Full Text
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT For Russell Street/South 3rd Environmental Impact Statement Project STPU and BR 8105(8); CN 4128 This Amendment has been prepared to supplement the tasks originally outlined by HKM Engineering Inc. (DOWL HKM) in our Scope of Services dated July 14, 2006. This supplement is necessary to update the air quality analyses to conform to current EPA and FHWA requirements. This modification will extend the contract schedule to October 2010. A new activity is outlined in the sections below. Any variation from the Activity, Tasks, and sub- tasks outlined in this Amendment will be considered out-of-scope and subject to further contract modification. I Understanding of Scope DOWL HKM is currently providing services to the City of Missoula (City) under our original Scope (dated July 14, 2006), the Professional Engineering Services Agreement (dated August 4, 2006), Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, and Amendment No. 5. Bison Engineering, a subconsultant to DOWL HKM, will perform the air quality conformity analyses (see attached subconsultant scope of services). This Amendment is intended to augment MDT Activity 198 as outlined below. II Project Tasks The following DOWL HKM Activity is numbered in keeping with those set up in the original Scope of Services for this project. Tasks within the Activities are numbered according to the current MDT Consultant Design procedures as of the date of this Amendment. Activity 4.0 – Environmental Documentation 4.5 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (MDT 198) DOWL HKM subconsultant Bison Engineering will conduct carbon monoxide (CO) air quality conformity analysis through CO hot spot modeling associated with proposed traffic modifications along Russell Street and South 3rd Street. See attached Scope and Cost from Bison Engineering. (MDT Activity 180) ---PAGE BREAK--- AMENDMENT NO. 6 RUSSELL STREET SOUTH 3RD STREET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT III Cost Estimate DOWL HKM proposes to complete the Air Quality Conformity Analysis with a contract Amendment amount as outlined in attached Final Cost Summary. The overall contract value with DOWL HKM is as follows: Original Contract Amount: $ 368,633.81 Amendment No. 1 00.00 Amendment No. 2 31,008.00 Amendment No. 3 178,166.25 Amendment No. 4 Amendment No. 5 Amendment No. 6 186,156.00 4,610.00 9,698.00 Amended Contract Value: $778,272.06 IV Schedule The City of Missoula, MDT, FHWA, and DOWL HKM have all committed to making this project a priority for completion in the most expeditious manner possible. The attached schedule outlines a process for the completion, review, and approval of the air quality conformance documentation and Final EIS documents, and a Record of Decision (ROD) within a 9 month period from start of the air quality conformance analysis. This revised schedule is consistent with MDT’s current Consultant Design flowchart, and with the task durations as collaboratively developed by the City/MDT/FHWA and DOWL HKM Project Team. This Amendment will extend the overall contract completion date to the end of October 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- AMENDMENT NO. 6 RUSSELL STREET SOUTH 3RD STREET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Engineer: DOWL HKM 104 East Broadway Helena, MT 59601 Date: Karen B. Fagg, Vice President Date: Gary Simonich, Western Region Manager Owner: City of Missoula Missoula City Hall 435 Ryman Street Missoula, MT 59802 Date: John Engen, Mayor Date: Martha L. Rehbein, City Clerk Approved as to form: Date: Jim Nugent, City Attorney ---PAGE BREAK--- ;J>~BISON ENGINEERING, INC. January 28, 2010 Phil Odegard DOWL HKM 104 East Broadway, Suite G-1 Helena, MT 59601 1400 11''' AVENUE • HELENA, MT 59601 • [PHONE REDACTED] FAX: 406~449¥6653 • E-MAIl: [EMAIL REDACTED] • INWw.bison-eng.com Dear Mr. Odegard: Re: Russell'St. I South 3'd Improvements Project - Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Modeling Analysis for Conformity Determination Bison Engineering, Inc. (Bison) has been requested by Gallatin Public Affairs to help provide environmental compliance guidance and analyses associated with proposed traffic modifications along Russell Street and South 3'd Street in Missoula, Montana'. Discussions among regulatory stakeholders have resulted in a consensus that modeling analysis is required to quantify ambient carbon monoxide (CO) concentration impacts associated with the project. This hotspot analysis is needed to support an updated regulatory conformance demonstration and to provide current input for a draft Environmental Impact Statement. Following is a discussion of tasks required to conduct the analysis and estimated costs. In the following discussion, the project is divided into four phases for purposes of planning and estimating: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Scoping and Planning Estimating Emissions Concentration Impacts Modeling Project Management and Reporting Phase I: Scoping and Planning Before beginning the modeling analysis, it is necessary to determine relevant requirements and project parameters. Much of this work has been completed. A review of applicable regulations and updated project status, combined with multiple discussions among participating agencies and organizations, has led to a consensus that a CO hot spot analysis via modeling is required for a complete conformity demonstration. It has also been determined that a qualitative hot spot analysis is required to demonstrate conformity for PM1Q. This document will not address the PM1Q analysis. An Employee Owned Company ---PAGE BREAK--- The first step in the modeling analysis is to identify first-level project parameters such as the time periods and locations to be modeled. The following impact periods and locations have been selected with guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).' • Analysis period: Year of expected completion, to be provided by appropriate project member. • Analysis location: Single intersection impacted by the project and determined by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and/or project designer to have the highest traffic volumes during the year of project completion. Bison has expended significant time on initial project review, coordination, and project planning and scoping. The proposed charge for this phase is no more than 33 hours ($3,551 Phase II: Estimating Emissions Emissions of CO from traffic at the target times and locations will be estimated using the EPA model Mobile 6.2 (accessed via the interface program EMIT). Following guidance provided by FHWA, inputs to this model will be taken primarily from the 2008 Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and from the 2000 Missoula, Montana, Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory. Where available and appropriate, national default inputs will also be used. The proposed charge for this phase is no more than 16 hours ($1,515). Phase III: Concentration Impacts Modeling Emission rates estimated in the previous phase will be used, along with other model inputs, to determine peak ambient CO concentrations using the model CAL3QHC, accessed via CAL3lnterface. Peak modeled concentrations, which will include estimated background concentrations, will be compared against the 8-hour average CO Montana/National Ambient Air Quality Standards (M/NAAQS) for a conformity determination. Alternately, the conformity demonstration rnay be made by modeling and comparing existing and projected impacts. Conformity would be demonstrated if ambient concentration irnpacts at the modeled intersection do not increase from the baseline to projected scenarios. Following guidance provided by FHWA, inputs to this model will be taken from the LRTP and, as appropriate, national default inputs. The model will be run using default worst- case meteorological parameters. After generating initial model results, Bison will informally report to all relevant project team members and request cornments. Assuming comments are limited, Bison will then make the indicated changes to model inputs and repeat the rnodeling analyses once as needed. If comments are extensive or more than one analysis iteration is needed, Bison will discuss the need for and extent of 1 Refer to 12/29/2009 email from Jeff Houk to Lloyd Rue, attached. ---PAGE BREAK--- a scope and budget change with appropriate project management personnel. The proposed charge for this phase is no more than 27 hours ($2,595). Phase IV: Project Management and Reporting This phase consists primarily of team coordination and report preparation. Coordination will include requests for model inputs, progress updates, and requests for interim reviews. Bison will prepare an interim, informal report of results and input values for team review and approval. This report will be distributed electronically. A final report will include detailed model inputs and outputs along with a brief discussion of each. Hard copies of the final report, approximately 30 pages or less, will be distributed to team members as requested by the appropriate project manager(s). Electronic copies of model input and output files can also be provided as requested, either via email or CD. The proposed charge for this phase is no more than 20 hours ($1,967). Summary Objective: For proposed modifications to Russell Street and South 3rd Avenue in Missoula, Montana, evaluate impacts to ambient carbon monoxide concentrations using approved emissions and dispersion models. Deliverable Items: • Interim informal report of inputs and results - electronic format and distribution. • Final report of inputs and results - hardcopy format and distribution with additional electronic copies provided as requested. Model Input Assumptions: • Model single worst-case year and intersection. • Derive model inputs from the Missoula LRTP and guideline default values. Project Hours and Cost Summary Phase Hours Cost Phase I Scopinq and Planninq 33 $3,551 Phase II Estimatinq Emissions 16 $1,515 Phase III Concentration Impacts Modelinq 27 $2,595 Phase IV Proiect Manaqement and Reportinq 20 $1,967 Reimbursable Expenses $70 Total 96 $9,698 ---PAGE BREAK--- A breakdown of hours and costs associated with specific job classifications for each task is included with this letter. The estimated time required to complete the project is between three and six weeks. Sincerely, BISON ENGINEERING, INC. .L (Y1 Kevin M. Mathews Project Engineer Enclosures: Jeff Houk, FHWA, modeling guidance e-mail Detailed budget ---PAGE BREAK--- Russell S1. S 3rd Project co Hot Spot Modeling Budget Bison Engineering, Inc. Hours Budget $ Bid $ LABOR CODE PE3 PE1 SE1 I OFC by by by BILLING RATE $32 $26 $21 I $19 PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE Scoping & Planning 18 15 0 0 33 $966 $3,551 Emissions Estimating 1 13 2 0 16 $412 $1,515 Modeling 4 19 4 0 27 $706 $2,595 PM and Reporting 6 11 0 3 20 $535 $1,967 TOTAL HOURS 29 58 6 3 96 LABOR BUDGET B4 FARJOH $928 $1,508 $126 $57 $2,619 FAR/Overhead 228.24% $5,978 TOTAL LABOR BUDGET $8,597 Expense $70 Mark-up 1 TOTAL EXPENSES $70 Subtotal of Labor & Expenses $8,667 Fixed Fee Profit at 12% of Direct Labor $1,032 TOTAL BUDGET $9,698 PHITASK CODE PE3 PE1 SE1 OFC Hrs Scoping & Planning $32 $26 $21 $19 SubTotal Budget $ Bid $ 01 ItoPlng & I 1~1 W I ij HI $966 I $3,553 I otal Hours or Phase 0 0 Total Billing Amount for Phase $576 $390 $0 $0 $966 $3,551 January 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Russell Sf. S 3rd Project CO Hot Spot Modeling Budget Bison Engineering, Inc. CODE PE3 Emissions Estimating $32 01 Gather & enter model in uts 02 Execute & analyze model Total Hours for Phase Total Billing Amount for Phase PE1 $26 8 5 13 $338 SE1 OFC Hrs $21 $19 SubTotal Budget $ Bid $ ~ ~ 1~1 $250 I $919 $596 $162 2 0 16 $42 $0 $412 $1.515 $2,595 Bid $ $706 27 o $0 4 $84 SE1 OFC Hrn $21 $19 SubTotal Budget $ 19 $494 PE1 $26 4 $128 CODE PE3 $32 ~ G~ather & enter model inputs 2 8 4 14 $356 $1.309 Prepare interim report & coordinate 3 3 $78 $287 Execute & analyze model 2 8 10 $272 $1,286 - Total Hours for Phase Total Billing Amount for Phase Concentration Modeting 01 02 03 CODE PE3 SE1 OFC PM & Reporting $32 $21 $19 Budget $ Bid $ 01 Coordination with project team 2 $142 $522 02 Report preparation 4 $393 $1,445 Total Hours for Phase 6 0 Total Billing Amount for Phase $192 $0 $57 $535 $1,967 January 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Russell St. S 3rd Project CO Hot Spot Modeling Budget Bison Engineering, Inc. $70 COST TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENSES Subcontract Labor $0 Miles Veh Cost Ticket $ # Tickets Airfare Travel $ - $ - $0 # of Days People Rate Lodging 125 $0 Per Diem (Meals) 44 $0 Blueprints/Graphics $0 Long Distance Telephone/Faxes $0 Postaoe/ShippinglDelivery $30 Reproduction-Copies $40 Data Acquisition $0 Legal/Public Notice $0 Permit Application Fees $0 Misc. Expenses (List Below) $0 $0 RE_Reimbursable Expenses 01 02 02 03 04 05 06 07 11 12 15 14 14 14 January 28,2010 Page 3 of6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Russell 51. 5 3rd Project co Hot Spot Modeling Budget Bison Engineering, Inc. Current Billing Rates CODE ET2 EVP OFC PE1 PE2 PE3 PRE SE1 SE2 SE3 SET VPF Rate $ 18.00 $ 50.00 $ 19.00 $ 26.00 $ 29.00 $ 32.00 $ 51.00 $ 21.00 $ 23.00 $ 25.00 $ 23.00 $ 33.00 Title Envir Tech 2 EVP Office Coor Proj 1 Proj 2 Proj 3 President Staff 1 Staff 2 Staff 3 Sr. Env Tech Treasurer January 28,2010 Page 4 of 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- From: [EMAIL REDACTED] [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:53 AM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Lloyd, Miki; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Bison Air Quality Scope I looked over the scope yesterday and have some observations and comments: Analysis years: The conformity regulations require CO hotspot analyses to address the "year of peak emissions." This is the year in which vehicle emissions and background concentrations are expected to be highest. To determine what year this is, look at the most recent conformity determination and/or the CO maintenance plan for Missoula. (The most recent conformity determination found that 2010 is the year with highest emissions. followed by 2015.) If the maintenance plan includes a similar finding. then 2010 would be the analysis year (or if the project won't be complete in 2010, the first year the completed project is open to traffic would be the analysis year). 2025 and 2035 are not necessary as analysis years to meet the conformity requirements. Analysis locations: Four intersections are listed. I don't know what the projected LOS of these intersections is, but the conformity rule only requires analysis of intersections that are at LOS C or worse, or will change to LOS C or worse as a result of the project. So depending on the LOS, you may not need to model all four of these. Also, as a streamlining step, I suggest ranking the intersections by total volume and starting with the highest volume intersection first. If this intersection does not show violations of the standard, then the iower volume intersections would not need to be modeled. (If it does, then you would model the next highest-volume intersection, and so on.) Likewise, I recommend modeling the "build" scenario first. If the build scenario does not show violations of the CO standard, then you are not required to model no-build for conformity. MOBILE6.2/EMIT model inputs: There is no need to conduct research to gather data for all these inputs. The inputs used in the recent regional transportation plan conformity analysis should be sufficient, unless you have knowledge that something has changed in the last year. The conformity analysis includes a table of all the relevant inputs. There is no need to gather new registration data, diesel fractions, etc., because these are parameters that will not change between the build and no-build scenarios for the project. Where the regional conformity analysis used national defaulls for a parameter, this analysis should also use national defaulls. With respect to temperatures. the conformity rule requires hotspot analyses to use temperatures consistent with the regional conformity analysis. Under this approach, I don't see that gathering the necessary input data would take more than a day or so. EMIT modeling: I recommend running EMIT to generate a speed lookup table of CO emissions factors in 1 mph increments, plus idle emissions. This will give you the information you need to perform dispersion modeling for any of the intersections. The EMIT interface has the option to model all components of CO emissions, or the highway components ("highway" does not include engine start emissions, while "all" does include these emissions). EPA's guidance recommendation is to use only the highway component in CO hotspot modeling. The time allotted for model execution and analysis seems too pessimistic. We have students install and run this model as a class exercise in our project-level analysis training course, and it typically takes no more than an hour. The model itself runs in about 30 seconds on my laptop once the inputs are completed. Modeling concentrations: this may be the intent, but rather than running the native version of CAL30HC, I recommend using FHWA's CAL3lnterface, which, like EMIT, is a Windows interface for the model. Use of the CAL31nterface is much easier and faster than setting up native CAL30HC in DOS. Met data: there is no need to gather and use 5 years of met data. The conformity test is only to show that 1) the build scenario does not violate the NAAOS, or 2) if it does, that buiid is better than no-build. ---PAGE BREAK--- You can reach the same conclusions using the EPA-recommended worst case met inputs built into the CAL3lnterface. As with EMIT, the time allotted for running the dispersion model is too pessimistic. This is something else we do in less than an hour (per intersection) in our project-level training class. Let me know if you have any questions, Jeff