broader Cultural Landscape, as previously requested by the tribes. The study area incorporated a five-mile radius around the SR 79 Alignment APE and focused on areas that have been investigated intensively (excavation and/ or survey), providing a good sample for analysis and comparison. Although previous analysis concluded that the sites and cultural landscape do not meet the threshold required for NRHP eligibility, AE assumes that the tribes, SHPO, and Caltrans have reached an alternative conclusion that the prehistoric sites do qualify for the NRHP under multiple eligibility criteria. The determination that the prehistoric sites are eligible under multiple criteria will require major revision to the landscape study conclusions and numerous consultations with the tribes and the agencies. Further, a conclusion of NRHP eligibility under multiple criteria will also require preparation of a Finding of Adverse Effect; negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement with the tribes under Section 106; and possibly extensive mitigations to resolve adverse effects (dependent on MOA). These tasks are addressed separately below. Archaeological Evaluation Report/Historic Resources Evaluation Report. AE will revise the existing draft AER/HRER to satisfy Caltrans requirements and to address the revised determination of eligibility for the prehistoric sites. The revised AER/HRER will respond to 24 47 Caltrans' comments on the draft; will revise the cultural landscape study conclusions; will delete all discussion of Section 106 phasing; it will report the findings of testing at one of two historical archaeological sites not reported in the draft AER/HRER (whichever is on the Preferred Alternative); and will delete all discussion and analysis of sites that are not on the Preferred Alternative. Curation. AE wil1 prepare collections and facilitate curation of materials collected during the site evaluations. With approval from Caltrans/FHW A, the San Bernardino County Museum, the closest repository that satisfies the National Park Service guidelines (36 CFR 79) and best meets the Project/ agency needs will be used as the repository. AE will consult with the San Bernardino County Museum to obtain accession numbers for the collections, prepare the collections (up to 13 boxes), and transfer the material to the curation facility. Curation fees of $1000 per box will be the responsibility of RCTC. Continuing Agency Coordination. CH2M HILL and AE will provide ongoing coordination with RCTC, Caltrans, and SHPO throughout the Evaluation process. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this Scope of Work complies with the requirements of these Agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc. and will provide consistency between RCTC projects, while adhering to the proposed schedule. The anticipated focus will be on confirming an acceptable approach for evaluating prehistoric bedrock milling sites and for establishing appropriate and acceptable mitigations. Included within this task are up to 12 meetings at the RCTC or Caltrans office. APE Map. An APE map was prepared and approved for the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). However, it is anticipated that, following the selection of the Preferred Alternative, a revised APE map will be required by Caltrans, to be included in the Supplemental HPSR. The final APE map will be prepared in consultation with RCTC, Cal trans, and FHW A. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. CH2M HILL, and its subconsultant AE, will continue to coordinate with Caltrans/FHW A in the Native American consultation process. Intensive consultation is anticipated for the evaluation of bedrock milling sites. FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American consultation. It is understood that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes. Consultation will continue with the tribes and with other interested parties including non- federally recognized Native American groups. During archaeological site evaluation and treatment planning, AE will contact interested parties via letter, follow-up phone calls, coordinating and attending up to four meetings with such groups, documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments, as appropriate. Archival and Historic Research. AE will continue archival and historic research to provide historic context for site evaluation. This research and context will guide the evaluation of whichever historical archaeological resource is on the Preferred Alternative and has not been evaluated. As necessary, research will be conducted in repositories in Riverside County, including the offices of the Riverside County Assessor, Recorder, and Department of Public Works; the University of California, Riverside; California History Room, City of Riverside Public Library; Riverside County Historical Commission; Riverside County Archives Commission; the San Jacinto Valley Museum; and any others as appropriate. 25 48 Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Upon completion of site evaluations and approval of the AER/HRER, iE will complete a Supplemental HPSR. The Supplemental HPSR will be used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation with the SHPO regarding eligibility of those sites that had not been tested or evaluated prior to the DEIS. It will include National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and, as appropriate, a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions, or a Finding of Adverse Effect. The Supplemental HPSR will present a summary of findings, document public participation (including Native American consultation), describe properties identified and their significance/ eligibility for the National Register, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The Supplemental HPSR will have a location map, Project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The Supplemental HPSR will contain the following attachments as appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended Phase I Survey Report, Archaeological Evaluation Report/Historical Resources Evaluation Report, and letters from any concerned or interested parties, along with revised APE maps. Development of a Supplemental Determination of Eligibility and a Finding of Effect for the Studied Resources. AE will work with RCTC/FHWA/Caltrans to develop a Supplemental Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the newly evaluated resources. This will include a finding of effect for prehistoric resources eligible under multiple criteria, one prehistoric resource that will be protected as an Environmentally Sensitive Area, and the Colorado River Aqueduct, which will not be affected by the Project. Recirculation of Cultural. Sections of Draft EIR/EIS and Section 4(f) Analysis AE will work with RCTC/FHW A/Caltrans to develop and recirculate the cultural sections of the Draft EIR/EIS and the Section 4(f) analysis to disclose the conclusion that NRHP- eligible properties will be affected by the Project and to propose treatments to resolve adverse effects/mitigations to reduce significant impacts. Development of a Memorandum of Agreement Assuming that there will be a Finding of Adverse Effect for the Project, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will require a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among FHWA, the SHPO, and the Native American tribes to resolve effects. CH2M HILL and AE will work with RCTC/FHW A/ Cal trans to develop the MOA, which will set forth strategies, procedures, and schedules for mitigating adverse effects to significant prehistoric resources. This will require numerous consultation meetings with the tribes and Caltrans, along with multiple drafts of an agreement document. Deliverables • Revised APE map • Archaeological Evaluation Report/Historical Resources Evaluation Report Assumptions • This effort will be completed prior to the Final EIR/EIS and Record of Decision (ROD). • A single evaluation report (a combined Archaeological Evaluation Report/Historical Resources Evaluation Report), as currently exists in draft, will document the results of 49 26 the evaluations at both prehistoric and historical archaeological components. A supplemental HRER will not be required. • Following selection of the Preferred Alternative, no additional changes will be made in the Areas of Potential Effects that would require additional surveys or changes to maps and reports. • If resources eligible for the NRHP are found and require further treatment, such as data recovery, site documentation, or additional regional research, those treatments will occur after the ROD and land acquisition, and are not part of this scope. • If further testing is conducted to discover buried archaeological sites, this will occur after ROW acquisition, and therefore, is not included in this estimate. Likewise, cultural and paleontological resource management activities related to construction (e.g., treatment plans, construction monitoring, Native American consultation, treatment of discoveries, etc.) are not included in this estimate. • Two Caltrans review cycles are assumed. • Two hard copies and an electronic version of each submittal will be supplied. • CH2M HILL and AE will work with RCTC/FHW A/ Caltrans to respond to comments on the recirculated cultural sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. Specific comments will be addressed and resultant changes will be incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS text. 50 27 Task 6.0 Environmental Document Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates This task is complete. Task 6.2 Administrative Draft EIR/EIS This task is complete. Task 6.3 Draft EIR/EIS Preparation This task is complete. Task 6.4 Draft EIR/EIS Circulation This task is complete. Task 6.5 Public Involvement Subtask 6.5.1 Revised Scoping This task is complete. Subtask 6.5.2 Public Information Meeting This task is complete. Subtask 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing This task is complete. Subtask 6.5.4 Public Hearings This task is complete. Subtask 6.5.5 Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing CH2M HILL will prepare and provide the NEPA NOA to Cal trans for publication in the Federal Register. Coordination with the Federal Register remains a responsibility of FHW A under NEPA Assignment. This notice identifies that the Final EIR/EIS is completed and available for public review. The notices will also be sent to all parties that request a copy during public review, published in a newspaper of record in the Project area, and posted on the Project website. Deliverables • Draft NOA for submittal to RCTC, Cal trans, USA CE, and FHW A • Revised Draft NOA in track changes for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, USACE, and FHWA 51 28 • Final NOA for publication will be coordinated by FHWA and Caltrans Assumptions • FHW A and Caltrans will coordinate the posting of the NOA with EPA in the Federal Register • An NOC will not be required for coordination with the State Clearinghouse. The final NOD will be filed with the State Clearinghouse. Task 6.6 Final EIR/EIS Subtask 6.6.1 Response to Comments This task is complete. Subtask 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable Finding After identification of the Preferred Project Alternative, an assessment will determine whether it will result in a significant encroachment to the floodplain. As defined in 23 CFR 650.105 a "significant encroachment" is a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following con~truction or flood-related impacts: • A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route • A significant risk to life or property • A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values If the Preferred Alternative will result in a significant encroachment to the floodplain, the Final EIR/EIS will include a finding that it is the only practicable alternative. The finding will be supported by the following: • The reasons the proposed action must be located in the floodplain • The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable • A statement indicating whether the proposed action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards Deliverables • The finding of only practicable alternative will be included in the Final EIR/EIS. No separate documentation is planned. Assumptions • The floodplain encroachment only practicable alternative finding will be based on information determined in the location hydraulic study and the Floodplain Evaluation Report. 52 29 Subtask 6.6.3 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation The Section 4(f) Evaluation in the Final EIR/EIS will evaluate all Section 4(f) impacts along the Preferred Alternative including the qualified public recreation resources included in the Draft EIR/ EIS and any prehistoric or historic properties identified and determined to be eligible to the NHRP under the requisite criteria in the Section 106 process. Deliverables • The Section 4(f) Evaluation will be prepared as a stand-alone document for review and recirculation to the public. It will ultimately be included as an appendix to the Final EIR/EIS. Assumptions • The newly identified "Cove Park" will be added to the existing analysis of public recreation properties but there will be no use of this or any public recreation property protected by Section 4(f). • Three historic properties, and up to 13 prehistoric properties are included in this analysis. These will be developed in the Section 106 process. • Two Cal trans review cycles, each requiring a total of 8 copies of the draft Final Section 4(f) Analysis. • Each review cycle will encompass 22 days. • 40 copies of the Final Section 4(f) Analysis will be printed for public circulation. Subtask 6.6.4 Final EIR/EIS Preparation The Final EIR/EIS will be reviewed following the process outlined in the Environmental Document Review Process as detailed Chapter 38 -NEPA Assignment in the Standard Environmental Process (SER) dated March 26, 2013. In addition to the existing material included in the Draft EIR/EIS, this additional information will be included in the document: • Preferred Alternative • Least Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative • Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • A list of all persons, agencies and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR/EIR • A copy of each comment received • MSHCP Consistency Determination Letter from USFWS/CDFG • City of Hemet 2012 General Plan land use information, as related to the SR79 project • San Jacinto General Plan land use update information • Updated County of Riverside plan for the Winchester community 53 30 • 2010 U.S. Census data, including an update to the Environmental Justice information Deliverables The deliverables for the Final EIR/EIS are identified below: • Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS • Comments Received on the Draft EIR/EIS • Revised Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS • Final EIR/EIS Assumptions • Prior to submittal for review and approval, CH2M HILL will complete an External Quality Control Certification (signed by topic leads and RCTC) and an Environmental Document Review Checklist (signed by the CH2M HILL Environmental Lead), and other quality forms as directed. • District Quality Control Review of the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS will be accomplished in one 22-business -day review. • Only text and graphics altered from the Draft EIR/EIS during preparation of the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS will be reviewed by District 8 staff. • DEA and Legal Review of the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS will be accomplished in one 22-business -day review. • Only text and graphics altered from the Draft EIR/EIS during preparation of the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS will be reviewed by DEA and Legal staff. • HQ DEA Pre-Approval Review will be accomplished in one 10-business-day review. • Only text and graphics altered from the Draft EIR/EIS during preparation of the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS will be reviewed by HQ DEA. • Reviewing Agencies and copies per review cycle: District Quality Control Review: RCTC -2 hard copies; District 8 - 8 hard copies DEA and Legal Review: RCTC -2 hard copies; District 8 - 4 hard copies; Caltrans Headquarters - 2 hard copies HQ DEA Pre-Approval Review RCTC - 2 hard copies; District 8 - 4 hard copies; DEA - 1 hard copy; Caltrans Legal -1 hard copy • The cost of each individual EIR/EIS document is estimated to be $750. • Copies of technical studies will not need to be recirculated to agencies while reviewing/approving the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS. • The Final EIR/EIS is expected to require a total of 3, 4" binders. After all 3 binders are prepared, only two are expected to have edits. Volume 3 is expected to contain appendix materials. 31 54 • Comments in the Admin Draft Final EIR/EIS are only expected on the new material. • It is assumed that the agency Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the results of the analysis, local agencies requests, and public comments and requests. • Revisions to the Selected Build alternative based on new information or a revised construction scenario are not included. Identify Preferred Alternative and Document Rationale The Final EIR/EIS will identify the agency's Preferred Alternative and explain the rationale for identifying it as the preferred alternative. The identification decision will be structured, analytical, and clearly address the specific evaluation criteria developed for the project. It will ensure that the preferred alternative meets the need and purpose for the project. For identification of the SR 79 Preferred Alternative, which involves a combination of sophisticated and straightforward concerns, a weighted decision matrix is the appropriate technique. We will prepare a template that lists the seven alternatives/ design options from the Draft EIR/EIS (no build, four build, and two design options) in the columns and the evaluative criteria in the rows of a matrix. Working with key participants, we will devise criteria weights that will permit a transparent evaluation of the alternatives. From this, the Department and RCTC will be able to identify the Preferred Alternative to be detailed in the Final EIR/EIS. Deliverables • The Preferred Alternative and the rationale supporting its identification will be documented in a memorandum. • The Preferred Alternative and supporting rationale will be a new section in the Final EIS/EIS. Assumptions • The Preferred Alternative will not change once selected. • The Preferred Alternative, with the removal of the Tres Cerritos interchange will need to be analyzed Should the Tres Cerritos interchange be deleted, it will be treated as a minor alteration of an existing analyzed alternative. It will not require extensive revisions to the EIR/EIS. It will not result in a need to recirculate the DED. Update of Information from Local General Plans The City of Hemet adopted a revised general plan in January 2012, too late for analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Draft EIR/EIS states the intention to analyze the revised general plan after circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS. That analysis is part of the plan for preparation of the Final EIR/EIS. Incorporation of the Hemet 2012 General Plan will involve revisions to numerous sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. In most cases, these changes are individually relatively minor. All the applicable tables on Existing and Future Land Use will be updated. 32 55 San Jacinto published their General Plan in May 2006 and published an update to all sections in January 2011. They published a revised General Plan map and a revised Land Use Policy map in December 2012. The Final EIR/EIS will incorporate the most recent sections of the San Jacinto General Plan. As with the Hemet 2012 General Plan, incorporation of the more recent San Jacinto 2011 General Plan and the December 2012 General Plan map and a revised Land Use Policy map will involve revisions to numerous sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. Riverside County published their General Plan in October 2003. Riverside County started an update process in July 2008 and published drafts of some revised sections in August 2009. Riverside County has not approved a revised General Plan. The Final EIR/EIS will incorporate the August 2009 Riverside County General Plan revisions if appropriate. In public comments on the Draft EIR/EIS, the Winchester Town Association noted Riverside County provided a land use study for Winchester in September 2012. The Final EIR/EIS will incorporate appropriate material from the study. Deliverables • The revisions to General Plan data in local communities including Hemet, San Jacinto, and Winchester will be included in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS and not provided or reviewed as a separate document. Incorporation of 2010 Census Data and Update Environmental Justice Analysis Because of the timing of the analysis and availability of data, the Draft EIR/EIS includes the 2000 Census. Several Department comments requested an update to the 2010 data. The Final EIR/EIS will incorporate appropriate 2010 Census Block Group data on racial and ethnic minorities comparable to the 2000 Census Block Group data found in Section 3.1.4.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS. Deliverables • Information will be included in the Final EIR/EIS. There will be no separate deliverable or revised technical studies. Deletion of Tres Cerritos Interchange The Tres Cerritos Interchange may be deleted from the project. This will require changes to the Project Description. The Environmental Consequences section under each issue area will need to be edited to reflect the deletion of this interchange from the Preferred Alternative. Changes in graphics and maps will be required throughout the document. Assumptions • Deletion of the interchange will not require additional field work. • Deletion of the interchange will not require alteration of any environmental technical studies. • Deletion of the interchange will not require development or analysis of a new alternative • Deletion of the interchange will be shown on the Preferred Alternative only. 33 56 Final EIR/EIS Production After changes to the Draft EIR/EIS and additions to the Final EIR/EIS have been determined and approved, the Final EIR/EIS will be prepared for agency review and public circulation following the guidance in the Caltrans Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement Annotated Outline. Assumptions The following will be required to ready the document for circulation: • Text edits intended for the Final EIR/EIS will be reviewed, proofed, and cross checked against the entire document to maintain quality and consistency. • All figures and appendices will be updated and laid out for both printing and electronic submittal. • After all changes have been incorporated and approved internally, the Final EIR/EIS will be laid out for printing, all edits will be proofed, the entire document will be converted to printable PDFs and assembled, and a page-by-page quality check will be made. • Per the Annotated Outline, any changes made to the Draft EIR/EIS will be marked by placing a line in the margin where the changes are made. • Only insertions will be shown. • Strikeout text or figures and appendices that have been removed or replaced will not be shown. • After Caltrans approval, and prior to public circulation, an electronic version of the Final EIR/EIS will be created according to EPA eNEPA guidelines. These files will be submitted to EPA by Cal trans, added to the Project website, and included on the CDs created for public circulation. Subtask 6.6.5 Final EIR/EIS Circulation After reviewer comments have been incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS and it is approved by Caltrans to circulate as part of Subtask 6.6.4, the Final EIR/EIS will be printed and distributed as part of this task. Deliverables • Up to 20 hard copies and up to 100 CDs of the Final EIR/EIS will be provided. Assumptions • To reduce the number of printed documents, the Final EIR/EIS will be posted to the Project website. • The cost of each individual EIR/EIS document is estimated to be $750. • Documents will only be shipped to those that require a Final EIR/EIS. Other copies will be provided to RCTC for their files. 34 57 • The Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse will be provided with copies of the Final EIR/EIS for distribution to state agencies as required. • All documents will be delivered in a trackable method (FEDEX, UPS, USPS). • Shipping each document is estimated to be $20. • Caltrans will complete the EIR Certification form for the Project. Task 6.7 Project Approval No activities are included in this task. Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan will be included in Final EIR/EIS as a table. Additional mitigation will be detailed in the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, which will be appended to the Final EIR/EIS. Conceptual Mitigation Plan A Conceptual Mitigation Plan, originally planned as a task to be performed in the PS&E stage, will be prepared in conjunction with Final EIR/EIS preparation in support of Checkpoint 3 of the NEPA/ 404 Integration Process and in response to agency concerns expressed regarding the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex and the engineered drainage system that will contribute post-construction surface flows. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan will consist of four subtasks, as described below. Baseline Hydrology Monitoring Plan A detailed Baseline Hydrology Monitoring Plan (BHMP) will be prepared to facilitate drainage design modifications and provide a basis for later comparison to post-construction conditions in the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex. This BHMP will describe the data to be collected, instruments to be installed, timing and duration of the sampling effort, and methods of data interpretation. Data are intended to determine the amount and frequency of surface water flows into the existing drainage in the upper watershed and the amount of sediment transported to the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex. The BHMP will be submitted to the RCA, the Wildlife Agencies, the RWQCB, and USACE for review. Baseline Conditions Assessment A Baseline Conditions Assessment (BCA) will be prepared in for the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex and the ephemeral drainage that will receive post-construction surface flows from the engineered drainage system. The California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) will be used to characterize the baseline conditions of these features. Postconstruction Surface Water Monitoring Plan A Post-construction Monitoring Plan (PCMP) will be prepared to ensure that the gravity- based surface-water diversion system functions in average, below average, and higher than average water years and provides compensatory hydrology volume, based on the baseline conditions, with an acceptable flow rate into the upper watershed of the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex. The PCMP will be implemented after construction. The PCMP will detail the 35 58 procedures to be used to calculate the water flows from the pipe outlet to the existing drainage and total sediment loads within the drainage. Sampling will occur at the instruments installed as part of the BHMP, as well as at new postconstruction locations. The total water flows that occur after construction of the Project, especially storm water discharges, will be evaluated to determine if any modifications are needed to regulate total flows and velocities to the existing drainage, as determined in the BHMP, into the lower watershed. An adaptive management process will be included for evaluating and implementing procedures and/ or remedial measures for sediment control, such as deepening the receptor basins or other activities, to prevent scour and release of sediments in excess of the existing condition into the lower watershed. The intent of the monitoring period is to evaluate average, below average, and higher than average water years. The ability to accomplish this will depend on the local precipitation. A five-year monitoring and reporting regime will be detailed in PCMP. Conceptual Mitigation Plan The Project is required to provide a conceptual mitigation plan (CMP) in the Final EIR/EIS to be used in Checkpoint 3 of the NEPA/ 404 Integration Process. The CMP will provide specific details on compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. The CMP is only required for the Preferred Alternative and will include the following: • Description of types of mitigation and ratios (mitigation bank, in-lieu fees, creation, restoration) • Description of location of mitigation sites (on-site vs. off-site) • Responsibility for mitigation sites • Site preparation • Planting specifications • Maintenance and monitoring • Contingency • Completion of mitigation Deliverables This document will be submitted/ reviewed after identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Project. The deliverables for the CMP will include a separate bound report with two submittals, as listed below. The deliverables are the following: • Draft CMP for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, EPA, ACOE, RWQCB and CDFG (Submittal 1) • Response to comments in table format • Coordination on comments (meeting/ email/ conference call) 59 36 • Final CMP with track changes from submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 2) The format and number of copies for each submittal are provided below: Submittal 1: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Draft CMP for submittal to RCTC, Cal trans, EPA, ACOE, RWQCB and CDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Draft CMP for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Final CMP for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, EPA, ACOE, RWQCB and CDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Final CMP for submittal to Caltrans Assumptions • The existing Jurisdictional Delineation Report will be attached to the CMP; no updated JD Report will be prepared. • The BHMP, BCA, and PCMP described above, all focusing on the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex, will be submitted and reviewed as attachments to the CMP. Task 6.9 Route Adoption A route adoption will be required for the Project because the realignment of SR 79 will need to be approved as a new alignment of a state facility of an existing route, maintained by Caltrans. The two criteria applied to the Project are defined in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual for this action. They include: 1) a new alignment for an existing route, and 2) establishment of a location for an unconstructed route. This activity is anticipated to be primarily managed by RCTC and Caltrans. CH2M HILL will support this activity by preparing the memorandum required for California Transportation Commission (CTC) review and approval. As stated in Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual CH2M HILL' s work will include preparing a reproducible map showing the planned location of the route by a singly heavy line and describing the location of the segment for adoption and the segment to be relinquished. Deliverables • Administrative Draft Route Adoption Memo for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 1) • Revised Draft Route Adoption Memo in track changes for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 2) • Final Route Adoption Memo for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and CTC (Submittal 3) 60 37 Assumptions • The existing portion of SR 79 will be relinquished to the local agencies upon adoption of the new alignment. • RCTC and Caltrans District 8 will manage the communication and scheduling of the Route Adoption hearing. • Revisions to the memo will not be required by the CTC. • This memorandum is expected to be brief and less than 5 pages with only one black and white line drawing figure. • A Modified Access Report or Freeway Agreement is not expected to be required for the Project, as such, it is not included. Task 6.10 Notice of Determination and Record of Decision A Notice of Determination (NOD) and Record of Decision (ROD) represent the final approval of the Project under CEQA and NEPA, respectively. The draft NOD will be prepared by CH2M HILL and submitted to RCTC. After RCTC approval, the NOD will be first approved by Caltrans, then by CTC at the conclusion of the CTC Route Adoption. CH2M HILL will provide a draft ROD for review and approval by RCTC and Caltrans. The ROD represents the agency's final decision regarding the project and is a judicially enforceable document. The ROD will briefly describe each alternative and explain the balancing of values that formed the basis for the selection of the alternative. The ROD will identify the environmentally preferable alternative(s). If the selected alternative is other than the environmentally preferable alternative, the ROD will clearly state the reasons for not selecting the environmentally preferable alternative. The values that were important factors in the decision-making process will be clearly stated along with the reasons some values were considered more important than others. The ROD will summarize any mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project. The ROD will describe any monitoring or enforcement program adopted for specific mitigation measures. Continuing investigations of cultural resources may result in a Section 4(f) Evaluation. If a Section 4(f) Evaluation is involved, the ROD will include a summary of the Section 4(f). The ROD will be finalized for approval by the Department District Director after comments on the FEIS have been received and responses prepared. NOD Deliverables • Administrative Draft NOD for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Administrative Draft NOD in track changes for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final NOD for Caltrans and CTC signature 38 61 ROD Deliverables • An administrative Draft ROD will be provided to Caltrans after RCTC approval. • A revised Administrative Draft ROD will be provided in track changes format for final approval. • One electronic review of the Final ROD to determine if changes were made as requested. Assumptions • Even under NEPA Assignment, FHW A is the agency responsible for posting of the ROD with EPA in the Federal Register • No additional materials will be required to be submitted with these notices. The Joint NOD must be approved prior to FHWA issuing the ROD. • Revisions to any previous documentation for the Project will not be required to complete this task. Task 6.11 FHWA Major Project Requirements Subtask 6.11.1 Project Management Plan (PMP) The surface transportation act, the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144) establishes the requirements for the Project Management Plan (PMP) and an Annual Financial Plan. Requirements for the PMP did not change with the passage of the most recent surface transportation act, "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century" (MAP-21). In general, the requirements apply to any project with an estimated total cost of $500,000,000 or more. A PMP contains "the procedures and processes that are in effect to provide timely information to the project decision makers to effectively manage the scope, costs, schedules, and quality of, and the Federal requirements applicable to, the project; and the role of the agency leadership and management team in the delivery of the project". The following topics are typically part of the PMP: 1. Project Description and Scope of Work 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Project Organizational Chart, Roles, and Responsibilities 4. Project Phases 5. Procurement and Contract Management 6. Cost Budget and Schedule 7. Project Reporting and Tracking • Project Activities and Deliverables • Action Items/Outstanding Issues • Project Schedule • Project Cost • Project Quality • Other Status Reports 39 62 8. Internal and Stakeholder Communications 9. Project Management Controls (Scope, Cost, Schedule, Claims, etc.) • Risk Management Plan • Scope Management Plan • Scheduling Software • Cost Tracking Software • Project Metrics • New and Innovative Contracting Strategies • Value Engineering, Value Analyses, and Constructability Reviews • Contractor Outreach Meetings • Partnering • Change Order and Extra Work Order Procedures • Claims Management Procedures • Other Programs 10. Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 11. Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 12. Environmental Monitoring 13. Right-of-Way 14. Safety and Security 15. Traffic Management 16. Project Communications (Media and Public Information) 17. Civil Rights Program 18. Closeout Plan 19. Project Documentation 20. Other Possible Sections (if appropriate) 21. Appendices 22. Executive Leadership Endorsement Deliverables • Draft and Final Project Management Plan Assumptions • One review cycle by Caltrans and RCTC is included Subtask 6.11.2 Cost Estimate Review As part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) major projects requirements, CH2M HILL and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will conduct a 2- day a Cost Estimate Review (CER) workshop with lead designers, Caltrans, FHW A, and RCTC. These workshops will review cost and schedule estimates for the SR 79 Realignment Project. The objective of the CER is to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the Project's current estimate for total cost and schedule, and to develop a probability ranges for the 40 63 estimate that represents the Project's current stage of development. It is assumed that this 2- day CER workshop will be held in Riverside, California. 6.11.2.1 CER Workshop The CER will be conducted under six subtasks: • CER Task 1. Pre-workshop plan-set review • CER Task 2. Pre-workshop construction cost estimate review • CER Task 3. Pre-workshop schedule review • CER Task 4. Draft Risk Register review • CER Task 5. CER Workshop • CER Task 6. Post-Workshop Activities The intent of CER Task 1 through CER Task 6 is to improve the level of preparedness for the actual workshop. For example, initial cost and schedule reviews and setting up the Monte Carlo modeling in Crystal Ball or Pertmaster will reduce the effort during the workshop and facilitate sensitivity analysis. The findings from CER Task 1 through CER Task 4 are presented in the workshop. All members of the risk team will be expected to spend two to four days in pre-workshop preparation, depending on the discipline. CER Task 5 involves the entire team. CER Task 6 involves the follow-on work required to prepare the risk reports and will generally be limited to three staff members. CER Task 1 Pre-workshop Plan-Set Review This review will compare the draft EIR/EIS State Route 79 detailed project description (project scope) to the most recent plan set, and ultimately against the cost estimate and schedule. This work will also confirm the status of all third party agreements. A table of the status of any third party agreements should be available to the risk team prior to the workshop. The results of this review will be presented in the Risk Workshop. CER Task 2 Pre-workshop Construction Cost Estimate Review This task will involve an independent review of the existing draft project report (DPR) cost estimate. The focus of the evaluation will be a comparison of the proposed unit prices to other recent completed projects in CH2M HILL' s cost data bank and Cal trans Cost Data Book. After incorporating the SR 79 DPR estimate into the Crystal Ball or Pertmaster model, very preliminary range estimates (min, likely, max) will be prepared down to the third level of the work breakdown structure (WBS). Setting up the risk model prior to the workshop will help expedite the completion of refinements and sensitivity analyses during the workshop. CER Task 3 Pre-Workshop Project Schedule Review Since the Crystal Ball or Pertmaster risk model integrates cost, schedule and the risk register, a schedule review is also required prior to the Risk Workshop. The focus of the review will be limited to the critical path and key supporting functions. The intent will be to "risk-range" up to 20 activities. Best versus worst case durations will be prepared by the 41 64 independent scheduling team. An initial draft model run will be prepared prior to the CER workshop. The results of the draft model run will be validated in the CER workshop. The model will be re-run incorporating the workshop recommendations. CER Task 4 Draft Risk Register A draft risk register will be prepared and circulated to the team two weeks ahead of the CER workshop. This work will be based on the draft Risk Register prepared by CH2M HILL (dated March 3, 2012) and supplemented with any currently known additional risks. The risk team will be charged with adding to the base risk register. This is done to assure an appropriate level of preparation by the CER team prior to the CER workshop. It is also anticipated that the top 20 risks from the CH2M HILL Risk Register will be incorporated into the Crystal Ball or Pertmaster model for the draft model runs referenced above. CER Task 5 CER Workshop This task includes: 1) brainstorm and categorize risks, 2) risk mitigation measures, 3) cost and schedule risk range estimates, 4) draft risk management plan, and 5) exit presentation. This risk review builds upon the work done for Task 6.11.3.1 through Task 6.11.3.4. The workshop agenda will be provided prior to the CER workshop. Brainstorm and Categorize Risks As stated above, CH2M HILL will revise, as appropriate, the Risk Register prepared by CH2M HILL prior to the workshop. The Risk Register will be supplemented during the workshop by the risk team. The risks will be rated as high, medium and low; likely only the first two categories will justify mitigation. This will, at a minimum, serve as a validation of CH2M HILL' s work. The risks will be organized in the following categories: • Governance and Management Risk • Requirements Risk • Market Risk • Design Risk • Construction Risk Risk Mitigation Measures The Risk Team will develop draft mitigation measures for the High and Medium risk categories during the latter portion of the workshop. It is anticipated that additional refinements to the mitigation measures will be prepared during the preparation of the final report. At the phase of the project, the team will focus only on primary mitigation, defined as that which occurs throughout the planned actions of RCTC and its design consultants. Cost and Schedule Risk Range Estimates The cost risk analysis will build off of the estimate reviews completed prior to the workshop. The team will review the Crystal Ball worksheets via a screen and projector, so that the range estimates (minimum, most likely, and maximum) are directly input into the model. The schedule risk range estimates will follow a similar logic to the cost review. Using the existing CH2M HILL cost loaded schedule as a baseline, the schedule review team will 42 65 estimate the minimum, most likely and maximum durations for the critical path elements and key supporting functions. Draft Risk Management Plan A draft RMP will be outlined in the risk workshop for incorporation into the Risk Assessment Report. The RMP will include the draft Risk Register, recommended cost and schedule contingencies, contingency protocols for updating and monitoring the Risk Register, mitigating risk, closing risks and reassessment of project contingencies as the project moves forward. Exit Presentation The Exit Presentation will present the results of the Risk Work and Pre-Workshop activities to RCTC management. Comments received at this presentation will be incorporated into the draft CER report. The agenda for the exit presentation will follow the executive summary of the CER report as shown below. CER Task 6 Post-Workshop Activities Draft Report Both draft and final CER reports will be prepared. The general outline for the draft report is given below with the understanding that this may be modified through continued coordination with RCTC. A final report will be prepared after receiving RCTC comments and after the reconciliation meeting. 1. Executive Summary 1) Approach 2) Results 3) Conclusions and Recommendations 2. Risk Assessment Details 1) Purpose 2) Timing 3) Participants 4) Technical Approach 3. Risk Assessment Basis 1) Cost Estimate Review i. Existing Estimate ii. Recommendations 2) Schedule Review i. Existing Schedule ii. Recommendations 4. Quantitative Results 1) Bottom-up Cost Results 2) Bottom-up Schedule Results 3) Integrated Cost/Schedule Results 4) Results Summary 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 1) Major.Risks 2) Mitigation of Major Risks 66 43 3) Impacts of Major Decisions 4) Draft Risk Allocation Matrix for Major Risks Deliverables • Draft and Final CER Report Assumptions • One review cycle by Caltrans and RCTC is included 44 67 Task 7.0 Optional Tasks Task 7.1 Additional Document Revisions/Review Cycles The current scope of services incorporates Draft Final EIR/EIS review cycles in an order and duration consistent with the October, 2012, Review Procedures for Environmental Documents under the NEPA Assignment Program available on the Caltrans SER website. It should be noted that the Review Procedures do not specify duration for District Quality Control Review. Duration of 22 business days was assumed. During the Caltrans review of the Draft EIR/EIS, considerable additional review cycles occurred. In addition, several reviews outside the cycle listed in the Review Procedures occurred (e.g., District review of, and commenting on, responses prepared by Caltrans HQ. This optional task covers the labor and expenses that may be required to revise the ED in the event that, during review of the Draft Final EIR/EIS, additional sets of comments are received and review cycles are required. Task 7.2 Additional Project Management and Administration In the event that the schedule is extended due to factors mentioned in Task 7.1, additional Project Management and Administration will be necessary. Amendment No. 8 has a total duration of 27 months, from NTP to the ROD. Task 7.2 assumes this schedule will be extended an additional 6 months, due to factors beyond CH2M HILL' s control. Task 7.3 Additional unforeseen requests by Stakeholders Since the review process by the project stakeholders is very dynamic in nature and the full extent and possibilities of their possible comments/requests cannot be determined at this time, we propose to add Task 7.3 to provide supplemental funds to offset the need to request additional funds from RCTC. This contingency amount is to provide a factor of safety to handle unforeseen changes. This is a contingency amount only and is not based on any SOW and may not be sufficient. Prior to expending any effort on this Task, CH2M HILL will: 1. Advise RCTC of any stakeholder request that is beyond our SOW 2. Confirm with RCTC that the request is indeed beyond the SOW 3. Prepare a SOW and fee for the unforeseen work for RCTC approval 4. Receive written acceptance and NTP from RCTC of the SOW and Fee unforeseen work prior to beginning any said work 68 45 ATTACHMENT 3 AMENDMENTS COST PROPOSAL -CH2MHILL RCTC SR 79 ~~ Amendment 8 Cost Proposal $4,018,567 I Optional Tasks Cost Proposal $475,507 I .·· !Total Cost Proposal $4,494,074 5/28/2013 10:43 AM Page 1of7 69 AMENDMENTS COST PROPOSAL ------,iii& .. -· . RCTC SR 79 "~ .. · .. ·.·· ... .... . ·· .. LABOR Rate Hours Labor Cost Project Manager $107.75 1,224 $131,891.66 ... Environmental Task Lead $94.99 2,556 $242,793.56 Senior Environmental Advisor $88.17 410 $36,151.30 Senior Consultant/Technologist $67.21 4,214 $283,214.02 Senior EnQineer $65.92 1,382 $91,097.88 •!!:/:; Project Enaineer $49.55 1,900 $94,148.47 Project Planner/Scientist $47.67 2,698 $128,607.96 Associate EnQineer $37.42 334 $12,498.84 r·r> Associate Planner/Scientist $46.80 4,328 $202,533.58 Technical Editor $44.86 2,404 $107,854.25 CADD $37.18 1,186 $44,098.72 Database Administrator $35.31 484 $17,090.32 Contracts/Procurement $36.53 162 $5,917.32 ( Administration $31.24 432 $13,497.60 ;,: Labor for Optional Tasks $60.00 3,434 $206,067.00 · . ••••• ·.·.• SUBTOTAL 27,148 $1,617,462 Overhead 111.71% $1,806,867 Fee 9% $308,190 Total Burdened Labor $3,732,519 Project Multiplier 2.308 . · .. • :. . . . \.: ... ... EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS •·· ··y/ Expenses $138,334 Travel/Per Diem $17,600 < SUBTOTAL $155,934 ·••:.·::. ·. . SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) APPiied Earthworks $309,218 Critiaen $101,558 GeoQraphics $8,500 Epic Land Solutions $186,342 .. .. •••• ··: SUBTOTAL $605,618 .. '··' ... : ... .. • GRAND TOTAL $4,494,072 5/28/2013 10:43 AM Page 2 of 7 70 AMENDMENTS COST PROPOSAL CH2MH!LL RCTC SR 79 ,.,. Subconsultant: Applied Earthworks LABOR Billina Rate Hours Labor Cost Team Leader $155.18 792 $122,902.56 Project Manager (Prehistory) $104.94 396 $41,556.24 Project Manaaer (History) $110.29 120 $13,234.80 Field Supervisor $94.39 80 $7,551.20 Field/Lab Technician $73.26 40 $2,930.40 Supervisor/Tech Spec. VII $94.39 133 $12,553.87 Geomorpholoaist $122.70 20 $2,454.00 Prehistoric ArchaeoloQist $77.33 700 $54,131.00 Tech. Spec. Ill $65.13 32 $2,084.16 Technician IV $73.26 100 $7,326.00 GIS Analyst $70.22 137 $9,620.14 Graphics $70.22 116 $8,145.52 Administrator $69.33 174 $12,063.42 SUBTOTAL 2,840 $296,553 Overhead Included in Billina Rate Fee Included in BillinQ Rate Total Burdened Labor $296,553 Project Multiplier N/A . EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses $9,024 Travel/Per Diem $3,641 SUBTOTAL $12,665 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL $0 TOTAL REQUEST $309,218 5/28/2013 10:43 AM Page 3 of 7 71 AMENDMENT8COSTPROPOSAL CH2M HILL RCTC SR 79 ~· Subconsultant: Critigen .. .. . ··< LABOR Billing Rate Hours Labor Cost Team Leader I GIS 2 $108.04 940 $101,557.60 .:. · .. SUBTOTAL 940 $101,558 Overhead Included in Billino Rate Fee Included in BillinQ Rate ;./ Total Burdened Labor $101,558 Project Multiplier NIA ···•·· .. . · + ·. ' .··· .•. ,, .... '> .···· ... EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses $0 }::ii: Travel/Per Diem $0 • SUBTOTAL $0 ...:,. ··.· ··. . .. .. SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) ;\ . .. .•. . SUBTOTAL $0 TOTAL REQUEST $101,558 5/28/2013 10:43 AM Page 4 of 7 72 AMENDMENTS COST PROPOSAL CH2MHiLL RCTC SR 79 ~" Subconsultant: Geographies '',:,'' LABOR Billinq Rate Hours Labor Cost Website Coordination $85.00 100 $8,500.00 ' SUBTOTAL 100 $8,500 Overhead Included in Billinq Rate Fee Included in Billing Rate ' ,,', Total Burdened Labor $8,500 Project Multiplier N/A ,'' ,,,,,,/''''' EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses $0 Travel/Per Diem $0 ,,, ' SUBTOTAL $0 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL $0 ' ' ,,' TOTAL REQUEST $8,500 512812013 10:43 AM Page 5 of 7 73 AMENDMENT 8 COST PROPOSAL ......._,,,,., _. _____ .. ----~ RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Epic Land Solutions .. ·. .. ·• ·. •· LABOR Rate Hours Labor Cost Principal $67.31 51 $3,432.81 Project Manager $50.48 70 $3,533.60 ROW Cost Estimator $60.00 650 $39,000.00 GIS Manager $43.27 36 $1,557.72 Senior Aoent $35.00 146 $5, 110.00 Agent $23.68 104 $2,462.72 . GISAnalyst $19.23 32 $615.36 .. Admin $23.92 40 $956.80 Project Controls $38.00 36 $1,368.00 . r. . <• .... SUBTOTAL 1,165 $58,037 . Overhead 185% $107,368 Fee 9% $14,886 . : •::·Pm ·: . / ..... >)> Total Burdened Labor $180,292 Project Multiplier NIA .. ; .. . ; '} < .· . /.• <. EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses $5,100 Travel/Per Diem $950 . •; .• SUBTOTAL $6,050 ••• . .. · ... .. .. ·.; ·. · . SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) ... .·;; .;· ·.·· SUBTOTAL $0 ;.····· ... ,.· . . , .. :. • . < TOTAL REQUEST $186,342 5/28/2013 10:43 AM Page 6 of 7 74 CH2MHI SR79 Realignment Amendment 8 Cost Proposal Task Top Task AS -Amendment S AS.01.01 -Project Management AS.01.02 -PDT Meetings AS.01.03 -Resource Agency Meetings AS.01.04 -Other Meetings AS.01.05 -Stakeholder Meetings AS.01.06 -Progress Reports/Invoicing AS.01.07 -QA/QC AS.01.08 -Landowner Access AS.01.1 O -Proj Website/Newsletters/Etc. AS.02.04 -Final Agrmnt: Purpose & Need, Criteria, Alts AS.02.05 -LEDPA AS.02.06 -Prelim Agmt of Compl with Section 404(b)(1) AS.03.02 -Storm Water Data Report AS.03.06 -Traffic Analysis AS.03.1 O -Cost Estimates AS.03.14 -Final Engineering AS.03.15 -Adv Planning Studies AS.03.17 -Right of Way Data Sheets AS.03.19.00 -Final PR Prep/Revision AS.03.19.01 -Fact Sheets (Mand & Adv) AS.05.02 -Final Reloc Impact Report AS.05.09 -Air Quality Tech Report AS.05.13.00 -MSHCP Equivalency Analysis AS.05.13.01 -DBESP AS.OS. 15 -Secion 106 and Cultural Resources AS.06.05.05 -Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing AS.06.06.02 -FP Encroach Only Practicable Finding AS.06.06.03 -Section 4(f) Eval AS.06.06.04 -Final EIS/EIR Prep AS.06.06.05 -Final EIS/EIR Circulation AS.06.08.01 -Conceptual Mitigation Plan AS.06.09 -Route Adoption AS.06.10 -NOD and ROD AS.06.11.01 -Project Management Plan AS.06.11.02 -Cost Estimate Review Hours 918 1,161 312 320 804 648 160 200 426 136 560 240 364 748 308 536 516 16 648 250 20 480 556 536 606 160 Labor 64, 181.88 88,215.12 25,871.20 22,342.04 52,963.02 27,270.84 14,081.80 7,399.40 21,259.84 8,535.84 33, 123.52 13,943.92 24,626.00 38,332.00 17,047.20 26,824.64 26,259.20 1,241.60 33,931.91 13,203.52 884.8 23,974.50 28,660.36 27,775.56 34,903.28 9,399.60 66 4,790.54 894 63, 185.50 8,021 456,605. 77 128 6,302.00 964 82 386 528 53,311.16 5,795.70 24,679.06 31,472.80 1,016.00 79,000.36 Subtotal for AS 23,714 $1,411,395 07 -Optional Task Contingency 206,058 Grand Total 23,714 $1,617,453 5/28/2013 Labor Labor Overhead Subtotal Expense 71,698.50 98,546.35 28,901.12 24,958.60 59, 165.68 30,463.14 15,730.40 8,265.60 23,749.56 9,535.52 37,003.04 15,577.04 27,510.96 42,820.72 19,043.92 29,965.80 29,335.04 1,387.04 37,905.92 14,750.04 988.4 26,780.72 32,017.56 31,029.16 38,991.24 10,500.80 135,880.38 186,761.47 54,772.32 47,300.64 112,128.70 57,733.98 29,812.20 15,665.00 45,009.40 18,071.36 70,126.56 29,520.96 52, 136.96 81,152.72 36,091.12 56,790.44 55,594.24 2,628.64 71,837.83 27,953.56 1,873.20 50,755.22 60,677.92 58,804.72 73,894.52 19,900.40 5,351.64 10,142.18 70,586.08 133,771.58 510,083.67 966,689.44 7,040.32 13,342.32 59,555.56 112,866.72 12,269.88 52,246.76 66,631.82 8,100 10,800 2,400 4,000 2,700 540 0 0 0 0 96 48 3,250 1,625 0 2,450 0 0 7,000 2,200 600 1,020 3,316 1,266 3,500 3,000 0 1,850 28,678 38,835 3,062 0 0 4,650 Subs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,876 0 0 123,420 0 0 0 304,216 0 0 0 101,558 0 0 0 0 0 6.474.18 27,567.70 35, 159.02 88,251.06 167,251.42 3,349 10,048 $1,576,691 $2,9SS,087 $138,334 $605,61S 230, 187 $1,S06,S7S $2,9SS,OS7 $13S,334 $605,61S 75 Labor Fixed Travel Subtotal Fee Task Total 800 144,780.38 5,000 202,561.47 2,500 59,672.32 800 52, 100.64 1,600 116,428.70 0 58,273.98 0 29,812.20 0 15,665.00 0 53,509.40 0 18,071.36 0 70,222.56 0 29,568.96 0 55,386.96 500 83,277.72 0 36,091.12 0 59,240.44 0 55,594.24 0 60,504.64 0 78,837.83 0 30, 153.56 0 125,893.20 0 51,775.22 0 63,993.92 0 60,070.72 0 381,610.52 0 22,900.40 0 10,142.18 0 135,621.58 0 1,096,925.04 0 52,177.32 0 0 0 0 6,400 $17,600 $17,600 115,928.72 12,269.88 52,246.76 71,281.82 187,048.22 $3,749,639 $3,749,639 12,229.23 16,808.52 4,929.52 4,257.06 10,091.58 5, 196.05 2,683.10 1,409.85 4,050.85 1,626.42 6,311.39 2,656.89 4,692.33 7,303.74 3,248.20 5,111.13 5,003.48 236.58 6,465.40 2,515.82 168.59 4,567.97 5,461.01 5,292.42 6,650.51 1,791.04 157,009.61 219,369.99 64,601.84 56,357.70 126,520.28 63,470.03 32,495.30 17,074.85 57,560.25 19,697.78 76,533.95 32,225.85 60,079.29 90,581.46 39,339.32 64,351.57 60,597.72 60,741.22 85,303.23 32,669.38 126,061.79 56,343.19 69,454.93 65,363.14 388,261.03 24,691.44 912.8 11,054.98 12,039.44 147,661.02 87,002.07 1, 183,927.11 1,200.81 10, 158.00 1,104.29 4,702.21 5,996.86 15,052.63 $26S,92S 39,262 $30S,190 53,378.13 126,086.72 13,374.17 56,948.97 77,278.68 202,100.85 $4,01S,567 475,507 $4,494,074 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 4 Detailed Progress Update Through April 3, 2013 Riverside County Transportation Commission: Print Date: 03-Apr-1307:23 Sheet l of 5 State Route 79 Realignment Project Drati Project Report Proiect Report Pre-Submittal Caltrans Review of PR Pre-Submittal PR Review Comments Incorporated by CH A03-0019 160.15.25 Caltrans Comment on Staging Analysis Rpt A03-0020 I ()0.15.25 Caltran~ 5-day Screen Check A03-002! 1('!0.15,25 CH Revise DPR (including NADR) A03~0022 '160J5.25 Caltrar1sReview Drati Prnit<ct Report A0}-00.23. '16Q.15.25. CH Revise Draft Proiect Rt<POrt A03-QQ24 1()0.15,25 [)istrict 8 Env Review AQ3-0026 I<'!Q.15.25 CH Revise Draft Project Report A03:0026E 160.15.25 Revise DPR to be consistent with DED A03:0026f 160.15.25 CH Submit revised DPR and RTC table to D8 A.03:0.0Z(iQ ,1(i0_J5 .. 25 . !-_ caltrans revieyv DPR A03:002(iH • J<'!OJ5.25 1 CH revise DPR andres11bmit A03:002(il .;J<'!O.J5._25 ... ~ L <::.altrf)._ns.R/W .comme.nts. rec('!ive<!. A03-Q02(i) jl6Q.15,2,5 CH revise [)PR per R/W c.omments A03-002<'![( ! 160.15.25 . Caltrar1s final review DPR .. . ....... . 30 ) 160. l S . .. . . . . . . A0.3:0027A A03:0027B A03:0027C A03:0027D A03:0027E Caltransreview fact sheers <;:H r('!vise and resubmit. flictshe('!t_s_ Ca.ltra11uevi('!w and commt<nt on Fact Sheets " CH Revist< Fact Shet<ts A03:0027F ~ !@.15.25 __ ;. Cl!ltq1ns revie-.y revi~ed foct sheets AOJ-00270 ;J6Q.J5.25. _____ I . C'fyvorksho\N with HQgeometriciar1 A0.3:002ltt. _l Hi0~15,2.5.. ___ I c.:r t<ngineering .workshop .... _. AQJ-0027L iJ 6Q.J5.25 . _ l ___ Prnvi<krangeqf l!ltemativt<s to Sl!PP911 alignr ... AOJ:0.027J ~l 1.6..Q.J.~2.L . ~-· .... C.a.!tra_n~ review bl!ckgrqµr1<;! Jrll!Jt<ri!!,L A03:0027K iJ60.J5.25 L Cl!ltrnns prqvidt< direction on fai;t sht<ets A0J:0027L ;J6Q,J5,25 .. ! CH reyist< ?rid rt<submit fact sheets A03:0027M ;.l6Q,15.25 j .. Caltrans reyiew revist<d factsheets ..... AOJ:OO:UN r l (i_Q.15.25 ___ L ___ CH revise f).nd resµbmil fact sheets AO<-A()3..--()0_~8-_ ;!.~()_._!Q,_~L .. Jfr_e_p;ire _Final _SW[)R, _ .. A03:0060 · 160. l(),85 i Borings forAdvancePlanning Studies AOJ-()090 ! 160. io.io Tl'llasing A~~lvsis i\03:0095 [J60JO.JO . pder1t!fication of[)esign Optior1 A03:0!3Q L.. ,MWD Borings __ A03:0132_ . ! __ _ I Prepare Cieotech Report for MWD A03:0JJ5 ..... j .. ............ J ........... fiol!lizt<Oeott<ch ReportfqrMWD -~Ol:OHQ ____ Ll6o~t0.J.Q ___ ;PrnmHeJ).11g11tt<.!:Lirnfli.1:_Rt<PQIL -A03-0142 .. l'l60.10.l0 .. : ___ RCTC/Caltrans Reyiew Traffic Report ±g~~g:ff---:·{~g:::~~~}i·_· ~§~!~~J~~~~:~~flg~~-~~~s Req~ired m ••• ~ ---~-SJHUJIJIHJ.r HBJiJhYA•J.Zl~JJMJUMIW .. -·· m • --20 5 !5 30 3_Q 15 Zo. 14 -o. .14 .. 5 . .? ....... 1. 5 I 10 2.QJ 10 14' IQ .J' J_j u 14. 1 . . t4: 281 J4i 35 02-Nov-07 A 760 07-Dec-07 A 43. I 2-Jan-09 A 16 05-Jan-IOA 113 21-Jan~IO A 57 17-May-IO A J55 14-Jul-IOA 311 J7-[)('!c-IOA 311 25-0ct-ll A 36 .07-Nov-12 A 0. 43 l 77Dec-l 2 .A 1 IO:Jan-13A I 0, 14-Jf!.n: 13 .A 0 24-Jan-I 3 A 6 25-Jan-I 3 A . o Q9-Mav:l2 A 2L !O-May-12A .. 48. Ol.:Jun-12 A 47 20-JuJ:l2A U'06-Sep-12A 1418:SeP:l2A O. 09-0ct-l 2 A . 01.£8:.t::l.oY:JZ A. 0 Z6~Mar-J 3 A .7.:17:1\1ar: 1.3A Q109:APr:J3 QUO:Aor:U Oi24:Ain:J3 o:ZZ:Mav-13 04-Jan-10 A 23-Feb-09 A 20-Jan-10 A 13-May~IO A 13-Jul-10 A 16-[)ec: I 0 A 24-0ct-l 1 A 31-Aug-12 A 13-Dec-12 A 14-Dec-12 A 09-Jan-l 3 A I I -Jar1-IJ A 24-~an:13..A_ 24-Jar1-13 A 31-Jan:IJA . Q9-!'vlav-1_2 A 31-Mav-12A t9-JuH2 A 05:Sep:l 2 A l}-Sep-12A 02-Qct-12. A 09:Qct: 12 A_ 48-.t::J.qv-U.A 40 0 ()8-It!r1:13 17:fol-13 J(); 43;05-[)ec-08A 16-Jan-09A 60 150 '?7-Jl!n-09A , 2Hun:09 A 5.. 112:26~Ml!v-Q9 A 14-0ct-09A 60: 19()J5-Qct-()9 A 22-Apr-IO A HL 4l[J5:J\!l:JOA :24:Aug-IOA .~..:1..5.L. ___ ... :U.;]6~Qg-_09~A ___ 07-Dt<.<::09 A .. J()[ .. HJl8:Dt<<::Q9A '20-Jan-lOA 2<'! ! 2l:fan-l 0 A l 5:feb~t 0 A . ... -2ilJ6:fe~=10 A Jo<i:M!!I;JQA ! ! ' : : I I Prepare and_~ubmit RQI:J~.e<J!!e~.! foi:RJ1_f._t\ccess : 14 ! 1§127:.~.:H.~.-~Jl:~rn:lLtL.L Rt<spor1se Pt<rio<! _ ··---~-·-· JOI J3Q[U:SeP:J2A 21-Jl!n~UA IriPaJAg(et<mem9fM911itQrir1gAgreement 401 ____ J41L03:St':P:J2A '22-Jan-U A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I OQ°/o I 00°/o 100% 100% 100% IQO~o-100% JOQ% JQO% IOQ°/o 1()0% 100% 100% 100% J()Oo& 100% .. 50%, 0% 0% ()% 100% JO()% 100% 100% l00% JQQ% JO()% .,.......,...,...,.,=,~··~=.···=· ,....,.,..,..,,.,.,-,, .. lll••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l-lhaft Project Report Project Report Pre-Submittal Caltrans Review of PR Pre-Submittal PR Review Comments incorporated by CH ment on Staging Analysis Rpt Caltrans 5-day Screen Check r;= ' •CH Revise DPR (including NADR) Caltrans Review Draft Project Report 1-;r · -., CH Revise Draft Project Report District 8 Env Rev CH w evise Draft Project Report .evise DPR to be consistent with DED H Submit revised DPR and RTC table to D8 Caltrans review DPR CH revise DPR and resubmit Caltrans R/W comments received CH revise DPR per R/W comments Caltrans final review DPR altrans Approvai of Draft PR ns review and comment ori ·Fact Sheets HIRevise Fact Sheets altrans provide direction on f: CH revise and resubmit f: Caltrans review revised fi ,Borings for Advance Plarin Phasing Analysi ~tion qf Des}gn ~ption MWD Bohngs ·eparlG~tech Report for MWD ·ill · · · F flaliie Geo tech Report for Prepar Upd ted raffic Report ~TC/ al ns Review Traffic Report HA dre s Comments _Caltr~ns i=onfirm No Chan~es Requ a~rans review revised fact sheets workshow with HQ geometrician T engineering workshop Provide range of alternatives to support alignment Caltrans review background material inaf l.\-cce?riiilc' ubmit ROEjRequest folr Ph 2 Access R~sponse Perio;d allAgreement ofMonitori~g Agreement etailed Progress Update Through April 3, 2013 A05-0180 . ;! 65,15 . .20 .. ]NATIJRALJ;:NYIRQNMENIAL.STUJ:>Y A05.:0VO . 165.15.20 . . .. J>rn.m~n:: fii:rnl ... A05:0250 ...... 165.JO.J5 .. . ;<:;QMMJJNJTYJMI'ACT ASSESSMENT A05-0300 : 165.10.15 Prepare Final A05:0660 l 165.2().05.05 ,AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT MAP A05:9.699 165.2Q,9.5,Q5_, .. Yre1mefifilll ... _ . A05:0800 165,20,20 ... HISIORJCALRESOl)RCES EVALREPORT A0.5:0.8J9 !65.2.0,0~0.5~---J>reJ?arefinaL . ... __ A05-0900_ : I 65.20.25.15 . !::USTORJC .f'RQPERTY SURVEY REPORT A05:0924 · 165.20.25.15 .... r:>istrib11Je HPSR toJnterested .f'11rties . AQ5:0925A .. H>5.2Q.25. 15 . SH.f'O Eligibilitv Concurre.nct: A05-I500 '. 165.10,25 NQJSE TECHNICAL STUDY ~·· A05-1550 . J.65.10~25 __ ~ ... Pr~vare.fiJJalNoise Teclmic1c1LRePQrt A05:2JOO 165.10.50 ;NQJSEABATEMENTDECISJON REPORJ . A05-2l30 '165J0.50 .. •.aiW&5J,915l~ A05:0060 A05:0063 . A05:0064 .A05:0066 A05:0070 .A05-Q07l _A05:0072. A05-0073 A05:0074 A05-Q075A A05:0075B A05-Q076 A05:00}6A .. A.05-0Q76B A05-0076C A05-0076D A05-0Q77 A05:0078 A05-0079 . A05-0080 A0.5-0081 A05-0082 A05-0084 A05-0086 A05-0086A A05-0086B . A05-0086C A05-0087A A05-0087B l\05:0087C A05-0088A A05-0088B AQ5-0088C A05-0088D A05:0088E A05:0088F A05-0088G A05:0089A A05:0089B A05:0089C A05-0089D A()5-0089E I 65,25.05 ... J>rePareAdmirJ l)rnftE!Rlf:ISCIJ11p!ersJ & 2 .165.25.20 . RCICTechniG11l Review ChJ:2 1()5.25)0 J:>istrict8 Sc;reencheck Revie.wC)J 1:2 165,25,20 , . PistricL8 Tecl111iq1J&NE.f'AJ~gyie\V Ch 1-2 165,25,20 !Preoiire MmiJJ J:)ra,ft EJR/EJS Rem;;iining Chapters J 65 .25 .20 · Jnc;Qroor11te .f'h::tsing iDtQEIR/E!S ' 165~25~20 "'' ... .CH ResPQnd to Comme!lls/Revise for Options 165.25.20 · RC.TC & r:>8 .f'relirninary Review 165 .. 25.20 ..... RCTC& 1)8 Technical Review 165.25.20 .f'rep:ire Report Addenda for J)esign Options 165,25.20 J>rep11reEIR/EISSections with OPtiQn Data 1§5,25.20 .RCTC &.D.8 lntemaJ.OCReview .. 165.25.20 HQld meetings regarding 4(f) resources 1()5,25,20 ;, __ ~D$J:'rovide Directiqn on Co.nsjruction Emission ;165.25.20 CH Complete Analysis/WriteNew EIR Text · 165.25.20 1)$ Review/Apprqve ConstrtJction Emissions· : 165 .25.20 CH RespQnd to 1:>$ ComrnenJs · 165.25.20 · 08 Follqw-UP QC Review 165,2.5.25 CH Respond to Co111ments 165.25.20 LCH & CQmmentors CQmmentResolution 165.25,25 .12.8. Ch.eek ofR,eviewComments 165.25.25 .. CH Print Document for HQ/Legal Review 165.25.20 08, DEA, Legal Review Period 165.25.20 CH Revise per HQ/L<:gal review comments 165,25.20 .. Fin:iJ Resubmjttal ofC)Japters I & 2 165.25.20 Submit CIJapfer 3 Growth IQ Caltrans 165.25.20 C11ltr11ns Review GrQwth and Provide Response 165 .25 .20 CHrevise tex.t per Caltrans c.omments I 65.25.20 CH PrePare Print Preview Dl1lft EIR/EIS 165.25.20 Print/Delivery cqppies of Draft EIR/EIS to Cal 165.25.20 R,CJC S11bmits OED for 08 Review 165.25.20 P$ Review/send comments to OED tQ RCTC/C 165.25.20 RC.TC/CH reviews/responds to Comments 165 .25 .20 Workshop to resolve District com men ts 165.25.20 ~·. CH.incorporate comments :i.nd format 165.25.20 · ... J:)8 Review electronnjc cQPY of PEP 165.25,20... . CH printing 165 .25.20 .. • 1)8 sttbmits to HQ (I strevie.w) 165.25,20.... HQJst Review .. 165.25.2.0 . HQ c()mpiles commen.ts 165.25.20 D8 review HO cQmments 165.25.20 .. D.8 sen9.s HQ comments to RCIQCJ-1 Riverside County Transportation Commission: State Route 79 Realignment Project 370i J043jQ2-NQv:06A 14: 87'16-Mar-IOA ·······; ·····················+ •·•·•········ 280' 607!02:Nov:06A 1; 3130:Aug-10A 16: 16 02-Nov:06 A 7 9.17-Mar-JOA 230 271 'oi:N-~~=06..\ 7L 29.25:.Miclr:J.0.A 30 27. 04-M:ir:09 A J 8!J8-Jun-10 A 30 37128-Jun-IOA 268i ·· 622:oi=No~-06 A J ,J"i2(i:Jul-JOA . 21. 42;24-Feb-IOA I 0! 26-1111-10 A 3(}' 82, 03:M:.ir-08 A 5 . 28: 27:Mav-08 A JO 4<!; 27-May-08 A 45; ll 8,1 O:Jul-08 A . 09-SeP:09 A .•JO:Jµri:JOA 30:Jun:08A OJ :Sep-I 0 A 17-Nov:06A .25:Mar:JOA 30-Jul-07 A 22.-Am-J.O A 30:Mar:09A 25:J11n-JO A 03:Aug:IOA 15-1µ}08 A 2!H.tJ.l:.10A 06:APr-10 A. 04:Allg:JOA 23-Mav:08 A 2J:J11n-O$A QC)-Jul:08 A I 04-N()y-0$ A 130: I 8(}; 26:Aug-08 A .. 27:Fi::b:09 A 30 29 i I 9-Jan-09 A . 16:Feb-09 A .. , 60 394117.:Aug-09 A J4~Si;:p7JO A 5 4. 02-Mar-09 A .. 05:Mar:09 A 45 81 09-M11r-09 A 28-Mav:09A 60 309. 02-NQv-09 A 06-SeP-JO A 40 195 24:Feb-J 0 A 06-Sep-JO A 35. 190 1.5-Sep-J 0 A 24-Mar-I I A 10 37 J5-Dec-IOA 20-Jan-11 A I .1 24:Mar-JJ A 24-M11i::l.I A : 15 14124-Mar-ll A 07:APr-11 A 14 17 io8-A~r-I I A 25-Apr-IJ A 32 182; 28-0ct-JO A 28-Apr-l I A 18 91 : 29-Apr-JI A 29-JµJ: I I .A 20 99:09-Jun-ll A 16-Sep-J J A ' 15 7913-Jun-JI A 3J :Aµg-1 l.A 14: 15 ! 1 <)~Sep-I I A 03-Qct-IJ A JO 7 04-0ct-J I A I I-Oct-I 1. A 30 3712-0ct-11 A I 8-Nov-11 A 30 27$ 18-Nov-l I A 22-Aug:l2 A I 0' 13-Jul-12 A 13-Jul-12 A I 0 08-Aug-l2A 108-Aug-J2A JO 13 09-Aug-12 A 22-Aug-12 A 20 2103-Aug-J2A 247Aug-12 A ~, 2'27-Aug-12 A 29-Aug-12 A 2 I 30-Aug-12 A 31-Aug-12 A 0 0 31:Aug-J2A 21 21 31-Aug-12 A. 20-Sep-J 2 A II 7 2 I :Sep-12 A 28-Sep-l 2 A 2 2 24-Sep-l 2 A 25-Sep-l 2 A 7 5. 2(}-Sep-12 A 01-Qct-1.2 A 2) 002-Qct-12A 02:0ct-12 A 4' I ;02~oct-12 A 03-0ct-12 A Qi O'. 04-Qct:J2 A 30 . 31 05-0ct712 A ·. 05:Noy-J2 A I OJ O(}-Nqv-12 A . 06:No V:J 2 A Ii 13 07-Nov-12 A 20~Nov-12 A 0 .2.l:Nov-12 A 2.L-NQY:!2.A ... 100% .JJ>Q% 100% . JQQ% 100% 100% .10()% 100%·-----100% 100% 100% 100% I00% 1()0% LOO% )00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% )00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% )00% IQO% 100% 100% I 00°,/o 77 Print Date: 03-Apr-l 307:23 oise Technical ll}e1110 ECISION REPtiR ADR . Sheet 2 of 5 urtes tru tion Emissio~s Ne EJR Text : n Emissions!Text mm en ts coEpiles comrrients re iew HQ comments se ds HQ cominents to Rd:TCiCH Detailed Progress Update Through Apri I 3, 2013 Riverside County Transportation Commission: State Route 79 Realignment Project A05c009QA J65.'25.20 D8/RCTCICH review/clr:iti responses to HQ com A05-009()B 165.25.20 RCTC submits DED for D8 review A05-0090C '165.25.20 D8 review electronic copy of DED A05c0090D 165.25.20 D8 submits comments to RCTC A05-0090E 165.25.20 CH incorporates comments and format A05-0090F 16.5.25.20 RCTC submits DED for HQ review A05-009QG . 165.25.20 HQ Review A05c0090H 165.25.20 HQ compiles comments and sends to D8 AOS-00901 165.25.20 D8 sends 1:10 comments to RCTC A.05-0Q9()J i 165.25.20 CH incorporates comments and format A05-009()K 165.25.20 RCTC submits DED for D8 review A05c0090L 165.25.20 D8 submits comments to RCTC A05-0090M 165.25.20 CH incorporates comments and format A05-0090N 165,25.2() •· RCTC submits DED for D8 review A05-()0900 165.25.2() D8 reviews and submits comments to RCTC A05-009()P : !65,25.20 CH incorporate comments and format A05-()()<)6 i 165.25.20 D8 Approve/Submit Signature Page . A05-()J 30 ..... Tuirij CH PrintDx;ft .BIR/EIS for Distributi9n A05-()I 32 ; 175.05.15 D8 Submits letter to EPA for publication in Fed Rer A05-0133.~. i l]j.05,jj Submit reY.iew co~ie$ to C,:11,lrans, RCTC, li~r~ries A05:0JJ5 ! 175.05.15 SubmitNQC and DED toS~te Cleari11ghqµse Aos~o 140 175.()5.15 S11b111itNOCto County Clerk A()5-0 l 45 l]5.()5JO Ll111blish Notice of Availability in Federal Register A05-0146A • 175.05.15 iShip hare! copies. CD and letters to distribution list A05~0!46B rl}5,Q5.,.t5.. .;Em!!oil to.cljstril,lution list A05-0l46C . 1 175 .Q5J5 Post carcls m:ii(ed for hearing AQ5-0t5() : l75~.to.l5 .... lDrnil E;lR/l;:lSpµ_blic Review _&,_Pub.lie Hearings A05cOJ55. ~J5JO.J5 .. _; Pµb!i<;: Qpe11H9µ5e Hearings WWWIAwl.1 i• A09~Jo@.. jHQ.,I0.05.J5.jPiePare.D.r:ift A.ir.Ollll.litv Conformity Document A09c 1Q62 ! 180.10.()535 • RCTC 8l District.8 preliminarv Review A.09-1064 : 18().10.()5.35 iRCIC & District 8 Review A09~Jo66 ..... 1JsO. lQ.05.J5JC::HReYise & lncorPorateJ'µblic Comments A09-l 0§8 JJsO.J0.05.35. i C::i1ltrn11s.Re;:yiew/APoroveRePort Edits A09-l ()70 . ! 180, l 0.05.35 Prepare Fin:il ·~ A09·-io75 · ·r l8·o:io~o5:35 FHWA Fin;i·c~~formitv Determina · ~;~1~Jlfatt~'~{ffi!,;~~~i~:~~-i~-~~; ' , l]5J 5 : CH/RCTC/Caltrans lni\ia(Review ' 175.15 ! CH Develop Response to Comments J75.15 iC:iltrans Review Draft 1;:1$/EIR Responses 5 I 5 l '· 2 5 l; 5 2 z .5.· Q; I 0. 0 .!\8().IQ.05.05 : preoare;:fin:i.1 ElR/ElS ! 180.10.05 .... :(:;ltrans 08 Review Final ElR/ElS 30 Jl80.10.05 Resolve Commentson final EIR/EIS. Prep:ire NO/ 10; •1 lgOJ0.0.5 Caltrm1s D8J~eview fin:il E;IR/ElS 14. 18().JQ,()5_ •HQ/[,egal Reviewfin:i.IElR/ElS JO l80JQ.Q5 i HQ Transmit Comments to District L d 80, l 0.05 . [Re?olye Comments/R,eyise Final EIR/EIS 30 . p80,JQ.Q5 jDistrictReview Revised fin:il EIR/ElS !Jg(). LQJl5... I HQ Pre-Approval Review ; I 80JQ,Q5 . . [APProve fin.al E!R/1;:[$ ~J15 .• Jlr5.J.Q ......... ! Cir.c.µJ£11e. l':HJ tL.. . . '180,JOJO ;PublishNOA IRIE! 4 26:Nov-l 2 A 0 03-Dec-l 2 A 1.0A:Dec-12 A 0 05-Qec-12A 05-Dec-l2A 5 06-Dec:l2 A I l-Dec-12 A 0 ll-Dec-12 A ll-Dec-12 A 8 I 2-Dec-12 A 20-Dec-I 2 A 0 21-Dec-12 A 21-Dec-12 A 0 26-Dec-l 2 A 26-Dec-I 2 A I 27:0e;:c:l2 A 28:Dec-l2 A 0 3l-Dec-12A 31-Dec-l2A O;ON:in:U A 02-Jan-13 A 4 04-Jan-l 3 A 08-Jan-13 A . 0•09:1an:13 A , 09-Janc 13 A 1910-Jan:l3A 29-Jan~IJA 0 30-Jan:J3 A 30-Jan-13 A 0. JH:in: UA 11 :J:in: I JA 5. OL:Ee .. b.-13 .A 06.:F~.b.: U A 0 . Ol-Feb-13 A 0. O<l:F.eb-13 A 06-fe;:b-l 3 A 107-Feb-13 A ,07-Feb-13 A . o: ........ .............. ... • 'o7~feb~6A. O 07:Feb-13A 1 . 08-Feb-l 3 A 08-Feb-l 3 A .1 .. 0.8.:f.e.b.:13.A 08:fe;:b:13 A . 08:feb-l 3 A . 0 : 0 .. 8::!\l!l :LL~····· Q7:foJ: U ... . OiQ8:Jµl-J3 1.4:J.ul:U .. . O: U:J ul: 13 26:A.ugc1J .O:Z7~J\ug:l3 .25:Sep-13 ... ojZ6:Seo:JJ ..... 25:0c::t:J3 Q.LZ.<!.:Q£.t:LL .... . 0 o:o9:Aor:U 07:Jµn-13 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I OOo/o 100% 100% 100% 100% I OOo/o JOO% 100% 1.0oo/o 100% 100% . l ()Qo/o IQOo/o 100% 100% ()% Qo/o Qo/o Qo/o . .. 0% O: 18:fon:J3 ,Ql:Aug-13 0% o oZ:A\lg: U .. 3l:A1Jg-IJ 0% o:.11~oei;:~U .10:M:ir:J4 0% 0 ll-Mar-14 09-Aor-14 0% 0 I O-Aorcl4 09:M:J.Yc 14 . Qo/o o JO:Ma.v~l:L '2J:l'vfav:.L4... . ... 0% 0;24:Mav-14 22-Jµn-14 .... 0% . 0.23-Jun-14 .... 2J:Jun:14 0% 0 24:Jun-14 23-Jul-14 0% O 24-Jul-14 28-J.ul-14 ...... Qo/o 0 .. 29:1.!.!.H'.'L... . .. Oo/o. 0. 12-Aug~l4 . :2lcA.ug:J4. . . Oo/o ..QLZZ.:A!!g:: l.:L~&5.:Se12::.L4 ~-.• -....... Qo/o O; .o5~Se;:ocJ4 0% . -14 0% . 180. l 0.05.35 i Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report 30; 0. 0 l-Sep-13 30-Sep-I 3 t\09cJJos ..... IJ&o.io:<i$:3$ lR.cic& Distric::t iterelimin~rv Re\'i~w ... sL :.o!ot=o~1-ii .. ·oi=o~1~ii. A09:JI IQ J l&Q .. JQ,Q5.J.5JRC::TC & Distrii;:t 8 ReYiew . 45'. O)O§:Oct:J) .... 19-NoY.~JJ.. " ........ ()% ,,...,......,._...,.,.,,.,.,,.,., 7P. Print Date: 03-Apr-1307.-23 Prepate Draft Air Quality Conformity Dat:u RCTC & District 8 Prelimina RCTC & District CH Revise & Incorporate Publi Caltrai-is Review/Approve 11<.e FHWA Final Conformity CH/RCIIC/Caltrans Initial Review of Com Ct{ Develop Response to C Caltrans Review Drat! ElS/ElR CH Revise & Incorporate P · · · · · · · · · · · Cai trails R:evlewif\[ii)i-&v Sheet 3 of 5 H i corporates qomments aJnd format CT submits DED for HQ feview Q eview ! Q. ompile.s con?ments andls·e-nds to D8 8 ends HQ co~1ments to CTC H ncorporates i:;omments nd format C C submits D.ED for D8 eview 8 ubmits com&ients to R TC reviews and; submits c mments to RCTC incorporate:comments and format prove/Submit Signatur Page P int Draft E!IVE!S for D tribution S bmits letter tb EPA for ublication in Fed Reg bm t review coJies io cafr ns, R.ci't, libraries b it NOC and OED to Sta e Clearinghouse b it NOC to c4unty Cler bli h Notice of .j\vailabilityl in Federal Register ip ard copies, ~D and lettbrs to distribution list · ai to d istributl6ri list · st ards mailed tor hearing Dr ft ElR/ElS ~.ublic Revitjw & Public Hearings ~bl c Open Hou~e Hearing ~ etailed Progress Update Through April 3, 2013 Riverside County Transportation Commission: State Route 79 Realignment Project 165.20.15.10 PHASE II EVALUATION PROPOSAL .· .. ·. 165.20.)5.10 Native Amer. C911$ultation -Site Treatment 4~f .... 42 :J47Sep7()9A 25~0ct7()9 A I 00% l65.:W.J5.JO. RCTC8t.District8t.PreliminarvReview ... 5! 40:23-Sep710A 01-Nov-JOA 100% Al1-0030 ]65.20.15.10 RCTC8t.District8Review 45i 133 04-Nov-IOA l77Mar-11 A 100% All-0040 165.20.15.10 CHRevise 30 25rl8-Mar:JlA ... J2-APr-llA 100% All-0042 165.20 .. 15.10 Distriq8 Revie.w 15 ..... ULU-Apr-Jl A ·28-J\pr-ll.A 100% , n; AIJ:0043 .165.20.15.10 CH Revise 5; 7!297Apr-llA .06~Mav-11 A 100% AIJ:0044 : 165,20.15. I 0 Caltrans Provide Transmittal Letters 2: 6;05:Mav:Jl A · ll.-Mav-11 A I 00% AJl-0050 165.20.15.10 Native American Review 30; 67J27Mav:Jl A 18-Jul-JJ A 100% AJl~o().52 . I 65.ZO.l 5.JO Coordini;ite Response to T~ibeswith Caltrans 30! . 44 .J9jµJ:lLA .. 01-Sep-J J A I 00% All-QO§O 165,20J ,5.10 C.H Revise AEP for Preferred A!tema\ive .J4: OJ08:)JJ11:U 21-JmJ: 13 0% All :0070 165,20,l.5.JO: Caltrans Review/Approve Report Edits 5L 0122-fo11-l3 267Jun~ 13 0% All-0080 J6.5.,2(),J5JJ). J>repare..fif!ft) . ... .. J4L J>Jn:~vn-13 JO-Jul-13 .. 0.% All-0100 165.2().15.15 J>hase llMo!Jiljzation -Common Sites 10: llJ29-Aµg7JJ A ()9-Sep-JJ A 100% .All-QI JO 165.20, 15.15 Phase UfieJdwork:Common Sites 45; 14il2:SeP:l.1 A · 26:Sep-J I A 1()0% AJl-()120 165.20.15.20.PhasellLabWork:.CommonSites 12()' 9727-Sep-JJ A .02:hm-12A 1()0% All-0150 J65.2(),J5.J5.PhasellMobilizi;itiQT1-finalSite 14' 3227Jan-13A 25:J&n-13A 100% A 11-0 I 60 I 65.20.15.15 f>hase II Fieldwork -Fini;il Site I 0: 2. 28-Jan-13 A 30-Jan-13 A I 00% All-0170 165,20.15.20 Plrnse JI Lab Work -Final Site so: .. 62'.Jl:J&n-13 A 28-Apr-13 0% ... All-()200 165.2().15.25 AER 120' 15() ()3-0ct-)JA 01-Mar-12A 100% All-0205 165.20.15.25 RCTC8t.Q!strict8Courtesv Revirn 30' J5:()2:M&r:l2A .. 06-Apr-12 A 100% A 11-0206 165.20.15.25 Resolve Comments Received on Draft Report 20 I 71j09-Apr-J 2 A 27-Sep-J 2 A 100% A]l-0207 165.2(). I 5,25 MCP/SHPO Letter Review 30 187 28:SeP:I 2 A 12-Apr-J 3 0% All-0208 165.20.J 5.25 CH Revise AER for Final Site 60 0 297Apr-l 3 27-.lun-l 3 0% A 11-0210 ; 165.20.15.25 CH Revise/Add Preferred Alternative 20i Oi 08-Jun-13 27-Jun-J 3 0% All-0220 1i6.5.2()j.5.25 RCTC&Distri~t&PreliminarvReview .Sf oh8~Jun-13 02-Jul-13 0% Al1:0225 165,20.15.25 RCTC: &District 8 Review . . 3(): 0 .03:.lu.1-13 01-Aug-13 0% A)l~()230 165.20.15.25 CH Revise 30. 0 02-Aug~l3 31-Aug-13 0% A.11-023_5 165,20.)5.25 Cahrans .. Revie\,\' .JO 0,())-Sep-l} 30-Sep-13 0% Ail-0240 165.20.15.25 NativeAmericanReview(withHPSR) 30: o:u:OcH3 09-Nov-13 0% A 11-0245 165.20.15.25 CH Revise/Reso)ve Comments 30 oiJO:Nov~U 09-Dec-l 3 0% All-0255 165.20.]5.25 Caltrans Review/Approve Report Edits 5 . o: IO-Pec-13 14-Dec-13 0% All-()260 1()5.20.15.25 prepare Final 14 O; 15:Dec-13 28-Dec-13 0% All-0300 165.2().15.25 SUJ>PLEMENTALHPSR 3() o:.08:Jun-13 07-Jul-13 0% A 11-0310 165.20.15.25 RCTC & District & Preliminary Review 5 0 08-Jul-l 3 12-Jul-l 3 0% AJl-0320 165.20.15.25 RCTC&District8Review 30. 0'13-Jul-13 11-Aug-13 0% All-()325 165.20.15.25 CH Revise 30 0 12-Aug-13 10-Sep-13 0% Al.1-0327 165,2(),15.25 Cl!ltransRevie\,\' 30 O:ll-Sep-13 IO-Oct-13 0% A11:0330 165,2().15.25 Native American Review 30l 0 ll-Oct-13 09-Nov-13 0% Al 1-0335 165.20.15.25 CH Revise/Resolve Comments 30 0 I O~Nov-13 09-Dec-l 3 0% A 11-0340 I 65 . .20.15,25 Caltrans Review/Approve Report Edits .5 0 I O-Dec-13 l 4-Dec-13 0% All-0350 165.20.15.25 Prepare Final 14 0 15:Pec-13 28-Dec-13 0% All-0360 165.20.15.25 CaltransSubmittoSHPO 14 0 29-Dec-13 ll-Jan-14 0% All-0370 165,20.25.15 SHPO Eligibility Concurrence 30 0 12-Jan-14 10-Feb-14 0% AII-0420 165.20.25.20 FJNDlNGOFEFFECT 30 0 IJ:Oct-13 09-Nov-13 0% A 11-0430 165.20.25.20 RCTC & District & Preliminary Review 5 0 I O-Nov-13 14-Nov-l 3 0% Al 1-0440 165.20.25.20 RCTC & District 8 Review 30' 0. 15-Nov-13 147Dec-13 Q% All-0450 ]()5,2Q.25.20 CH Revise 15 0 15:Pec-13 29-Dec-13 0% A 11-0460 165.20.25.20 Caltrans Review/Approve Report Edits 5 0 30-Dec-l 3 ()3-Jan-14 0% A 11-0470 )65.20.25.20 Prepare Final 14 · 0 04:.J;m-l 4 17-Jan-I 4 0% All70480 165,20,25,20 Caltram; Submit to.HQ/SHf>O 14 (): IJ-Feb-14 24:Feb-14 0% A !l:049() 165,20,25.20 SHPQ Co11c11rrence 30] o; 25:fev:J4 .... 79 Print Date: 03-Apr-1307:23 Re:~l~~g~~c~n~~gcf~~~~;~:~~;n°~f. PDT Mtg for Final Selection_ofi':~.;JJ{ I pproval of Preferred AltematJve. · . 5 •fl-'IASE II J::\f ALl)ATION PROPO Ill Native Amer. Consultation -Site Treatment RCTC & District & Prelimina RCTC & District 8 Rev CH Revise Native American Coordinate Res AEP for Preferred Alt' R.evbv/Approve Re PrepaJte Phase II Mobilizatil!ln CH Revise/. Add. Preferred A.ltemiti RCTC & District & Preliminary R v . . . . RCtC & District 8 R. v CH RCTC & District & Preliminary R~v RCTC & District 8 Rh'" CH .. Caltrans Review/Approv Tribes !witill 1.altfa . -r.. . :ri~1 site I Sit ioaJISite Sheet 4 of 5 <l]o~ Draft Report Ri:vi:w Detailed Progress Update Through April 3, 2013 A09-2030 A.()9-2050 A.09-2060 . A09-2070 . A09-2oao A09-2090 A09:2100 A09-2110 A09:2UO 0 . A09-2130 l A09-2140 165.15.JO 205.10.50 205.10.05 205.10.05 205.10.()5 205.10.()5 205.10.50 .:zos.10 .. 20. :205J0.05 .. ]205.10.05 i 205J0.05 .A0.9-2J5Q .. +2Q5.1Q,50. r A09:2160 .'205.10.os ( .. ~A.9.2:2.! 7\L ... 2()5. Ht.2Q prepare Draft ProiectManagement Plan (PMPJ 1fHWA Reviews DraftPMP 1USACE/COFG Verifies Delineation '.SubmitJnitia(Qraft 40 I Aoplica(i9n an<:! Fee 4()4 l'reliminarv public Notice i lJSACE EyaJµaJes Comments on Prelim.Pub,Notict . LEDPAAgencvA.greement .. Sµl:JrniL4.0:IAooli<;ation Submit 40LAooJication .Suprnit SAAA12olicaticm . USA CE Preoares 4Q4 Public Notice _! fina1EIR/BISCircµJate(404P111:Jlic NoticeJssµed !.lJSACE EvaluatesC9mments on Public Notice just\C£ ROD Aooroyal HoU::s;r!iticati9n Jm!ll. R.WQCB LlJSACE Permit Decisi()n JsAA Frmn .. C.DJ'G .... riginal Start and Original Finish are based on the April 5, 2007 PDT schedule. Dates marked by an asterisk(*) show the original date for tasks added after April 5, 2007. © Primavera Systems, Inc. 30 90 30 30 30 16 30 .30 . 30 3.0 30 30 30 30 <iO 60 .6.0 Riverside County Transportation Commission: Print Date: 03-Apr-I 307.· 23 Sheet 5 of 5 0.03-Aor-13 Q 03:Aor:l3 ... OL03:Mav:l3 o:oVµn-U () · 08:Jun-13 Q 08:Jul-l 3 0 08-Jul-13 0 08-Jul-13 0 11-Mar-14 0 06-Sep-14 .. Oo6-Qct:l4 O 08-Feb-l 5 0 IO-Mar~l5 o . 09-Mav-l 5 . 0-.09-Mav: 15 State Route 79 Realignment Project Ol-Jun-13 17-Jun-I 3 07-Jul-l 3 Q6-.Aug:l3 06~A.ug:l3 06:Aµg~U .. 09:Aor:J4 .05:0cH4 04-Nov-14 ,09-Mar~l5 iOH,,1av-15. 07-JuHS 07.~Juj~ 15. 0% 0% 0% FHWA R Prepare Draft Project Manag FHW. Re~i · of Dr~ft J int N P~e,re Drafi Joi : Joint l'i!O Appr File Joint NOD w/ Sta~ '. earingh~e/~ounty State Clearinghouse/C~u' Clerk:Po5s Join ~Prepare:Dr~ft RO Cal Revie\~S D~aft RO Resolve C en ts and Fi Fiiial : Prepare MSHCP Equivalency Ana Final Equivalency Analysis A ust\cE!tbFd Verities belineatio Submit Initial Draft 40 l Application and F· 404 Preliminary Public Notic USACE Evaluates Comments on Prelim.Pub.Noti! 0% . LED PA Agency Agreeme .O.% ·Submit 404 Appiicatlo 0% Submit 40 I Applicat o 0% Submit SAA Applicat 0% USACE Prepares 40 Public Notic 0% Final EIRIEIS Circulate/4 4 Public Notice Iss~e 0% USACE Evaluates Co iments on Public Noti 0% USACE ROD Approva 0% 0 I Certification from RWQC 0% USACE Permit Decisio .0% SAA From CDFG _ 80 ~ Remaining Work -Actual Work -Critical Remaining Work • +Milestone .. AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 24, 2013 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Jillian Guizado, Staff Analyst FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2013/14 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, to the existing Mira Loma, Riverside, and Riverside II buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the State Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1, 1 75 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate at $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and to seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35/seat/month subsidy is administered as a user end subsidy. The Commission's subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission's subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of Agenda Item 8 81 83 percent. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 1 3 percent. Unlike some of the other Commission-approved ridesharing incentives that have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is ongoing. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. As anticipated, in September 2012, the Riverside II buspool came online and has been quite successful, going from 27 riders in September to 41 riders this June. Unfortunately, in December 2012, the Corona buspool disbanded due to declining ridership. The three remaining buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. They have consistently exceeded the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 33 riders/month/buspool. The traffic and environmental benefits realized in FY 2012/13 by offering this subsidy are illustrated below: Corona 30 Mira Loma 32 Riverside 37 Riverside II 32 Roundtrlp Distance. -110 mi -120 mi -144 mi -200 mi Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 38,743 Anllual Miles Saved 424,270 974, 160 1,365,408 1,346,400 Miles Saved 4, 110,238 · Annual One-Way · : ::r rips Reduced.: · 7,700 16,236 18,964 13,464 Trips Reduced 56,364 In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved more than 4 million miles and 38, 700 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2012/13. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance Program funds and a budget of $80,000 is proposed for FY 2013/14. Based on the established monthly $1,645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the Agenda Item 8 82 funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools and the possibility for one new start-up buspool. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I Yes I Year: I FY 2013/14 Amount: I $80,000 Source of Funds: I Measure A Budget Adjustment: I No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002109810302634181002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 06/18/13 Attachments: 1) Mira Loma Renewal Request 2) Riverside Renewal Request 3) Riverside II Renewal Request Agenda Item 8 83 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Harlan Alpert 5522 Sulphur Dr Mira Loma, CA 91752 May08, 2013 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan, ATTACHMENT 1 In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 for the "Mira Loma" (Mira Loma/Corona) to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from (Tour Coach) is $254. RCTC provides a $35 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $219 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Mira Loma/Corona Buspool schedule: (Monday -Thursday) (Friday) AM Departure Mira Loma 4:10 a.rn. 4:10 a.m. AM Departure Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:25 a.m. 4:25 a.m. AM Arrival El Segundo 5:30a.m. 5:30 a.m. PM Departure El Segundo 3:00 p.m. 2:30p.m. PM Arrival Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:30p.m. 4:00p.m. PM Arrival Mira Loma 4:45 p.m. 4:15 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Boeing, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Si~n.erely /' ~ti 4~ ~ f jj e~,;:C/r-_) Harlan Alpert Mira Loma Buspool Operator 84 CAT ALINA FUENTES Send correspondences to: Raytheon Company 2000 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo. CA 90245-4501 May 15, 2013 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan, ATTACHMENT 2 In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 for the "Riverside" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from (Tour Coach) is $267.00. RCTC provides a $35 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $232.00 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Riverside to El Segundo Buspool schedule: AM Departure Galleria at Tyler, Riverside 4:15 a.m. AM Departure Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:25 a.m. AM Arrival Raytheon, El Segundo 5:20 a.m. PM Departure Raytheon, El Segundo 3:00 p.m. PM Arrival Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:30 p.m. PM Arrival Galleria at Tyler, Riverside 4:45 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Catalina Fuentes Riverside Buspool Coordinator 85 TRACY HUTCHINSON Send oorres~ to; RoytheQJ'I Company 2200 E. Imperial Hwy El Segundo. CA 90245 May 15, 2013 Aun.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Rivmidc County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside. CA 92502-2208 ATTACHMENT 3 In compliance with the requimnen.ts. of the Riverside County Trn~bn Cotmniuion (RCTC), I am requesting funding for the period of July l, 2013 to June JO. 2014 for the ''Riverside-2" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the, buspoot operator and oom:dinate this buipooi i~y f:n.>m any employc;r. 1h¢ monthly Cost to operate this bmpoot from (T~) is $260.00. RCTC provides a Sl!i.00 roMtbly swmdy per $eat and the remaining $225.00 is PfO\lided betwten the ridm and their employen. ~ foUowing is the RivefSidc 2 to :El Segundo B"POOl sdledutc: AMDepMtUre AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PMAnivat PM Arrival Riverside-Dowmown Mettoii:nk Station North Main Corona Metrolink Station Raytheon, El Segundo Raylheoo. El Seguf1do North Main Corona Mcttollnk Sration Ri~DoYlntf>wn Metrol.ink Station 4:45a.m. S:OS a.m. 6:10a.m. 4:00p.m. S:lOp.m. S:3Sp.m. Information on this bm.pool is avaUaiblc w11h ride3'hafc prognum at Raytheon. Bocing. Aerospace Cofporation~ and the l()'; Angeles Air Foroe base. Employee.~ recch1:e this informatioo through direct mailings. oew'1ettcr a.rtides. and electronic me$sqing from .theff! employers. These employers rides.hare programs alM> share this inf'Qfm•ion wim other l«al employee trauponation cootdi.natoro. Thant you for your contmued sllPJIC.>tt of this ~s.fu1 buspoot program. Sincerely. Tracy Hutcbil'l.ftOD Riverside 2 Bnspool Coonlinltt.Of 86 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 24, 2013 TO: Western Riverside ~ounty Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Auto Center Drive Street Signal Project Tied to Grade Separation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-24-148-00 with the city of Corona (Corona) for the installation of a traffic signal at the northerly driveway of the West Corona Station and Auto Center Drive; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $235,865 in 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds to Corona in support of the traffic signal; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Recently, the California Transportation Commission allocated Proposition 1 B bond money to Corona to fund the Auto Center Drive grade separation project. A requirement of the Proposition 1 B funding is that all projects must start construction by December 2013. The Auto Center Drive project will construct a grade separation over Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway at an estimated cost of $32 million. Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2013 with project completion in June 2015. Although the project has been in the design phase for quite some time, city and Commission staff recently agreed on the need to install a traffic signal, instead of a stop sign, at the northerly driveway of the West Corona Station and Auto Center Drive. The recommendation to install a traffic signal is due to safety concerns augmented by the need to route buses effectively and efficiently. The Riverside Tran sit Agency (RT A) has 22 buses that serve this station daily; when exiting the station, the drivers currently make a left-hand turn. The traffic study conducted for the Auto Center Drive project recommends RTA buses make a right-hand turn once the project is completed. This change will result in extra miles and time added to the route requiring RT A to add an additional bus in order to retain the current Agenda Item 9 87 passenger schedule. The cost of purchasing and operating an additional bus far exceeds the cost of the proposed traffic signal. Although a stop sign is sufficient according to the traffic study, in the long run, it is less expensive and more efficient for transit service, to install a traffic signal compared to year-over-year costs to operate an additional bus. It should be noted there are no safety concerns until after the grade separation project is completed. Due to timing issues tied to the Proposition 1 B funding, staff was unable to incorporate the installation of the traffic signal with the grade separation project. As a result, if approved, the traffic signal will be installed by the city after the grade separation project is completed, which is currently projected for 2014. As part of the grade separation project, all the signal underground work (conduit, foundations, etc.) will be completed in anticipation of the future installation of the traffic signal. Staff is requesting that $235,865 in 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds be allocated for the future signal. If approved, the Commission and the city will enter into a cooperative agreement. The Commission will pay for the cost of the signal and provide the city a public utility and temporary construction easement at no cost. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I No Year: I FY 2013/14 Amount: I $235,865 Source of Funds: I 2009 Measure A Rail Funds Budget Adjustment: I Yes 244004 81301 103-24-81301-$235,865 GL/Project Accounting No.: 244004 81301 103-24-59001-($235,865) 332404 81301 265-33-97001-$235,865 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 06/19/13 Attachment: Cooperative Agreement No. 13-24-148-00 Agenda Item 9 88 Agreement No. 13-24-148-00 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CORONA FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NORTHERLY DRIVEWAY OF WEST CORONA METROLINK STATION AND AUTO CENTER DRIVE This Cooperative Agreement ("Cooperative Agreement") is made and entered into this __ day of , 2013 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") and the City of Corona (the "City"). RCTC and the City are sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party", and collectively as the "Parties". RECITALS WHEREAS, the Auto Center Drive Grade Separation project will grade separate the current at-grade crossing of Auto Center Drive with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company for the purpose of enhancing movement and rail line reliability, allowing for future rail line expansion and improving vehicle circulation and public safety. WHEREAS, RCTC has requested that a traffic signal be installed at the northerly driveway of the West Corona Metro link station and Auto Center Drive ("Project"). WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties to enter into this Cooperative Agreement to establish and coordinate the responsibilities of the Parties with respect to the Project, all as further set forth herein. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement, the City shall engage the services of a contractor. ("Contractor") to complete the Project. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the City's full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all other applicable laws are a precondition to any construction of the Project. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing m this Cooperative Agreement commits RCTC to approving or constructing the Project. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is mutually understood and agreed by RCTC and the City as follows: 17336.00603\7833419.6 89 TERMS 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Cooperative Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 2. Term. This Cooperative Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above, and shall continue in effect until the Project is complete, as evidenced by the City's recording of a notice of completion for the Project. 3. General Agreement to Cooperate. The Parties agree to mutually cooperate in order to help ensure that the Project is successfully completed with minimum impact to both Parties, and the public. 4. Obligations ofRCTC. 4.1 RCTC shall reimburse the City for Project construction costs in an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Five Dollars ($235,865). Cost overruns exceeding the foregoing not to exceed amount shall be the exclusive responsibility of the City, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Parties. No funds expended by RCTC under this Agreement shall be from state or federal sources. 4.2 RCTC shall make periodic payments no more frequently than monthly. Payments of undisputed amounts shall be made within thirty (30) days following RCTC's approval of an invoice from the City. 4.3 RCTC shall grant, at no cost to the City, a public utility easement in a form agreed upon by the Parties over that portion of RCTC's property upon which RCTC has agreed that the signal, or portion thereof, may be installed, as shall be shown in the design documents approved by RCTC. RCTC shall also grant, at no cost to the City, a temporary construction easement or license, in a form agreed upon by the Parties, over RCTC property, as may be necessary, for City's construction of the Project. 5. Obligations of the City 5.1 The City shall be responsible for procuring all design and construction management services necessary, or provide staff resources necessary, to complete the Project. The City shall be responsible for the process of selecting and contracting with a design firm and construction management firm, if necessary, and with a Contractor to complete the Project in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws including, without limitation, the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code, and shall additionally be responsible for obtaining all applicable environmental clearances and permits necessary to complete the Project. 5.2 The City shall regularly invoice RCTC, not more frequently than once per month, for construction costs not to exceed the amount specified in Section 4.1 above. Invoices shall be in a form approved by RCTC. 2 17336.00603\7833419.6 90 5.3 The City shall be responsible for all design and construction contract management costs related to the Project, and for purchasing the signal and related equipment to be installed by the Contractor including, but not limited to, conduit and signal foundations. 5.4 The City shall provide RCTC an opportunity to review and approve all design documents generated for the Project, which the City anticipates will be relied upon by the Contractor to construct the Project, to ensure that the Project meets the goal of providing expedient bus service to the West Corona Metrolink station. 5.5 The City shall obtain or shall require the Contractor to obtain all required permits and approvals for all Project work. 5.6 The City shall complete the design and construction of the Project in a timely manner so as to avoid adverse effects to the public. It is the intent of the City to begin construction immediately upon completion of the Auto Center Drive Grade Separation Project. 5.7 The City shall include, in its contract with the Contractor, a requirement that the Contractor include RCTC, its members, officers, employees and agents as an additional insured and as an indemnified party under said contract. Insurance shall be in the same amounts and with the same provisions as provided for the benefit of the City. 5.8 As between RCTC and the City, the City and its consultants shall be responsible for performing design reviews and construction inspection of the Project work to ensure conformance with City standards and the construction contract including, but not limited to, the technical provisions of said contract. The City shall allow RCTC staff access to the Project site, at all times, to perform observation of any Project improvements. Such observation, if completed, shall be for RCTC's benefit only and shall not relieve the City of any responsibility hereunder. 5.9 The City, as the owner of the signal to be installed pursuant to this Cooperative Agreement, shall be solely responsible for all future maintenance thereof. 6. Time is of the Essence. Each Party warrants that it shall make its best efforts to perform all obligations assigned to it related to the Project in such a manner as to allow the Project to progress as scheduled. 7. Dispute Resolution. Unless otherwise specified herein, the Parties shall submit any unresolved dispute to RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager for negotiation. The Executive Director and the City Manager agree to undertake good faith attempts to resolve said dispute, claim, or controversy within ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of written notice from the Party alleging that a dispute, claim or controversy exists. The Parties additionally agree to cooperate with the other Party in scheduling negotiation sessions. However, if said matter is not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days after conducting the first negotiating session, either Party may, but is not required to, request that the matter be submitted to further dispute resolution procedures, as may be agreed upon by the Parties. 3 17336.00603\7833419.6 91 8. Legal Action. If a matter is not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days after the first negotiating session between the Executive Director and the City Manager, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Parties, either Party may proceed with any other remedy available in law or in equity. 9. Indemnification. 9.1 RCTC shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any negligent acts, omissions or breach of law, or willful misconduct of RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants or contractors in the performance ofRCTC's obligations under this Cooperative Agreement, including the payment of all reasonable attorneys fees. 9.2 The City shall indemnify, defend and hold RCTC, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any negligent acts, omissions or breach of law, or willful misconduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants or contractors in the performance of the City's obligations under this Cooperative Agreement, including the payment of all reasonable attorneys fees. 9.3 The indemnification provisions set forth m this Section 9 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Cooperative Agreement. 10. Force majeure. The failure of performance by either Party (except for payment obligations) hereunder shall not be deemed to be a default where delays or defaults are due to war; insurrection; strikes; lock-outs; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restrictions; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools; delays of any contractor, subcontractor, railroad, or suppliers; acts of the other Party; acts or failure to act of any other public or governmental agency or entity (other than that acts or failure to act of the Parties); or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform or relief from default. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Cooperative Agreement may also be extended in writing by mutual agreement between the Parties. 11. Amendments. This Cooperative Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the Parties by an instrument in writing. 4 17336.00603\7833419.6 92 12. Assignment of Cooperative Agreement. Neither Party may assign or transfer its respective rights or obligations under this Cooperative Agreement without the express written consent of the other Party. Any purported assignment or transfer by one Party without the express written consent of the other Party shall be null and void and of no force or effect. 13. Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non-defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. No consent or approval of either Party shall be deemed to waive or render unnecessary such Party's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of the other Party. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Cooperative Agreement. 14. Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Cooperative Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Cooperative Agreement, which shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 15. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Cooperative Agreement, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 16. Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Cooperative Agreement. 1 7. Entire Agreement. This Cooperative Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 5 17336.00603\7833419.6 93 SIGNATURE PAGE TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CORONA FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NORTHERLY DRIVEWAY OF WEST CORONA METROLINK STATION AND AUTO CENTER DRIVE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITY OF CORONA By:. __________ _ Its: __________ _ Approved as to Form: By: Best Best & Krieger General Counsel 17336.00603\7833419.6 6 94 By: ___________ _ Its: ____________ _ ATTEST: By: City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: Dean Derleth City Attorney