HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1320 7(c. -7/0
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 WORK ORDER NUMBER 11 / a- &. I'
.2UrS 13 a
Surface Water Reservoir Feasibility Analysis (Phase 1)
This Amendment 1 to Work Order Number is entered into as of this day of , 201_,
pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services, dated
December 6, 2011, and that certain Extension and Amendment of Continuing Contract Agreement for
Professional Services entered into as of this 4th day of November, 2014 (collectively referred to as the
"Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
("COUNTY") and CDM Smith, Inc. ("Consultant").
1. The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth in
existing Work Order Number 11, Effective Date Apri122,2014.
2. The COUNTY and the Consultant desire to amend this Work Order as set forth on Exhibit A
(Scope of Work) attached to this Amendment and made part hereof by this reference. The professional
services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B (Fee Schedule),
and within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit A (Time Schedule), all in accordance with
the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement.
3. From and after the Effective Date of this Amendment, the above -referenced Work Order is
amended as set forth in this Amendment. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing
contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the
Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first
written above.
CONSULTANT:
CDM Smith, Inc.
By:
Title:
By:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Wesley S. Davis, Chairman
BCC Approved Date: July 7, 2015
0 ,"..Oh?..0 R#test: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
By:
Deputy Clerk
". Approved: C
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Jlbseph ABaird, County Administrator
T. Reingold, County Attorney
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION
SURFACE WATER RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS (PHASE I)
AMENDMENT NO.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In April 2014, the Indian River County (OWNER) Board of County Commissioners authorized CDM Smith
Inc. (CONSULTANT) to perform an evaluation of the feasibility of implementing a surface water reservoir
to supplement potable water production to meet long-term needs. CONSULTANT delivered a draft of
the analysis within 90 days of the authorization, and subsequently performed two significant revisions to
that draft. The level of effort to produce the three drafts exceeded the estimate included in the original
project budget. The following summarizes the additional efforts by task.
The following Scope of Services addresses amended Phase 1 efforts.
SCOPEOFSERVICES — PHASE 1 ONLY
Consultant will perform the following task services associated with Phase 1 for the development of a
surface water reservoir system:
TASK 1.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY MASTER PLAN
No change.
TASK 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF AND COORDINATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Task 2.0 initially included 4 hours of coordination with stakeholders, with the balance of the
coordination to be conducted by OWNER staff. CDM Smith provided approximately 16 hours of
coordination throughout the draft evaluation process. Amendment No. 1 includes provisions for the
additional 12 hours of coordination. This effort included additional meetings with the drainage district
superintendents, fielding phone calls from various interested parties and coordination with drainage
district consultants to obtain necessary information.
TASK 3.0 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Task 3.0 included a caveat that OWNER staff would provide population projections for use in
determining the demand for the 20 -year planning horizon. CONSULTANT was directed to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and developed the demand projections through calculations
based on the MPO's traffic planning units count. This effort required an additional 8 hours of labor.
The original Task 3.0 budget also assumed that the agricultural community would provide the long-term
demand projections to be used in sizing the potable plus agricultural demand reservoir option. No
agricultural demand projections were readily available to be provided for use. CONSULTANT developed
the agricultural demand based on the SJRWMD District Water Supply Plan projections. This effort
required an additional 4 hours of labor.
A-1
jj1657_Ltr wth Exhibits.doc
As CONSULTANT was completing the first draft for distribution to OWNER staff, CONSULTANT was
notified that the parcel identified should not be the only parcel considered. OWNER requested that
CONSULTANT undertake substantial revisions to the draft to incorporate an additional two potential
locations. This effort required an additional 16 hours of labor to search ownership information, update
approximately 6 figures, update report text and review/revise the cost estimate range. The original
scope of services assumed that only a single potential site would be identified and evaluated.
Additionally, the initial Scope of Services included approximately 8 hours of labor for the review of Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to determine flood zone impacts, if any. Upon evaluation of the FIRM
records, it was discovered that the majority of the area under consideration within the SRID was in
dispute and no updated FIRM documents were available to make the final flood zone determination.
Researching the dispute to complete the evaluation required an additional 4 hours of labor.
During the data collection effort, it was determined that a model existed for the SRID (prepared by third
party). At the request of OWNER's staff, CONSULTANT obtained a copy of the SRID model to determine
if data contained within the model was beneficial for the evaluation. Additionally, staff notified
CONSULTANT that a second model for an area of approximately 10,000 acres west of SRID should also
be reviewed to determine if additional siting options were available. CONSULATANT obtained and
reviewed both models in detail. While the models were ultimately determined to be drainage basin
models (no water quality or available quantity data included), the model reviews required an additional
12 hours of labor that was not included in the initial project budget.
Last, CONSULTANT initially budgeted for one draft evaluation to be prepared, incorporation of
comments received, and finalization of the evaluation. To date, CONSULTANT has provided three draft
documents with a final report still pending. CONSULTANT requests an additional 14 hours of labor for
incorporation of stakeholder comments, update cost estimates (as needed) and finalization of the
analysis.
The original Scope of Services did not include specific provisions for reviewing or evaluating Aquifer
Storage and Recovery (ASR) as an alternative option. CONSULTANT, however, included information
pertaining to the use of ASR wells in lieu of (or in addition to) an open reservoir system. This evaluation
included development of proposed well size, well locations, associated costs and regulatory viability.
The inclusion of the ASR evaluation required approximately 24 hours of additional labor. CONSULTANT is
not seeking additional funding for this effort. CONSULTANT believes that an evaluation of this nature
would not be technically complete or comprehensive without inclusion of ASR as an option.
TASK 4.0
No change.
REQUEST FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FROM SJRWMD
TASK 5.0 MEETINGS WITH INTERESTED PARTIES AND REGULATORY AGENCIES
CONSULTANT has completed all meetings and presentations to date within the original budget estimate.
CONSULTANT is requesting an additional 12 hours of labor to accommodate preparation for and
participation in a workshop with BOCC and stakeholders to address comments received on the draft
report (not anticipated in original Scope of Services).
TASK 6.0 PROJECT AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT
No change.
OTHER SERVICES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS INITIAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
No change.
A-2
jj1657_Ltr with ExhiW.doc
COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
No change.
TIME SCHEDULE
No change.
COMPENSATION
Compensation information is provided in Exhibit B.
A-3
jj1657_Ltr with Exhetits.doc
EXHIBIT B
FEE SCHEDULE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION
SURFACE WATER RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS (PHASE I).
AMENDMENT NO. 1
For invoicing purposes, a summary of fees by task is provided below. The Consultant will invoice the
County monthly on a time and materials basis for costs incurred during the billing cycle.
Task 1
Review of AWSMP
$ 0
Task 2
ID of and Coordination with Key Stakeholders
$ 2,160
Task 3
Feasibility Analysis
$ 10,350
Task 4
Funding Assistance SIRWMD
$ 0
Task 5
Meetings
$ 2,240
Task 6
PM/QC
$ 0
Labor Subtotal
$ 14,750
Other Direct Costs
$ 0
Total
$ 14,750
B-1
jj1657_Ltrwhh Exhibits
EXHIBIT A
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION - SURFACE WATER
RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE 2
May 14, 2015
This Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and become part of the Continuing Contract
Agreement for Professional Services between the Indian River County Department of Utility Services
(OWNER), and CDM Smith Inc. (CONSULTANT), dated December 6, 2011, and the Extension and
Amendment of Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services, dated November 4, 2014,
hereafter referred to as the Contract.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In April 2014, (OWNER) authorized CONSULTANT to perform Phase 1 of the Surface Water Reservoir
Feasibility Study. The final draft of that evaluation was completed in early December 2014, and is
currently under review by the OWNER and stakeholders. At the January 20, 2015 Indian River Board of
County Commissioners (Board) meeting, the Board directed staff to develop the scope of services for
Phase 2, which includes data collection and stormwater modeling to determine the quantity of water
available in the surface water network within the Sebastian River Improvement District (SRID). The Study
Area is shown in Figure 1. The following is the detailed scope of services for Phase 2.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1- DATA COLLECTION, COMPILATION AND EVALUATION
Subtask 1.1— Model Data Compilation and Review
To support the modeling efforts, the CONSULTANT will compile existing data on the canals (L, C, D and
Bypass), the downstream location (just south of County Road 512 Bridge) where all 3 canals merge as
well as the larger contributing watershed area. Data to be compiled are defined below:
1. The CONSULTANT will prepare a data request to SRID requesting, but not limited to:
a. Available measured rainfall, stage and high water mark data for the SRID.
b. Existing pumping/discharge records for the SRID.
c. As -built details for the control structures.
d. Existing stage data.
e. Existing groundwater table levels (depth to groundwater).
f. Build -out land use conditions.
The CONSULTANT will review and evaluate these data to determine their applicability to the
development of the surface water model described under Task 3.
Smith
A-1
ATTACHMENT NO.2
jj1646_Exh{bR A.docx
2. The CONSULTANT will compile, review and analyze the following data for its use as it relates to
stormwater model development described under Task 3.
a. Topographic data (1 -foot contour) for the study area.
b. Indian River County future land use data.
c. Hourly rainfall and annual evaporation records for up to three gages available from the
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
d. Available hourly stream flow and stage records for the United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) gage on the Sebastian River.
e. Existing minimum flows and levels (MFLs) determined by St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) for the Sebastian River.
f. Available existing hydrologic or hydraulic (H/H) models (e.g., ICPR, HSPF) for areas
covering, adjacent to, or downstream of the SRID.
g. Indian River County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and digital flood insurance rate maps
(DFIRMs).
Subtask 1.2 — Field Monitoring
The CONSULTANT will collect physical data for each canal (L, C, D and Bypass), as well as at the
downstream location (just south of County Road 512 bridge) where all 3 canals merge. The
CONSULTANT will subcontract with Carter and Associates, Inc. (CAI) who will perform the field
monitoring and collection of survey data to define the geometry for each of the lateral canals (one
cross-section at each of the four canals). CAI will also collect continuous stage data at each of the three
outfall structures controlling flow from the lateral canals. Additionally, velocity and elevation data for
Lateral D will also be measured as this is an un -controlled channel. These data will be collected over a
time period of approximately 4 to 6 months (to capture dry and wet season periods). CAI will also collect
rainfall data from a local rain gauge for the same time period. The CONSULTANT will perform
coordination with CAI throughout the monitoring duration. The CONSULTANT will review stage,
velocity, flow and rainfall data collected by CAI to confirm that it meets the thresholds of the monitoring
equipment and that it does not contain anomalies that may affect its validity for subsequent use in
surface water modeling (Task 3). The CONSULTANT will use the measurements (velocities, stages)
collected under Subtask 1.1 to calculate flow at each of the control structures and Lateral D.
Subtask 1.3 - Data Evaluation and Summary
To further support the modeling effort described in Task 3, the CONSULTANT will summarize the
available data provided by the OWNER, obtained from regulatory agencies, or collected in Task 1.1. The
CONSULTANT will evaluate the above data and summarize potential data gaps, recommendation for
data gap resolution, and the data that will be incorporated. The CONSULTANT will prepare a summary of
results in a draft Report Section with supporting graphics and tables which will be provided to the
OWNER for review. Any additional data collection needs will be negotiated under separate cover and
are not included in this Scope of Services or corresponding budget estimate.
TASK 2 - FIELD RECONNAISSANCE/RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The CONSULTANT will supply two personnel to complete a limited one -day field review of the canal
system (specifically in the vicinity of the cross sections/data collection locations) to observe existing
conditions. The CONSULTANT will rely on existing information (Task 1) to the extent possible, but may
use additional observations made at the site to supplement information already documented. The
CONSULTANT will take photographs and document the results of the field review in a draft Report
Section. The OWNER will assist the CONSULTANT, if needed, with obtaining access to the site from SRID
in order to conduct the field review. The CONSULTANT will also set up a teleconference with SJRWMD to
s°miith
A-2
jj1646_Exhibit A.docx
discuss limitations, if any, with reducing long-term flows downstream to the Sebastian River.
TASK 3 - HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC (H/H) EVALUATIONS
Subtask 3.1 - H/H Modeling Approach
The CONSULTANT will use the data obtained in Task 1 and review of existing H/H models developed by
others (previously provided to the CONSULTANT by SRID) to develop a modeling approach to estimate
long-term flows and available water supply volumes within the SRID lateral canals. The approach will
identify specific tools, existing models and available data to be used. This is expected to be use of the
Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) for hydrology (developed by the SJRWMD) coupled
with the hydraulics layer of the US EPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) using hydraulic data
from the Indian River County ICPR model (originally developed by CAI). This anticipated approach is also
consistent with similar with other H/H evaluations performed by the SJRWMD. As part of this task, the
CONSULTANT will also meet with a SRID representative to discuss and confirm the operation of the
existing control structures. The CONSULTANT will summarize this approach in a draft technical
memorandum to be submitted to the OWNER and SJRWMD for review and comment. The CONSULTANT
will address review comments on the modeling approach and submit a final technical memorandum to
the OWNER and SJRWMD prior to initiating the H/H modeling.
Subtask 3.2 - Long Term Continuous Simulation Model
Using the approach documented in Subtask 3.1, the CONSULTANT will develop the H/H model using
HSPF and SWMM as the anticipated modeling software. The CONSULTANT will use information from
H/H models developed by others to develop the long-term continuous simulation model(s). The
CONSULTANT will convert the hydraulic information from the ICPR data so that it is compatible with the
SWMM data input platform. The CONSULTANT will simulate existing stages and flows within the SRID
lateral canals (Laterals L and C) for a time period of up to twenty years (long term continuous
simulation) to define hydrologic performance under typical conditions within the SRID under existing
conditions over a representative period, as recommended by the CONSULTANT. The simulation will also
include the Bypass Canal, which connects to the Lateral L, as well as Lateral D located along the western
edge of the SRID (the latter of which currently is not interconnected with the other SRID laterals).
Subtask 3.3 - Model Validation
The CONSULTANT will use the measurements (velocities, stages) and flow calculations from Subtask 1.1
to compare the results of the H/H simulation in Subtask 3.2 to these measured values for validation
purposes. Based on the results of the comparison, the CONSULTANT will make adjustments, as
necessary, to the model parameters to achieve comparable results.
Subtask 3.4 — Future Land Use Evaluation
The CONSULTANT will apply the validated model developed under Subtask 3.2 for up to one future land
use scenario to determine if future growth and proposed planning in the watershed have an impact on
potential upstream surface water volumes. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the OWNER to
identify any planned upstream alterations to the conveyance of surface waters. Using the validated
model from Subtask 3.2, the CONSULTANT will modify the hydrologic/hydraulic input to reflect future
conditions (i.e., land use, planned alterations to routing of surface waters). As the exact level of detail
may not be available, CONSULTANT will use the best available information to modify the hydraulic
representation in the H/H model based on the planned alterations. Hydrologic modifications to the
model will also be made based on an agreed upon planning horizon with the OWNER. Using the H/H
model results, the CONSULTANT will estimate the quantity of water available in the surface water
Smith A-3
jj1646_Exhihit A.docx
network for the future land use scenario.
Subtask 3.5 Statistical Analysis
Using the results of the long-term continuous simulation, the CONSULTANT will perform a limited
statistical analysis on the potential availability of surface water for existing and future. The statistical
analysis will provide information on the potential reliability of available water over a range of values
(e.g., yield with 75 to 100 percent confidence intervals) based on the 20 -year simulation of flow within
the system for both the existing and future land use scenario.
TASK 4 - SUMMARY REPORT
Subtask 4.1— Draft Summary Report
The CONSULTANT will prepare a Summary Report documenting the results of Tasks 1, 2, and 3. This will
also include recommendations on the feasibility of pursuing the next phase based on the volume of
available surface water within the system. The Summary Report will be submitted to the OWNER for
review and comment.
Subtask 4.3 — Final Summary Report
The CONSULTANT will prepare a final Summary Report documenting the results of Tasks 1, 2, and 3 and
addressed comments provided by both the OWNER and stakeholders (Task 5). Upon receipt of
comments, CONSULTANT will finalize the report and deliver a digital (pdf) copy of the final report.
TASK 5 — STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
It is anticipated that there will be coordination with stakeholders regarding the review of the Summary
Report. The CONSULTANT has budgeted for up to 3 stakeholder meetings (specifically with St. Johns
River Water Management District, the Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Agricultural
Advisory Committee) to discuss findings and answer questions. The CONSULTANT will also document the
anticipated response to comments submitted by the additional stakeholders identified in Appendix B of
the Phase 1 Summary Report.
TASK 6 - PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT/MEETINGS
Activities performed under this task consist of those general functions required to maintain the project
on schedule, within budget, and that the quality of the work products defined within this scope is
consistent with CONSULTANT's standards and OWNER's expectations. Specific activities included are
identified below:
Subtask 6.1 - Project Kickoff and Progress Meetings
CONSULTANT will prepare for and conduct a kick-off meeting for the project. The CONSULTANT will
attend 12 monthly progress meetings during the estimated 12 -month project duration. The
CONSULTANT will prepare and distribute a bullet point summary of each meeting as appropriate. The
CONSULTANT will also provide bi-weekly reports to the OWNER project manager that briefly summarize
work progress and issues encountered to date on the project. This task also includes internal team
meetings.
Smith
A-4
jj1646_Exhibit A.docx
Subtask 6.2 - Quality Technical Review
CONSULTANT maintains a quality management system program on all of its projects. An internal project
planning and scope review session will be conducted at the start of the project. This action is required
by CONSULTANT's quality management system guidelines. Technical Review meetings are budgeted for
and will be performed to review various milestone submittals.
DELIVERABLES
• Draft Summary Report Section summarizing data collected under Task 1 including a summary of
data gaps and recommendations.
• Draft Summary Report Section summarizing site conditions and limitations, if any, on decreasing
flows to the Sebastian River under Task 2.0.
• Technical Memorandum summarizing modeling approach under Subtask 3.1.
• Summary Report (draft and final) summarizing data collection efforts, modeling approach and
results, as well as recommendations for next steps.
ASSUMPTIONS
• The H/H modeling performed under this scope of work will determine if there is sufficient
surface water available (potential yield) for the SRID needs, Sebastian River MFLs and potable
water supply purposes.
• The firm yield for water supply purposes would be determined in a future phase of work
examining surface water availability over time, the volume of the reservoir, climatological
factors, water demand and reservoir operations.
DATA TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER/OTHERS
• Available stage and velocity data.
• Available survey data for canals and control structures.
• Other data from SRID as requested in Subtask 1.1.
PAYMENT AND COMPENSATION
TBD (to become Exhibit B in Final Version)
PROJECT SCHEDULE (to become Exhibit C in Final Version)
The following project schedule has been developed based on approval of this Task Order is received on
or before
Task and Description
Task 1— Data Collection, Compilation and Evaluation
Task 2 — Field Reconnaissance/Resource Assessment
Task 3 — Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) Evaluations
Task 4 — Summary Report
Task 5— Stakeholder Coordination
Task 6 - Project Quality Management/Meetings
smith
A-5
Estimated Time of Completion
(calendar days)
180 days from NTP
60 days from NTP
120 days from receipt of data in
Subtask 1.1
300 days from NTP
330 days from NTP
365 days from NTP
jj1646_Exhibit A.docx
ALTERNATE TASK — WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (not budgeted)
As part of the overall feasibility analysis, the OWNER may consider collection of water quality data
during this phase or in a future phase. Under this task, the CONSULTANT will collect and evaluate the
following data:
a. One water quality grab sample at each of the four cross section locations (at surface,
mid -water column depth and bottom) to be analyzed for:
Primary Drinking Water Standards
Secondary Drinking Water Standards
Section 62-550.513, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Table 1 (metals)
Section 62-550.513, FAC, Table 5 (pesticides)
Section 62-550.515, FAC, Table 4 (volatile organic compounds)
Section 62-550.520, FAC, Table 6 (inorganics)
Alkalinity
Bromide
Dissolved organic carbon
Hardness
Total organic carbon
Total suspended solids
Field Parameters: DO, pH, turbidity, conductivity, temperature
The CONSULTANT will review and evaluate the collected data as it relates to source water treatment
requirements. The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the results and
conclusions related to water quality treatment requirements for potable use. This task is currently not
budgeted.
smith
A-6
jj1646_Exhibit A.docx
EXHIBIT B
FEE SCHEDULE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION
SURFACE WATER RESERVOIR FEASBILITY ANALYSIS (PHASE II)
For invoicing purposes, a summary of fees by task is provided below. The CONSULTANT will invoice the
OWNER monthly on a time and materials basis for costs incurred during the billing cycle.
Task
Description
Budget
Task 1
Data Collection, Compilation, and Evaluation
$ 20,830
Task 2
Field Reconnaissance/Resource Assessment
$ 7,860
Task 3
Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) and Reservoir
Alternatives Evaluations
$ 83,250
Task 4
Summary Report
$ 24,340
Task 5
Stakeholder Coordination
$ 11,060
Task 6
Project Quality Management
$ 20,400
Labor Dollars Subtotal
$ 167,740
ODCs
$ 2,500
Outside Prof (Carter & Associates, Inc.)
$ 27,250
Total
$ 197,490
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COST BUILDUP
Thursday, May 14, 2015
O.
O
$ 20,830
$
OCo
CO
1�
0n
N
M
Co
ill
0
Co
N
R
N
an.
COO
O
ri
ri
•n
O
C
O
N
411.
$ 167,740 I
00)
0
u)
N
N
Ln O�
N
N
N
tn.
a
n
O)
N
trl-
Description
Data Collection, Compilation, and Evaluation
Field Reconnaissance/Resource Assessment
Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) and Reservoir
Alternatives Evaluations
Summary Report
Stakeholder Coordination
Project Quality Management
Labor dollars Subtotal
U
0
VI
N
n
N
+n
0
IA
N
h
N
44
U
0
O
O
0
O
N
14
F
ITask 1
O
Co
N
N
O
Co
CO
Vf
'Task 4 I
!Task 5 I
to
O
O
Co
N
Y
N
O
Co
N
N
O
M
N
VT
O
0
to
N
N
O
0
Co
rsi.
N
O
.0
J
0
Co
CO
O
N
H
$ 9,250
$ 5,080
0
0
u)
US
l/}
0
1.0
co
1�
41
0
Co
N
M '
CO
V1
0
CO
N
Ol
(n
$ 40,740I
0
N
Co
1�
V}
0
Co
1�
t0
r-1
in
$ 8,350
0
V0
M
V
N
VTtn.
0
0
t0
.--1
$ 8,340
0
t0
0
ri
ri
V1
0
O
Cl.
O
N
41
0
00
u)
ri
in
P.
0
x
00
In N
N
N
Co
M
0
Co
Co
N
N
0
N
Co
m
Co
N
N
N
to
0
Co
CO
si
N
Co
CO
n
0
.N -N
Co
N
N3
c
E
ozsa
ul
03
th
ex,
N
N
V
a
to
1
0
0
0
N
H
CO
CO
CO
4
N
0
N
v
44
Professional I
O�
L-1
in
N
N
0
C
CO
,:tm
N
242
VD
N
0
LAN
N
LO
401
20
52
36
LO
N
b
H
O
'4
NO
M
N
N
Co
1n
Professional II
$ 130
H
N
241
260
M
N
N
N
in
N
72
48
24
M
241
N
a
$ 55,3801
a
'u
C
•C
ain
ry
M
0
00
N
0
,,
r-1-1
N
r1
1)1
N
.Ny
Li,
~
CO
a
cir
M
0
M
t0
u)
Co
an.
CI
(6
u
0
N
Q
00
N
M.
N
O
O
N
N
°
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
CO
N
M
00
N
P
N
Sr. Officer
0
N
N
in
0
0
0
0
0
N
O
N
0
0
0
V
N
Ni
O
CO
Co
0
CO
S
M
1/1
Data Collection, Compilation, and Evaluation
Model Data Compilation and Review
Field Monitoring
Data Evaluation & Summary
Field Reconnaissance/Resource Assessment
Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) and Reservoir
Alternatives Evaluations
Modeling Approach
Long Term Continuous Simulation Mode
Model Validation
Future Land Use Evaluation
Statistical Analysis
Summary Report
Draft Summary Report
Final Summary Report
Stakeholder Coordination
Project Quality Management/Meetings
(Hours Subtotal
Labor dollars Subtotal - -
IODCs
Total
ITask 1
ci
.-i
Y
N
o3
to
ISubtask 1.2
ISubtask 1.3 I
ITask 2
Task 3
ISubtask 3.1 1
ISubtask 3.2
ISubtask 3.3
ISubtask 3.4
ISubtask 3.5
Task 4
ISutask 4.1
ISutask 4.2
ITask 5
Task 6
Budget
$ 20,830
$
OCo
CO
1�
0n
N
M
Co
ill
24,340 I
COO
O
ri
ri
•n
O
C
O
N
411.
$ 167,740 I
00)
0
u)
N
N
Ln O�
N
N
N
tn.
a
n
O)
N
trl-
Description
Data Collection, Compilation, and Evaluation
Field Reconnaissance/Resource Assessment
Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) and Reservoir
Alternatives Evaluations
Summary Report
Stakeholder Coordination
Project Quality Management
Labor dollars Subtotal
U
IOutside Prof (Carter & Associates, Inc.) I
N
O
0
F
ITask 1
ITask 2
Task 3
'Task 4 I
!Task 5 I
to
Y
N
Y
N
0l
3/17/2015 4:4
Gated
ructure
3,000 6,000
Feet
Legend
SRID
SRID Canals
SRID Structures
Interstates
Major Highways
Major Roads
Lakes
Intercoastal Waterbodies
Rivers, Creeks, and Canals
Wetlands, Marshes, and Swamps
Brevard
Indian Ri
Okeechobee
St. Luci
CDM
Indian River County
Alternative Water Supply Evaluation
Surface Water Reservoir
Feasibility Analysis (Phase II)
Figure 1
Project Area