2008-186 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

modeling staff to ensure that the modeling and wellfield management plan are consistent and encompass both wellfields. Question 5: Revision of Table in Section 9 to reflect different type users ($1,404) The County resolved the issue with regards to the reject water amount (20% versus 25%) in our teleconference with SJRWMD. The table itself needs to be updated for the various uses. PBS&J will update this table to reflect the information requested. Question 6: Modeling Revisions (up to $25,619) PBS&J will address question 6, parts a. through f. as outlined below: • Evaluate the applicability of utilizing different aquifer parameters in the existing groundwater flow model and provide additional detailed description and justification for selection of the parameter values and model revisions based on SJRWMD input • Obtain the aquifer performance test data and results from the Hercules injection well at the Ocean Spray facility for review and consideration of incorporating these data in the existing groundwater flow model. • Evaluate the use of general head boundary conditions instead of constant head boundary conditions and revise the groundwater flow model as appropriate. • Incorporate additional and/or previously unavailable hydraulic head and water quality calibration targets and develop additional figure(s) and discussion regarding model calibration and associated model agreement. • Develop drawdown contour maps from the results of the aquifer stress simulations to include a 0.1 foot contour interval for the predicted layer 1 drawdown, based on the results of the revised groundwater flow modeling. • Evaluate the applicability of additional layers in the SEAWAT model and revise as necessary, including additional discussion on predicted chloride concentration changes with depth. The revised design will be mutually agreed upon with SJRWMD prior to commencement. • Provide location and value of chloride data used to calibrate the SEAWAT model, including additional discussion of model agreement to target well data. There is the potential that once the initial model revisions are complete, the follow-up work will be minor in terms of meeting the District's requirements. However, the price shown is an "upset" limit, assuming a worst case scenario. Preparation of submittal ($1,660) Compensation The total fee assumed to respond to the third RAI, conservatively estimated, is $37,912. The County has already budgeted $17, 606, resulting in a remaining additional fee of $20,306. We are asking the County to authorize the remaining $17,606 to respond to the Third RAI and to authorize an additional $20,306 for completion of the response. We will bill the County for the efforts performed. There is the potential that the response to question 6 will be less than the budget listed. If the modeling requires less effort, the County will be able to unencumber unspent funds. Schedule We also recommend that the County seek an extension of 30 -days on the response submittal, to provide adequate time to coordinate with SJRWMD on the modeling question. We will complete this submittal predicated on that 30 -day extension.