HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-80 RESOLUTION-mamtra"Cmilmisnms
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN CONTRACT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
INSTITUTE FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY'S WASTE
WATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with Comprehensive Planning
Institute for the preparation of an environmental impact
statement in connection with
improvement program. A copy
execution hereby is attached
made a part hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS
1920.
the city's waste water treatment
of the contract authorized for
hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and
day of
APPROVED:
MICROFILMED
CERTIFICATE OF RECORD
State of Arkansas
SS
City of Fayetteville ( •
1, Bonnie Goering, City Clerk and Ex -Officio
recorder for the City of Fayetteville, do here-
by certify that the annexed or fore!./oing is
of record in my office and the same ap-
pears in Ordinance & Resolution book
1;17// at page ,ita- Witness mi ay of
hand and seal this
19 d
City Clerk and Ex -Officio Race
glitAa
mIrepli! IFICrj:171
•
•
.. •
CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE A '
; "PIGGYBACK" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 201 PROJECT
Th.ts conttact i4 ?Sanded in pant by a gtant .6kom the U. S. EnvitonmentaZ
PutectLon Agency. Thifs cont/tact i25 /Subject to tegutation6 contained
in 40 CFR 35, Subchapten B. Neithek the United State is not the U. S.
Enviammenta Putection Agency AIA a patty to thids conttact.
This contract is entered into on this, 01,.€,//sr day of May, 1980 between
the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS (The CITY), and the COMPREHENSIVE
P LANNING INSTITUTE (CPI), Dallas, Texas as its Consultant to assist
the CITY in preparing a "Piggyback" EIS which will permit the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, to complete the
preparation of a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Fayetteville 201 Project (Project No. C-050366-01) under Step I
of the Construction Grant Program of the Federal Water. Pollution
Control Act of 1972, as Amended.
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CPI agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional Services in
conformance with the following descriptions, definitions, terms and
conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES
The basic services will include the preparation of a Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with scope of services
described in a report prepared by CPI entitled "Scope of Work For
The Development of a Piggyback EIS for the Fayetteville 201 Pro]ect",
dated May, 1980, and incorporated herein by reference and marked as
Appendix A. The report was presented to the CITY in April, 1980 and
t o the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in May, 1980. The scope
o f work report was reviewed both by the CITY and the EPA, and a
decision to implement the scope of work was made by the CITY with
concurrence of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency on May 6, 1980.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
All.work performed by the CPI which is either described in this para-
graph or not included in the Basic Services defined above, shall con-
stitute Additional Services. These will include:
-1•1•1
Page 1 of 4
--"a•••••:•—
i!
• 0c
• ; ;
•
•
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than CPI's or the CITY'S
offices, project site and other points or places of data and
information gathering normally required for the preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
twenty-five (25) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4 Other services not otherwise included in this contract or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning, engineering and architectural practices.
II. COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to pay the CPI for above described services in accor-
dance with the following descriptions, definitions, terms and con-
ditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation for the scope of services described
in Section I of this contract is estimated not to exceed $160,222.00,
including a maximum fixed -fee profit of $18,947.00. A breakdown ,
of this compensation is as follows:
Direct Cost -- Personnel
Overhead, including employee
fringe benefits
Other Direct Costs (travel, printing,
long distance telephone)
$ 72,032.13
54,727.60
14,465.00
Profit (fixed fee) 18,946.64
Total
$ 160,171.37
A breakdown of the above compensation by participating subcontract
consultants is as follows:
Comprehensive Planning Institute
Environmental Scientists, Inc.
Environmental Engineers, Inc.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey,
"-University of Arkansas
Ragsdale & Associates, Inc.
Total
$ 68,456.37
36,507.36
20,561.17
12,029.73
22,616.74
160,171.37
Page 2 of 4
e, • A
The compensation rates for personnel, overhead, travel, arid fixed
fee profit for the CPI and its subcontract consultants are included
in Appendix B which is made a part of this Contract.
III. PAYMENTS
The CPI will collect invoices from the subcontract consultants and
will invoice the CITY monthly in amounts based on CPI's estimate of
the portion of the Basic Services completed. The CITY agrees to
promptly pay the CPI at its office in Dallas County, Texas, the full
amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month
will be added to the unpaid balance of invoices not paid within 30
days after date of invoice. The CPI will disburse payments to each
subcontract consultant according to the terms and conditions of each
subcontract agreement reached between the CPI and the individual
subcontract consultant.
IV. INSURANCE AND
LIABILITY LIMITATION
The CPI agrees to maintain or to cause to be maintained workmen's
compensation insurance to cover all of its own personnel and other
subcontract personnel engaged in performing services for the CITY
under this Contract. The CPI also agrees to maintain public
liability insurance covering claims against CPI or other subcontract
consultants for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or
property damage from accidents arising in the course of services
performed under this Contract. Said insurance shall be in an amount sat-
isfactorY to the CITY. CPI shall file certification of insurance with the CITY
within ten (10) days after execution of their contract.
V. TERMINATION
This Contract may be termihated without cause at any time prior to
completion of the CPI's services either by CITY or by CPI, upon seven
(7) days notice to the other at the address of record. Termination
shall release each party from all obligations of this Contract, except
as specified in the paragraph below.
On termination, by either the City or the CPI, the CITY shall pay the
CPI and its subcontract consultants with respect to Basic Services
which have been completed an amount fixed in proportion to the work
completed and CPI shall deliver to the CITY 25 copies of all
completed and uncompleted reports, studies, maps and data compiled
by CPI or its subcontractors under this agreement.
•
dm -
Page 3 of 4
•
•
VI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The CITY and the CPI each binds itself, and their successors, executors,
administrators and assigns •to the other party of this Contract and
to the successors, executors, administrators and assigns of such
other party in respect to all covenants of this Contract. Neither the
CITY nor the CPI shall assign, sublet, or transfer its interest in
this contract without the written consent of the other. Nothing here-
in shall be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to
anyone other than the CITY and the CPI.
VII. SPECIAL PROVISION
Additional services shall be performed only upon written authorization
of the City of Fayetteville and the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY. Appendix C-1 is made a part of this Contract.
VIII. INVALIDATION
If this Contract is not executed by the CITY within ten (10) days
of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless the CPI extends
the time in writing.
IX. MODIFICATIONS
No one has authority to make variations in, or additions to the terms
of this Contract on behalf of the CPI other than one of its Officers,
and then only in writing signed by that authorized officer.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
By:
n Todd,
AtteSt:
•
aen.4.1.4,
t.27, /2.0pb
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
By:
Khan M Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE: ILL -C1 2),
Page 4 of 4
/
CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TOnPRERARE:A
"PIGGYBACK" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:FOR
, THE CITY:OFTAYETTEVILLE:20I PROJECT
ThiS conttactais.jianded.in pakt by:&ghantAtop,the Envitonmentat
Ptbftection Agency, rTh4(*conttact AA Subject to tegulation4 contained
in 40 CFR 35, Sabchaptet16,-5Neithek the United Staie4 not. the U. S.
Envaonmentat. Putection Agency is a patty to thiA conttact
This contract is entered into on this day of May, 1980.between
the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS (The CITY), and the COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING INSTITUTE (CPI), Dallas, Texas as its Consultant to assist
the'CITY,in preparing a "Piggyback" EIS which will permit the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, to complete the
preparation of a Draft and Final EnO,ronmental Impact Statement for
the Fayetteville 201 Project CP.rolettb7Nor47C7050366"-01)—uriderStep-aN
bf:the COnetructibii;>GrahttprpgarritgfiliF-fgde'ral''''.-WateiT:PoklutiOn
qszfecifiti'761-4-Act-bf 1972, as Amended.
_
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CPI agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional Services in
conformance with the following descriptions, definitions, terms and
conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES'
The basic services will include the preparation of a Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with scope of services
described in a report prepared by CPIentitled "Sdape of Work For
The Development of a'Piggyback EIS for the Fayetteville 201 Project",
dated May, 1980, and incorporated herein by reference and marked as
Appendix A. The report was presented to the CITY in April, 1980 and
to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in May, 1980. The scope
of work report was reviewed both,by the CITY,and the EPA, and a
decision to implement the scope of work was made by the CITYwith
concurrence of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency on May 6, 1980.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
A1-1 work performed by the CPI. which is either described in this para-
graph or not includedffin the Basic Services defined aboVe, shall con-
stitute Additional Services. These *will include:
Page 1 of 4
••••-•
tt-
1
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than CPI's or the CITY'S
offices, project site and other points or places of data and
information gathering normally required for the preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
twenty-five (25) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this contract or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning, engineering and architectural practices.
II. COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to pay the CPI for above described services in accor-
dance with the following descriptions, definitions, terms and con-
ditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation for the scope of services described
in Section I of this contract is estimated not to exceed $160,222.00,
including a maximum fixed -fee profit of $18,947.00. A breakdown
of this compensation is as follows:
. _
Direct Cost -- Personnel $ \72,032.13)
Overhead, including employee
-
fringe benefits . 54,727760
Other Direct Costs (travel, printing,
long distance telephone)
Profit (fixed fee)
Total
•465
$ -160,171-.37
A breakdown of the above compensation by participating subcontract
consultants is as follows:
Comprehensive Planning Institute
Environmental Scientists, Inc.
Environmental Engineers, Inc.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey,
University of Arkansas
Ragsdale & Associates, Inc.
Total
k 68,456.37
,36,507_.36
20,561.-1:7-42,
12,029.73
_
22,616.74
„
$ 160,171.1.3-7
Page 2 of 4
:
The compensation rates for personnel, overhead, travel, and fixed -
fee profit for the CPI and its subcontract consultants are included
in Appendix B which is made a part of this Contract.
III. PAYMENTS
The CPI will collect invoices from the subcontract consultants and
will invoice the CITY monthly in amounts based on CPI's estimate of
the portion of the Basic Services completed. The CITY agrees to
promptly pay the CPI at its office in Dallas County, Texas, the full
amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month
will be added to the unpaid balance of invoices not paid within 30
days after date of invoice. The CPI will disburse payments to each
subcontract consultant according to the terms and conditions of each
subcontract agreement reached between the CPI and the individual
subcontract consultant.
IV. INSURANCE AND
LIABILITY LIMITATION
The CPI agrees to maintain or to cause to be maintained workmen's
compensation insurance to cover all of its own personnel and other
subcontract personnel engaged in performing services for the CITY
under this Contract. The CPI also agrees to maintain public
liability insurance covering claims against CPI or other subcontract
consultants for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or
property damage from accidents arising in the course of services
performed under this Contract. Said insurance shall be in an amount sat-
isfactory to the CITY. CPI shall file certification of insurance with the CITY
within ten (10) days after execution of their contract.
V. TERMINATION
This Contract may be terminated without cause at any time prior to
completion of the CPI's services either by CITY or by CPI, upon seven
(7) days notice to the other at the address of record. Termination
shall release each party from all obligations of this Contract, except
as specified in the paragraph below.
On termination, by either the City or the CPI, the CITY shall pay the
CPI and its subcontract consultants with respect to Basic Services
which have been completed an amount fixed in proportion to the work
completed and CPI shall deliver to the CITY 25 copies of 611 4
completed and uncompleted reports, studies, maps and data compiled
by CPI or its subcontractors under this agreement.
Page 3 of 4
u
VI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The CITY and the CPI each binds itself, and their successors, executors,
administrators and assigns to the other party of this Contract.and
to the successors, executors, administrators and assignsrof such
other party in respect to all covenants of this Contract. Neither the
CITY nor the CPI shall assign, sublet, or transfer its interest in
this contract without the written consent of the other. Nothing here-
in shall be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to
anyone other than the CITY and the CPI:
VII. SPECIAL PROVISION
Additional services shall be performed only upon written authorization
of the City of Fayetteville and the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY. Appendix C-1 is made a part of this Contract.
VIII. INVALIDATION
If this Contract is not executed by the CITY within ten (10) days
of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless the CPI extends
the time in writing.
IX. MODIFICATIONS
No one has authority to make variations in, or additions to the terms
of this Contract on behalf of the CPI other than one of its Officers,
and then only in writing signed by that authorized officer.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
By:
DATE:
•
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
/4Ay 21/ c9e0
Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX B
COST SUMMARY FOR CPI (EPA FORM 5700-41)
2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS AND
COST SUMMARIES (EPA FORM 5700-41) FOR
a. Environmental Scientists, Inc.
b. Environmental Engineers, Inc.
c. University of Arkansas, and
d. Ragsdale & Associates, Inc.
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
(See :iceiin4]..invitu'; in..trtictior::: belwe. eon:vic(ina this form)
Form Approve:(1
0.11f3 No. 158-R0144
PART 1 -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
2. GRANT NU BC°
. NAME OF CONTRACTOR GP SUBCONTRACTOR
Comprehensive Planning Institute, Dallas, Texas
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
January.23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTCR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 'include ZIP code)
P. 0. Box 270988
Dallas, Texas 75227
6, TYPE OF SERV CE TO BE FURNISHED
Preparation of a "Piggyback"
Environmental Impact Statement
for the Fayetteville 201
Project
PART II COST SUMMARY
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATEDTOTALS
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE
ESTIMATED
COST
Projart Manager
732
$ 19.23
5 14,076.36
Associate Environmental
,.
Scientists
633
10.10
6, 393 30
Receptionist/Secretarial/Book-
keeping/Clerical
040
6.50
6,760.00
Technician/Grahpics Artist
520
7.75
4,030.00
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
'
$ 31 259 66
S. NDIRECT COSTS (Speci(y indirect cost pools)
RATE
F BASE =
ESTIMATED
COST
Overhead (including employee
0.67531,259.66
$ 20 943.77
fringe benefits)
'0.67
1
..
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
S 20.943.77
9. 0 rP DIRECT COSTS
a. 'RAVEL
ESTIMATED
COST
(1) TRANSPCnTATION Outrof-town,
14 trips @
S300/trip
5 4,200.00
(2) °ER 0!EPA
S
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
•
$ 4 200.00
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories)
QTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
....
• -
Long
Distance
Telephone
180
$10 00
5 _I4800.00,,,
,
Reproduction
--8 interim reports,
handbooks
30 copies per report
8
230.00
1.840.00
EQUIP .ENT SUBTOTAL:
3 • 640.00
C. SUBCONTRACTS
ESTIMATED
COST
Environmental
Scientists,Environmental
s91,715.00
1
ngineers, University of
Arkansas
and
..
Ragsdale
& Associates
)
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
$91,775.00
,,- •
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
ESTIMATED
COST
,-
$
n.
OTHER SUBTOTAL:
•
c. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
4 . .. ..
.
9 9 555 . 00.
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$1511_08-.4,
II. PROFIT
9,412.914
12. TOTAL PRICE
S 160 in •37
t.....:..,,
EPA Form 5700-41 (246)
PAC,
• .C.I4
.•• al M. pemeMIN
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES
11/1clicnre hIPS it. for ;wee romparivonl
mARKET
PP10E:Si
PROPOSED
PRICE
..
a
;:g1
PART IV•CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
= YES ,NO (11 "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
6
1416 .T1115 SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost Plus Fixed -Fee (A-E Accounting Procedures)
IGc. N
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) . .Proposal for EIS
Preparation, dated
•
january 23, 1980 . This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief
(2)
that the
May 6 ,
cost
1980
and
pricing data summarized
and that a financial
herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the finpncial transactions under this project. I further certify
subagreement price may he subject to downward renegotiation and/or rec:ouprnent
pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been
of the date above.
NQ/,csi
that I understand that the
where the above cost and
complete, current and accurate as
i r
60
(3)
DATE OF EXECUTION
Founder
SIGNATURE
and
OF PROPOSER
Director
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15.GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and
acceptable for subagreement award.
the proposed costs/price appear
ATE Or—EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF RAVIE R
clayor - City of FayPtteville
_
ITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER Of applicable)
D.A1E OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
EPA Ecu,, 5700-41 (2-76)
PAGE 2 OF 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENTISTS, INC. as ENGINEER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayette-
ville, Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ENGINEER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptthons, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report.
These assignments are listed against Db Aaron Netzer, Dr. Guy
R. Lanza, Dr. Jerry Crowder, Dr. Ervin J. Fenyves, and Mr. Fred
Little. A narrative description of these tasks is included
in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope of work
report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ENGINEER which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These will include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ENGINEER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ENGINEER for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed .$ 36,507.36,
including a maximum fixed fee profit of $4,483.36. A breakdown of
this amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other
items is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
.g.
III. PAYMENTS: ENGINEER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on ENGINEER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay ENGINEER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV INSURANCE: :ENGINEER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ENGINEER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
ENGINEER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ENGINEER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall ENGINEER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by ENGINEER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by ENGINEER, upon seven (7) days
written notice to the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ENGINEER, CLIENT shall pay ENGINEER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ENGINEER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER
shall assign, sublet, or trasnfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ENGINEER.
Page 2 of 3
.4
VIII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ENGINEER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ENGINEER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
BY: BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder Ervin J. Fenyves, President
and Director
DATE: DATE:
11.‘Page 3 of 3
•
..T
......------
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
(See nocon.panyine instror:tivos beforc rompliginf,1 this (ora)
Form Approved
OMB No. 158-R0144
PART I -GENERAL
I GRANTEE
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
2. GRANT NaMBrR
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
Environmental Scientists
4. OTE OF PROPOSAL
January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Inctude ZIP code)
P. 0. Box 688
Richardons, Texas 75080
b
TYPE OF SERV CE TO SE FURNISHED
Baseline Conditions and
environmental assessment for
aquatic species, air.pollution,
effluent quality, noise and
energy
PART II•COST SUMMARY
7. DIRECT LABOR (Speci(y labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE
ESTIMATED
COST
TOTALS
Sciaatiqts
fl
5 1441001
" .‘
Senior Environmental
_&D
150
2 9 kn. oo
SecretarialiClericaliBookkeeping
_6_._4.0
.
•
. ,_ . ..
i ,
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL
. .
5
15 6110 .11
.
8. INDIRECT COSTS (Specny indirect cost pools) RATE
x BASE =
ESTIMATED
COST
0.3_0
$15 680
L..12._„_5_4.4
Overhead
-
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL
$al.2„544.0
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. TRAVEL
ESTIMATED
COST
.i..
TRANSPORTATION L.S__a_a_aaO
1
(1)
(2) PER DIE
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
S i ono
,
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
distance telephone, 1
5
600
.
Long
reproduction
200
‘,
'
..‘
EQUIP ENT S BTOTAL: I:: 1 ' - . '4
800
.
:
C. SUBCONTRACTS
ESTIMATED
COST
t
T.,
7'
r.:BCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL
.
$
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
ESTIMATE()
COST
''''
$
OTHER SUBTOTAL: &,.
-.,. ,.,
. • .
e• OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: -ccasc-
38 00 . 00
_1
S 32,024
0. TOTAL ESTIMATF.D COST
.00
4
483 36
II. PROFITS
......
s tritni Poirr
36 507 ...
•
E PA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
PAGE 1 OF
Form Approved
OMB No. 1.58-R0144
DATE OF EXECUTION
SIGNATURE Or REVEWEP
TITLE OF REVIE R
E PA Form 5700-41 (246)
PAGE .2 OF 5
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
13.
COMPETITORS CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES
(Indicare basis for price comparison)
MARKET
PRICE(SI
PROPOSED
PRICE
•
riv
3r1
ft
i•
. "
- ..
•ic
—
...
, .s
. • --.
-4-
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14o, HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CEP.TIFIE0 STATE OR LCCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITH;N THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
0 Y ES a] NO (If "Yes" give name address and telephone ntnnher of reviewing office)
44
141, THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A-E Accounting Procedures)
Ac.
This
Professional
proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (II
services dated ETap 93 19 SI)This is to certify
Agreetent for
to the best•of my knowledge
current, and accurate as of
exists to fully and accu-
that I understand that the
where the above cost and
current anri accurate as
and belief
(2)
that the. cost and
May R7 19Rn
pricing data summarized he'rein are complete,
• and that a financial manarzem.ent capability
rately
subagreement
pricing
of the
(3)
account tor the financial
price may be
data have been determined,
date above.
transactions under this project. I further certify
subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment
as a result of audit, not to have been comple,
OF PROPOSER
Environmental
Inc.
DATE OF EXECUTION
SIGNATURE
President,
Scientists,
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15.GRANTEE REVIEWER
certify that I have reviewed
acceptable for subngreement
the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
award,
OF REVIEWER
City of Fayetteville
CATE OF EXECUTION
SIGNATURE
City Manager,
.,
TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER f ( Applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION
SIGNATURE Or REVEWEP
TITLE OF REVIE R
E PA Form 5700-41 (246)
PAGE .2 OF 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERS, INC., as ENGINEER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayetteville
Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ENGINEER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report.
These tasks are assigned to Dr. Dee Mitchell, Dr. Hugh Jeffus,
Dr. Albert Ogden and Mr. Fraser Stephens. A narrative description
of these tasks is included in appropriate sections and subsections
of the scope of work report incorporated herein and marked as
Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ENGINEER which is either
described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic Services
defined above, shall constitute Additional Services. These will
include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ENGINEER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ENGINEER for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES:Compensation is estimated not to exceed $20,561.17
including a fixed -fee profit of82,681.89. A breakdown of this
amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other items
is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: ENGINEER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on ENGINEER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay ENGINEER at his office in Sprindale, Arkansas,
the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A charge of
0.1% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices not
paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: ENGINEER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ENGINEER also agrees to
maintain public liability insurance coverning claims against
ENGINEER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ENGINEER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall ENGINEER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by ENGINEER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by ENGINEER, upon seven (7) days
written notice to the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI:13
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ENGINEER, CLIENT shall pay ENGINEER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ENGINEER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ENGINEER.
Page 2 of 3
VIII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ENGINEER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one ha 's authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ENGINEER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
BY: BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder Dr. Dee T. Mitchell, President
and Director
DATE:
Page 3 of 3
-
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Approved
(Set, t,! -t: n.j:11C5':rh (nstrUC(ions he! or rxmlpitfin[ rhi:; Inr ..)
011B No. 1.53-R!1144
PART I -GENERAL
I. GRP NTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville_. Favettyi1Js, Arkansas
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCO?ITRPCTOR
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL _
January
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR. CR SUJCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline conditions for water
307 Edmondson
flow and quality and environmen-
Springdale, Arkansas 72701
tal assessment for water, soil,
geology and sludge processing
and management
PART II -COST SUMMARY _ -
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
HOURS
RATE
COST
Senior Environmental Engine
$
$ g,11i c2t:4
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookkee in
l R75
.00_
• ___
raaTsK e Nt A+.1
r)..$ggpay3q„,$Y9a3yirzA
Y
^P .wv try tllT/
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
-; '-,
-^ �`"'-'�11
21g S2
B. INDIRECT COSTS (Specifp indirect cost
RATE
* BASE =
ETED
SCOST
pools)
ii:-
Overhead
51 219_52s
5,609 �;r
fri
_-___-0,50
-
—1
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
``„t�
--
` '`'"!C
$ 5,609.76
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
ESTIMATED
'`.---'
�.:.
a. TRAVEL
COST
x•`
(1) TRLN$PORIA TION •
5 650.00
S
•'tq
(2) PER DIEM
.^ fs"`N'f !'^' Y _
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
•-"" %,f
$ 650. 00
ESTIMATED
b. EQUIPMENT. MATERIALS. SUPPLIES (Specify CoteQTY
COST
'
Longdistance, telephone,
$
$ 250.00
ri `:
reproduction
..8'
150.00
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL:
'^'-':FP`
5' Ax`z "'`'
400.00
'•.`-dry=�r1`'w'"•"-I`
C. SUBCONTRACTS
ESTIMATED
COST
y� "�x1:' ni3.� °ss•„''
"'•
_
S
- t Ii{Ve
r— i.r�NF,K i .-. v
—
�
-
:sA'isn -ii
TI
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
$
------;;-•
6.:
�; yt- ae:
ESTIMATED
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COST
++r' - `
4JLY.:...1'(aS ' vy
OTHER SUBTOTAL: „�;,.a
- ,,,.;_:
S
,,. ,,.-t
„s,.
c, OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL `'
-_ fr
,,
- `-"7 -'' �
4f.: F;s
1 050.00
�<—,-
__ __
_
$ 17,879.28
to. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
S 2 681.89
I1. PROFIT
_ 2U 561,
12. TOTAL PRICE
EPA Form 5700-d1 (2-76) I •.r
1-
a
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPET ITOP'S CATALOG LISTINGS. IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
1l
(Ind,cnre basis for p:,ce co,nparisoo)
PRICES)
PPIC E
eS, h ,w
:
v�R.wiCLLX
4z.:
?� f T < i<h.:
•i .: 1Z-'.fLt a. wane,
W ...s may'i ¢::3 ^&4
x t< Ys..
n y �,
—
ri.«a. `'. s.'
. ,Si Al
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CCNTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES Iiyi NO (11 "yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
G
14b . THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH. THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c. s
This is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (l Agreement for Profes—
proposal
sional services dated January 23 , 1980. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2)May 6. 980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account forthe financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price mac be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit; not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
GATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
President, Environmental
Engineers Inc.
TITLE OF PROPOSER
IS. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs /price appear
acceptable for subagreement award.
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
City Manager City of Fayetteville
TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (It applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER -
TITLE OF REVIEWER
Parr 2 [1F 5
EPA Form 5700-41 (2.76)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ARKANSAS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, as ARCHAEOLOGIST to perform professional ser-
vices for the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental
Impact Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
I. SERVICES:
ARCHAEOLOGIST agrees to
perform
Basic Services and
Additional
Services in conformance
with the
following descriptions,
definitions,
terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report,
assigned to Dr. Fred Limp. A narrative description of these tasks
is included in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope
of work report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ARCHAEOLOGIST which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These shall include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ARHCAEOLOGIST'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ARHCAEOLOGIST for above des-
cribed services in accordance with the following descriptions,
definitions, terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES:Compensation is estimated.,not to exceed $ 12.,029.73.A
breakdown of this amount and the rate of fee for personnel,
overhead and other items is included in the attached EPA
Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: ARCHAEOLOGIST will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts
based on ARCHAEOLOGIST'S estimate of the portion of the Basic
Services completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed.
CLIENT agrees to promptly pay ARCHAEOLOGIST at his office in
Fayetteville, Arkansas, the full amount of each such invoice upon
receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid ba-
lance of invoices not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: ARCHAEOLOGIST agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ARCHAEOLOGIST also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
ARCHAEOLOGIST for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or
property damage from accidents arising in the course of services
performed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ARCHAEOLOGIST shall have no liability to
CLIENT or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of
reasonable skill in performing the services for -the assignment
covered by this Agreement. In no event shall ARCHAEOLOGIST lia-
bility exceed amount of the total compensation received by ARCHAEO-
LOGIST under this. Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION:
without cause at any time
services either by CLIENT
days written notice to the
Termination shall release
this Agreement, except as
This Agreement may be terminated
prior to completion of ARCHAEOLOGIST
or by ARCHAEOLOGIST, upon seven (7)
other at the address of record.
each party from all obligations of
specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ARCHAEOLOGIST, CLIENT shall pay ARCHAEOLOGIST with
respect to Basic Services which have been completed an amount
fixed in proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ARCHAEOLOGIST each binds him-
self, and his successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to successors, executors,
administrators and assigns of such other party in respect to all
covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ARCHAEOLOGIST
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ARCHAEOLOGIST.
Page 2 of 3
VIII.SPECIAL. PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed. by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ARCHAEOLOGIST extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ARCHAEOLOGIST
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
BY:
Dr. Charles McGimsy, Director
Page 3 of 3
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Approved
(Set arrom;zrrn i;;; in (nA_;iurx it fo;% rr,r.:r:L4 74, this form.)
0I/B3 A'r1. 158-Rfil44
PART I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
C itypf_-Eaye-tfeSii11 e., Fayett.e_v-i Le-,—Ar-Ca.nS
—
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCOYTRACT R
A. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Arkansas Archaeological Survey
January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SU=CONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Environmental assessment for
University of Arkansas
archaeological, historical
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
and cultural resources
PART 11 -COST SUMMARY
T. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
HOURS
PATE
COST
Project Archaeologist
3545
50
1Q.5Q
5.00
$ 3,717.00
250.00
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookkepna
Project Assistt_______ i_2.2.0_
tC ha ti
50
o
-)iJ.�lls.S1.Y__
wwkRYa_.'h.�i`+4J r
ySp^r^'a
l`I
rT r
t;-
-1
------------------
-'�1
ESTIMATED
S. INDIRECT COSTS (Spaeth indirect cost pools)
RATE
X BASE =
COST
. 'a. i'
---..---- _
Overhead 11._09_
s 5.>3S7.. 00
5 8A2 .
..#_(,
G -� ice- l--
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
$ 5
.882.73
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
' • . .� ^
-..•
ESTIMATED
.. •.. ...J
a. TRAVEL
COST
5 45
❑) TFANSPORTATION I
.00
In PER OIEVi
S
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
"�'+- - `S
450.00
ESTIMATED
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categori a F) QTY
COST
COST
_
'
Long distance, telephonejS
Q24
�rti:' <
reproduction
100,00
j
`£`r.^fib?'".'`�R «•x
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL It.
300. 00'
ua
f t"ys +
-.
ESTIMATED
ES•^
• •
'•.�•
C. SU BCONTRACTS
COST
_I
$
i"-?Pr. T<
— SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
jct..—1
m,. w. -
$
1-
ESED
^ `w 4` a
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COSTT
a
t
$
I
"e
OTHER SUBTOTAL: �*��,•,"^ ='», /A"
b
s.r
e. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL • it s: ;S`%.r
$ 750.00
t_<
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
51.2 .029.73
11. PROFIT
$ -
I2.TOTALPRICE
¶12,029.734
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76) PAOt I 'Jr a
, L � 11)L'
PART III • PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOP'S CATALOG LISTINGS. LN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
]• (fndlrinc hnnis for prrce ron,porlboni
PPICEISI
PRICE
'f`Pd-b
rZ4
,Jyl .1=? :
Idi��
ati*: r ?gyp
I! -.E '.aJ <. y-lJ . JY
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW or YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FECERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES DCi NO (If "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
V
146, THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Agreement for Profes—
sional services dated January 23, 1980. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 1980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account -for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit; not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
DATE OF EXEC. TION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
Director, Arkansas
Archaeological Sair_ttg}y
TITLE OF "ROPOSER
IS. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award, -
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
City Manager, City ofa atteviIIP
- TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (11 appficabfe)
•
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
OArtc f Ins S
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND RAGSDALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages RAGSDALE
& ASSOCIATES, as PLANNER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: PLANNER . agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report,
assigned to Mr. Paul Ragsdale.• A narrative description of
these tasks is included in appropriate sections and sub-
sections of the scope of work report incorporated herein and
marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by PLANNER which is either
described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic Services
defined above, shall constitute Additional Services. These will
include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than PLANNER'S or'
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and -engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay •PLANNER. for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed. $ •222616.74
including a fixed -fee profit of $ 3,368.45.A breakdown of this
amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other items
is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
a.
. V
III. PAYMENTS: PLANNER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on PLANNER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay PLANNER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE.: PLANNER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. PLANNER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
PLANNER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: PLANNER shall have no
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty
able skill in performing the services for the
this Agreement. In no event shall PLANNER'S
amount of the total compensation received by
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
liability to CLIENT
of the use of reason -
assignment covered by
liability exceed
PLANNER under this
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by PLANNER upon seven (7) days
written notice to,the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or PLANNER CLIENT shall pay PLANNER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed..
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and PLANNER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor PLANNER
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder, to anyone
other than CLIENT and PLANNER.
Page 2 of 3
VIII. SPECIAL.PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
PLANNER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of PLANNER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
RAGSDALE a ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY:
Paul B. Ragsdale, President
Page 3 of 3
y.r
0.(r
v
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form App.oierl
I G•r :rclxrr..p:+cvu+ rmlrcctiuns b/lnrf- roapl line this form)
01111 No. 15.5'-R0(44
PART I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
_
3, NAME OF CONTRACTOR CR SUBCONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Ragsdale & Associates, Inc. January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Inelvde ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline conditions for popu-
5206 Rocky Ridge lation, economic base, land use,
Dallas, Texas 75214 parks & recreation, community
aesthetics & their impacts on
the environment.
PART II -COST SUMMARY
ESTI-
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify Inbor ca:egcries)
MATED
,RATE
COST
HOURS
Principal Planner
461
5 14.95
5 6,891.95
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookkeeain
240
6.60
1_, r 584 00
r.
ham.:
, rJ_v
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
=`.-
= w'
S 8.475.95
ESTIMATED.
-
E. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify mdirec; war pools)
RATE
> BASE =
.Y
dT 3
§I,La_v
$ 9 >747
Overhead _4'-L5_-
a15>.... b+
^
_
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
'}"'
m� ",:k. _ "'"
"'• ":_Y" k:ei
s9:747:34
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
x $..rt
ESTIMATED
a. TRAVEL
COST
r
.
550.00
(1) TRANSPCI`.TATION
p4 r �.
(2) PER CIE`d
$
";• .• •':
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL � <
� ;-5
550.00
.". •'s•,
. Y
r',.A
b. EQUIPMENT. MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) t QTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
•
Lon distance, telephone__
5
$ 300.00
Reproduction
175.00
�• ,
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL :•-
- `.'
475.00
`, r
;'___ _.. .
ESTIMATED
C.SUBCONTRACTS
COST
-
�yyY[ i
n
µ q T
Or
____ _____ _.— SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: (
":h '.R-' 'n:�+."'Te• '':
$
:
•" C ,_
ESTIMATED
A" -"sic ,,•° --
d. OTHER {specify eaegories)
COST
F/�m�y�. x`tir+Rq+t�eLA`�a.
S
a .
Fp- S i.> N .i YQ
`
OTHER SUBTOTAL: TT--
'.•
S°
"..
c. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: n `^ ;`#'�.;°r :':> r "" ""r,+�^''
S y25 00
519 248
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
.29
S 3 368 .45
11. PROFIT
22 616.7
12. TOTAL PRICE
o Acc I (1r5
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LIST I4GS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
13. (indicate basis far price comparison)
PRICE(53
PRICE
f 3.. #p,C •CY W -.d -Y
ii rt>.O T/ fA
J
'
d3
jS iart r�.y:v,�rb
dt�ii
`ryYt�f�„{LN
"f
.nh` x;aF Yyv.a
--o s
,gym•
1%n. , r r•K
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14o, HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES NO (fl "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
O
ICb .THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
'Cc.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Agreement for Profes-
sional services dated January This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarizej herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 l 980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
President Ragsdale F Associates
TITLE OF PROPOSER
IS. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award, -
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
l
TITLE OF EVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
n n G v O nv 4
EP4 Form 5700-41 (2-76)
.e:
CG -247
(Rev 2-1-79)
MINORITY CONSULTANT UTILIZATION
INFORMATION SHEET
Requested information must be provided individually by applicant/grantee
and prime consultant. If the requested information cannot be provided
by either applicant/grantee or prime consultant, documented evidence of
contacts made with minority A&E firms and reasons why none were utilized
must be submitted.
A. Number of A&E firms contacted by applicant/grantee as prime consultants
Five - How many were minority -owned? One -
B. Number of A&E firms contacted for joint -venture agreements by prime
consultant None - How many were minority -owned? None C. Number of A&E firms contacted for negotiated subcontracts by prime
consultant Four . How many were minority -owned? One
D. Minority firms contacted (list below).
FIRM'S NAME: Ragsdale and Associates. Inc.
ADDRESS:
5206 Rocky
Ridge, Dallas,
Texas 75214
SPECIALITY:
Population,
Economic Base
and Land Use
Planning
BASIS OF UTILIZATION: Negotiated Subcontract
(Prime, Joint Venture or negotiated subcontract)
FIRM'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
SPECIALITY:
BASIS OF UTILIZATION:
(Prime, Joint Venture or negotiated subcontract)
FIRM'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
SPECIALITY: - -
BASIS OF UTILIZATION:
(Prime, Joint Venture or negotiated subcontract)
If no minority firms are to be utilized, attach written and signed
documentation explaining the reasons why. If only one firm was contacted
by applicant and/or consultant in item A, B, or C above, explain reasons
why no other were contacted.
The minority firm contacted and hired, was found
Reproduce as needed_ to be most qualified for the assigned scope of work,
and was found to achieve the 14% to 18% goals of
MBE participation for the proposed project.
fE Yr
a CE -248
(Rev 2-1-79)
•L 11r.R OF INirNT
(Use by Applicant/Grantee only - submit separate form for each minority
firm to be used.)
Appiicant/Grantee:' City of Fayetteville
Address: P. 0. Drawer' F, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
• Strut City State . Z i p
Telephone:
521-7700
Area Code: 501
Project Name: EIS for Fayetteville 201 Project
Total ."-mount of Project: S 160,221.37
Step 1
X • Step 2 Step 3 Step 2_3
Name of Minority A!E Firm: Ragsdale and Associates. Inc.
Address: 5206 Rocky Ridge Dallas Texas 75214
Street City State Lip
Te?ephore: 371-2387 Area Code: 214
w„cunt: S 22,616.74 Prime: (Yes No X ).
Description of work to be performed by minority A/E firm:
Baseline conditions for population, economic base, land
use, parks 6 recreation, and community aesthetics; the
impacts of project alternatives bn these elements of
the affected environment.
Applicant/grantee intends to utilize the above -named minority A/E firm for the
work and amount indicated above. This letter of intent as submitted with grant
application will convert into a binding contact within 15 calendar days after
contract award.
NOTE: Im1-EN FEASIBLE, GRANTEES SHOULD APPOINT A RESPONSIBLE. MINORITY BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE OFFICER WITH AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE REQUIREMENTS.
(Signature of Applicant/Grantee
Official)
Date
e?rocuc as needed.
(Signature of Minority Fir Official)
Date
nA
CG-_�8A
(Rev. 2-1-79) -
LETTER OF INTENT
(Use by non -minority consultants only - submit separate form for each
minority firm to be used.)
Consultant Firm:-- Compirehensive.Planhing Institute
Address: P': 0'. Box 270988 Dallas Texas 75227
Street City
State Zip
7=12 D.l,^,n e:
279-4262 Area Code: 214
Project/Grantee : City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
• .%nnount of Project: $ 160,221.37
• Type of 41gree..ent: Cost plus fixed -fee
Ste? 1 X Ste? 2 Step 3 _ Step 2-3
Name of Minority A/c Firm: Ragsdale and Associates, Inc.
=grass: 5206 Rocky Ridge, Dallas, Texas 75214
Street City
StateZip
Telephone: 371-2387 Area Code: 214
Agreement Amount: S 22 6
Description of work to be performed under acree.^ent with minority firm:
Baseline conditions for population, economic base, land use
parks & recreation and community aesthetics; the impacts of
project alternatives on these elements of the affected
environment.
-
Prime consultant intends to utilize the above named minority firm(S) son worK
and amount indicated above. his letter of intent submitted with grant appli-
cation will be converted into a binding contract as soon as possible after
contract award.
Signature of Consuitant.Firn Official
Date
F2_ rc uc. as needed.
Signature of .Minority Firi Official
Date
r:
ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT SIGNED ON MAY 21, 1980
FOR THE PREPARATION OF A "PIGGYBACK" EIS FOR
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 201 PROJECT
The terms and conditions of the above dated contract were reviewed
by the City to comply with the budgetory regulations of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In order to meet the EPA regulations,
the City of Fayetteville and the CPI have both agreed to clarify
certain terms and conditions included in the original contract. This
addendum is a further clarification of these terms and conditions, and
is made an integral part of the contract executed on May 21, 1980.
(1) The first sentence in Section III (page 3)'of the contract shall
mean that the CPI will collect invoices from the subcontract consultants
and prepare it's own invoice each month reflecting the exact cost
incurred in that month, and not prepare the invoices based on an estimate
of the portion of the work completed in that month.
(2) A furtiher clarification of Section II (page 2) of the contract is
as follows:
The budget for the EIS study is estimated at $ 160,171.37 of which
$ 18,946.64 is the fixed fee. It is understood that the fixed fee part
of the contract cannot be changed during the life of the study. The
balance of the budget that includes the cost of personnel, overhead,
travel, etc. may change in either direction depending on the actual costs
incurred by the CPI and its subcontract consultants. However, the approved
budget of $ 160,171.37 cannot be exceeded without a written authorization
from the City of Fayetteville and the Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) It is understood by the City and the CPI that all cost items
covered by the non -fixed part of the overall budget, are subject to a
detailed, item by item audit by the Environmental Protection Agency. If the
audit indicates any discrepancy between the costs actually incurred on a
particular item and the invoice amount paid on that item, then the CPI
will be responsible for returning the money which the audit may find
excessive or ineligible under the terms of a cost plus fixed -fee contract.
(4) One 6f the subcontract consultants, Environmental Engineers, Inc.
of Springdale,' Arkansas, has withdrawn from the EIS study due to budgetory
limitations and other factors. The CPI, as the prime consultant, assumes
the full responsibility of completing the work originally assigned to the
Environmental Engineers. Dr. S. R. Qasim, Dr. Charles F. Dodge, of
Arlington, Texas, and Fraser Stephens of Fayetteville, Arkansas, have been
w
(2)
appointed by the CPI to complete these tasks. They will serve as
staff members of the CPI at least through the end of the Fayetteville
project. A description of the background experience and qualifications
of these gentlemen has been included in the CPI's statement of
qualifications submitted to the City of Fayetteville in October, 1979.
THE CITY QF FAYETTEVILLE
By:
V�L
C
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
By:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
MICROFILMED
DATE_ : 79
REq
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
(HEREINAFTERREFERREDTO AS THE GRANTEE)
FOR
JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
It has been determined by the EPA that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
must be prepared prior to the awarding of further grants to the Grantee under
EPA Grant C-05-0366. The EIS must comply with -all provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), all subsequent regulations implementing
these laws, and any applicable State and local requirements.
It is the purpose of this memorandum to establish an understanding between the
Grantee and EPA regarding the conditions and procedures to be followed in
preparation of the EIS through a joint Grantee/EPA effort.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. EPA shall be the lead agency in the joint effort to. prepare
a single EIS on the grant action and shall be ultimately responsible for
assuring compliance with the requirements of NEPA.
B. The Grantee shall provide the supportive expertise, manpower
and technical capabilities required for EIS preparation. The Grantee shall
be responsible for assuring compliance with applicable State and local
requirements.
C. The Grantee shall -retain a consultant for EIS preparation.
The Grantee shall follow the procurement procedures contained in EPA's
"Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works - Construction Grants Program,"
Federal Register, Volume 43, Number 188, September 27, 1978 (40 CFR, Part 35)
and EPA, Region 6's EIS Consultant Procurement Guidance letter of February 1,
1978.
1. The Grantee shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as
amended, with regard to subagreement contracting.
2. EPA shall review the qualifications of and approve the
Grantee's selected consultant and their proposed contract prior to execution.
The Grantee shall include the following language in all consultant contracts:
"This contract is funded in part by a grant from the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This contract is subject to regulations contained in
40 CFR 35, Subchapter B. Neither the United States nor the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency is a party to this contract." .
m
- 2 -
3.
The Grantee
shall
comply with
EPA,
Region 6,
Guidance and
Procedures for Compliance
with
Minority
Business
Enterprise
Requirements.
D. Both the Grantee and EPA shall:
1. Actively participate in all substantial phases of EIS
preparation.
2. Designate a representative to review and approve all EIS
work as it is completed.
3. Have their respective representatives attend regular
• meetings with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies for the purpose of
increasing communication and receiving comments.
• 4. Insure coordination of efforts and exchange of information
between the facilities planning consultant and the EIS consultant.
5. Establish a mutually agreed upon time schedule for
completion of the EIS.
E. In all instances involving questions as to the content or
relevance of any material (including all data, analyses, and conclusions) in
the draft or final EIS, EPA shall make the final determination as to the
inclusion or deletion of that material.
F. All necessary costs incurred by the Grantee for the EIS
preparation and compliance with NEPA and the full scale public participation
program shall be eligible for Federal/State grant participation upon approval
of the work by EPA. Before payment is made to the consultant, the Grantee
should confirm with EPA that the work will be approved and therefore be eligible
for grant participation. An amendment to the existing Step I grant will be
executed setting forth the basis and terms of EPA/Grantee participation.
III. PROCEDURES
A: Initially EPA shall provide the Grantee with an "issue paper"
describing the paramount concerns to be addressed in the EIS. This issue paper
shall be used by the Grantee as a supplement to the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and EPA regulations implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. This issue paper is the responsibility of EPA. However,
EPA will work closely with the Grantee to assure that all pertinent issues are
adequately addressed.
B. The EIS Consultant shall have primary responsibility for writing
all chapters of the EIS and for establishing a schedule for completion of those
chapters which is consistent with the overall time schedule mentioned above.
C. The Grantee shall provide for effective coordination of efforts
between the EIS consultant and facilities planning consultant in order to
expedite completion of the project within the framework of existing pertinent
EPA regulations.
-3-
D. Within the established time schedule, the Grantee shall provide
EPA with at least one opportunity to review, comment, and make editorial
changes on the preliminary draft EIS. EPA shall provide these comments in
a timely manner. The Grantee shall incorporate these comments and editorial
changes into the draft chapters to the satisfaction of EPA. The final draft
of each chapter shall be submitted to EPA for review, approval and any final
changes deemed necessary.
E. The Grantee shall be responsible for reproduction of the draft
EIS according to the established time schedule. EPA shall be responsible for
distribution of the draft EIS.
F. Upon completion of the draft EIS, EPA shall be responsible for
organizing and conducting any public hearing required by 40 CFR Part 6. The
Grantee and EIS consultant shall provide technical support. EPA shall also be
the recipient of all comments during the draft EIS review and comment period.
This 45 day period is initiated when the EPA Office of Environmental Review (OER)
publishes the "Notice of Availability" of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.
G. At the close of the draft EIS review and comment period, EPA shall
identify the issues and comments submitted which will require response in the
final EIS. EPA shall direct these comments to the Grantee and the EIS consultant
for preparation of the responses. EPA shall also indicate any necessary modifi-
cation of the text of the draft EIS.
H.. Upon completion of the responses, the Grantee shall provide EPA
an opportunity to review the responses to the comments and the text of the final
EIS.
I. The Grantee shall be responsible for reproduction of the final
EIS. EPA shall be responsible for distribution of the final EIS.
J. Generally, joint meetings between the Grantee, EPA, and the EIS
consultant shall be held to coordinate EIS preparation. Written documentation
shall be provided to the third party and the facilities planning consultant by
the EIS consultant when significant two-party meetings or conversations between
either the EPA and EIS consultant or the Grantee and the EIS consultant occur.
It is agreed that the facilities planning consultant may attend any or all of
these meetings at his option or as requested by the Grantee.
K. The Grantee shall be responsible for conducting a full-scale
Public Participation Program as described in amendments (44 FR 10302-10304) to
EPA's construction grants regulations (40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E). A Citizen
Advisory Committee shall be established in accordance with EPA's regulations
concerning public participation in programs under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act
(40 CFR Part 25, 44 FR 10286-10297). The Advisory Committee will assist in
the public participation program and provide citizen input to the facility
planning and related EIS preparation process. The Grantee shall be responsible
for organizing and conducting, with the assistance of the Advisory Committee,
public workshops in conjunction with the public participation effort considered
-4' -
necessary to
foster public familiarity
with and provide
input to the facility
planning/EIS
process. The Grantee
shall prepare, subject
to EPA's review and
approval, a
!'background and issues
document" to be used
as the basis for all
workshops.
The Grantee shall also
prepare a summary of
each public workshop
including a
list of significant concerns
identified during
the workshop.
It is hereby agreed that the function of the Public
Participation Coordinator may be performed by the EIS consultant if desired by
the Grantee.
IV. TERMINATION
A. Either party to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate
this agreement after giving 30 days notice to the other party. During the
intervening 30 days both parties agree to actively attempt to resolve any
outstanding disputes or disagreements.
B. In the event of termination of the agreement, EPA will initiate
preparation of the Federal EIS upon submittal of an adequate Environmental
Assessment by the Grantee.
For the Environmental Protection Agency:
Date: Tim,/79
Signed:lL Region VI Administrator
arrison Title)
For the City of Fayetteville (Grantee)
Date: Qd g
Signed: City Manager
Donald L. Grimes (Title)
RULES AND REGULATIONS
tC
44091
APPxn➢Ix C -1 —REQUIRED PROVISIONS —
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AGREEMENTS
1. General
2. Responsibility of the Engineer
3. Scope of Work
4. Changes
5. Termination
6. Remedies
7. Payment
8. Project Design
9. Audit; Access to Records
10. Price Reduction for Defective Cost or
Pricing Data
11. Subcontracts
,12. Labor Standards
13. Equal Employment Opportunity
14. Utilization of Small or Minority Busi-
ness
15. Covenant Against Contingent Fees
16. Gratuities
17. Patents
18. Copyrights and Rights in Data
I. GENERAL
(a) The owner and the engineer agree that
the following provisions apply to the EPA
grant -eligible work to be performed under
this agreement and that such provisions su-
persede any conflicting provisions of this
'agreement..
((b) The work under this agreement is
funded in part by a grant from the U.S. En-
viromnental Protection Agency. Neither the
!United States nor the U.S. Environmental
!Protection Agency (hereinafter. "EPA") Is a
party to this agreement. This agreement
which covers grant -eligible work Is subject
,to regulations contained in 40 CFR 35.936.
35.937, and 35.939 In effect on the date of
execution of this agreement. As used in
these clauses, the words "the date of execu-
tion of this agreement" mean the date of
[execution of this agreement and any subse-
quent modification of the terms, compensa-
tion or scope of services pertinent to unper-
formed work.
(c) The owner's rights and remedies pro-
vided in these clauses are in addition to any
other rights and remedies provided by law
or this agreement.
2. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER
(a) The engineer shall be responsible for
the professional quality, technical accuracy,
timely completion, and the coordination of
all designs, drawings, specifications. reports.
and other services furnished by the engi-
neer under this agreement. The engineer
shall, without additional compensation, cor-
rect or revise any errors, omissions, or other
deficiencies in his designs, drawings, specifi-
cations. reports, and other services.
(b) The engineer shall perform such pro-
fessional services as may be necessary to ac-
complish the work required to be performed
under this agreement in accordance with
this agreement and applicable EPA require-
ments in effect on the date of execution of
this agreement.
(c) The owner's or EPA's approval of
drawings. designs. specifications. reports.
and incidental engineering work or materi-
als furnished hereunder shall not in any
way relieve the engineer of responsibility
for the technical adequacy of his work. Nei-
ther the owner's nor EPA's review, approval
or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of
the services shall be construed to operate as
a waiver of any rights under this agreement
STER, VOL 41, NO. 1lti==WEDNESDAY, LUTE
or of any cause of action arising out of the
performance of this agreement.
(d) The engineer shall be and shall remain
liable, in accordance with applicable law, for
all damages to the owner or EPA caused by
the engineer's negligent performance of any
of the services furnished under this agree-
ment, except for errors, omissions or other
deficiencies to the extent attributable to the
owner, owner -furnished data or any third
party. The engineer shall not be responsible
for any time delays in the project caused by
circumstances beyond the engineer's con-
trol. Where innovative processes or tech-
niques (see 40 CFR 35.908) are recommend-
ed by the engineer and are used, the engi-
neer shall be liable only for gross negligence
to the extent of such use.
3. SCOPE Or WORK
The services to be performed by the engi-
neer shall include all services required to
complete S the task or Step in accordance
with applicable EPA regulations (40 CFR
Part 35. Subpart E in effect on the date of
execution of this agreement) to the extent
of the scope of work as defined and set out
in the engineering services agreement to
which these provisions are attached.
4. CHANGES
(a) The owner may, at any time, by writ-
ten order, make changes within the general
scope of this agreement In the services or
work to be performed. If such changes cause
an increase or decrease in the engineer's
cost of, or time required for, performance of
any services under this agreement, whether
or not changed by any order, an equitable
adjustment shall be made and this agree-
ment shall be modified in writing according-
ly. The engineer must assert any claim for
adjustment under this clause in writing
within 30 days from the date of receipt by
the engineer of the notification of change.
unless the owner grants a further period of
time before the date of final payment under
this agreement.
(b) No services for which an additional
compensation will be charged by the engi-
neer shall be furnished without the written
authorization of the owner.
(c) In the event that there is a modifica-
tion of EPA requirements relating to the
services to be performed under this agree=
ment after the date of execution of this
agreement, the increased or decreased cost
of performance of the services provided for
in this agreement shall be reflected in an
appropriate modification of this agreement.
5. TERMINATION
(a) Either party may terminate this agree-
ment. l n whole or in part, In writing, If the
other party substantially falls to fulfill its
obligations under this agreement through
no fault of the terminating party. However,
no such termination may be effected unless
the other party is given (1) not less than ten
(10) calendar days written notice (delivered
by certified mail, return receipt requested)
of intent to terminate and (2) an opportuni-
ty for consultation with the terminating
party before termination.
(b) The owner may terminate this agree-
ment in whole or In part, In writing, for its
convenience. if the termination is for good
cause (such as for legal or financial reasons.
major changes in the work or program re-
quirements. initiation of a new step) and the
engineer is given (1) not less than ten (10)
calendar days written notice (delivered by
MEER-27, 1978
C A'
I. 44092
RULES AND REGULATIONS
certified mall, return receipt requested) of
intent to terminate, and (2) an opportunity
for consultation with the terminating party
before termination.
(c) If the owner terminates for default, an
equitable adjustment in the price provided
for in this agreement shall be made, but (1)
no amount shall be allowed for anticipated
profit on unperformed- services or other
work, and (2) any payment due to the engi-
neer at the time of termination may be ad-
justed to the extent of any additional costs
the owner incurs because of the engineer's
default. If the engineer terminates for de-
fault or if the owner terminates for conven-
ience, the equitable adjustment shall In-
clude a reasonable profit for services or
other work performed. The equitable ad-
justment for any termination shall provide
for payment to the engineer for services
rendered and expenses incurred before the
termination, In addition to termination set-
tlement costs the engineer reasonably
incurs relating to commitments which had
become firm before the termination.
ld) Upon receipt of a termination action
under paragraphs (a) or (b) above, the engi-
neer shall (1) promptly discontinue all ser-
vices affected (unless the notice directs oth-
erwise), and (2) deliver or otherwise make
available to the owner all data, drawings,
specifications, reports, estimates. summar-
ies, and such other information and materi-
als as the engineer may have accumulated
in performing this agreement, whether com-
pleted or in process.
(e) Upon termination under paragraphs
(a) or (b) above, the owner may take over
the work and prosecute the same to comple-
tion by agreement with another party or
otherwise. Any work the owner takes over
for completion will be completed at the
owner's risk, and the owner will hold harm-
less the engineer from all claims and dam-
ages arising out of improper use of the engi-
neer's work.
(f) If, after termination for failure of the
engineer to fulfill contractual obligations, It
is determined that the engineer had not so
failed, the termination shall be deemed to
have been effected for the convenience of
the owner. In such event, adjustment of the
price provided for in this agreement shall be
made as paragraph (c) of this clause pro-
vides.
a. REMEDIES
Except as this agreement otherwise pro-
vides, all claims, counter -claims, disputes.
and other matters in question between the
owner and the engineer arising out of or re-
lating to this agreement or the breach of it
will be decided by arbitration if the parties
hereto mutually agree, or in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction within the State in
which the owner is located.
7. PAYMENT
(a) Payment shall be made in accordance
with the payment schedule Incorporated in
this agreement as soon as practicable upon
submission of statements requesting pay-
ment by the engineer to the owner. If no
such payment schedule is Incorporated In
this agreement, the payment provisions of
paragraph (b) of this clause shall apply.
(b) The engineer may request monthly
progress payments and the owner shall
make them as soon as practicable upon sub-
mission of statements requesting payment
by the engineer to the owner. When such
progress payments are made, the owner may
withhold up to ten (10) percent of the vou-
chered amount until satisfactory completion
by the engineer of work and services within
a step called for under this agreement.
When the owner determines that the work
under this agreement or any specified task
hereunder Is substantially complete and
that the amount of retained percentages is
in excess of the amount considered by him
to be adequate for his protection, he shall
release to the engineer such excess amount.
(c) No payment request made under para-
graph (a) or (b) of this clause shall exceed
the estimated amount and value of the work
and services performed by the engineer
under this agreement. The engineer shall
prepare the estimates of work performed
and shall supplement them with such sup-
porting data as the owner may require.
(d) Upon satisfactory completion of the
work performed under this agreement, as a
condition precedent to final payment under
this agreement or to settlement upon termi-
nation of the agreement, the engineer shall
execute and deliver to the owner a release
of all claims against the owner arising under
or by virtue of this agreement, other than
such claims, If any, as may be specifically
exempted by the engineer from the oper-
ation of the release in stated amounts to be
set forth therein.
S. PROJECT DESIGN
(a) In the performance of this agreement.
the engineer shall, to the extent practicable,
provide for maximum use of structures, ma-
chines, products, materials, construction
methods, and equipment which are readily
available through competitive procurement,
or through standard or proven production
techniques, methods, and processes, consist-
ent with 40 CFR 35.936-3 and 35.936-13 In
effect on the date of execution of this agree-
ment, except to the extent to which innova-
tive technology may be used under 40 CFR
35.908 In effect on the date of execution of
this agreement.
(b) The engineer shall not, in the perform-
ance of the work under this agreement. pro-
duce a design or specification which would
require the use of structures. machines,
products, materials, construction methods,
equipment, or processes which the engineer
knows to be available only from a sole
source, unless the engineer has adequately
justified the use of a sole source in writing.
(c) The engineer shall not, In the perform-
ance of the work under this agreement, pro-
duce a design or specification which would
be restrictive in violation of sec. 204(a)(6) of
the Clean Water Act. This statute requires
that no specification for bids or statement
of work shall be written In such a manner as
to contain proprietary, exclusionary, or a)s-
criminatory requirements other than those
based upon performance, unless such re-
quirements are necessary to test or demon-
strate a specific thing, or to provide for nec-
essary interchangeability of parts and
equipment, or at least two brand names or
trade names of comparable quality or utility
are listed and are followed by the words "or
equal." With regard to materials, If a single
material Is specified, the engineer must be
prepared to substantiate the basis for the
selection of the material.
(d) The engineer shall report to the owner
any sole -source or restrictive design or speci-
fication giving the reason or reasons why it
is necessary to restrict the design or speclfl-
cation.
(e) The. engineer shall not knowingly
specify or approve the performance of work
at a facility which is In violation of clean air
or water standards and which Is listed by
the Director of the EPA Office of Federal
Activities under 40 CFR Part 15.
9, AUDIT; ACCESS TO RECORDS
(a) The engineer shall maintain books.
records, documents, and other evidence di-
rectly pertinent to performance on EPA
grant work under this agreement in accord-
ance with generally accepted accounting
principles and practices consistently ap-
plied, and 40 CFR 30.605, 30.805; and 35.935-
7 in effect on the date of execution of this
agreement.. The engineer shall also main-
tain the financial Information and data used
by the engineer in the preparation or sup-
port of the cost submission required under
40 CFR 35.937-6(b) in effect on the date of
execution of this agreement and a copy of
the cost summary submitted to the owner.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Comptroller General . of the United
States, the U.S. Department of Labor,
owner, and [the State water pollution con-
trol agency] or any of their duly authorized
representatives shall have access to such
books, records, documents, and other evi-
dence for inspection, audit, and copying.
The engineer will provide proper facilities
for such access and inspection.
(b) The engineer agrees to include para-
graphs (a) through (e) of this clause in all
his contracts and all tier subcontracts dl-
rectly related to project performance that
are in excess of $10,000.
(c) Audits conducted under this provision
shall be in accordance with generally ac-
cepted auditing standards and established
procedures and guidelines of the reviewing
or audit agency(les).
(d) The engineer agrees to the disclosure
of all Information and reports resulting
from access to records under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this clause, to any of the agencies
referred Loin paragraph (a), provided that
the engineer is afforded the opportunity for
an audit exit conference and an opportunity
to comment and submit any supporting doc-
umentation on the pertinent portions of the
draft audit report and that the final audit
report will include written comments of rea-
sonable length, if any, of the engineer.
(e) The engineer shall maintain and make
available records under paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this clause during performance on
EPA grant work under this agreement and
until 3 years from the date of final EPA
grant payment for the project In addition,
those records which relate to any "Dispute"
appeal under an EPA grant agreement, to
litigation.. to the settlement of claims aris-
ing out of such performance, or to costs or
Items to which an audit exception has been
taken, shall be maintained and made availa-
ble until 3 years after the date of resolution
of such appeal, litigation, claim, or excep-
tion.
10. PRICE REDUCTION TOR DE2rECTIVE COST OR
PRICING DATA
(This Clause is hpplicable ((the amount of
this agreement exceeds $100,00(L)
(a) If the owner or EPA determines that
any price, Including profit, negotiated In
connection with this agreement or any cost
reimbursable under this agreement was in-
creased by any significant sums because the
engineer or any subcontractor furnished in-
complete or Inaccurate cost or pricing data
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188 -WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
c
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44093
or data not current ai certified in his certifi-
cation of current cost or pricing data (EPA
form 5700-41). then such price, cost, or
profit shall be reduced accordingly and the
agreement shall be modified in writing to
reflect such reduction.
(b) Failure to agree on a reduction shall
be subject to the remedies Clause of this
agreement.
(Note. —Since the agreement is subject to
reduction under this clause by reason o(de-
fretive cost or pricina data submitted in
connection with certain subcontracts, the
engineer may Irish 10 includtaa clause in
each such subcontract requirino the subcon-
tractor to appropria Ldy indenulife the en9i.
weer. it is also expected that any subcontrac-
tor subject to such: indemnification will Oen-
erally require substantially similar inde,nni-
fication for defective cost or pricing data rC-
gtired to be submitted by his lower tier sub-
contractors.) -
1l. SU BCONTRACr5
(a) Any subcontractors and outside asso-
ciates or consultants required by the engi-
neer in connection with services under this
agreement will be limited to such individ-
uals or firms as were specifically identified
and agreed to during negotiations, or as the
owner specifically authorizes during the
performance of this agreement. The owner
must give prior approval for any substitu-
tions in or additions to such subcontractors,
associates. or consultants.
(b) The engineer may not subcontract ser-
vices in excess of thirty (20) percent (or
--- percent, If the owner and the engi-
neer hereby agree) of the contract price to
subcontractors or consultants without the
owner's prior written approval.
12. LABOR STANDARDS
To the extent that this agreement in-
volves "construction" (as defined by the
Secretary of Labor), the engineer agrees
that such construction work sha!1 be subject
to the following labor standards provisions.
to the extent applicable:
(a) Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a -
276a -7):
(b) Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333):
(c) Copeland Anti -Kickback Act (18 U.S.C.
874): and
(d) Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employ-
ment OpportunRy);
and implementing rules, regulations, and
relevant orders of the Secretary o: Labor or
EPA. The engineer further agrees that this
agreement shall include and be subject to
the "Labor Standards Provislons for Feder-
ally Assisted Construction Contracts" (EPA
form 5720-4) in effect at the time of execu-
tion of this agreement.
13. EQUAL EMPLOYMS'NT OPPORTUNITY
In accordance with EPA policy as ex.
pressed in 40 CFR 30.420-5. the engineer
agrees that he will not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, sex, age, or
national origin.
14. UTILIZATION OF SMALL AND MINORITY
BUSINESS
In accordance with EPA policy as ex-
pressed in 40 CFR 35.036-7, the engineer
agrees that qualified small business and mi-
nority business enterprises shall have the
maximum practicable opportunity to par-
ticipate in the performance of EPA grant -
assisted contracts and subcontracts.
15. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The engineer warrants that no person or
selling agency has been employed or re-
tained to solicit or secure this contract upon
art agreement or understanding for a com-
mission, percentage., brokerage. or contin-
gent fee, excepting bona tide employees. For
breach or violation of this warranty the
owner shall have the right to annul this
agreement without liability or in Its discre-
tion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full
amount of such commiss;on, percentage,
brokerage. or contingent fee.
16. GRATUITIES
(a) If it is found: after notice and hearing.
by the oumer that the engineer, or any of
the engineer's agents or representatives, of-
fered or gave gratuities (in the form of en-
tertainment. gifts, or otherwise), to any offi-
cial, employee. or agent of the owner, of the
State. or of EPA In an attempt to secure a
contract or favorable treatment in award-
ing, amending. or making any determina-
tions related to the performance of this
agreement, the owner may, by written
notice to the engineer, terminate the right
of the engineer to proceed under this agree-
ment The owner may also pursue other
rights and remedies that the law or this
agreement provides. However. the existence
of the facts upon which the owner bases
• such findings shall be in issue and may be
reviewed in proceedings under the remedies
clause of this agreement.
(b) In the event this agreement is termi-
nated as provided in paragraph (a) hereof,
the owner shall he entitled: (1) To pursue
the same remedies against the engineer as it
could pursue in the event of a breach of the
contract by the engineer, and (2) as a penal-
ty, in addition to any other damages to
which it may be entitled by law, to exempla-
ry damages in an amount (as determined by
the owner) which shall be not less than 3
nor more than 10 times the costs the engi-
neer incurs In providing any such gratuities
to any such officer or employee.
I7.PATENTS
If this agreement involves research, devel-
opmental. experimental, or demonstration
work and any discovery or invention arises
or is developed in the course of or under
this agreement, such invention or discovery
shall be subject to the reporting and rights
provisions of subpart D of 40 C}TL part30.
in effect on the date of execution of this
agreement. including appendix B of part 30.
In such case, the engineer shall report the
' discovery or invention to EPA directly or
through the owner, and shall otherwise
comply with the owner's responslbillries in
accordance with subpart D of 40 CFii part
30. The engineer ngrees that the disposition
of rights to Inventions made under this
agreement shall be in accordance with the
terms and conditions of appendix B. The en-
gineer shall Include appropriate patent pro-
visions to achieve the purpose of this condi-
tion in all subcontracts involving research.
developmental, experimental, or demonstra-
tion work.
18. COPYRIGHTS AND RIGHTS IN DATA
(a) The engineer agrees that any plans,
drawings, designs, specifications, computer
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 188 —WEDNESDAY,
programs (which are substantially paid for
with EPA grant funds), technical reports,
operating manuals, and other work submit-
ted with a step I facilities plan or with a
step 2 or step 3 grant application or which
arc specified to be delivered under this
agreement or which are developed or pro-
duced and paid for under this agreement
(referred to in this clause as "Subject
Data") are subject to the rights In the
United States. as set forth in subpart D of
40 CFR part 30 and in appendix C to 40
CFR part 30, in effect on the date of execu-
tion of this agreement- These rights include
the right to use, duplicate, and disclose such
subject data. in whole or in part. in any
manner for any purpose whatsoever, and to
have others do so. For purposes of this
clause, "grantee" as used to appendix C
refers to the engineer. It the material is co-
pyrightable, the engineer may copyright it.
as appendix C permits, subject to the rights
in the Government in appendix C. but the
owner and the Federal Government reserve
a royalty -free. nonexclusive. and Irrevocable
license to reproduce, publish, and use such
materials, in whole or in part, and to autho-
rize others to do so. The engineer shall in-
clude appropriate provisions to achieve the
purpose of this condition in all subcontracts
expected to produce copyrightable subject
data.
(b) All such subject data furnished by the
engineer pursuant to this agreement are in-
struments of his services in respect of the
project. It is understood that the engineer
does not represent such subject data to be
suitable for reuse on any other project or
for any other purpose. If the owner reuses
the subject data without the engineer's spe-
cific written verification or adaptation, such
reuse will be at the risk of the owner, with-
out liability to the engineer. Any such ver-
ification or adaptation will entitle the engi-
neer to further compensation at rates
agreed upon by the owner and the engineer.
MICROFILMED
DATE, jut _ 19M
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREF-MENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Anprovrvl
5.•.• ;rr. „n.;::,: rt in irL.nvI lit,;;: hr!„rc I or.•ph Iing this lore.)
0U!3 An. /58 -!2(:144
PART -GENERAL
I. GRANTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SU?CON TRACTOR
4. CATE OF PROPOSAL
Comprehensive Planning Institute, Dallas, Texas
Januar 23, 1980
S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR. OR SUBCONTRACTOR Uric/ride ZIP code)
5. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISUEo
Preparation of a "Piggyback"
P. 0. Box 270988
Environmental Impact Statement
Dallas, Texas 75227
for the Fayetteville 201
Project
PART II•COST SUMMARY
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
HOUR.
RATE
COST
732
$ 19.23
s
14,076.36'','°%
Prnjert Mnper
;'„`,
a�
ciate_E_n__vironmn_
_1 __
Scientists
633
10.10
6,39.3.30
_ __ _
Receptionist/Secretarial/Book-
_
keeping/Clerical _____ _
040
520
6.50
7.75
6,760.00
'4.030.00
Technician/Grahpics Artist
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
Y-
_
$ 31 259.66
ESTIMATED
E. INDIRECT COSTS ISpeci(p indirec cost pools)
PATE
. BASE =
COST
Overhead (including employee
0.67
5.31 259_66
$ 20 G43_. 77
fringe benefits)
0.67
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
L.:
:--,:,y --: ,,
''-...5
2U 943.77
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
ESTIMATED
$.9.
a. TRAVEL
COST
»>
(1) TRANSPORTATION Outrof-town, 14 trips @ $300/trip
4,200.00
L
l
(2) PER OIc.A
S
6 •'t tyre �`.'
L
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL :
x -.;
'=�
S 4
.200 .00
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Speeih categories)
QTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
" r eta,{va
Long Distance Telephone____
180
5 10.00
$ 1,8ftO.00
_'
Reproduction --8 interim reports,
^',
handbooks 30 copies per report
8
230.00
840.0
wp„a
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL
".^'
3 640. 00
�'.#)-•
ESTIMATED
&
:',t
O. SUBCONTRACTS AC TS
COST
-`�
:...,,ugt•¢,.. y'ro >.._:
e.... __'..tea-:i\'c
. .
$91,715.00
..
Environmental Scientists, Environmental
Engineers, University Arkansas and
Ragsdale 8 Associates_
,I ,.
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
'--°;"
$ 91,7] 5. 00
n 3 .4.'Y-! n N •.g -
! 4
ESTIMATED
^+ „�•Q r _
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COST
OTHER SUBTOTAL:
'
S
'
e. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL. r. �`'
5 99 , 555 .00
S 151 &08 .43
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$ 8,412.94
'1. PROFIT
16U ]71 .37
I2. TOTAL PRICE
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
e
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOP'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES• PRIOR QUOTES MARKET PROPOSED
f:ndientr lvtsin for ():me eompnriaorll PPICE:Si POKE
I
TII}III 1'I t: rr`F r r5'A £L
� l a t.
} F
i
w,nyVo��`t Ip, •a$
'-
n i :s. •'%•
�yY V F•�E
PART I V -CERTIFICATIONS
1A. CONTRACTOR
1Aa. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES i$] NO (If •'Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
O
1Ab. THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost Plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
lac.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) _Proposal for EIS
Preparation, dated January 23, 1980 This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 , 1980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit; not to have been complete, current and accurate as
of the date above.
(3) n.LO 'L I, 0
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
Founder and Director
TITLE OF PROPOSER
IS. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award, -
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
Mayor - Ci tv of Fayetteville
. ITL£ OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
EPA Form 5700-d1 (2.76) - PAGE 2 OF 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENTISTS, INC. as ENGINEER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayette-
ville, Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ENGINEER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report.
These assignments are listed against Dl::. Aaron Netzer, Dr. Guy
R. Lanza, Dr. Jerry Crowder, Dr. Ervin J. Fenyves, and Mr. Fred
Little. A narrative description of these -tasks is included
in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope of work
report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ENGINEER which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These will include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ENGINEER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ENGINEER for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed S 36,507.36,
including a maximum fixed fee profit of $4,483.36. A breakdown of
this amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other
items is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
,. ;
III. PAYMENTS: ENGINEER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on ENGINEER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay ENGINEER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: =ENGINEER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ENGINEER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
ENGINEER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ENGINEER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall ENGINEER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by ENGINEER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by ENGINEER, upon seven (7) days
written notice to the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ENGINEER, CLIENT shall pay ENGINEER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ENGINEER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER
shall assign, sublet, or trasnfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ENGINEER.
Page 2 of 3
�ry
VIII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C -1 •is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ENGINEER extends the time in writing.'
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ENGINEER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
BY:
Ervin J. Fenyves, President
DATE:
Page 3 of 3
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA
GRANTS Form
Annrol'cd
instructions Lt lnr, romp!'! 1n4 this (orm)
Oli8
N.. ;58- 80/44
(SPc tux: urr.p;un'ing
PARTI-GENERAL
2. GRANT NUMBER
1. GRANTEE
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville,. Arkansas
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
e. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Environmental Scientists
January 23,
1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTPACTOR (Inc/tide ZIP code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline Conditions and
environmental
assessment
for
P. 0. Box 688
aquatic species, air
pollution,
Richardons, Texas 75080
effluent quality',noise
and
energy
PART II -COST SUMMARY
-
E5TI•
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
MATED
HOURS
RATE
COST
Senior Environmental SQiw ti its 'I-a-On-s_1
R - R
- - f-
!
G9,74I
001
Y y
_Seer-etariaL-Clerical/Bookkeepg1-
td --'•y
__
6 eY•T4 • ip
-t r
c
I
. 1_ -iaro .uh S.
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
_ _
'''' " I"
$
ESTIMATED
S. INDIRECT COSTS lSpec:fy indirect cost pools)
RATE • BASE =
O..B9_..
515x.5.8.0
S 12,_54—
Overhead _-
fpm Z. A�iJon
.---»;a`'__.c:
0
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: `:;1^; �'
1544. O
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS _
ESTIMATED
- .:
a. TRAVEL
COST
-S. :':.:','..
'
h
(() TRgN5FOT 4TION •
3.000
PER DIE`/.
5
-a wXw. rv`ft „�a
(2)
�zJ•3�i:.
S2
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL
_000
V -Ch„,
E$`IMATEO
`e Y'
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) I QTY
COST
lephone,--____—!_ _
Long_distance, te_•_
$
$ 600
200
reproduction
S
M �
l�tMi
�nz,
A
f.�(fi�{40•
E OUIPAIE NT SUBTOTAL: :
^' * „""�-''''
800
MJf
.d
t
• •4tt
ESTIMATED
�
c,SUBCONTRACT$
F
ar-rte'.. [All
1.
°L'BCONT RAGT$ SU BTOTAL� w„�.
ESTIMATED
wt t
te
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COST
,.}+' `•zllkrzrj Tr
$
5 gsf f e'Sii q",
,'.Yil
OTHER SUBTOTA �,;r,. `��`?'r'F_y ('„.� S
+
TOTAL:
33800_.00
e. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
---------- _.._ __---.
S 3 2 0 2 4, 0
1O. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$ 4 483
.36
11. PROFIT
36,507
12, TOTAL PRICE
- -•-
5
PAGE 1 OF
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
Form Approved
nvn rL. YSR-R0114
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITORS CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
13. (indicate basis tar price comparison)
PRICE(S)
PRICE
bl C�aaa^f' q,vaa ?fa fir``
v5
��R'=jr.";✓ etnh:fi
y"yp YA
miii'
- f)'balZi
-
yaY i ..
Kam' ',.�"^s
f.
( va" PN
/�aT �/
.4YT��l'Yrrry� YI
4.4 H Y
. ) ♦ ♦.♦ Al
PART IV.CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LCCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OP. CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
Cl YES �] NO (if "Yes" give name address and {clephone number of reviewing office)
4.
14b . THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLE-,
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (;) Agreement fnr .
Professional services dated limn 72 19BCThis is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May A g ii and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
or the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
ratelyaccount
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
DATE OF EXECUTION
President, Environmental
Scientists, Inc.
TITLE OF PROPOSER
IS. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award,
OATS OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
City Manager, City of Fayetteville
TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER ell applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF cEV'EWEn
TITLE OF RFVIEhER
PAGE : OF 5
EPA F o.m 5700-41 (2-76)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERS, INC., as. ENGINEER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ENGINEER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report.
These tasks are assigned to Dr. Dee Mitchell, Dr. Hugh Jeffus,
Dr. Albert Ogden and Mr. Fraser Stephens. A narrative description
of these tasks is included in appropriate sections and subsections
of the scope of work report incorporated herein and marked as
Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ENGINEER which is either
described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic Services
defined above, shall constitute Additional Services. These will
include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ENGINEER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ENGINEER for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES:.Compensation is estimated not to exceed $20,561.17
including a fixed -fee profit.of$2:,681.89. A breakdown of this
amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other items
is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: ENGINEER.will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on ENGINEER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay ENGINEER at his office in Sprindale, Arkansas,
the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A charge of
0.1% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices not
paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: ENGINEER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ENGINEER also agrees to
maintain public liability insurance coverning claims against
ENGINEER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ENGINEER shall have no liability to CLIENT
• or others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall ENGINEER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by ENGINEER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by ENGINEER, upon seven (7) days
written notice to the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ENGINEER, CLIENT shall pay ENGINEER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ENGINEER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ENGINEER.
Page 2 of 3
VIII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ENGINEER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ENGINEER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
BY:
Dr. Dee T. Mitchell, President
Page 3 of 3
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Approved
(See nrrump;s1':ng lns:ruc-tions he!orromp!^tin{ this form)
0.418 No. 158-R0144
PART I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville. ayettey�le, Arkansas
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Environmental
January
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code)
6, TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline conditions for water
307 Edmondson
flow and quality and environmen-
Springdale, Arkansas 72701
tal assessment for water, soil,
geology and sludge processing
and management
PART II•COST SUMMARY
r
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
HOURS
RATE
COST
Senior Environmental Engineers
$ 1S.42
g_g,3_4' T
--.
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookkeeping
300
.1,875-0n
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
__ -
' ; .J--
$
ESTIMATEDy
dam' -✓.. s '
0. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify Indirect cost pools)
RATE
BASE =
COST
JtIt9
Overhead
0.50
s1L219_52s
5,609.776
__-_.__
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
" '.
.- �, ,t .;:-: -
-_ 's.:' ` '
S 5,609. 7 6
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
ESTIMATED
• -.;r;:..
a. TRAVEL
COST
v..;
':t.-
650.00
(l) TRANSPORTATION •
(2) PEP C'. E.Y.
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
I..
.: s =•
$ 650 . 00
it1 : z `• ' ':
ESTIMATED
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify eafegorle s)
QTY
COST
COST
..
';'c
Long distance, telephone,
$
$ 250.00
=�,
_ __
reproduction
150.00
ya
LYrA %
- .I T
ice
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL:
-
4OO • OO
Y w Vt
'�.
e'3'.v.at'i cq� i3'rI'M
ynT'i.T-iy
•
ESTIMATED
" ..T�' `y
c. SUBCONTRACTS
COST
h;<
. TSa
4
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL I<k-,;,,
-
$
Ii "` r
ESTIMATED
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COST
'i •r�
$
t H5�i .:ya4
OTHER SUBTOTAL: .�2=r,.''��
^
g,,�. .,,,�$
.. '2
,�n#4"sr :'.
-- c. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: q.T�-1.2_ ��r''� :°''l,5�'AS
1,050.00
----OSTSTO _�"-+-ayTw-;_r3.,f ms.'
$ 17 879.28
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$ 2,681.89
11. PROFIT '
2O 561 ] 7
12. TOTAL PRICE , •
C S
EPA Form 5700.41 (2.761
• PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOP'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
3.
ifndreote basis for f%'Icn eomparlsngl
PRICE( Si
PRICE
- P, E'.x
i.3. $au-
'.:x
•
.>.paA¢
3X P aYY 1♦F\
< o-v� 6 i+ow
. •.A
t�Aq $fij:
't yl
-/ w.:.p:��'"Yd'.Aipp'.. a•.f/
:4i.dly
Rr
___ti.
$u
-
T
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14 CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CCNTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
1fl YES :A• NO (If "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
O
14b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES -
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
lac. .\
This is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (Agreement for Profes-
proposal
sional services dated January 23, 1980. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6. 1980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the firQnciai transactions under this project. I further certify 'hat I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit; not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
President, Environmental
Engineers, Inc.
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award. d
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
City Manager City of Fayetteville
TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable)
DATE OF EXECUT:ON SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
P,'ttR , hL c
EPA Form 5700-d1 Q-76)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ARKANSAS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, as ARCHAEOLOGIST to perform professional ser-
vices for the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental
Impact Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Fayetteville,
Arkansas. -
I. SERVICES: ARCHAEOLOGIST agrees to perform Basic Services and
Additional Services in conformance with the following descriptions,
definitions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report,
assigned to Dr. Fred Limp. A narrative description of these tasks
is included in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope
of work report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ARCHAEOLOGIST which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These shall include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ARHCAEOLOGIST'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ARHCAEOLOGIST for above des-
cribed services in accordance with the following descriptions,
definitions, terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES:Compensation is estimated not to exceed $ 12,,029.73.A
breakdown of this amount and the rate of fee for personnel,
overhead and other items is included in the attached EPA
Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
r.
III. PAYMENTS: ARCHAEOLOGIST will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts
based on ARCHAEOLOGIST'S estimate of the portion of the Basic
Services completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed.
CLIENT agrees to promptly pay ARCHAEOLOGIST at his office in
Fayetteville, Arkansas, the full amount of each such invoice upon
receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid ba-
lance of invoices not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: ARCHAEOLOGIST agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ARCHAEOLOGIST also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
ARCHAEOLOGIST for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or
property damage from accidents arising in the course of services
performed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ARCHAEOLOGIST shall have no liability to
CLIENT or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of
reasonable skill in performing the services fortheassignment
covered by this Agreement. In no event shall ARCHAEOLOGIST lia-
bility exceed amount of the total compensation received by ARCHAEO-
LOGIST under this Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION:
without cause at any time
services either by CLIENT
days written notice to the
Termination shall release
this Agreement, except as
This Agreement may be terminated
prior to completion of ARCHAEOLOGIST
or by ARCHAEOLOGIST, upon seven (7)
other at the address of record.
each party from all obligations of
specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ARCHAEOLOGIST, CLIENT shall pay ARCHAEOLOGIST with
respect to Basic Services which have been completed an amount
fixed in proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ARCHAEOLOGIST each binds him-
self, and his successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to successors, executors,
administrators and assigns of such other party in respect to all
covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ARCHAEOLOGIST
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ARCHAEOLOGIST.
Page. 2 of 3
l'•
VIII. SPECIAL.PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ARCHAEOLOGIST extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ARCHAEOLOGIST
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE:
ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
BY:
Dr. Charles McGimsy, Director
Page 3 of 3
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Arprover/
Sec atcor..p:i flVir; ia.fr[ft tiutJY i)r((4'•_ rr,r•.:plrt IT this (flirt)
OI!B tv,I. 7SS-RO/44
PART I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE
2. GRANT NUMBER
C 1a e_tte tit1e
Fayattavjll e,_ArJcana3.
,
NAME OF CONTRACTOR CR SUDCONTRACTOR
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Arkansas Archaeological Survey
January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Environmental assessment for
University of Arkansas
archaeological, historical
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
and cultural resources
PART II -COST SUMMARY
7. DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor categories)
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
HOURS
PATE
COST
Project Archaeolo 1st
354
$ 1Q.5
$ 3,717.00
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookkeeping
50
5.
250.00
Project Assistant_j_220
5.50
-J__,4 2.510.
r>t A' %
Fy 4> i4
,%<
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
1--
S S 397 . 00
ESTIMATED
"e°y's
8. INDIRECT COSTS 'Spicily indirect cost pools)
RATE
BASE _
COST`s..
> L
0_e..
-r-'--- a'. p.<•c ft.
Overhead
.9_
10 --
S5 .i-'j9 —1_..YSI
5 `LfSJS2z..1_
__.-_
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
ter'
-'`--+ >fr
""?_
S 5
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
"-1
��3FieM
r `lrte'yG9Y<
ESTIMATED
•.^:,r.?A.. ... '�r'
U. TRAVEL
COST-'
h x. - 1+'x3
(I) TPANS P0RTA TION •
450._00
a yy
(] CER DIEM
5
�rz%• -,-
TRAVEL SUBTO7A L:
_ •.�-..`
S 4so O
•t"``tf 3
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Spa ci[y categories) QTY
COST
I
ESTIMATED.
COST
r.�4 <,
Lon? distance,., telephone
$
5
_
I's
reproduction
100.00
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: j .q-"
•P='= - '4.-"
300.00
ESTIMATED
C. SUBCONTRACTS
N? iv bX
SY t .y
-- --
-
';""°.�"'�`;•"s"'.
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
'K ''"'
ESTOIMATED
•S
..d
d. OTHER (Specify l
(-P f core orieJ
$
OTHER SUBTOTAL: .'.. 4`x 'b>, „Irrt ,
_- OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL:" `:-w 'F:_°: -"%:
S 750 . 00
tO. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
512
80219.73
11. PROFIT
$
12. TOTAL PRICE$12,029.73!
EPA Form 5700-d1 (2-76)
PAGp I yr a
I, <-P.....
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
o•IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
COMPE'fITO S CATALOG LISTINGS,
MARKET
PROPOSED
3
(I,,dlrare hnsis for i,r cn comparison)
PPICEISI
P?ICE
-
s:
K
,
-J•flf..iy. i. 'Ly AKJ C'
4eE k yk p.k y -^s ;n
f�
. .✓. . -
.f Y4.. ,.
a ..
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FECERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES �I NO (If "Yes" give name address and Telephone number of reviewing office)
O
14h. THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
4c,
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Agreement for Prnfes—
sional services dated January 23 . 1980. This is to certify to the best'of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
,_1
rately account for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
have been determined, a of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing data as result
of the date above.
(3)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNA TURF. OF PROPOSER
Director, Arkansas
Archaeological S-?urvey
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award. .
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
COY Manager, Ci tv n�etteT7i I I P
• - TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable) '
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND RAGSDALE 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages RAGSDALE
8 ASSOCIATES, as PLANNER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: PLANNER . agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report,
assigned to Mr. Paul Ragsdale. A narrative description of
these tasks is included in appropriate sections and sub-
sections of the scope of work report incorporated herein and
marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by PLANNER which is either
described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic Services
defined above, shall constitute Additional Services. These will
include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than PLANNER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay •PLANNER. for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed $ _221616.74
including a fixed -fee profit of $.3,368.45.A breakdown of this
amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other items
is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: PLANNER will.invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on PLANNER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay PLANNER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: PLANNER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. PLANNER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
PLANNER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: PLANNER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall PLANNER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by PLANNER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by PLANNER upon seven (7) days
written notice to,the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or PLANNER CLIENT shall pay PLANNER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and PLANNER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors; administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor PLANNER
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and PLANNER.
Page 2 of 3
4
VIII. SPECIAL. PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
PLANNER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of PLANNER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE RAGSDALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Directdr
DATE:
BY:
Paul B. Ragsdale, President
Page 3 of 3
l2 u
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Annrond
-c is ir>Iructir ms he(nrt eor.:plr •tint this form.)
C1i I1 No. 158-R0l-1-!
(S r::cur:.,;:rl
PART I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE 2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas __
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUB.ONTRACTOR 4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Ragsdale & Associates, Inc. January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SJSCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code) 6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline conditions for popu-
5206 Rocky Ridge lation, economic base, land use,
Dallas, Texas 75214 parks & recreation, community
aesthetics & their impacts on
the environment.
PART II -COST SUMMARY
ESTI-
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
7. DIRECT LABOR (Speci!y labor ca:egcries)
D
MATE
RATE
COST
HOURS
Principal Planner
461 $
14.95
S 6,891.9S6,891.95fWStti
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookke�in
240
6.60
1.584.00
-
Il pKaM 'A )
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: "v..`
- -..:,S
8.475.95
ESTIMATED
.n. .'..Tnv x t. ij^:
a. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify mdirec: cost pools) RATE
* BASE =
'
a..i rLy / �✓�
Overhead
7
$ 9
_. .
.$, _
,21+7_._34
o<.
-9
-747.34
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: S, `. `-;..* ;;.-: ( --
$ 7
,. ,-
��
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
aqL �t - L a*4„
HI. nl
,, ia<��_1L-�Ya
ESTIMP TED
.,,. �'.rp
�k„��.
a. TRAVEL
COST
f2�
550.00YH4
r is
(1) TPANcFOF TA TION
�—
.F,. r
tl$,i 4t}.or
(2) PER COEMS
-' A nr x.
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: ''
$ 550.00
,
"��'-
'
ESTIMATED
�* •
b. EQUIPMENT. MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories) QTY
COST
COST
-
Lon_g distance telephone
s
$ 300.00
175.00
Reproduction
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: =
475.00°./,
ESTIMATED
C. SUBCONTRACTS
COST
-.`- _�..:
., -, .7
g
I� K ff A�
yAM
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: (;tA;i 3'
_ ')'
S
s;.7.
.,
ESTIMATED
d. OTHER (SpecilF categories)
COST.<"G�+
z
Jaen " + e+:f./ .
S
Ac Wk
_
$
OTHER SUBTOTAL. it,?
„
e. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL. _' '. ;__
1,025 00
.
$19,248 . 29
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
S 3,368.45
I1. PROFIT
$22,616.74
12. TOTAL PRICE
PACE 1 OF S
EPA Form 5700-41 (2-76)
PART III - PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PPOPOSED
13.
(Indicate basis for price comparison)
PR Si
PRICE
r �
T^ K4l
y
{At p. -.fit yL &
. SAT
_ .:..,rt..z ,. rr,
,.';: .,
S
•
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
YES NO (If "Yes" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
O
I4b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (I) Agreement for Profes-
sional services dated January 23 1 gRfl. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarize herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 1 980 and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the firyncial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
(3)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER
President, Ragsdale F+ Assnr?ates
TITLE OF PROPOSER
I5.GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for snbngreement award,
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
City Manama E�ete�ill®
TITLE OF EVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (II applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER .
TITLE or REVIEWER
Part D nr S
EPA Form 5700-41 (2.76)
CG -247
(Rev 2-i-79)
MINORITY CONSULTANT UTILIZATION
INFORMATION SHEET
Requested information must be provided individually by applicant/grantee
and prime consultant. If the requested information cannot be provided
by either applicant/grantee or prime consultant, documented evidence of
contacts made with minority A&E firms and reasons why none were utilized
must be submitted.
A. Number of A&E firms contacted by applicant/grantee as prime consultants
Five . How many were minority -owned? One
Be Number of A&E firms contacted for joint -venture agreements by prime
consultant None . How many were minority -owned? None
C. Number of A&E firms contacted for negotiated subcontracts by prime
consultant Four . How many were minority -owned? One
D. Minority firms contacted (list below).
FIRM'S NAME: Ragsdale and Associates, Inc.
ADDRESS: 5206 Rocky Ridge, Dallas, Texas 75214
SPECIALITY: Population, Economic Base and Land Use Planning
BASIS OF UTILIZATION:
(Prime, Joint Venture or
FIRM'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
SPECIALITY:
BASIS OF UTILIZATION:
(Prime, Joint Venture or negotiated subcontract)
FIRM'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
SPECIALITY:
BASIS OF UTILIZATION:
(Prime, Joint Venture or negotiated subcontract)
If no minority firms are to be utilized, attach written and signed
documentation explaining the reasons why. If only one fire was contacted
by applicant and/or consultant in item A, B, or C above, explain reasons
why no other were contacted.
The minority firm contacted and hired, was found
Reproduce as needed, to be most qualified for the assigned scope of work,
and was found to achieve the 14% to 18% goals of
MBE participation for -the proposed project.
.
CG
-248
(rev 2-1-79)
L +i�R
OF iNi_NT
(Use by Applicant/Grantee only -
submit separate form for
each
minority
firm to be used.)
Applicant/Grantee:City of
Fayetteville
Address: P. O1 Drawer -F, Fayetteville,
Arkansas
72701
Street
City State
Zip
• Telephone: 521-7700
Area Code:
501
Project Name: EIS for Fayetteville
201 Project
Total Amount of Project: S 160,221.37
Step I X Step 2
Step 3
Step
2+3
Name of Minority A/E Firm: RaPsdale
and Associates,
Inc.
• Address: 5206 Rocky Ridge
Dallas Texas
75214
Street
City State
Up
Telephone: 371-2387 Area Code: 214
Amount: S 22,616.74 Prime: (Yes No X )•
Description of work to be perforred by minority A/E film:
Baseline conditions for population, economic base, land
use, parks E recreation, and community aesthetics; the
impacts of project alternatives bn these elements of
the affected environment.
I
Applicant/grantee intends to utilize the above -named minority A/E firm for the
work and amount indicated above. This letter of intent as submitted with Grant
application will convert into a binding contract within 15 calendar days after
contract award.
NOTE:WHEN FEASIBLE, GRANTEES SHOULD APPOINT A RESPONSIBLE MINORITY BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE OFFICER WITH AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE REQUIREMENTS.
�Siana=ure of Applicant/Grantee((Signature of Minority Fi ^ Official)
Official)
K
Date
reorcdu as neeoac.
Date
CG -24°A
(Rev. 2-1-79)
LETTER OF INTENT
(Use by non -minority consultants only - submit separate form for aeach
minority firm to be used.)
Consultant Fi-n:" Comp"re hensive.Planning Institute
- Address:: 0. Box 270988 Dallas Texas 75227
r;ry State Zip
( 279-4262 Area Code: 214
Project!Grantee: City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Amount of Project: $ 160,221.3
Tyre of Ay e „ent: Cost plus fixed -fee
Step 1 X Step 2 Step 3 _ Step 2-3
Name of Minority A/E Finn: Ragsdale and Associates, Inc.
$
•=Zl-=s s: 5206 Rocky Ridge-, Dallas, Texas 75214
tv State Zip
Telephone: 371-2387 Area Code: 214
Acreemen ,`. Amount: $ 22,616.74
Description of work to be perforned under ac,_ -.=Tent with minority firm:
Baseline conditions for population, economic base, land use,
parks a recreation and community aesthetics; the impacts of
project alternatives on these elements of the affected
environment.
Prime consultant intends
and amount indicated abc
cation will be converted
contract award:
-
to utilize the above named minority figs) or work
ve. nis letter of intent submitted with grant appli-
into a binding contract as soon as pcssibie after
Signature of Consultant r1Official Sicnature of Minority Firm Official
rn
Da
ucLe
P9orruC as needed.
Date
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4P�4EN0/Y
:Ie
• APPENDIX C-l—REQUIRID PROVISIONS-
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AGREEMENTS
1. General
2. Responsibility of the Engineer
3. Scope of Work
4. Changes
5. Termination
6. Remedies
7. Payment
8. Project Design
9. Audit: Access to Records
10. Price Reduction for Defective Cost or
Pricing Data
.11Subcontracts
,12. labor Standards
13. Equal Employment Opportunity
14. Utilization of Small or Minority Bust.
ness
15. Covenant Against Contingent Fees
16. Gratuities
17. Patents
18. Copyrights and Rights in Data
I. GENERAL
(a) The owner and the engineer agree that
the following provisions apply to the EPA
grant -eligible work to be performed under
this agreement and that such provisions su-
persede any conflicting provisions of this
'agreement.
(b) The work under this agreement is
funded in part by a grant from the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Neither the
United States nor the U.S. Environmental.
!Protection Agency (hereinafter. "EPA") 1s a
party to this agreement. This agreement
which coven grant -eligible work is subject
to regulations contained in 40 CFR 35.936,
35.937• and 35.939 In effect on the date of
execution of this agreement. As used in
these clauses, the words "the date of execu-
tion of this agreement" mean the date of
execution of this agreement and any subse-
quent modification of the terms, compensa-
tion or scope of services pertinent to unper-
formed work.
(c) The owner's rights and remedies pro-
vided in these clauses are in addition to any
other rights and remedies provided by law
or this agreement.
2. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER
(a) The engineer shall be responsible for
the professional quality, technical accuracy.
timely completion. and the coordination of
all designs, drawings, specifications. reports,
and other services furnished by the engi-
neer under this agreement. The engineer
shall, without additional compensation, cor-
rect or revise any errors, omissions, or other
deficiencies In his designs, drawings. specifi-
cations, reports, and other services.
(b) The engineer shall perform such pro-
fessional services as may be necessary to ac-
complish the work required to be performed
under this agreement. in accordance with
this agreement and applicable EPA require-
ments In effect on the date of execution of
this agreement.
(C) The owner's or EPA's approval of
drawings, designs, specifications, reports.
and incidental engineering work or materi-
als furnished hereunder shall not In any
way relieve the engineer of responsibility
for the technical adequacy of his work. Nei-
ther the owner's nor EPA's review, approval
or acceptance of. nor payment for• any of
the services shall be construed to operate as
a waiver of any rights under this agreement
or of any cause of action arising out of the
performance of this agreement.
(dl The engineer shall be and shall remain
liable. In accordance with applicable law, for
all damages to the owner or EPA caused by
the engineer's negligent performance of any
of the services furnished under this agree-
ment. except for errors, omissions or other
deficiencies to the extent attributable to the
owner, owner -furnished data or any third
party. The engineer shall not be responsible
for any time delays in the project caused by
circumstances beyond the engineeer's con-
trol Where Innovative processes or tech.
niques (see 40 CFR 35.908) are recommend-
ed by the engineer and are used the engi-
neer shall be liable only for gross negligence
to the extent of such use.
3. SCOPE OF WON(
The services to be performed by the engi-
neer shall Include all services required to
complete S the task or Step in accordance
with applicable EPA regulations (40 CFR
Part 35, Subpart E in effect on the date of
execution of this agreement) to the extent
of the scope of work as defined and set out
in the engineering services agreement to
which these provisions are attached.
4. CHARGES
(a) The owner may. at any time, by writ-
ten order, make changes within the general
scope of this agreement in the services or
work to be performed. If such changes cause
an increase or decrease in the engineer's
cost of, or time required for, performance of
any services under this agreement, whether
or not changed by any order, an equitable
adjustment shall be made and this agree-
ment shall be modified in writing according-
ly. The engineer must assert any claim for
adjustment under this clause in writing
within 30 days from the date of receipt by
the engineer of the notification of change,
unless the owner grants a further period of
time before the date of final payment under
this agreement.
(b) No services for which an additional
compensation will be charged by the engi-
neer shall be furnished without the written
authorization of the owner.
(c) In the event that there V a modiftca•
tion of EPA requirements relating to the
services to be performed under this agree-
ment after the date of execution of this
agreement. the increased or decreased cost
of performance of the services provided for
In this agreement shall be reflected in an
appropriate modification of this agreement.
S. TERMINATION
(a) Either party may terminate this agree-
ment. In whole or in part. in writing. If the
other party substantially falls to fulfill its
obligations under this agreement through
no fault of the terminating party. However,
no such termination may be effected unless
the other party is given (1) not less than ten
(10) calendar days written notice (delivered
by certilled mail, return receipt requested)
of intent to terminate and (2) an opportuni-
ty for consultation with the terminating
party before termination
(b) The owner may terminate this agree-
ment, in whole or in part, In writing. for Its
convenience, If the termination Is for good
cause (such as for legal or financial reasons.
major changes in the work or program re-
quirements, initiation of a new step) and the
engineer is given (1) not less than ten (10)
calendar days written notice (delivered by
VOL 43, NO. 184=WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
Ev
-
`= 44092
RULES AND REGULATIONS
certified mail, return receipt requested) of
intent to terminate, and (2) Si, opportunity
for consultation with the terminating party
before termination.
(c) If the owner terminates for default, an
equitable adjustment In the price provided
for in this agreement shall be made, but Cl)
no amount shall be allowed for anticipated
profit on unperformed services or other
work, and (2) any payment due to the engi-
neer at the time of termination may be ad-
justed to the extent of any additional costs
the owner incurs because of the engineer's
default. If the engineer terminates for de-
fault or if the owner terminates for conven-
ience, the equitable adjustment shall In-
clude a reasonable profit for services or
other work performed. The equitable ad-
justment for any termination shall provide
for payment to the engineer for services
rendered and expenses incurred before the
termination, In addition to termination set-
tlement costs the engineer reasonably
incurs relating to commitments which had
become firm before the termination.
. (d) Upon receipt of a termination action
under paragraphs (a) or (b) above, the engi-
neer shall (1) promptly discontinue all ser-
vices affected (unless the notice directs oth-
erwise), and (2) deliver or otherwise make
available to the owner all data, drawings,
specifications, reports, estimates, summar-
ies, and such other information and materi-
als as the engineer may have accumulated
in performing this agreement, whether com-
pleted or in process.
(e) Upon termination under paragraphs
(a) or (b) above, the owner may take over
the work and prosecute the same to comple-
tion by agreement with another party or
otherwise. Any work the owner takes over
for completion will be completed at the
owner's risk, and the owner will hold harm-
less the engineer from all claims and dam-
ages arising out of Improper use of the engi-
neer's work.
(f) If, after termination for failure of the
engineer to fulfill contractual obligations, it
Is determined that the engineer had not so
failed, the termination shall be deemed to
have been effected for the convenience of
the owner. In such event, adjustment of the
price provided for in this agreement shall be
made as paragraph (c) of this clause pro-
vides.
6. REMEDIES
Except as this agreement otherwise pro-
vides, all claims, counter -claims, disputes.
and other matters In question between the
owner and the engineer arising out of or re-
lating to this agreement or the breach of it
will be decided by arbitration if the parties
hereto mutually agree, or in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction within the State in
which the owner is located.
1. PAYMENT
(a) Payment shall be made in accordance
with the payment schedule Incorporated in
this agreement as soon as practicable upon
submission of statements requesting pay-
ment by the engineer to the owner. If no
such payment schedule is incorporated in
this agreement, the payment provisions of
paragraph (b) of this clause shall apply.
(b) The engineer may request monthly
progress payments and the owner shall
make them as soon as practicable upon sub-
mission of statements requesting payment
by the engineer to the owner. When such
progress payments are made, the owner may
withhold up to ten (10) percent of the vou-
chered amount until satisfactory completion
by the engineer of work and services within
a step called for under this agreement.
When the owner determines that the idork
under this agreement or any specified task
hereunder is substantially complete and
that the amount of retained percentages is
In excess of the amount considered by him
to be adequate for his protection, he shall
release to the engineer such excess amount.
(c) No payment request made under para-
graph (a) or (b) of this clause shall exceed
the estimated amount and value of the work
and services performed by the engineer
under this agreement. The engineer shall
prepare the estimates of work performed
and shall supplement them with such sup-
porting data as the owner may require.
(d) Upon satisfactory completion of the
work performed under this agreement, as a
condition precedent to final payment under
this agreement or to settlement upon termi-
nation of the agreement, the engineer shall
execute and deliver to the owner a release
of all claims against the owner arising under
or by virtue of this agreement, other than
such claims, If any, as may be specifically
exempted by the engineer from the oper-
ation of the release in stated amounts to be
set forth therein.
S. PROJECT DESIGN
(a) In the performance of this agreement.
the engineer shall, to the extent practicable.
provide for maximum use of structures, ma-
chines, products, materials, construction
methods, and equipment which are readily
available through competitive procurement,
or through standard or proven production
techniques, methods, and processes, consist-
ent with 40 CFR 35.936-3 and 35.936-13 in
effect on the date of execution of this agree-
ment, except to the extent to which innova-
tive technology may be used under 40 CFR
35.908 in effect on the date of execution of
this agreement.
(b) The engineer shall not, in the perform•
once of the work under this agreement, pro-
duce a design or specification which would
require the use of structures. machines,
products, materials, construction methods,
equipment, or processes which the engineer
knows to be available only from a sole
source, unless the engineer has adequately
justified the use of a sole source in writing.
(c) The engineer shall not, in the perform-
ance of the work under this agreement, pro-
duce a design or specification which would
be restrictive In violation of sec. 204(a)(6) of
the Clean Water Act. This statute requires
that no specification for bids or statement
of work shall be written in such a manner as
to contain proprietary, exclusionary, or 2115•
criminaLory requirements other than those
based upon ;performance. unless such re-
quirements are necessary to test or demon-
strate a specific thing, or to provide for nec•
essary interchangeability of parts and
equipment, or at least two brand names or
trade names of comparable quality or utility
are listed and are followed by the words "or
equal." With regard to materials, if a single
material is specified, the engineer must be
prepared to substantiate the basis for the
selection of the material.
(d) The engineer shall report to the owner
any sole -source or restrictive design or specl-
ficatlon giving the reason or reasons why it
is necessary to restrict the design or specifi-
cation.
Ye) The. engineer shall not knowingly
specify or approve the performance of work
at a facility which is in violation of clean air
or water standards and which is listed by
the Director of the EPA Office of Federal
Activities under 40 CFR Part 15.
9. AUDIT; ACCESS TO RECORDS
(a) The engineer shall maintain books,
records, documents, and other evidence di-
rectly pertinent to performance on EPA
grant work under this agreement in accord-
ance with generally accepted accounting
principles and practices consistently ap-
plied. and 40 CFR 30.605, 30.805; and 35.935-
7 In effect on the date of execution of this
agreement.. The engineer shall also main-
tain the financial information and data used
by the engineer in the preparation or sup-
port of the cost submission required under
40 CFR 35.937-6(b) In effect on the date of
execution of this agreement and a copy of
the cost summary submitted to the- owner.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Comptroller General . of the United
States, the U.S. Department of labor,
owner, and [the State water pollution con-
trol agency] or any of their duly authorized
representatives shall have access to such
books, records, documents, and other evi-
dence for Inspection, audit, and copying.
The engineer will provide proper facilities
for such access and inspection.
(b) The engineer agrees to include para-
graphs (a) through (e) of this clause In all
his contracts and all tier subcontracts di.
rectly related to project performance that
are in excess of $10.000.
(c) Audits conducted under this provision
shall be in accordance with generally ac-
cepted auditing standards and established
procedures and guidelines of the reviewing
or audit agency(ies).
(d) The engineer agrees to the disclosure
of all information and reports resulting
from access to records under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this clause. to MY of the agencies
referred thin paragraph (a), provided that
the engineer is afforded the opportunity for
an audit exit conference and an opportunity
to comment and submit any supporting doc-
umentation on the pertinent portions of the
draft audit report and that the final audit
report will include written comments of rea-
sonable length, if any, of the engineer.
(e) The engineer shall maintain and make
available records under paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this clause during performance on
EPA grant work under this agreement and
unttl 3 years from the date of final EPA
grant payment for the project. In addition,
those records which relate to any "Dispute"
appeal under an EPA grant agreement, to
litigation. .to the settlement of claims aris-
ing out of -such performance, or to costs or
items to which an audit exception has been
taken, shall be maintained and made availa-
ble until 3 years after the date of resolution
of such appeal, litigation, claim, or excep-
tion.
20. PRICE REDUCTION TOR DETECTIVE COST OR
PRICING DATA
(flits clause fs applicable U the amount of
this agreement exceeds $100,000.)
(a) If the owner or EPA determines that
any price, including profit, negotiated in
connection with this agreement or any cost
reimbursable under this agreement was in-
creased by any significant sums because the
engineer or any subcontractor furnished In-
complete or Inaccurate cost or pricing data
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188 -WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
�A
RULES AND REGULATIONS
or data not current as certified in his certifi-
cation of current cost or pricing data (EPA
form 5700-4U. then such price, cost, or
profit shall be reduced accordingly and the
agreement shall be modified in writing to
reCect such reduction.
(b) Failure to agree on a reduction shall
be subject to the remedies clause of this
agreement.
(Note.—Sinre the agreement is subject to
reduction under this clause by reason of de.
/entire cost or pricing data submitted in
connection with certain subcontracts, the
engineer may Irish to include=a clause in
each such subcontract requiring the subcon-
tractor to appropriately fndtm,iffy the emit'
"err. It is also expected that any subcontrac-
tor subject to such indemnification will gen.
orally require substantially similar indemni-
fication for defective cost or pricing data re-
quired to be submitted by his lower tier sub-
contractors.)
11. SUBCONTRACTS
(a) Any subcontractors and outside asso-
ciates or consultants required by the engi-
neer in connection with services tinder this
agreement will be limited to such individ-
uals or firms as were specifically identified
and agreed to during negotiations, or as the
owner specifically authorizes during the
performance of this agreement. The owner
must give prior approval for any substitu-
tions in or additions to such subcontractors,
associates, or consultants.
(b) The engineer may not subcontract ser-
vices in excess of thirty (20) percent (or
-- percent, if the owner and the engi-
neer hereby agree) of the contract price to
subcontractors or consultants without the
owner's prior written approval.
12. LABOR STANDARDS
To the extent that this agreement in.
volves "construction" (as defined by the
Secretary of Labor), the engineer agrees
that such construction work shall be subject
to the following labor standards provisions.
to the extent applicable:
(a) Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a -
276a -7):
<b) Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333):
(c) Copeland Anti -Kickback Act (18 U.S.C.
874): and
(d) Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity);
and implementing rules. regulations, and
relevant orders of the Secretary o: Labor or
EPA. The engineer further agrees that this
agreement shall include and be subject to
the "Labor Standards Provisions for Feder-
ally Assisted Construction Contracts" (EPA
.form 5720-4) in effect at the time of execu-
Lion of this agreement.
13. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In accordance with EPA policy as ex-
pressed In 40 CFR 30.420-5, the engineer
agrees that he will not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, sex, age, or
national origin.
14. UTILIZATION OF SMALL AND MINOI:ITY
BUSINESS
In accordance with EPA policy as ex-
pressed in 40 CFR 35.936-7. the engineer
agrees that oualified small business and mi-
nority business enterprises shall have the
maximum practicable opportunity to par-
Licipate in the performance of EPA grant -
assisted contracts and subcontracts.
15. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The (engineer warrants that no person or
selling agency has been employed or re-
tained to solicit or secure this contract upon
an agreement or understanding for a com-
mission, percentage. brokerage, or contin-
gent fee, excepting bona fide employees. For
breach or violation of this warranty the
owner shall have the right to annul this
agreement without liability or In its discre-
tion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration. or otherwise recover, the full
amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee.
16. GRATUITIES
(a) If it is found; after notice and hearing,
by the owner that the engineer, or any of
the engineer's agents or representatives. of-
fered or gave gratuities (iii the form of en-
tertainment, gifts, or otherwise), to any offi-
cial employee, or agent of the owner, of the
State. or of EPA in an attempt to secure a
contract or favorable treatment in award-
ing, amending, or making any determina-
tions related to the performance of this
agreement, the owner may, by written
notice to the engineer, terminate the right
of the engineer to proceed under this agree-
ment. The owner may also pursue other
rights and remedies that the law or this
agreement provides. However, the existence
of the facts upon which the owner bases
such findings shall be in issue and may be
reviewed in proceedings under the remedies
clause of this agreement.
(b) in the event this agreement is termi-
nated as provided in paragraph (a) hereof,
the owner shall be entitled: (1) To pursue
the same remedies against tile engineer as it
could pursue in the event of a breach of the
contract by the engineer, and (2) as a penal-
ty, in addition to any other damages 1.0
which it may be entitled by law, to exempla-
ry damages in an amount (as determined by
the owner) which shall be not less than 3
nor more than 10 times the costs the engi-
neer incurs in providing any such gratuities
to any such officer or employee.
IT. PATENTS
If this agreement involves research- devel-
opmental, experimental, or demonstration
work and any discovery or invention arises
or is developed in the course of or under
this agreement, such Invention or discovery
shall be subject to the reporting and rights
provisions of subpart D of 40 CI --t part 30,
in effect on the date of execution of this
agreement, including appendix B of part 30.
In such case, the engineer shall report the
' discovery or invention to EPA directly or
through the owner, and shall otherwise
comply with the owner's responsibilities in
accordance with subpart D of 40 CFR part
30. The engineer agrees that the disposition
of rights to inventions made under this
agreement shall be in accordance with the
terms and conditions of appendix B. The en-
gineer shall include appropriate patent pro-
visions to achieve the purpose of this condi-
tion in all subcontracts involving research.
developmental, experimental, or demolstra-
tion work,
la. COPYRIGHTS AND RIGHTS IN DATA
(a) The engineer agrees that any plans.
drawings, designs, specifications, computer
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 188 —WEDNESDAY,
programs (which are substantially paid for
with EPA grant funds), technical reports,
operating manuals, and other work Submit.
ted with a step I facilities plan or with a
step 2 or step 3 grant application or which
arc specified to be delivered under this
agreement or which are developed or pro-
duced and paid for under this agreement
(referred to In this clause as 'Subject
Data') are subject to the rights in the
United States, as set forth in subpart D of
40 CPR part 30 and in appendix C to 40
CFR part 30. In effect on the date of execu-
tion of this agreement. These rights Include
the right to use, duplicate, and disclose such
subject data, in whole or In part,' in any
manner for any purpose whatsoever, and to
have others do so. For purposes of this
clause. "grantee" as used in appendix C
refers to the engineer. If the material is co-
pyrightable, the engineer may copyright it,
as appendix C permits, subject to the rights
in the Government in appendix C. but the
owner and the Federal Government reserve
a royalty -free. nonexclusive, and irrevocable
license to reproduce, publish, and use such
materials, in whole or in part, and to autho-
rize others to do so. The engineer shall in-
clude appropriate provisions to achieve the
purpose of this condition in all subcontracts
expected to produce copyrightable subject
data.
(b) All such subject data furnished by the
engineer pursuant to this agreement are in-
struments of his services in respect of the
project. It is understood that the engineer
does not represent such subject data to be
suitable for reuse on any other project or
for any other purpose. If the owner reuses
the subject data without the engineer's spe-
cific written verification or adaptation, such
reuse will be at the risk of the owner, with-
out liability to the engineer. Any such ver-
ification or adaptation will entitle the engi-
neer to further compensation at rates
agreed upon by the owner and the engineer.
MICROFILMED
DATE__.101 i 1980
REEL
CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING. SERVICES
"PIGGYBACK" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 201
TO PREPARE
STATEMENT
PROJECT
This conthact £6 6unded 2n pat by a ghant bn.om .the U. S. Envaonmenta2
Pho-tection Agency. This cont/tact .is 6ubjeet .to aegukati,on6 contained
in 40 CFR 35, Subehapten B. NeLthe/L the United States noh the U. S.
EnvthonfneYltai Pno-tection Agency is a panty -to .th,i6 conth.act.
This contract is entered into on this oc./� day of Mav, 1980 betwee
the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS (The CITYI, and the COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING INSTITUTE (CPI), Dallas, Texas as its Consultant to assist
the CITY in preparing a "Piggyback" EIS which will permit the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, to complete the
preparation of a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Fayetteville 201 Project (Project No. C-050366-01) under Step I
of the Construction Grant Program of the Federal Water. Pollution
Control Act of 1972, as Amended.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CPI agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional S
conformance with the following descriptions, definitions,
conditions.
The basic services will include the preparation of a Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with scope of services
described in a report prepared by CPI entitled "Scope of Work For
The Development of a Piggyback EIS for the Fayetteville 201 Project"
dated May, 1980, and incorporated herein by reference and marked as
Appendix A. The report was presented to the CITY in April, 1980 and
to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in May, 1980. The scop
of work report was reviewed both by the CITY and the EPA, and a
decision to implement the scope of work was made by the CITY with
concurrence of the U. S. Environmental Protection Aeencv on Mav 6, 1
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
performed
by the CPI
which
is either described in
not included in the
Basic
Services defined above,
Additional
Services,
These
will include:
C.
I
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than CPI's or the CITY'S
offices, project site and other points or places of data and
information gathering normally required for the preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
twenty-five (.25) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this contract or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning, engineering and architectural practices.
II. COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to pay the CPI for above described services in accor-
dance with the following descriptions, definitions, terms and con-
ditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation for the scope of services described
in Section I of this contract is estimated not to exceed $160,222.00,
including a maximum fixed -fee profit of $18,947.00. A breakdown
of this compensation is as follows:
Direct Cost -- Personnel $ 72,032.13
Overhead, including employee
fringe benefits 54,727.60
Other Direct Costs (travel, printing,
long distance telephone). 14,465.00
Profit (fixed fee) 18,946.64
Total $ 160,171.37
A breakdown of the above compensation by participating subcontract
consultants is as follows:
Comprehensive Planning Institute
Environmental Scientists, Inc.
Environmental Engineers, Inc.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey,
University of Arkansas
Ragsdale & Associates, Inc.
Total
$ 68,456.37
36,507.36
20,561.17
12,029.73
22,616.74
$ 160,171.37
Page 2 of 4
The compensation rates for
fee profit for the CPI and
in Appendix B which is made
III. PAYMENTS
personnel, overhead, travel, and fixed -
its subcontract consultants are included
a part of this Contract.
The CPI will collect invoices from the subcontract consultants and
will invoice the CITY monthly in amounts based on CPI's estimate of
the portion of the Basic Services completed. The CITY agrees to
promptly pay the CPI at its office in Dallas County, Texas, the full
amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month
will be added to the unpaid balance of invoices not paid within 30
days after date of invoice. The CPI will disburse payments to each
subcontract consultant according to the terms and conditions of each
subcontract agreement reached between the CPI and the individual
subcontract consultant.
IV. INSURANCE AND
LIABILITY LIMITATION
The CPI agrees to maintain or to cause to be maintained workmen's
compensation insurance to cover all of its own personnel and other
subcontract personnel engaged in performing services for the CITY
under this Contract. The CPI also agrees to maintain public
liability insurance covering claims against CPI or other subcontract
consultants for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or
property damage from accidents arising in the course of services
performed under this Contract. Said insurance shall be in an amount sat-
isfactory to the CITY. CPI shall file certification of insurance with the CITY
within ten (10) days after execution of their contract.
V. TERMINATION
This Contract may be terminated without cause at any time prior to
completion of the CPI's services either by CITY or by CPI, upon seven
(7) days notice to the other at the address of record. Termination
shall release each party from all obligations of this Contract, except
as specified in the paragraph below.
On termination, by either the City or the CPI, the CITY shall pay the
CPI and its subcontract consultants with respect to Basic Services
which have been completed an amount fixed in proportion to the work
completed and CPI shall deliver to the CITY 25 copies of all
completed and uncompleted reports, studies, maps and data compiled
by CPI or its subcontractors under this agreement.
Page 3 of 4
I _.___+-�..i-- ---n. - -- -.-_- _____
- a ��� -+� I. .�+.��.• ---�
VI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The CITY and the CPI each binds itself, and their successors, executors,
administrators and assigns to the other party of this Contract and
to the successors, executors, administrators and assigns of such
other party in respect to all covenants of this Contract. Neither the
CITY nor the CPI shall assign, sublet, or transfer its interest in
this contract without the written consent of the other. Nothing here-
in shall be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to
anyone other than the CITY and the CPI.
VII. SPECIAL PROVISION
Additional services shall be performed only upon written authorization
of the City of Fayetteville and the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY. Appendix C-1 is made a part of this Contract.
VIII. INVALIDATION
If this Contract is not executed by the CITY within ten (10) days
of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless the CPI extends
the time in writing.
IX. MODIFICATIONS
No one has authority to make variations in, or additions to the terms
of this Contract on behalf of the CPI other than one of its Officers,
and then only in writing signed by that authorized officer.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
By:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE: 1 21, L8Q
Page 4 of 4
CITIZENSHIP STATEMENT
Among all the staff members of the various consulting entities
involved in the EIS study, Mn. Khan M. Husain, the Project Dir-
ector, is not yet a full citizen of the United States. But Mr.
Husain has been a permanent resident of the United States since
June, 1969. A copy of the permanent residentship card issued to
Mr. Husain by the United States Department of Justice is attached
with this statement.
4
p
fir;
J.. -.
_ a
[:)
1 r. ' \
1/ \. ] ♦ ' r
i/ f l
1.
!r n4t Ay 1[il 0. ,\w: at•y i S•T.(
•
.�'1'`A 11!
v 4—r I�
.'"rtilr:
l ru
'� i
.v
.-•.. y r
\
5 b
. • ..r"
..
�
4 i
..file ln..
!L..
1
.....-.• .:
r. rn:. ex(e G4
Y.Y
S? iJ:LL:
'rR'iv_•f
r\M1//-�
•��+'l.
..:.
.. 1L ..1
;..i.
I ..
..a
•.•_• rah F�♦i+
f Clef 1:tF.'M1I> n t• •.../.
)...ice xr-J� 1I /A i� :c' x:
V.
Gly%ryJli�./' aaa['}'r�AI T rrY V O r ..
1 RG Ei6R1@I pVf UID a.
•r1r[..nf
Thisv mot will be hunorf rig lieu . - -
,
. of der and t returrt if g from l a. f r- ! 7 r r- -
holder 4 not tempering from a ti« . rc11nory area ode od a erJ
Re of Title S. Code bf Ft over
i Regulationd was not abient over
— a vest. and Is riot otherwise e:
and Naturalization `hemee omte - . - .� .�: _{,r/(k'�.••(-L , ,rot gip} :jir;. n M:_!T::1..
heron you depstt as to whether -
fouehoaldapplYforanotherdoe- 4 a_a
ument. Notlry l&N5ervice of ad- ea
dress dutlng January each Year
and within ten days after each - ' _
chug. of addren- Obtain forme t - ' •from any Immigration or Port -
Omee. Always Include your •An ' - .. - -
number in communications to -
A_•
�� �� a/}�...�JL Y� .f�ti
.1 �.+�.rr n }-i f.� _
•
t' � � �
• .♦
f !"I.
'II
J Q
♦lf iJ h1�
\•lf \ Y /: t�rf
}'f 1 YMII"f: r
y -l.
.
.'.
_hf
If 'lt
y 1'
1 1 a :4-
:.
,-.
. -- t J..
t V rv, ry .p ..\: �'.M..�
.t.-
.aa.:. YJIUJVNIIS$i.t •'-i✓ri*.I\
M.:.a.F..T
\FK Sa 4F�Jir}t(.iA/♦\'f'
e -e.. r.
_la.., . .. • t.'. :... .... '.. 't .. /. . .. . ..... - t e r.
♦.. pn ......
♦ - '-- .. _, ... -- . ..
.. .,.
•Y.
f
l ) tN F
J Y'.
t I ♦]i
O. r
G i .\.YI I I
\ i♦ is '14r p S
aY
4
t l (�
.4' I✓ n
II
\ x
-t
vote`
f �
♦ n5r, <
e �
_ f f♦
y' .,i
:r'n
Yv
'.
. w
• a .
.- - ._ . . -.
.. .. -
r
.. • ♦
------
-u.
-nap:
I
.x:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND RAGSDALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages RAGSDALE
& ASSOCIATES, as PLANNER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
A
I. SERVICES: PLANNER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report,
assigned to Mr. Paul Ragsdale. A narrative description of
these tasks is included in appropriate sections and sub-
sections of the scope of work report incorporated herein and
marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by PLANNER which is either
described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic Services
defined above, shall constitute Additional Services. These will
include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than PLANNER'S or'
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay •PLANNER for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed $ 222616.74
including a fixed -fee profit of $ 3,368.45.A breakdown of this
amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other items
is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-4i.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: PLANNER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on PLANNER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay PLANNER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: PLANNER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. PLANNER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
PLANNER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: PLANNER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall PLANNER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by PLANNER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by PLANNER upon seven (7) days
written notice to,the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or PLANNER CLIENT shall pay PLANNER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and PLANNER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor PLANNER
shall assign, sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and PLANNER.
Page 2 of 3
r
VIII. SPECIAL, PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
PLANNER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of PLANNER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE RAGSDALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY: BY: TUILQ
Khan M. Husain, Founder Paul B. Ragsdale Presiden
and Directdr
i ^GG
DATE:
c
Page 3 of 3
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
Form Approved
(So';n_currp;m'ins iris lruct ions bt(nru complt•11n4 this fora)
CUB No. 158-R0143
PART
I -GENERAL
1. GRANTEE -
2. GRANT NUMBER
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Ragsdale & Associates. Inc.
January 23, 1980
S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP
code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline conditions for popu-
5206 Rocky Ridge
lation, economic base, land use,
Dallas, Texas 75214
parks & recreation, community
aesthetics & their impacts on
the environment.
PART II -COST
SUMMARY
ESTI-
MATED
HOURLY
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
7. DIRECT LABOR (specify lobo- cofebories)
HOURS
RATE
COST
Principal Planner
46
s 14.95
6,891.95
Secretarial/C lerical/Bookkeein
240
6.60
1584.00
_ _
o
A
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
$ 8 475 9
8. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify indirect cost pools)
RATE
• BASE =
ESTIMATED
COST
Overhead
9,147.3k
lI
S, a r'
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
- "•.
-
-'`
$ 9.747.34
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
4.
`? _
ESTIMATED
0. TRAVEL
COST
•
-
•
550.00
i) Tv 1N`_F F?FTION
('?) PER OtEy
$
k
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
� �'
1
S 550.00
"^
- .
D. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify cn:egorfes)
I OTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
Long distance,_. telephone
__
$
S 300.00
Reproduction
175.00
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL:
475.00
' • `'�
-M1c4
ESTIMATED
C. SUBCONTRACTS
COST
SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:
•
$
ESTIMATED
d. OTHER (Specify categories)
COST
I.
OTHER SUBTOTAL:
-S.
C. OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
`?�: >~4 :-. :-
S 1 OZS OO
S19 248.29
to.TOTALESTIMATEDCOST
5 3 368.45
11. PROFIT
22 616 .74
12. TOTAL PRICE
PAGE I OF 5
E PA Form 5700.41 (2-76)
,$A♦
' •
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS. IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET
PROPOSED
13.
(Indicate hnxre for price comparison)
PRICE(S)
PRICE
1
v • V rM
a 'l;\ 3`f14 Eli y.
1
3 -,
ors iT'Yq �PtFr,
T1 r
s,.. w'v
yt-"
V %j
. A�... i S •t't-`} Y 4'� 1'_' `\� ) f'/..\ i .[S21 -E9 W [^i.; 4- k✓3. S..h
talA'ti`T.i"Ys -®., i
$
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS"
I4. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
MONTHS1
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE
YES lCK NO (11 "Yee" give name address and telephone number of reviewing office)
O
I4b.THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1) Agreement for Profes-
sional services dated January 23 TI gag. This is to certify to the best of my knowlddge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarize herei:i are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May A 1 gg fl and that a financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accurate as
pricing
of the date above.
�pTE OF E4ECU TION SIGNATURE OF P OPOSER
President, Ragsdale F Associates
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein add the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for snbagreement award.
GATE OF E%F.CUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
Fayetteville
TITLE OF EVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (ff applicable)
DATE OF E%ECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
+- PAGE 2 OF 5
EPA Form 5700-d1 (7.76)
.:..' CC -248
(Rev 2-1-79)
LETitR OF INTENT
(Use by Applicant/Grantee only - submit separate form for each minority
firm to be used.)
Applicant/Grantee: City of Fayetteville
Address: P. O: Drawer F, Fayetteville,' Arkansas 72701
• Street City State Zip
• Telephone: 521-7700 Area Code: 501
Project Name: EIS for Fayetteville 201 Project
Total Amount of Project: S 160,221.37
Step I X Step 2 Step 3 Step 2+3
Name of Minority A/E Firm: Ragsdale and Associates, Inc.
Address: 5206 Rocky Ridge Dallas Texas 75214
Street City State Zip
Telephone: 371-2387 Area Code: 214
Ar,..ount: S 22,616.74 Prime: (Yes No X ).
Description of work to be performed by minority A/E firm:
Baseline conditions for population, economic base, land
use, parks 8 recreation, and community aesthetics; the
impacts of project alternatives bn these elements of
the affected environment.
Applicant/grantee intends to utilize the above -named minority A/E fi .. for the
work and amount indicated above. This letter of intent as submitted with grant
application will convert into a binding contract within 15 calendar days after
contract award.
NOTE: WHEN FEASIBLE, GRANTEES SHOULD APPOINT A RESPONSIBLE MINORITY BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE OFFICER WITH AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE REQUIREMENTS.
(Signature of Applicant/Grantee (Signature of Minority Fintofficial)
Official)
Date
pr uce as neea.
lln\Q u
Date !�
r
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENTISTS, INC. as ENGINEER to perform professional services for
the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Fayette-
ville, Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ENGINEER agrees to perform Basic Services and Additional
Services in conformance with the following descriptions, defini-
tions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report.
These assignments are listed against D•r.•.: Aaron Netzer, Dr. Guy
R. Lanza, Dr. Jerry Crowder, Dr..Ervi.n J. Fenyves, and Mr. Fred
Little. •A narrative description of these tasks is included
in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope of work
report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ENGINEER which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined -above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These will include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ENGINEER'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess`of
two (2) sets. ,j
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included iri.this'Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ENGINEER for above described
services in accordance with following descr.ptig s., definitions,
terms and conditions. F
1 s est„n a�. ed. �-�o
BASIC SERVICES: Total compensation not exceed $36,507.00,
including a maximum fixed fee profit of $4,483.00. A breakdown of
this amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead and other
items is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: ENGINEER will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts based
on ENGINEER'S estimate of the portion of the Basic Services
completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed. CLIENT
agrees to promptly pay ENGINEER at his office in Dallas County,
Texas, the full amount of each such invoice upon receipt. A
charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance of invoices
not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. INSURANCE: -'ENGINEER agrees to maintain workmen's compensation
insurance to cover all of its own personnel engaged in performing
services for CLIENT under this Agreement. ENGINEER also agrees
to maintain public liability insurance covering claims against
ENGINEER for damages resulting from bodily injury, death or pro-
perty damage from accidents arising in the course of services.per-
formed under this Agreement.
V. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ENGINEER shall have no liability to CLIENT
or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of reason-
able skill in performing the services for the assignment covered by
this Agreement. In no event shall ENGINEER'S liability exceed
amount of the total compensation received by ENGINEER under this
Agreement.
IV. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ENGINEER'S
services either by CLIENT or by ENGINEER, upon seven (7) days
written notice to_the other at the address of record. Termina-
tion shall release each party from all obligations of this
Agreement, except as specified in paragraph VI.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ENGINEER, CLIENT shall pay ENGINEER with respect to
Basic Services which have been completed an amount fixed in
proportion to the work completed.
VII. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ENGINEER each binds himself, and
his partner, successors, executors, administrators and assigns
to the other party of this Agreement and to partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party in respect
to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER
shall assign, sublet, or trasnfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall
be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone
other than CLIENT and ENGINEER.
Page 2 of 3
VIII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only
upon written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made
a part of this Agreement.
IX. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date tendered, it shall become invalid unless
ENGINEER extends the time in writing.
X. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ENGINEER
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed
by him.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
DATE: ^/ 9, O
� r
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
BY: Z
Ervin J. Feny s,
DATE: QS-- QQ - . J9
F
Page 3 of 3
Vim. • sue. —.
-s.� l.,,
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS Form InP:Irl'1'd
1 S,•.• nrc,,:r. p;it. ,'in¢ in>trurfil•r.- h, (..lo -nnph'tiniu¼ 1n(n.) 0}1R A'o. 15s R!44
PART I•GENE RAt.
2, jPANT NUMBER
1. GPANIEL
City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas
—.—
J. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
4. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Environmental Scientists
January 23, 1980
S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP role)
o I+'PE OF SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED
Baseline Conditions and
environmental assessment for
P. 0. Box 688
aquatic species, air pollution,
Richardons, Texas 75080
effluent quality, noise and
energy
PART II•COST
SUMMARY
---- ----
EST I•
'-
MATED
HOU4 L.Y
ESTIMATED
TOTALS
7. DIRECT LABOR fSPeci(,' tn!fur categories)
HOURS
;ATE
COST
Senior Environment]—Sdentis_
SBIl�
83>fl---
—2_,240
-...--.-Secretarial./-Clerical-/Bookkee
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL 1
S
ESTIMATED
C. INDIPECICC STS (SP e<:fy mGren <asl PCPI,)
PATE
BASE o
j
COST
Overhead ---
515_,6.8.0
$ 12.544_.-
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
-
S 1 544
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS _ _ _.
. I "'• .'
ESTIMATED
-. .... 1' :.
fl. TRAVEL
COST
_ _o .'' x.n Si
~•
III TF/J:`FG S,ETION • —
•
� ;
..
(2) <-rlv OI E'2
------TRAVEL
$
$
t"s
'.-i �++ • •:
SUBT0—TAL:_----
ESTIMATED','
b. EUIF MF.NT, MATERIALS. SV PPLIES lSFcci I,.' eai e(nrie OTY COST s)
COST
- '-
:s—
------- - •-__-------
s 500
'----
--Longstance>.telephone,-------
I
200
reproduction
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: j
BOO
"
ESTIMATED
r' /(•
C. SUBCONTRACTS J
COST
x, ' "^''!;'y.
S L'BCONT RACT 5 SUBTOTAL.
ESTIMATED
H. OTHER (SPrr,fy uov(nri. )
COST
[' +
V.'
OTHER SUBTOTAL : _ •, .:.; :•?
e CTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: �� _ _—_.__' •.I" S,_-3, BOO_ —.
-- — — s 32 024
+J. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
—' S 4 453--
. FRC••'IT — • 36,507
12. TOTAL PP ICC .� --
, OF 5
- — ••"��"' PAGE
E PA Form 57(10.41 12.76)
S porn Anirrn v.•J
•'•CiA- e' u N ,,. I38 -NV IJA
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
PRIOR QUOTES MARKET PROPOSED
COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS• IN-HOUSE [Si iMATES, PRICE
I indicate Lorie lot price eoPRICF.I51 a,Pmieon)
iIl
-- Vie:.1 �f.litt l>%tt
a:.tI .�L•:.e lam' t.
re. '
__ v. iY't • gat P'•i'I
'1../. •./�,!{t..f}: N•I ••. III
PART IV.CERTIFICATIONS
1, COAT RACI GH
If tae HAS A rEDEFAL AGENCY OR A FECEPALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LCCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OP YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT. WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTH?
r- V Es NC (11 "1'ea" givs e name nddroand telephone ncmber of Jevde«vnit office) P
:e .'1J15 SU AIMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FO'_LO%ING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fired -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
'Phis proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (if Agreement fnr
Professional services dated Tan 2 l980This is to certify to the best of my ka;owledgn_
and belie( that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) M ay A ig RD jnd that -a financial management capability exists to fuily and accu-
rlelc account lorthe financial transactions under this protect. I further certir'y that 1 understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or ree4TUP�
coupment where th`e `caTabovet and
pricing data have beer, determined, as a result of audit, not to have been c
of the date above. LCr-:.SER
GATE CF EXECUTIONnmental
Scientists
~ TITLE FROFOSEr
.e
I... e...c f
I cat tifv That 1 have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs; Price appeau
acceptable for snbngreenlent a•.caid.
SIGN TUFE OF PEV:EZE°
CATI1 OF rXECU TION
City Manager, City of Fayetteville
^•_T'lrrLE OF FEVIErER
1t. EPA RF_'/IE WER (IS apPliu.bae)
.,O•rA 1 JI E (i
DS11 CI I.•LCJI'GH
_.� .�.y. _-- •ter_' __: •. a r.
IPA r... In i7'1.';I 11'7JI1
No. 253$00
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NOOISORANCE COVERAGE PROVOIEO-
NOT FOR NITERNATIONAL MAIL
- Donald Washington
0 CERTIFIED FEE C
LL SPECIAL DEUVERY C
0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY
0 0 SHOW TO VRbM AM
tllG:l, > WW> DATE DELIVERED Q
q 6 SIlOWTOWMoA1t
ANDADDRESSOF
0 2 GI DELIVERY
u _O
9IOWTOW1OMMKDAff
r ~~ D LE IVERRED 'WITH RES TNDTED
_ O C DELIVERYSHOW O
0 ADDRESSOF BAIt
H
NITDO X RESTRICTED DELIVERY C
TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES $
POSTMARK OR DATE
..2/1/78
Civil penalty"
1111` $500 cashier check
• SENDER: Complete items 1, 3, and 3.
Add your address in the, "RETURN TO" space on
reverse.
1. The following service is requested ' (check one).
X X � Show m whom and date debvered ............25d
Show to whom, date, & address of delivery .....45C
❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY.
Show to whom end dare delivered ............85du
o RESTRICTED DELTJERY.
Show to whom, date, and address of delivery .. $1.05
(Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other
fees).
2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO:
EPA - Donald Washington
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
3; ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:
REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
253800
(Always ebtaln signature of addressee or agent)
I have received the article described above.
SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee ❑ Authorized agent
4 /bt-ss.`s�
DATE OF DELIVERY
' PO MAC
C 1 a
ADDRESS (Complete only if repueste it
-6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: -
tl DL
-
INITIALS
V �
FAYETTEv-ILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
P. O. DRAWER F 72701 1501) 521-7700
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 1, 1978
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
ATTENTION: Mr. Donald Washington
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is Mcllroy Bank and Trust Cashier Check No. 112469 in the
amount of $500.00 for payment of civil penalty as set out in the
Final Order of Docket No. SPCC -8348 dated January 24, 1978.
Sincerely,
Pat Tobin dui
City Controller
Enclosure
MICROFI,1919DAT \OFD_
REEC\C�
I � UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`p+ FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75270
JAN 24 1978
CERTIFIED MAIL #856943 - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
City of Fayetteville
P. 0. Drawer F
• Fayetteville, Ark. 72701
Re: Environmental Protection Agency
City.of Fayetteville
Docket No. SPCC -8348
Dear Sir:
I am enclosing an executed Final Order in the above referenced matter.
In order to close the. file, I will need payment of the civil penalty as
set out in the Final Order and written confirmation of the preparation
and implementation of your SPCC plan.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
va Donald Washington
Legal Branch
Enforcement Division
Enclosures a/s
i
p.
•
'r�'r,I .. _
1
UNITED STATES -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMPLAINANT
V.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT
DOCKET NO. SPCC -8348
FINAL ORDER
On November 17, 1977 Complainant, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, issued a Notice of Violation against Respondent, City of Fayetteville,
alleging
violations
of
S311(j)(1)(c)
of the Federal Water
Pollution
Control Act
as
amended (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(1)(c)),
hereinafter referred
to
as the
Act, and
regulations promulgated pursuant to such law (40 CFR Part 112.3(a)(d))..
FINDINGS OF FACT
With respect to the violations alleged in the above referenced Notice of
Violation, the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI,
herewith makes the following Findings of Fact:
(1) That Respondent maintains a non -transportation -related onshore facility
from, which a discharge of oil could reasonably be expected to enter waters of
the United States or adjoining shorelines.
(2) That Respondent's facility has an above -ground oil storage capacity
in excess of 1320 gallons.
(3) That Respondent did not have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plan'prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer on or
before July 10, 1974.
1975.
(4) That Respondent did not implement any such SPCC Plan on or before January 10,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above Findings of Fact constitute violations of the Act in the following
respects:
(1) Respondent's failure to have an SPCC Plan prepared and certified by
a registered professional engineer on or before July 10, 1974 is a violation of
the provisions of -40 CFR Part 112.
(2) Respondent's failure to have the SPCC Plan implemented by January 10,
1975 is a violation of the provisions of 40 CFR Part 112.
i t?
�;. 2
Pursuant to authority in S311(j)(2) of the Act, upon consideration of the
above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, upon consideration of the gravity
oft the violations and the demonstrated goodfaith efforts of Respondent to achieve.
compliance after Notice of Violation, and after consideration of the entire record
herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Respondent, City of Favetteville, pay a civil penalty in the
amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) dollars.
Payment of the above civil penalty should be made by forwarding to the Regional
Hearing Clerk (EPA, ATTN: Mr. Donald Washington, Environmental Protection Agency,'
Region VI, First International Building, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270)
a cashier's or certified check in the amount of the penalty, payable to the United
States of America, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this ORDER.
M
..ram 1_'r s
,,
ADDENDUM TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND
RAGSDALE AND ASSOCIATES,
The terms and conditions of the above agreement were reviewed by
the City of Fayetteville to insure that they are in compliance with
the budgetory regulations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In order to meet the EPA regulations, the City of Fayetteville has
found it necessary to clarify certain terms and conditions of the
subject agreement. This addendum is a clarification of these terms
and is made an integral part of the original agreement between the CPI
and Ragsdale and Associates.
=I -The first sentence n'-Section'I'II-`(page=2Y`of-"the-agreement is
meant to say that the CPI will collect monthly invoices from Ragsdale
and Associates reflecting the exact cost incurred in that month, and
not based on an estimate of the portion of the work completed in that
month.
II. A further clarification of Section II (page 1) of the agreement
is as follows:
The budget for Ragsdale and Associates' portion of the work as defined
in Appendix A of that agreement is estimated at $22,616.74 of which
$3,368.45 is the fixed fee. It is understood that the fixed fee part
of the contract cannot be changed during the life of the agreement.
The balance::.of the budget that includes the cost of personnel, overhead,
travel, etc. may change in either direction depending on the actual
costs incurred by Ragsdale and Associates. However, the approved
budget of $22,616.74 cannot be exceeded without a written authorization
from the City of Fayetteville and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition, any work by Ragsdale and Associates which is not included
in the Scope of Work (Appendix A) must be authorized by the CPI, the
City of Fayetteville and the EPA prior to undertaking such work.
III. It is understood by all parties concerned tha-C all -cost items
covered by the non -fixed part of the overall budget, are subject to
a detailed, item by item audit by the Environmental Protection Agency,
the City of Fayetteville, and the Comprehensive Planning Institute. If
the audit indicates any discrepancy between the costs actually incurred
on a particular item and the invoice amount paid on that item, then
Ragsdale and Associates will be responsible for returning the money
which the audit may find excessive or ineligible under the EPA Regu-
lations on a cost plus fixed -fee contract.
COMPREHENSIVE ANNING INSTITUTE
By.
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
Date: �26� L5'5Q
RAGSDALE AND ASSOCIATES
By: aul B.)izagsdal��Presldent
ADDENDUM TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
The terms and conditions of the above agreement were reviewed by
the City of Fayetteville to insure that they are in compliance with
the budgetory regulations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In order to meet the EPA regulations, the City of Fayetteville has
found it. necessary to clarify certain terms and conditions in the
subject agreement. This addendum is a clarification of these terms
and conditions, and is made an integral part of the original agreement
between the CPI and the Environmental Scientists.
I.. The first sentence in Section
meant to say that the CPI will col
Environmental Scientists reflecting
>month, and'not�based''•on-an--estimate
pleted in that month.
III (page 2) of the agreement is
lect monthly invoices from the
the exact cost incurred in that
of"themportion of the work com'
II. A further clarification of Section II (page 1) of the agreement
is as follows:
The budget for Environmental Scientists' portion of work as defined
in Appendix A of that agreement, is estimated not to exceed $36,507.36,
of which $4,483.36 is the fixed fee. It is understood that the fixed
fee part of the contract cannot be changed during the life of the
agreement. The balance of the budget that includes the cost of per-
sonnel, overhead, travel, etc. may change in either. direction depending
on the actual costs incurred by the Environmental Scientists. However,
the approved budget of $36,507.36 cannot be exceeded without a written
authorization from the City of Fayetteville and the Environmental
Protection Agency: In addition, any work by the Environmental Scientists
which is not- he Scope of Work (Appendix A) must be au-
thorized by the -CPI, the ity of Fayetteville and the EPA prior to
undertaking such work."I _ xti�2�hi
w eIl G h Zd
III. It is understood by all parties concerned that all cost items
'� -- - - covered-by�the�non=f xed�part:of'the overall-budgef for the^Envsron--
mental Scientists are subject to a detailed, item by item audit by
cJ the Environmental - Protection Agency, the City of Fayetteville, 'awe
,"4� .cnTzehztor?e-2±'nn-ng---I-natrtete. If the audit indicates any discre-
pancy between the costs actually incurred on a particular item and the
A2 invoice amount paid on that item, then the Environmental Scientists
will' be responsible for returning the money which the audit may find
excessive or ineligible under the EPA regulations on a cost plus fixed -
fee contract.
COMPREHENSIVE P NNING INSTITUTE
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
Date: , 26
EBNVIRONMEN ALIE
Y
rvin J. Fenyve ,;• _ ='_ ;
Date: — . 747,
ADDENDUM TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND
ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
The terms and conditions. Of the above agreement were reviewed by the
City of Fayetteville to insure that they are in compliance with the
budgetory regulations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In order to meet the EPA regulations, the City of Fayetteville has
found it necessary to clarify certain terms and conditions of the
subject agreement. This addendum is a clarification of these terms
and is made an integral part of the agreement between the CPI and
the Arkansas Archaeological Survey.
I. The first
meant to say. that
Survey reflecting"
on an estimate of
entence in Section III (page 2) of the contract is
the CPI will collect monthlyiinvoices from the
the exact cost incurred in'that�m th;'and�not'baased:
the portion of the work completed in that month.
II. A further clarification of Section II (page 1) of the contract
is as follows:
The budget for the Arkansas Archaeological Survey's portion of the work
as defined in Appendix A of the original agreement is estimated at
$12,029.73. This budget which includes the cost of personnel, over-
head, travel, etc. may change in either direction depending on the actual
costs incurred by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey; However, the
approved budget of $12,029.73 cannot be exceeded without a written au-
thorization from the City of Fayetteville and the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. In addition, any work by the Survey which is not
included in the Scope of Work (Appendix A) must be authorized by the
CPI, the City of Fayetteville and EPA prior to undertaking such work.
III. It is understood by all parties concerned that all cost items
covered by the approved budget, are subject to a detailed, item by
item audit by the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Fayette-
ville and the CPI. If the audit indicates any discrepancy between the
.w costs-�actua-lly incu-r-real_,on a_particular._�item and_the nvoice _
amount
paid on that item,then the Arkansas Archaeological Survey will return
the money which the audit may find excessive or ineligible under the
EPA regulations on a cost plus fixed -fee contract.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
By: I
Khan M. Husain, Founder
and Director
Date: 11 2-6, LS SO
ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UNIVE STY OF ARKANS
B y : cR;ZZ
Dr. Charles c i e , Director
Date: AUG 13198t
El
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE AND ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
The COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE as CLIENT engages ARKANSAS
ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY, as ARCHEOLOGIST to perform professional services
for the assignment described as follows: STEP I, Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
I. SERVICES: ARCHEOLOGIST agrees to perform Basic Services and
Additional Services in conformance with the following descriptions,
definitions, terms and conditions.
A. BASIC SERVICES: These services will include the completion of
tasks and subtasks shown in page 72 of the Scope of Work Report, as
.assigned to Dr. Fred Limp. A narrative description of these tasks
is included in appropriate sections and subsections of the scope
of work report incorporated herein and marked as Appendix A.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: All work performed by ARCHEOLOGIST which is
either described in this paragraph or not included in the Basic
Services defined above, shall constitute Additional Services.
These shall include:
1. Travel and subsistence to points other than ARCHEOLOGIST'S or
CLIENT'S offices, the project city, and other places of data
collection for the proposed study.
2. Copies of reports, studies, maps and other data in excess of
two (2) sets.
3. Revisions to approved reports, studies, maps and other data.
4. Other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted
planning and engineering practices.
II. COMPENSATION: CLIENT agrees to pay ARCHEOLOGIST for above described
services in accordance with the following descriptions, definitions,
terms and conditions.
BASIC SERVICES: Compensation is estimated not to exceed $12',029.73.
A breakdown of this amount and the rate of fee for personnel, overhead
and other items is included in the attached EPA Form 5700-41.
Page 1 of 3
III. PAYMENTS: ARCHEOLOGIST will invoice CLIENT monthly in amounts
based on ARCHEOLOGIST'S estimate of the portion of the Basic
Services completed, plus charges for Additional Services performed.
CLIENT agrees to promptly pay ARCHEOLOGIST at his office in
Fayetteville, Arkansas, the full amount of each such invoice upon
receipt. A charge of 1.0% per month will be added to unpaid balance
of invoices not paid within 30 days after date of invoice.
IV. LIABILITY LIMITATION: ARCHEOLOGIST shall have no liability to
CLIENT or to others for any reasons beyond warranty of the use of'
reasonable skill in performing the services for the assignment
covered by this Agreement. In no event shall ARCHEOLOGIST liability
exceed amount of the total compensation received by ARCHEOLOGIST
under this Agreement.
V. TERMINATION:
A. CONDITIONS OF TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated
without cause at any time prior to completion of ARCHEOLOGIST
services either by CLIENT or by ARCHEOLOGIST, upon seven (7)
days written notice to the other at the address of record.
Termination shall release each party from all obligations of
this Agreement, except as specified in Paragraph V.B below.
B. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON TERMINATION: On Termination, by either
CLIENT or ARCHEOLOGIST, CLIENT shall reimburse ARCHEOLOGIST with
respect to all costs directly pertinent to the project accrued
to the date the notice of termination is received and for Basic
Services which have been completed in an amount fixed in proportion
to the work completed.
VI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: CLIENT and ARCHEOLOGIST each binds himself,
and his successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the
other party of this Agreement and to successors, executors, adminis-
trators and assigns of such other party in respect to all covenants
of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ARCHEOLOGIST shall assign,
sublet, or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be construed
as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone other than
CLIENT and ARCHEOLOGIST.
VII. SPECIAL PROVISION: Additional services shall be performed only upon
written authorization of the CLIENT. Appendix C-1 is made a part
of this Agreement.
VIII. INVALIDATION: If this Agreement is not executed by CLIENT within
10 days of the date rendered, it shall become invalid unless
ARCHEOLOGIST extends the time in writing.
Page 2 of 3
IX. MODIFICATIONS: No one has authority to make variations in, or
additions to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of ARCHEOLOGIST
other than one of its Officers, and then only in writing signed by
him.
ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
BY: BY:
Khan M. Husain, Founder Dr. Charles McGimsey, D' ector
and Director
DATE: y L980 DATE: JUL 11980
Page 3 of 3
VII
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS
For.!: arPrrn'<' d
r5, -r urw;;,: Th,r: In-tr ;-Vn'n+ in /„rtrnc ,hi I'wr.)
Oil!? A'. JjS-R('!44
PART !-GENERAL
1. bRANTEE 1. GRANT :UMBER
Cf_Faytt-eville, Fay.e_tteville.,__Ar_kansas -----
T
3. NAME OF CONTACTOR CR SUECO-:3RACTLR 14. DATE OF PROPOSAL
Arkansas Archaeological Survey I January 23, 1980
5. ADDRESS OF CONTR4CTOR OR SU CONTRA_TGR ( L erode :II rode)
5. 1 VPE�OF SERVICC TO BE FUHNI5,lEU
Environmental'assessment for
University of Arkansas
archaeological, historical
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
and cultural resources
PART 11 -COST
SUMMARY
Cr I I-
T. DIRECT LABOR [Specify IaLm care"'%rtes)
MATED
"CURLY
LSTIMATEC
TOTALS
-
COST
Project Archaeoioist
5
$ .O
_L
Secretarial/Clerical/Bookk_eepin
50___
S,Q0
250.
_
Project_ Assistant
X50
Q0
_ o - _— ___220._
I_________.......,
1__1.,430
....
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
- '
--
5 397 UU
,
8. INDI F.LCT COSTS (peri(y mdir ecl cost pools)
PATE
: EASE =
ESTIMPTED
COST
air
Overhead
1.0.9.S5-$39.7-.00
_
-•mom ./� ..C .v
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
- --
-
S 5.82.73
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
ESTIMATED
J. TA V EL
COST
a••'. ` - ,-
(1) TRANS-ORTA1'ION •
�S 450.0
1+x"
i2% ER DIEM
$
.'
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: V
S 4
b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES r5Peu!r cntegorice't QTY
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
r:
_
Long distance, telephonesj
200.20
-----------__
_____
reproduction -
100.00
JYV Y -
EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: ! --'
''-'-':-
300.00
ESTIMATED
c.5UBCONTRACTS
COST
S
e
f[ +\L
III
......
.....r
--- —
—_—---- SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL:—!
'I -I
ESTIMATED
d. OTHER (Specify enletr oriesJ
COST
-
..., ..;_:
_
.c-- - �.a
— — OTHER SUBTOTAL: (
S
_W,.
i� 750.00
e, OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL IJti
410. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
12 .029 .73
11. PROF') T'
-
L2. TOTAL PRICE
12 029.73
E PA Form 5700-41 (2-761
PAGE 1 OF 5
PART III -PRICE SUMMARY
CCMPE.T ITO4'S CATALOG L15T14GS. IN -ROUSE ESTIMATES. PRIOR CUOTES
MAPX ET
PROPOSED
13
- _ !lr.Jl <rur 1,,.-s for anrr r•mpnn:ca)
PPCF.l s.
onICE
.....................
_------._
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14.
CONTRACTOR ---
14a.
HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDEPALLY CEPTIFI EO STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER rrCERAL GRANT OF CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST Tv:ELVE MONTHS'
I —1 YES 1\I NO (11 'Yes give name address and sc;ephonc ,number of reviewing office)
4'
145.
TKIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
Cost plus Fixed -Fee (A -E Accounting Procedures)
14c.
This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (1)Agreement for Profes—
sional services dated January 23. 1980. This is to certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing, data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2) May 6 980 and that n financial management capability exists to fully and accu-
rately account for the financial transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that the
subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiationa armydd //or recoupment where the above cost and
pricing data have been determined, as n result of audit, not to hv betel complete, cu:r 1 and accurate as
of the date above.
J U L 11980
(3)
.
DATE OF EXECL TTO;r SIGNATURE? OF PRO OSG
Director, Arkansas
Archaeologi_cal S1lrvgy..
TITLE OF PROPOSER
15.
GRAN TEE REVIEWER
-
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summarv,set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for subagreement award.
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF r'•EVIE+/ER
City Manag City of _______
TITLE Or REVIEV t R
16.
EPA REVIEWER (If applicable;
DATE OF CXECIJT'ION SIGNATURE OF REVICY(13R
TITLE OF RGVIEWEn
EPA Form 5700.41 (2.76)
•
GENERAL STIPULATIONS OF THE
ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The Arkansas Archeological Survey is a governmental agency of the
State of Arkansas, established by the Arkansas General Assembly (Act 39
of 1967, Acts of Arkansas) for the purposes of identifying, protecting,
and conducting research on Arkansas's archeological resources and those
portions of its historical heritage that are preserved in the soil, and
for making the information resulting from these resources available to
the public. The Survey conducts basic and applied research and is the
official State repository of all appropriate records concerning its
area of responsibility. It has a responsibility to assist any scienti-
fically competentindividualor entity desiring to carry out research
or investigation in Arkansas insofar as such activi-ties forward the
goals established for the Survey. To comply with its legislative mandate
the following contractual agreements must be met:
1. Existing policy regarding site data confidentiality must be
followed (see attachment).
2. It is the overall policy of the Arkansas Archeological Survey to
publish the scientific content of all project reports. Limited
restrictions on certain types of proprietary information may be
negotiated with the project sponsor; but in no case can scientific
findings be withheld from the archeological profession or the public.
Draft copies of reports prepared under contract which are planned for
release to the public will be submitted to the contractor prior to their
public dissemination.
3. The Director of the Arkansas Archeological Survey reserves
the right to redistribute budget line item categories if such is
necessary to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the project.
Any budget modification which will affect the overall cost of the project
will not be made without prior approval in advance through negotiations
with the sponsor and amendment to the contract.
4. Unless otherwise stipulated by the sponsor all contracts will
be negotiated on a cost reimbursable basis. Methods of periodic
reporting, invoicing, and final payment will be specified in each
contract.
5. The Arkansas Archeological Survey reserves the right to hire
external professional consultants to provide input into various aspects
of the project, including the final report. Such costs, if appropriate,
will be included as a direct cost in the project proposal.
6. The salary and wage scale of the Arkansas Archeological Survey
is determined by and consistent with existing personnel policy of the
University of Arkansas System, as determined by the Arkansas General
Assembly. The current fringe benefit rate is 20% of salaries and wages.
Adopted 9/1/78
Revised 12/14/79
7. Indirect (overhead) costs are established for the Arkansas
Archeological Survey by the National Science Foundation. The Survey
cannot provide copies of time sheets, invoices, or other daily cost
accounting, but welcomes any on -site review or audit of Survey operations
by entities with present or prior contracts or who are negotiating a
contract with the Survey. The current indirect costs rate established
by an NSF audit in September, 1979 is set at 89% of salaries and of wages.
8. Travel and per diem maximums are established by the Arkansas
General Assembly.
9. All purchasing activities must concur with current State
regulations.
10. In addition to review and direction of each project by the
Coordinating Office of the Survey, review of all projects is provided by
an Arkansas Archeological Survey Station Archeologist. These specialists
are geographically disbursed around the state and provide necessary
expertise on any contract project within their territories.
11. All specimens collected under contract will be held and
accessioned by the Arkansas Archeological Survey. Any exceptions to
this policy must be explicitly negotiated.
12. All basic archeological and historical data generated by Survey
research or upon which it is based remains the property of the Arkansas
Archeological Survey and the contractor will have no proprietary rights
to such data.
13. No activities conducted' under contract by or with the Arkansas
Archeological Survey may violate the Code of Ethics and Standards of
Performance as promulgated by the Society for Professional Archeologists.
A copy of these guidelines are appended and shall be considered part of
any contract.
14. Artifacts on private land are by law the property of the landowner.
However, Survey policy and the guidelines of most federal agencies require
that artifacts recovered by Survey personnel or with federal funds, must
be permanently retained by a public institution. Therefore any other
arrangement must have the written approval of the Survey and, if pertinent,
the contracting or granting agency. Permission for the Survey to remove
and retain any artifacts recovered must be granted by the landowner (and
any leasee) prior to conducting surveys or excavation on private property.
In this context, "access" to property has been effectively denied if a
landowner is not willing to grant the state (or the public) permanent access
to, or ownership of, any artifacts recovered by Survey personnel or by
persons acting under the direction of Survey personnel. No survey, testing,
or excavation shall take place on any such property without prior written
approval of the Survey.
After review of a research proposal, the Survey will provide exact
site locations for those sites directly relevant to a rer.careli design
or to be directly impacted by a land alteratiob. If appropriate, a summary
of information on reported sites in the general vicinity will also he
provided. In the case of regional overviews, the site number, general
locations, and salient physical features will be provided for sites within
the region under consideration. Such site locations and other data may
be used for research or planning purposes on the specific project for
which the data is provided and shall not be made public, sold, or used for
other purposes or projects. In every case, information on specific siLcs
will be accompanied by an assessment of the reliability of the available
dat.a.and of the indicated cultural affiliation(s) of each site.
Data resulting from excavations conducted subsequent to I July 1978
by the Arkansas Archeological Survey personnel (beyond that necessary to
determine eligibility to the National Register) normally will remain the
scientific responsibility of the Survey for ten years if under active
research consideration by Survey personnel (although appropriate portions
of that data will be shared with other scientists when this will forward
general scientific goals and those of the Survey). Subsequent to that,
unpublished excavation data may be released to other competent scientists
for proper scientific use in accordance with the guidelines specified
by the SOFA. Site location and survey data, which by its nature is subjoci.
to constant updating, is not considered to be subject to this ten year
release.
.Until further notice, the Arkansas Archeological Survey will accept
responsibility for long term curation of scientifically valuable materials
recovered from archeological investigations within Lhee. State if prior
arrangements for such curation are made and (1) the materials are
accessioned, processed, and otherwise prepared for long term storage in
accordance with Survey procedures, or (2) the Survey is subcontracted
with to provide for such accessioning, processing, and other necessary
conservation.
Federal and State agencies or other entities requesting site data
for planning purposes directly from theSurvey do not have to meet the
personnel or institutional standards established by SOPA, nor the proviso
on the return of the data provided by the Survey, but must otherwise
agree to the above conditions governing the release of Survey data.
The Arkansas Archeological Survey does not assume any responsibility
for the scholarly content of reports produced by non -Survey personnel
utilizing Survey data.
The fee structure for the provision of data from Arkansas Archeological
Survey files will be on a cost reimbursable basis with a minimum charge
of $150.00. The Director of the Survey may waive or reduce the charges ,.
for students or others requiring the data for individual scientific use
when it is. determined that this is in the best interests of the State.
ARKANSAS ARCIIEOLOG ICA!, SURVEY
POLICY WITH REGARD TO ACCESS II) SI'RV'N.Y SITE FILES
AND OTHER UNPU13L1 SItE.D DATA
The Arkansas Archeological Survey is a governmental nl;ency of the
State of Arkansas established by the Arkansas General Assembly (Act 39 of
1967, Acts of Arkansas) for the purpose of identifying, protecting, and
conducting research on Arkansas's archeological resources and those portions
of its historical heritage that are preserved in the sri I and for making
the information resulting from these resources available to the public.
The Survey conducts basic research and is the official State repository
of all appropriate.records concerning its area of responsibility. It has
a responsibility to assist any scientifically competent individual or
entity desiring to carry nut research or investigations in Arkansas ir.srf.ir
as such activities forward the goals established for the. Survey. "Srirn-
tilically competent'' is defined as including those individuals who arc
members of the Society of Professional Archeologists (SOPA) or those
individuals or entities who, in the judgement of the Director of the
Survey, conform to the SOPA standards and who agree in writing Lo abide
by the Code of Ethics and Standards of Research Perform.ince drawn up by
the SOPA.
The site records and other research files maintained by the Survey
are considered to be unpublished data. For Lhis reason and because public
access to specific portions of that data could violate conditions of
information confidentiality and/or could lead to the d•lstnicr.ion of the
very resources the Survey was established to protect, the scientific
records of the Survey arc specifically exempted from the Arkansas Frecdn,n
of Information Act (Act 652 of 1977, Acts of Arkansas). Appropriate portions
of these records may be made available under a specific research agreement
to other scientifically competent individuals for purposes which, in the
opinion of the Director of the Survey, forward scientific knowledge of, or
management of, the State's archeological and historical heritage; provided
that all copies of unpublished information made available and all copies
made from such unpublished data are returned to the Survey (Cr, by agreement,
destroyed) upon completion of the designated research or management study
(exceptions may he specified in the proposal, scope of cork, contract, or
research agreement) and that copies of all data and reports generated by
such research or studies are deposited with the Survey. Such of these Ialler
records as are unpublished will be treated with appropriate confidentiality,
but with the understanding that data so acquired by the Survey will. be
released to other scientists following the same guidelines as apply to .ell
Survey records.
Only Survey prnfescional personnel have direct nccesc to the Survey'..;
site file andassoc iated data and no r.erox copies of three records will
be provided.
r
I
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHEOLOGISTS
CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Each person listed in the Directory has agreed to abide by the follow-
ing code of ethics, and to be guided by the following professional
standards.
CODE OF ETHICS
Archeology is a profession, and the privilege of professional practice
requires professional morality and professional responsibility, as well
as professional competence, on the part of each practitioner,
I, The AAcheokog1t4t'as Re%ponoLhLt ty to the Pub.ZLc
1.1 An
archeologist shall:
(a)
Recognize a commitment to represent archeology and its
research results to the public in a responsible manner;
(b)
Actively support conservation of the archeological
resource base;
(c)
Be sensitive to, and respect the legitimate concerns of,
groups whose culture histories are the subjects of
archeological investigations;
(d)
Avoid and discourage exaggerated, misleading, or un-
warranted statements about archeological matters that
might induce others to engage in unethical or illegal
activity;
(e)
Support and comply with the terms of the UNESCO Conven-
tion on the means of prohibiting and preventing the
illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of
cultural property, as adopted by the General Conference,
14 November 1970, Paris.
1.2 An
archeologist shall not:
(a)
Engage in any illegal or unethical conduct involving
archeological matters or knowingly permit the use of
her/his name in support of any illegal or unethical
activity involving archeological matters.
(b)
Give a professional opinion, make a public report, or
give legal testimony involving archeological matters
without being as thoroughly informed as might reason-
ably be expected;
(c)
Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation about archeological matters;
(d)
Undertake any research that affects the archeological
resource base for which he/she is not qualified.
1
c/o Institute of Archeology and Anthropology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
Reprinted from: Directory of Professional Archeologists (pp. 3-8)
1977, Washington, D.C.
IL
II. The Aacheotog.iat'a Reapona.ibiUty .to hen/h.t.a CoUeagues
2.1 An archeologist shall:
(a) Give appropriate credit for work done by others;
(b) Stay informed and knowledgeable about developments in
his/her field or fields of specialization;
(c) Accurately, and without undue delay, prepare and properly
disseminate a description of research done and its results;
(d) Communicate and cooperate with colleagues having common
professional interests;
(e) Give due.respect to colleagues' interests in, and rights
to, information about sites, areas, collections, or data
where there is a mutual active or potentially active re-
search concern;
(f) Know and comply with all laws applicable to her/his
archeological research, as well as with any relevant
procedures promulgated by duly constituted professional
organizations;
(g) Report knowledge of violations of this Code to proper
authorities.
2.2 An archeologist shall •no.t:
(a) Falsely or maliciously attempt to injure the reputation
of another archeologist;
(b) Commit plagiarism in oral or written communication;
(c) Undertake research that affects the archeological re-
source base unless reasonably prompt, appropriate analy-
sis and reporting can be expected;
(d) Refuse a reasonable request froma qualified colleague
for research data.
(e) Submit a false or misleading application for accredita-
tion by or membership in the Society of Professional
Archeologists.
III. The A cheotogiLo.t'a Reapona.ib.iUty to EmpZoyena and CP.i.evvta
3.1 An archeologist shall:
(a) Respect the interests of his/her employer or client, so
far as is consistent with the public welfare and this
Code and Standards;
(b) Refuse to comply with any request or demand of an employer
or client which conflicts with this Code and Standards;
(c) Recommend to employers or clients the employment of other
archeologists or other expert consultants upon encounter-
ing archeological problems beyond her/his own competence;
(d) Exercise reasonable care to prevent his/her employees,
colleagues, associates and others whose services are
utilized by her/him from revealing or using confidential
information. Confidential information means information
of a non -archeological nature gained in the course of
employment which the employer or client has requested be
held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be em-
barrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the
employer or client. Information ceases to be confidential
when the employer or client so indicates or when such in-
formation becomes publicly known.
3.2 An archeologist shall nao.t
(a) Reveal confidential information, unless required by law;
(b) Use confidential information to the disadvantage of the
client or employer;
(c) Use confidential information for the advantage of himself/
herself or a third person, unless the client consents after
full disclosure;
(d) Accept compensation or anything of value for recommending
the employment of another archeologist or other person,
unless such compensation or thing of value is fully dis-
closed to the potential employer or client;
(e) Recommend or participate in any research which does not
• comply with the requirements of the Standards of Research
Performance.
STANDARDS OF RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
The research archeologist has a responsiblity to attempt to design and
conduct projects that will add to our understanding of past cultures
and/or that will develop better theories, methods, or techniques for
interpreting the archeological record, while causing minimal attrition
of the archeological resource base. In the conduct of a research pro-
ject, the following minimum standards should be followed:
I. The
archeologist has a responsibility to prepare adequately for any
research project, whether or not in the field. The archeologist
must:
1.1
Assess the adequacy of her/his qualifications for the demands
of the project, and minimize inadequacies by acquiring addi-
tional expertise, by bringing in associates with the needed
qualifications, or by modifying the scope of the project;
1.2
Inform himself/herself of relevant previous research;
1.3
Develop a scientific plan of research which specifies the
objectives of the project, takes into account previous
relevant research, employs a suitable methodology,.and pro-
vides for economical use of the resource base (whether such
base consists of an excavation site or of specimens) consistent
with the objectives of the project;
1.4
Ensure the availability of adequate staff and support facil-
ities to carry the project to completion, and of adequate
curatorial facilities for specimens and records;
X(
n n;
1.5 Comply with all legal requirements, including, without limita-
tion, obtaining all necessary governmental permits and necessary
permission from landowners or other persons;
1.6 Determine whether the project is likely to interfere with the
program or projects of other scholars and if there is such a
likelihood, initiate negotiations to minimize such interference.
II. In conducting research, the archeologist must follow her/his scienti-
fic plan of research, except to the extent that unforseen circumstances
warrant its modification.
III. Procedures for field survey or excavation must meet the following
minimal standards:
3.1 If specimens are collected, a system for identifying and re-
cording their proveniences must be maintained.
3.2 Uncollected entities such as environmental or cultural fea-
tures, depositional strata, and the like, must be fully and
accurately recorded by appropriate means, and their location
recorded.
3.3 The methods employed in data collection must be fully and
accurately described. Significant stratigraphic and/or associ-
ational relationships among artifacts, other specimens, and
cultural and environmental features must also be fully and
accurately recorded.
3.4 All records should be intelligible to other archeologists.
If terms lacking commonly held referents are used, they
should be clearly defined.
3.5 Insofar as possible, the interests of other researchers should
be considered. For example, upper levels of a site should be
scientifically excavated and recorded whenever feasible, even
if the focus of the project is on underlying levels.
IV. During accessioning, analysis and storage of specimens and records
in the laboratory, the archeologist must take precautions to ensure
that correlations between the specimens and the field records are
maintained, so that provenience, contextual relationships and the
like are not confused or obscured.
V. Specimens and research records resulting from a project must be
deposited at an institution with permanent curatorial facilities.
VI. The archeologist has responsibility for appropriate dissemination
of the results of his/her research to the appropriate constituencies
with reasonable dispatch.
6.1 Results viewed as significant contributions to substantive
knowledge of the past or to advancements in theory, method
or technique should be disseminated to colleagues and other
interested persons by appropriate means, such as publications
reports at professional meetings, or letters to colleagues.
6.2 Requests from qualified colleagues for information on research
results ordinarily should be honored, if consistent with the
researcher's prior rights to publication and with her/his
other professional responsibilities.
6.3 Failure to complete a full scholarly report within 10 years
after completion of a field project shall be construed as
a waiver of an archeologist's right of primacy with respect
to analysis and publication of the data. Upon expiration of
such 10 year period, or at such earlier time as the archeo-
logist shall determine not to publish the results, such data
should be made fully accessible for analysis and publication
to other archeologists.
6.4 While contractual obligations in reporting must be respected,
archeologists should not enter into a contract which prohibits
the archeologist from including his or her own interpretations
or conclusions in contractual reports, or from a continuing
right to use the data after completion of the project.
6.5 Archeologists have an obligation to accede to reasonable requests
for information from the news media.
INSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS
Archeological research involving collection of original field data and/
or acquisition of specimens requires institutional facilities and sup-
port services for its successful conduct, and for proper permanent
maintenance of the resulting collections and. records.
A full-scale archeological field project will require the following
facilities and services, normally furnished by or through an institution:
(1) Office space and furniture.
(2) Laboratory space, furniture, and equipment for analysis of
specimens and data. -
(3) Special facilities such as a dark room, drafting facilities
conservation laboratory, etc.
(4) Permanent allocation of space, facilities, and equipment for
proper maintenance of collections and records, equivalent to
that specified in the standards of the Association of System-
atic Collections.
(5) Fieldequipment such as vehicles, surveying instruments, etc.
(6) A research library.
(7) Administrative and fiscal control services.
(8) A security system.
(9) Technical specialists such as photographers, curators, con-
servators, etc.
(10) Publication services.
All the foregoing facilities and services must be adequate to the scope
of the project.
MICROSMKROFIUA1980
DATE________
3
• e
SCOPE OF WORK FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A "PIGGYBACK" EIS
FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE 201. PROJECT
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
DALLAS, TEXAS
MAY, 1980. •
t.
I
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR
I THE DEVELOPMENT OF A "PIGGYBACK" EIS THROUGH A FULL-SCALE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE 201 PROJECT
I
I
I
SUBMITTED TO
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
IRegion VI, Dallas, Texas
THROUGH
' The City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville, Arkansas
I
I
I
i
i
MAY, 1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
TASK 1
IDENTIFICATION OF GOALS,
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
A. ISSUES SURFACED TO DATE
1. EFFLUENT QUALITY
2. FISHKILL IN WHITE
RIVER AND BEAVER LAKE
3. SLUDGE PROCESSING
AND MANAGEMENT
4. INFLUENT QUALITY
B. SHARPENING OF THE PERCEIVED ISSUES
AND IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. SHARPENING OF THE
PERCEIVED ISSUES
a. The Water Quality and Associated
Public Health Problems
b. Water Supply Problems and Goals
c. Water Resources Problem and Potentials
2. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
a. Secondary Impacts
b. Project Cost and Its
Socio-Economic Impacts
C. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS
1. DATA SOURCES
2. REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES
AND AVAILABLE RECORDS
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
L
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
1
D. PERSONNEL AND TASK OUTPUT 7
1. TASK OUTPUT -- INTERIM REPORT 7
2. PERSONNEL 8
TASK 2
IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS -- COLLECTING
DATA FROM PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES
9
A.
DATA COLLECTION FOR IDENTIFICATION OF
GOALS, ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
9
B.
DATA COLLECTION FOR REVIEW
OF NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
9
1.
REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
10
a. Estimate of Current Population
(As of January, 1980)
10
b. Population Projection by
Alternative Methods
10
2.
ECONOMIC BASE PROJECTION
11
3.
LAND USE PROJECTION
11
a. Classification of Land Use
11
b. Land Use Projections
12
4.
DATA SOURCES
12
5.
TASK OUTPUT AND PERSONNEL
13
C:
IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS FOR
LAYOUT AND SCREENING OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
14
1.
IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS
14
a. Data Sources
15
b. Task Output and Personnel
15
2.
REVIEW OF LAND APPLICATION
SITES SELECTED BY FPC
16
a. Data Sources
16
b. Task Output and Personnel
17
ii
D. IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE
DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF FEASIBLE
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
17
1.
GEOLOGY
17
2.
WATER RESOURCES
17
a. Data Sources
18
b. Task Output and Personnel
19
3.
AIR RESOURCES
20
a. Data Sources
20
b. Task Output and Personnel
21
4.
NOISE LEVELS
21
a. Data Sources
22
b. Task Output and Personnel
23
5.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
23
a. Aquatic Species, and Their Habitats in White
River, Beaver Lake, Illinois River and Lake Francis
23
b. Terrestrial Species
24
c. Data Sources
24
d. Task Output and Personnel
25
6;
ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY
25
a. Data Sources
26
b. Task Output and Personnel
27
7.
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
27
a.Population and Economic Characteristics
27
b. Public Health
28
c. Parks, Recreation and Community Aesthetics
28.
d. Data Sources
29
e. Task Output and Personnel
29
iii
8.
LAND USE
30
a. Existing Land Use Composition
Within Each Impacted Zone
30
b. Land Use Parameters
30
c. Data Sources, Task
Output and Personnel
31
9.
ENERGY
31
a. Data Need
31
b. Data Sources
32
c. Study Output and Personnel
32
E.
FIELD SURVEYS -- DATA COLLECTION
FROM PRIMARY SOURCES
33
1.
GENERAL SITE VISITS
- 33
a. Orientation trip
33
b. Site Visits Prior to Environmental
Evaluation of System Alternatives
33
2.
DETAILED ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AND BIOLOGICAL SITE SURVEYS
34
a. Archaeological Site Survey
34
b. Biological Site Survey
34
c. Survey Output and Personnel
34
TASK 3
CONSIDERATION OF 36
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
A. DETERMINATION OF INFLUENT LOAD FOR
THE YEAR 2005 UNDER EXISTING POLICIES 36
B. INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES 36
a. Land Use Control Policies 37
b. Sewer Pricing Policies 37
c. Water Conservation Policies 37
iv
Page
d. Flow Reduction Measures
37
1.
ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS
TO
REDUCE WASTELOAD GENERATION
38
2.
ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS
TO
IMPROVE INFLUENT QUALITY
38
C.
PROJECTED INFLUENT LOAD
AND INFLUENT QUALITY
39
D.
DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
39
TASK 4
SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM CHOICES
AND IDENTIFICATION
OF
FEASIBLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
(STRUCTURAL)
40
A.
CONSIDERATION OF STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVES --
REUSE AND RECYCLING CHOICES
40
1.
REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES LAYOUT
41
2.
DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECTED PERSONNEL
41
B.
SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM CHOICES
41
1.
INFLUENT COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
42
2.
EVALUATION OF TREATMENT PROCESS
AND FORECASING EFFLUENT QUALITY
43
3.
SLUDGE PROCESSING, DISPOSAL
AND/OR REUSE ALTERNATIVES
44
4.
DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
45
C.
SCREENING OF SYTEM
ALTERNATIVES (STRUCTURAL)
45
1.
SELECTION OF 4 OR 5 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
FOR DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
46
2.
DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
46
v
TASK 5
DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ON THEThTFECTEO ENVIRONMENT
47
A.
SCOPE AND TYPES OF
IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED
47
B.
POLICY PROCEDURES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
47
C.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
48
1.
BASELINE CONDITONS
48
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
49
a. Topography, Geology and Soils
49
b. Water Resources
49
c. Air Resources
51
d. Biological Resources
52
e. Sound Quality
53
f. Archaeological/Hitorical Resources
53
g. Socio-Eoncomics
54
h. Land Use
55
i. Energy
55
D.
AGGREGATE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
OF ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
56
1.
AGGREGATE IMPACT EVALUATION
FORMAT AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
56
a. System Improvement and M&O Cost
57
b. Consultation With the City and CAC
58
2.
TASK OUTPUT AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
58
TASK 6
PREPARATION OF PRE -DRAFT,
DRAFT AND FINAL EIS REPORT 59
A. PREPARATION OF A
PRE -DRAFT EIS REPORT 60
vi
B.
PREPARATION OF THE
DRAFT EIS REPORT
61
C.
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIS BY COMMENTING
AGENCIES AND PREPARATION OF THE FINAL EIS
6th
TASK 7
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
62
A.
EIS WORK PROGRAM COORDINATION
AND CAC ORIENTATION MEETING
62
B.
TRAINING SESSIONS FOR.THE CAC MEMBERS
62
1.
TRAINING SESSION I
62
2.
TRAINING SESSION II
63
3.
TRAINING SESSION III
63
4.
HANDBOOK AND INSTRUCTORS
FOR THE CAC TRAINING SESSIONS
63
C.
PROPOSED WORKSHOPS
FOR THE EIS PROJECT
64
1. WORKSHOP 1
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS,
GOALS AND ISSUES
64
a/Handbook for CAC
64
b. CAC Workshop Exercise --
Response
Through Issues Questionnaire
65
c. Interim Report 1
65
2. WORKHSOP 2
CONSIDERATION OF
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
65
a. Interim Report 2
66
3. WORKSHOP 3
THE SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM
CHOICES AND
IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE
STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
66
a. Interim Report 3
6&
b. Screening of Structural
Alternatives
67
vii
c. Interim
Report 4
67
4. WORKSHOP 4
ASSESSMENT
OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
IMPACTS OF
THE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
67
a. System
Improvement and M&O Costs
67
b. Interim
Report 5
67
5. WORKSHOP 5
REVIEW OF
THE PRE -DRAFT,
DRAFT AND
FINAL EIS
68
viii
I
' INTRODUCTION
' The scope of work for the development of a "Piggyback" EIS for the
Fayetteville 201 project, involves the implementation of a 5 -step
decision -making process as follows:
(i) Identification of Goals, Issues and Problems
(ii) Consideration of Nonstructural Policies
(iii) Screening of Subsystem Choices and Identification
of Feasible System Alternatives (Structural)
' (iv) Determination of Environmental Consequences
-of System Alternatives, and
(v) The Preparation of a Pre -Draft, Draft and a Final EIS Report
•
The first four steps are designed to develop a proposed action that
would be environmentally sound. The last step is the preparation of
an EIS document written in a clear, concise language that would indi-
• cate to the reviewers and to the public what the issues were, what
options were considered, what their environmental consequences were,
and why the proposed action has been chosen for implementation.
Each of these 5 steps will, to the maximum extent possible, utilize
' the involvement of the Citizens Advisory Committee which has recently
been organized by the City of Fayetteville. Thus, an important
element of the scope of work includes citizen participation which will
' serve as a vehicle to reflect the public perception of the issues
and alternatives in the EIS process.
To successfully complete each step of the EIS process, it will be nec-
essary to complete numerous other tasks and subtasks'such as defining the
baseline conditions of the affected environment. The collectionof
data from various sources to define the baseline environment will
' therefore be a major task in the EIS process. The overall scope of
work for the development of a "Piggyback" EIS for the Fayetteville 201
• project, will include the following major tasks: -
(i) Identification of Goals, Issues, and Problems
' (ii) Identification of Baseline Conditions -- Collection of
Data from Primary and Secondary Sources
' (iii) Identification of Nonstructural Policies and Consideration
of Their Impacts on Influent Flow and Quality
I
-1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
El
I
(iv) Screening of Subsystem Choices and Identification of
Feasible System Alternatives (Structural)
(v) Determination of. Environmental Consequences of
System Alternatives on the Affected Environment'
(vi) Preparation of a Pre -Draft, Draft, and Final EIS Report,
and,
(vii) Public Participation for the "Piggyback" EIS
These tasks are not equal in complexity or in scope and magnitude.
The variation of efforts required to complete these tasks, is reflected
in the range and scope of subtasks associated with each task, the
types and sources of data and the level of efforts required to deter-
mine impacts on the affected environment. The rest of this report is
a task by task description of the overall scope of the EIS work, the
methodologies to be applied to each task and associated information
to implement a "Piggyback" EIS process for the Fayetteville Wastewater
Management System.
El
-2-
U
I
I
I
Based on the scoping meeting of December 11th, the I/I report, and
' other information, the scope of work in this step will include an
analysis of data on the following issues:
TASK 1
IDENTIFICATION OF GOALS,
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
To identify the reasons that have prompted the City to seek EPA's
assistance under the 201 program, will be a major purpose of this
task.
A. ISSUES SURFACED TO DATE
1. EFFLUENT QUALITY
At present, the Fayetteville treatment plant has a capacity of 10 mgd
' with an average daily flow of 7.8 mgd. Following heavy rainfalls,
the peak flow rises to as much as 33 mgd.The effluent BOD varies
from 16 to 33 mg/.i while the TSS varies from 15 to 20 mg/.1. The per-
, formance of the treatment plant falls considerably below the present
effluent limitations included in the NPDES Permit. In addition, the
plant is reported to have limited abilities to remove nutrients.
Current data indicate that the plant removes little or no pollutants
in terms of phosphorus, organic carbons, ammonia and nitrogen. The
problem will become critical when the new effluent limitations are
assigned by the State and the EPA.
I
I
I
2. FISHKILL IN WHITE
RIVER AND BEAVER LAKE
The scoping meeting revealed that the White River and the upper reaches
of Beaver Lake has experienced fishkills in summer months of 1978
and 1979. Although the exact causes of fishkill are yet to be identi-
fied, some segments of the public in Northwest Arkansas attribute
the fishkill to the excessive concentration of metals and excessive
nutrients coming from the Fayetteville treatment plant. This is a
major issue to be addressed by the proposed EIS study.
' 3. SLUDGE PROCESSING
AND MANAGEMENT
' The present sludge management suffers from a two -prong problem. The
present method of disposal which includes burial, will soon run out
of land for disposal as the expansion opportunities are limited at
' the present site. Second, the quality of residual sludge also limits
options for future disposal. Metals appearing in plant sludge, accord-
ing to recent tests, include excessive concentration of Lead, Cad,
-3-I.
I
Zinc, Cyanide, Nickel, Chrome and Copper all of which present barriers
for resources recyling such as for agricultural use in the form of soil
conditioner/fertilizer. The proposed EIS will have to address
environmental impacts of sludge processing and management.
' 4. INFLUENT QUALITY
I
I
I
I
I
According to the plant records, the influent BOD at the present time
is 171 mg/l and the suspended solids represent a concentration of
220 mg/l. While these levels of BOD and TSS concentrations for
influent load are not abnormal, the issue that needs sharpening is
the concentration of heavy metals and nutrients coming from such in-
dustries as Campbell Soup, Mexican Original, Kaber Commodities,
College Club, Ozark Mountain Smokehouse, REP, Baldwin, Elkhart, Shakes -
pear, etc. To what extent the proposed pretreatment ordinance now
pending before the City Board of Directors, will prohibit the entry
of heavy metals and nutrient concentrations into the City system, will
be an issue to be addressed by the proposed study.
B. SHARPENINGOF THE PERCEIVED ISSUES
AND IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. SHARPENING OF THE
PERCEIVED ISSUES
The issues perceived to date are basically at the conceptual stage.
I The operational definition of these issues will involve gathering
and analysing data on the following aspects of the perceived water
quality and related problems.
a. The Water Quality and Associated
Public Health Problems I
(i) Existing Influent and Effluent Characteristics
(ii) Existing Raw Sewage Bypass and/or Discharge after
Primary Treatment
(iii) The Resulting Water Qualities in the Receiving
Bodies of Water and their Biological Consequences
(iv) Inadequate Collection Systems and Excessive I/I
(v) Areas served by Septic Tanks and Septic Tanks Contamination
• (vi) Violations of Effluent Limitations under the Existing
• NPDES Permit Through 1983, and
(vii) The Mandate to Comply with Effluent Limitations
Under the NPDES Permit by 1983 and thereafter
-4-
b. Water Supply Problems and Goals
' (i) The Demand for Water Supply for the Year 2005 By
Type of User Demands
(ii) The Source of Present and Future Water Supplies, and
(iii) The Requirements of Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974
c. Water Resources Problem and Potentials
(i) Opportunity Lost Through Water Waste
(ii) Absence of Conservation and Recycling Programs
I(iii) Degradation of the Recreational Resources of the Upper
Reaches of White River and Beaver'Lake, and
(iv) Identification of Aquatic Species fatally affected in
White Tiver and Beaver Lake
1 2. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1
I
I
I
I
I
Solutions to the preceding problems are likely to create new problems
that may not exist in the 201 area at the present time. The construc-
tion of an expanded system and the hookups to serve future residential,
commercial and industrial customers, will prompt at least 2 new issues
as follows:
a. Secondary Impacts
PRegardless of which alternative is ultimately selected, the
addition of new capacities will attract new population, households
and land use, subjecting the available vacant lands to future urbani-
zation in the 201 area. These induced activities will create new
environmental impacts in terms of additional urban runoff, emission
levels, and corresponding ambient air quality, increased levels of
community noise, loss of potential archaeological and cultural sites
and sites for significant biological species; reduction in prime
agricultural lands, recreational resources and other aspects of the
existing environment. These issues.will unfold as the study pro-
gresses and will be addressed by the proposed EIS study.
b. Project Cost and Its
Socio-Economic Impacts
Although not directly
related
to
the
natural environment
of the 201
area, this factor will
serve
as a
key
determinant for the
ultimate
El
-5-
selection of an alternative for the Fayetteville Wastewater Management
System. Its impact may be particularly critical to those segments
of the 201 area people whose income and skills are below the
city average. It will also be significant for those commercial and
industrial users which marginally operate at the present time. The
facility plan for 201 project will squarely address this issue, and its
results will be incorporated in the EIS study to determine an environ-
mentally sound alternative for the Fayetteville area.
C. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS
At this step of the study, no attempt will be made to collect data
to identify additional issues uner 2(a) and 2(b) above. Rather, the
focus here,l-iis on the artification of issues that have been perceived
' to date. .An operational definition will be given to the items listed
under task B(l) in page 4. This will include identifying studies
conducted in the past or are currently underway. In addition, this
will involve contacting agencies and organizations that are responsible
' for setting standards and/or have an active interest in the water
environment of Northwest Arkansas.
1. DATA SOURCES
All data are expected to be available from secondary sources. The
'
following agencies and organizations will be contacted for this
purpose:
' (i) The City Engineer, City of Fayetteville
(ii) McGoodwin, Williams and Yates
(iii) McClelland Engineers, Inc.
(iv) Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
• (v) Arkansas State Department of Health
' (vi) Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
(vii) Beaver Water District
(viii) U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
(ix) Water Resources Center for the University of Arkansas.
(x) Ozarks Society
(xi) Northwest Arkansas Sierra Club
(xii) Northwest Arkansas Audobon Society
(xiii) The City of Fayetteville Citizens Advisory Committee', and
(xiv) Other agencies and organizations such as the U.S.G.S., the
EPA and other federal, state and local agencies and
i. organizations
The methods and procedures for receiving input from .the CAC to
define problems and goals for the study, are outlined in Task.7
of this report. See pages 63 and 64 of this report.
1 -6-
•
I�
u
E.
L!
I
2. REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES
AND AVAILABLE RECORDS
This will include the following studies and records that are avail-
able to sharpen the issues and formulate project goals and objectives:
(i) The Plant Records on Influent and Effluent Characteristics
(ii) I/I Study, 1976
(iii) Detailed SSES, 1980
' (iv) Proposed Pretreatment Ordinance for the City of
Fayetteville, 1980
(v) A Three -Part Program for Evaluating Performance and
Capacity of the Fayetteville Wastewater Treatment Plant,
by Dr. David Parker, University of Arkansas
' (vi) The Quantitative Effects of the Fayetteville Pollution
Control Plant on White River, by Ricky C. Cliff,
University of Arkansas, 1974
(vii) The Effects of Sludge Landfill on Groundwater Quality,
by Junius B. Stone, University of Arkansas, 1974
(viii) Phosphorus Removal at the Fayetteville Municipal Pollution
Control Facility, by Arthur A. Zoda, University of Arkansas,
1976
(ix) Water Quality Development of the Upper Reaches of the White
' River and War Eagle Creek, by Larry J. Stone, University
of Arkansas, 1971
(x) Other Published or Unpublished Studies
D. PERSONNEL AND TASK OUTPUT
1. TASK OUTPUT --
' INTERIM REPORT
The completion of research and review activities under tasks B and C
above will result in an analysis and statement of both short and long
' term goals, constraints and issues to be addressed by the EIS
through the Year 2005.
1 This statement which is to be developed: by the ITS Consultant, will'-'
be included in an interim report for review and comments by the City
and the EPA. The interim report will include a map of the 201 area
1 -7-
I
showing areas currently served by septic tanks and the existing
households and land use served by septic tank systems. A summary
statement of this report will constitute the "Purpose and Need"
section of the EIS report while the rest of the materials and data
will constitute a possible appendix for the EIS report. The report
will also include input from the CAC -- see Task 7 of this report.
2. PERSONNEL
1 Dr. Dee Mitchell of the EIS team will evaluate the impact of the
proposed pretreatment ordinance on the influent load and quality.
1 Paul Ragsdale will estimate the population and land use currently
served by septic tanks in the 201 area. The rest of the tasks in this
section will be completed by K. Husain with research support from
1 Jim Wiginton.
I
I
r i
1
I
I
11
I
I
1 -8-
I
I
TASK 2
' IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS -- COLLECTING.
DATA FROM PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES
The principle that governs the proposed scope of work under this
task is that a lengthy description of the affected environment is not
a measure of the adequacy of an EIS. This is to. say that an EIS is
not a study of the environment, rather it is a study of the changes
or impacts on the environment. To the extent these impacts form an
essential basis to make a determination as to which alternatives are
environmentally acceptable, data will be collected to define the base-
line that will be affected by the various alternatives. Since these
' determinations will be made at various steps of the EIS process, the
collection of data to define baseline conditions will be linked with
those recommendations and/or decision points. These points of.
recommendations/decisions as outlined in the opening paragraph of
page 1, are the following:
I
I
I
I
I
I
[]
I
.Identification of Goals, Issues and Problems
.Review of Nonstructural Policies
.Screening of Subsystem Choices and Identification
of Feasible System Alternatives
(Structural), and
.Determination of Environmental Consequences of System
Alternatives on the Affected Environment
Following is a brief description of the tasks and subtasks that will
allow identification of the baseline conditions to develop con-
clusions and decisions at various steps of the 201 process.
A. DATA COLLECTION FOR IDENTIFICATION
OF GOALS, ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
The scope of data gathering activity to achieve this task has been
outlined in pages 6 and 7 in the previous section, and as such
will not be repeated here.
B. DATA COLLECTION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF NONSTRUCTURAL- POLICIES
The EIS study will attempt to place the nonstructural and structural
alternatives in a state of economic and environmental balance, making
them complimentary .to each other. The objective of nonstructural
policies will therefore be to reduce wasteflow from various parts
of the 201 area as much as possible. This will subsequently reduce
the cost of wastewater collection, treatment and dipsosal
and thereby reduce water pollution and improve water quality. In
-9-
I
I
I
I
I
I
''J
'IH
II
I
I
I
operation terms, the target of nonstructural policies will be to
reduce the Year 2005 wastewater generation,and the pretreatment pplicy
objectives will be to reduce the influent BOD, TSS, nutrients and
excessive concentration of heavy metals. To achieve this goal, data
will be collected and analyzed on the following activities:
1. REVIEW AND VERIFICATION
•OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
A preliminary population projection by the FPC in consultation with
the City of Fayetteville Planning and Zoning Commission, indicates a
Year 2003 population of 81,600 persons for the 201 area"that
includes three small communities -- Farmington, Elkins and Greenland
The FPC also estimated that the wastewater flow from this population
will be approximately 15 mgd for the Year 2003. The EIS will verify
these figures by alternate methods. The scope of work will be as
follows:
a. Estimate of Current Population
(As of January, 1980)
Projection of population will involve estimating the base year popu-
lation for 1980. The 201 area includes all of the City of Fayetteville
and the Cities of Farmington, Elkins and Greenland plus some unincor- -
porated areas in Washington County. The latest population estimates
available for these areas is for 1977. The 3 -year population change
will be identified based on the following parameters.
(i) Building Permit Records
(ii) Utility Connections on Water and Electric Meters, and
(iii) Automobile Registrations (if necessary)
b. Population Projection
by Alternative Methods
These methods will include the following:
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
' (v)
I
Statistical Extrapolation
Shift-Share/Ratio Method
Employment Method
Ecological Method, and
Zoning Method
A brief description of the first 4 methods is included in pages 33
through 35 of bur proposal submitted in January 1980, and therefore
will not be repeated here. Population projection by zoning method
-10-
I
n
n
H
I
I
U
[1
I
L
L
L
I
will involve measuring the areas in the City's zoning district map
zoned for single family and apartment dwelling. By using the dwelling
densities prescribed in the zoning ordinance, the total number of
dwelling units will be calculated to estimate population,by adjusting
against such factors as persons per household, housing vacancy rate
and institutional population. The zoning maps and zoning ordinances
for Farmington, Elkins and Greenland will likewise be used to project
population for the entire 201 area.
2. ECONOMIC BASE PROJECTION
Because the Fayetteville system now receives about one-third of the
total flow from industrial users, the future contribution of
industrial discharges will be an important factor to determine the
20 year design flow. To measure this contribution will require a
realistic projection of the economic base of the 201 area by type
of economic activities. This projection will be carried out by
the following methods:
(i) Location Quotient Method
(ii) Income Projection Method, and
(iii) Ad Valorem Tax Method
These methods are described in the following publications:
Ci) Local Planning Administration, Edited by Mary McLean,
International City Managers Association, Chapter 4,
pages 83 to 96, and
(ii) Methods of Regional Analysis, by Walter Isard, MIT Press,
1972, Chapters 7 and 9, pages 232 to 293 and pages 375
to 409
3. LAND USE PROJECTION
The third and final verification of projected wasteflow will be made
by the use of land use projections for the 201 area. This will involve
completing the following subtasks:
a. Classification of Land Use:
In consultation with the City Planning office of the City of Fayette-
ville, land use acreages will be determined for the following categories:
-11-
I
I
(i) Single Family
(ii) Multi -Family
(iii) m Comercial Retail
(iv) Commercial Service and Office
(v) Light Industrial
(vi) Heavy Industrial
(vii) Parks and Open Spaces
(viii) Public and Semi -Public (Educational and Cultural),
(ix) Transportation, Communication and Utilities, and
(x) Vacant Lands
I
I
I
Current land uses will be determined for the City of Fayetteville,
Greenland and Elkins by identifying the land use changes from the
latest date for which these data are available.
b. Land Use Projections:
The methodologies for land use projection were briefly described in
page 36 of our proposal submitted in January, 1980 and will not be
repeated here. Additional methods are available from the following
publications:
(i) The Urban Pattern, by Arthur B. Gallion and Simon
Eisner, Second Edition, Chapter 11, pages 185-204, and
(ii) Local Planning Administration, by Mary McLean, International
City Managers Association, Pages 96-105
In addition to establishing the wasteflow projections, the land use
acreages projected for the Year 2005, will be utilized for identifying
secondary impacts on water and air qualities, noise and biological
species at a later 'step of the study.
4.. DATA SOURCES
All essential data to complete the various tasks and subtasks in this
section, will be compiled from the secondary sources. The following
sources are expected to provide the data for population, economic
base and land use projections:
(i) Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Cities of
.Fayetteville
Farmington
.Greenland
.Elkins, and
.Washington County
I
-12-
I
rI
U.
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
J
I
I
r]
I
(ii) Zoning Maps and Zoning Ordinance Reports for
Fayetteville
Farmington
Elkins
Greenland
Washington County
(iii) Building Permits, Water Meter Records and Subdivision
Plats for the above Communities
(iv) Growth Parameters Data from the Area Chamber of Commerce
(v) Population, Land Use and Economic Base Studies by the
Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission
(vi) Population and Housing Censuses by the U. S. Census
Bureau, Department of Commerce
(vii) Social Science and Business Research Centers
at the University of Arkansas, and
(viii) Other sources (to be determined in consultation with the
City Engineer, the City Planning Director and the
Facility Planning Consultants)
5. TASK OUTPUT AND PERSONNEL
The various tasks and subtasks in this section are designed to meet
the EPA regulations on population projection. The task output will
include the following:
.Population Projections through the Year 2005 at 5 -Year intervals
Economic base projections by type of economic activities through
the Year 2005 at 5 -Year intervals
.Land Use projections through the Year 2005 at 5 -Year intervals, and
.Influent projections for the Fayetteville system through the
Year 2005 at 5 -Year intervals
The projection results will be reviewed by the City of Fayetteville
Planning Staff and the City Planning and Zoning Commission. If signi-
ficant differences arise in the influent load projections, they will
be reconciled in consultation with the Facility Planning Consultants
and the City Engineer.
Paul
Ragsdale of the
Ragsdale and Associates
will be responsible for
all
tasks outlined in
this section.
-13-
r.
I
' C. IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE
TIVES
I
I
I
[I
I
I
The layout and screening of structural alternatives will involve
determining locations where they can be built for treatment and
disposal operations. The primary impacts of system layout (influent
collections corridor, treatment site, effluent disposal, and site
for sludge treatment and disposal) should avoid those areas in North-
west Arkansas that are environmentally sensitive regardless of which
layout is finally selected. To isolate the environmentally sensitive
areas in this step will be useful later to prescribe methods by which
to prevent secondary impacts from adversely affecting these areas.
Such initial safeguards to protect the sensitive areas will serve as
a basis to discard those alternatives which will adversely affect the
sensitive areas in Northwest Arkansas.
The scope of work in this step will involve completing two major
tasks:
.Identification of Sensitive Areas, and
.Analysis of'Land Application Sites Selected by FPC
1. IDENTIFICATION OF
SENSITIVE AREAS
The scope of work involved in using a composite environmental map
as a basis of system layout and alignment, will include mapping i6for-
mation on the following:
(i) Areas Subject to 100 Year Floods
(ii) Prime Agricultural and Prime Forest Lands
(iii) Areas of Rugged Topography (hills, bluffs, cliffs)
(iv) Soils Subject to Uneven Steelement, High Erosion
and Steep Slopes
' (v) Aquifer Susceptability/Aquifer Recharge Zones
(vi) Significant Biological Sites and Sites for Rare,
• Endangered or Threatened Species, Wetlands in the 201 Area
' (vii) Sensitive Geologic Areas/Fault Areas and Paleontological Sites
(viii) Known Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Sites
• (ix) Areas with Recognized Aesthetic Values and Vistas
(x) Designated Recreation, Parks and Open Space Areas
(xi) Fringe/Rural Areas of Low Income Population
(xii) Others (to be determined from interviews with area
people and organizations)
1
• The above elements will be presented as a series of overlays on a
1 base map of the 201 Area.
I
-14-
I
' a. Data Sources
' All data for this task will be collected from secondary sources
as follows:
' (i) Federal Emergency Management Agency, U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development
(ii) U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
(iii) U. S. Geological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas
(iv) U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Department of
Agriculture, Washington County
' (v) Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Arkansas
• (vi) Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas
(vii) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fayetteville, Arkansas
' (viii) State Historic Preservation Office, University of Arkansas
(ix) Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock
(x) Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock
(xi) Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
• (xii) Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission
• (xiii) Ozarks Regional Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas
(xiv) Northwest Arkansas Sierra Club, Fayetteville, Arkansas
(xv) Northwest Arkansas Audobon Society, Fayetteville, Arkansas
(xvi) Ozarks Society, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and
• (xvii) Other Sources such as Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service, and others to be determined from further literature
'review
b. Task Output and Personnel
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
Task output will include the preparation of a series of colored
acetate maps overlain on a base map of the 201 area. These overlay
maps, representing each element identified in page 14, will be pre-
pared by the application of the following technique:
A. Comprehensive Highway Route Selection Method, by Ian Meltarg,
Design With Nature., Garden City, New York, Natural History Press,
1969, Pages 31 - 41.
The task output will also include an interim report providing a
written interpretation of the data represented in the overlay maps.
The personnel carrying out this task will include Dr. Albert Ogden
and Fraser Stephens of the Environmental Engineers, Fred Limp
of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey; Jim Wiginton and John Darling
of the CPI and Paul Ragsdale of the Ragsdale 6 Associates. Dr. Ogden
will cover the sensitive geological and groundwater aspects and
Fraser Stephens will cover soil and prime farm and prime forest lands.
Fred Limp will cover the prehistoric literature review and
known archaeological and cultural sites. John Darling will be respon-
sible for significant biological sites for.rare and endangered species.
I
-15-
I
Paul Ragsdale will handle the identification of low income' popu-
lation and the designated parks and recreation areas.
2. REVIEW OF LAND APPLICATION
SITES SELECTED BY FPC
In addition to the information mapped as "environmentally sensitive"
' under the preceding task, the review of land treatment sites identi-
fied by the FPC, will require additional information to determine their
locational feasibility from the standpoint of environmental impacts.
' These review factors will vary from one type of land treatment to
another. But a preliminary land treatment location study by Ada, Okla-
homa Laboratory emphasized the need for additional investigation on
• Infiltration/Percolation method.
' Using the leads of Ada Study, the FPC is expected to. conduct an.inves-
tigation to determine the feasible sites for land treatment. The EIS
Consultant will review these sites to determine their environmental
feasibility. The review factors will include the following:
' (i) Soils of High Permeability and Adequate Depth
(ii) Topography
(iii) Geology
' (iv) Groundwater Flow and Quality, and
(v) Size of Selected Sites
a. Data Sources
Available studies which will provide most of the data for this
task will include the following:
• (i) Pollution Susceptability Mapping in Carbonate Terrain -
Northwest Arkansas, Rural Development, U.S. Department
of Agriculture,. 1975
I. (ii) Land Treatment Consideration for Fayetteville, Arkansas
by Jack Withrow, Ada, Oklahoma Laboratory, 1979
I
I
I
!1
I
(iii) Northwestern Arkansas Groundwater Inventory, by H. C.
McDonald and D. L. Zacary, Arkansas Water Resources
Center, 1976
(iv) Arkansas Water Resources Research Center, 1979, P. I. Ogden,
Water Table Mapping In Washington and Carroll Counties,
Arkansas
The criteria to be employed to determine low income population are
the same which the HUD uses for its CDBG, Section .8 and other housing
-programs.
-16-
I
(v) University of Arkansas Research and Sponsored Program, 1978
P. I. Ogden, Geologic and Hydrologic Controls of Limestone
Cavern Development in Arkansas, and
(vi) Other Studies available from agencies and organizations
listed under subsection (a) in page 15 of this report.
b. Task Output and Personnel
The location factors shown in page 16, will be represented on a map
of the same scale as overlay maps for "environmentally sensitive"
areas. The various sites available in Washington County will be graded
in order of environmental desirability and will be so represented on
the map.
Dr. Ogden and Mr. Stephens of the Environmental Engineers, will be
responsible for this particular task.
D. IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE
DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SELECTED
L
With the selection of best subsystem choices reflecting feasible
system alternatives, the EIS study will turn to the detailed assess-
ment of the primary and secondary impacts of the competing system
alternatives. An analysis and comparison of the primary and secondary
impacts of 4 or 5 system alternatives (including no action alternative)
will require data to define a common baseline. This baseline will be
defined for each of the following elements of the existing environment.
' 1. GEOLOGY
This element which includes topography, soils, minerals and paleonto-
' logy, will require collection of no additional data. In the process
of collecting data on sensitive geological and soil elements under
tasks C (1) and C(2) in the previous section (see pages 14 and 15),
' the EIS team will have collected data to meet the requirement of this
task as well.
2. WATER RESOURCES
Data on groundwater flow and quality for Northwest Arkansas will have
also been collected under task C(2) of the preceding section (see
page 16). No additional data will be needed to define the baseline
groundwater flow and quality.
' Additional data will however be needed to define the water flow and
quality of the surface water systems serving as receiving
• -17-
I
I
I
I
I
I
H]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1J
bodies of water. Based on the range of system alternatives that will
be considered in the final phase of the evaluation and analysis of
environmental impacts, the affected surface water system will include
at least the following:
.Upper Reaches of the White River
.The Beaver Lake
.The Illinois River, and
.Lake Francis
A historical trend of water flow and quality both during wet and dry
seasons will be established for each of these water systems above
and below the points of effluent discharge from each proposed alterna-
tive. The existing water quality monitoring stations utilized by such
agencies as the U. S. Geological Survey, Corps of Engineers and local
water districts, would seem to serve the purpose of the EIS. The pu-
blished sources may not include up to date data. In such instances,
computer printouts containing up to date water quality data will be
obtained from these agencies. The water quality parameters on which
data will be collected will be the same as the present effluent quality
parameters and those established under effluent limitations in the
NPDES permit.
a. Data Sources
Data required to define the baseline conditions are all expected to
be available from secondary sources. Following is a list of sources
from which required data will be available.
(i) Water Resources Data for White and Illinois River Basins,
Water Years 1965 through 1979, U. S. Geological Survey
(ii) U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
(iii) Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock
(iv) Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
.201 Studies for White and Illinois River Basins
.Water Quality Management Work Plan for Beaver Lake
:< The scope of work outlined here does not mention about the Arkansas
River alternative. This however does not mean that Arkansas River
will not be included for detailed impact evaluation. It only means
that if Arkansas River is included then either Illinois or White
River may not:be included in the final list of alternatives so that the
overall scope of work outlined in this section will essentially remain
the same. In any case, all competing alternatives (including White,
Illinois and Arkansas Rivers) will be evaluated.
-18-
I
(v) Beaver Water District
' (vi) The City of Siloam Springs Water Department
(vii) Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control, Oklahoma City
(viii) The University of Arkansas
.A Eutrophication Model of the White River Basin Above
Beaver Reservoir in Northwest Arkansas, by Robert
Gearheart, Water Resources Research Center, Publication
No. 15, University of Arkansas, 1973
Seasonal Variation of the Phytoplankton Community and
• Nutrient Concentration of Beaver Reservoir From July,
1972 to June 1973, a Speical Problem by Allen Doyle
'Stephens, University of Arkansas, 1973.
• .Arkansas Water & Air Pollution Control Commission,
I
Water Quality Studies for Arkansas Streams, 1966-1967
.Quantitative Analysis of Stream Flow -Rate Extremes,
Arkansas Water Resources Research Center, Publication
'
No. 1, 1967
.Water Resources Planning Study for Arkansas and Oklahoma,
L. R. Heiple, Arkansas Water Resources Research
.For a Safe Home Water Supply, Cooperative Extension Service,
' University of Arkansas, 1976
• Northwest Arkansas Water and Wastewater Systems Plan (1976
Revision), Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission,
'Springdale Arkansas, June, 1976
(ix) Other Sources and Additional Literature Review
b. Task Output and Personnel
' The output from this task will include a summary inventory of seasonal
variations of water flow and quality for each year from 1965 to 1979
for the following bodies of surface waters.
.Upper Reaches of the White River
' .The Beaver Lake
The Illinois River, and
.The Lake Francis
I
-19-
I
I
The water quality parameters will include the following:
BOD .Ammonia .Metal Contents in
TSS .Organic Carbons terms of
' .DO .Nitrogen
Phosphorus, and .Lead .Chrome
Zinc .Copper
Cyanide.Nickel
Dr. Dee Mitchell will be responsible for defining the baseline con-
ditions for upper. reaches of the White River and Beaver Lake, and
Dr. Hugh Jeffus will be responsible for the Illinois River and Lake
Francis.
3. AIR RESOURCES
' The tasks that will be performed to define the baseline conditions of
air quality will include identification and review of climatological
• data for the area. Parameters to be discussed will include rainfall,
' temperature, wind patterns, mixing heights and significant meteoro-
logical episodes. Another subtask will include emissions inventory
• data for Northwest Arkansas. Available information on NOx, SO2, CO,
' hydrocarbon and particulate emissions will be presented as a function
of sources category.
I. Under this subtask, ambient air quality data for the area by type of
pollutants will be collected, reviewed and summarized. Available
information on both emission inventories and ambient air qualities
for the past five years will be presented and air pollution episodes
'• of significance will be discussed. This will be followed by an inves-
tigation on the SIP recommendations for Northwest Arkansas, as well�as
the applicability of EPA's "emission`offset policy" and regulations
• pertaining to the prevention of significant deterioration.
The final leg of this subtask will include a .comparison of the
existing ambient air qualities with those. of the primary and secondary
standards under the NAAQS. This will provide a basis to determine the
allowable level of pollutant concentration and therefore a basis to
determine the extent to which secondary impacts of the various alter-
,• natives will be permissible. Identification of baseline condition
will include an analysis of the emissions from the existing
• treatment plant including emissions from odors, and its share of the
' overall emission inventories for Northwest Arkansas during the last
5 year period.
' a. Data Sources
Data required to define the existing air quality baseline will be
' -20-
' available from secondary sources that will include
' (i) The Washington County Health Department
(ii) Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission
(iii) The Air Pollution Division of the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, and
(iv) The Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock
b. Task Output and Personnel
Output from this task will include the following:
(i) Fayetteville Treatment Plant's Share of Contribution to
the Washington County Emission Totals and Ambient Air
Quality for Last 5 Years
(ii) A Year by Year Summary of Emission Inventories by Type
' of Pollutant Concentrations for Washington County by
Type of Sources from 1975 to 1980
• (iii) A Year by Year Summary of Ambient Air Qualities for
Various Monitoring Stations in Washington County from
1975 to 1980
'• (iv) An Identification of the Extent to which Additional
Pollutant Concentrations will be Allowable without
Violating the Secondary Standards under the NAAQS, and
' (v) Compilation of recommendations in the State Implementation
Plans that will Apply to the Northwest Arkansas.
' I Dr. Jerry Crowder of the Environmental Scientists will perform all
work outlined under this task.
4. NOISE LEVELS
' The scope of work involved in identifying baseline noise levels will
include the following:
' (i) Major noise sources within the 201 area will be identified and
located on a suitable map
' (ii) Sensitive noise receptors such as schools, hospitals, libraries
and single family residential land uses will be identified and
located on the same map
(iii) Using accepted methods and the data and information described
above, estimates will be made and environmental noise
' exposure contours (using the day -night average sound level,
Ldn) will be developed for the 201 area
' -21-
I
(iv) Using American National Standard Institute, Type 1, sound
level meters, field measurements will be made at four
t or more sites for the purpose of validating the estimated
noise exposure levels
U
(v) The measured and estimated levels will be compared to
standards, criteria and identified levels established by
the various federal agencies with noise abatement and
control responsibilities, state noise abatement and control
' laws and local noise control ordinances, if any.
(vi) Existing noise levels generated by the present treatment
plant operation will be identified by including the plant
area as one of the survey sites included under (iv) above.
' a. Data Sources
No community noise surveys have been made for the Fayetteville area.
' Data will therefore be collected from primary sources, first by
making an estimate by using an emperical technique and then by
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
L
verifying the estimated levels by direct field measurement by use
of the following:
Type 1, Sound Level Meters, American National Standard
Institute, Washington, D. C.
Other literature review will include the following:
(i) Noise Control Act of 1972, P1 92-574, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
(ii) Noise Assessment Guidelines by William J. Galloway and
Theodore J. Scholtz, Office of Policy Development and
Research, U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Washington, D. C., 1979
(iii) HUD Handbook 1390.2, Noise Abatement Control, Departmental
Policy, Responsibilities and Standards, 1971
(iv) Occupational Safety and Health Hazards Act of 1974, U. S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.
(v) Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin
of Safety, Publication No. 550/9-74-004, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., March 1974
-22-
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) Transportation Noise and Its Control, Publication No.
DOT P 5630.1. U. S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D. C., June, 1972
(vii) Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines, Publication No. NTID 300.13
Prepared by Wylie Laboratories for Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., December 31, 1971
b. Task Output and Personnel
The task output will include a noise contour map of the 201 area re-
flecting the existing land use distribution and traffic circulation
within the 201 area. This contour system will be used as a baseline
to predict the primary and secondary impacts of alternative waste-
water treatment projects, at a later step of the EIS process.
Fred Little of the Environmental Scientists of Dallas, will be
responsible for all activities under this task.
' S. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
C
I
I
n
I
I
C
The baseline conditions will be identified for:
.Aquatic Biology, and
.Terrestrial Biology
a. Aquatic Species and Their Habitats in White
River, Beaver Lake, Illinois River and Lake Francis
Identifying baseline conditions of these bodies of water will include
the determination of the biological variables most likely to be affec-
ted by alternative wastewater treatment projects. These projects
may induce physical/chemical changes in water quality often affecting
such variables as pH, temperature, flow, water level, turbidity,
dissolved gases, dissolved solids and nutrient levels. Changes in
these variables can produce significant changes in the aquatic biota
of the receiving bodies of water. Identification of baseline condi-
tions of these water systems will involve developing an inventory
on the following:
(i) Organisms of direct economic importance, e.g. commercial
and/or sport fisheries
(ii) Food organisms for species of direct economic importance
(iii) Species essential for ecosystem integrity
-23-
I
I
' (iv) Organism of special local, regional, or national interest,
e.g. endangered species
(v) Organisms of nuisance or health significance, e.g. pathogens,
pathogenic indicators, undesirable plants, and
(vi) A special investigation on the types of aquatic species that
t were, in recent years, fatally affected in Beaver Lake; an
analysis of conditions that resulted in the fishkill and
outlining conditions that will deter future fishkills.
b. Terrestrial Species
The sites for rare, endangered or threatened species designated under
or currently being designated under Section 4 of the Endangered' Specie's
Act of 1973, have been identified in Task C(1) in page 14 of this re-
port, and therefore that task will not be repeated here. The goal is not.
-to allow, any. alternative to adversely.affect these sites or the wetlands
within the 201 area.
' The rest of the terrestrial environment of Northwest Arkansas will be
identified in terms of flora and fauna life as follows:
(i) Amphibians of Washington County and Their Usual Habitats
(ii) Reptiles of Washington County and Their Usual Habitats
' (iii) Native Birds which regularly Migrate through Washington
County (Abundant, Common, Uncommon and Rare) and Their Habitats
(iv) Summer, Winter, and Year -Round Resident Native Birds of
Washington County (Abundant, Common, Uncommon and Rare)
and their Usual Habitats, and
(v) Native Mammals of Washington County and Their Usual Habitats
' c. Data Sources
'Data on aquatic and terrestrial species will be mostly available from
secondary resources*. These sources will include the following
agencies and organizations:
(i) Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock
(ii) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fayetteville
(iii) U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
'• 'With the exception of species and their habitats which will be re-
placed by the final alternative (proposed action). These habitats
and associated species will be identified by a direct biological sur-
' vey, see section E(2), page 34 of this report. Should any signifi-
cant biological site potentially eligible for protection under Section
4 be encountered during this survey, then a consultation with the
1 USFWS will be undertaken by EPA as required by Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1977 and 1978. The EIS
Consultant will be available to assist the implementation.of.this. con-
sultation process. A. biological assessment of the project -alternatives
' as requested by USFWS in its letter of February 22 198Q, willbe made
available to that agency at least 2 months before -the circulation of
the Draft EIS.
-7LL_
I
(iv) Arkansas Department of Health
(v) Oklahoma Department of Health
(vi) Ozark Society, Northwest Arkansas
(vii) Audobon Society, Northwest Arkansas
(viii) Sierra Club, Northwest Arkansas
(ix) University of Arkansas
.Department of Biology
.Water Resources Research Center
.University of Arkansas Museum, and
(x) Published and Unpublished Reports such as the following:
.Biology of Arkansas Caves, Univeriity of Arkansas, 1978
.Eutrophication of Lake Water Microcosms: Phosphate vs.
Nonphosphate Detergents, By D.T. Mitchell, Science,
Volume 174, November, 1971
' .Algal Bioassays for Estimating the Effect of Various
Chemical Compounds Upon the Planktonic Algal Population,
American Chemical Society Water and Waste Section,
Washington, D. C., September, 1971
.Environmental Phosphorus Handbook, by E. J. Griffith,
D.T. Mitchell, John Wiley and Sons, 1973
I. d. Task Output and Personnel
The output from this task will include the development of an inventory
of the aquatic species and their habitats in the affected bodies of
water; an outline of the required water quality to sustain the base-
• line plant and aquatic species; and an inventory of flora and fauna
life in Washington County.
Dr. Guy R. Lanza of the EIS team will perform the tasks and subtasks
on aquatic species and John Darling will be responsible for the ter-
restrial component of the biological studies.
6. ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY
The existing archaeological, historical and cultural resources listed
in the National Register of Historic Places (and therefore protected
by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) as.well as the
ones currently in the nomination process and/or are likely to be
nominated in the future (and therefore protected by the Executive Order
'11593), have been identified under task 0(1), page 14.
To preserve the unknown resources which may be adversely affected by
' various structural alternatives, a three -prong effort to gather
data on archaeological resources, will be undertaken as follows:
I
CJ
-25-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Li
[1
I
I
I
(i) Prehistoric literature review
(ii) A generalized sample survey*of the various plant sites
and influent collection corridors, and
(iii) A detailed survey of the plant site and corridor
alignment of the final alternative*'
The objective of a prehistoric literature review is to identify the
probable areas in Northwest Arkansas which may have been inhabitated
by prehistoric man. These approximate delineations will provide a
cursory indication of which areas may contain probable sites for
archaeological resources. These delineations will then be verified
by a generalized field survey covering those areas that will be af-
fected by the various alternatives included in the final list.
Approximately 5% of the affected areas will be surveyed on a sample
basis. The samples taken from the field will be subjected to the
laboratory analysis and interpretation.
a. Data Sources
Secondary sources from which to collect data on the prehistoric
man and his activities will include, among others, the following:
(i) Historic Materials and Documents available with
Northwest Arkansas Archaeological Society
Washington County Historical Society
.County Archives
.University of Arkansas Library Special Collections
(ii) Informant interviews with the above
(iii) Pine Mountain: A Study of Prehistoric Human Ecology in
the Arkansas Ozarks, by L. Mark Raab, Arkansas
Archaeological Survey Research Report No. 7, 1976
(iv) A Summary of Prehistory in Northwest Arkansas by James
A. Scholtz in Arkansas Archaeologist, Vol. 1, 2 and 3,
1969
'This task will be undertaken only if considered necessary by the
State of Arkansas Historic Preservation Officer, and by EPA.
' *This will be done after an alternative has been selected by the
City of Fayetteville. For details, see Task E(2), page 34 of this
report. Again, this task will be implemented only if required by
the State Historic Preservation Officer, and if approved by EPA.
-26-
t
b. Task Output and Personnel
The output from this task will be the delineation of areas within
the 201 planning area with low, medium and high probabilities of
archaeological discovery. This inventory of probable areas will
' indicate how the secondary impacts of the chosen alternative can be
contained from adversely affecting potential archaeological sites.
The primary impact area will be covered by 100% archaeological field
' survey --see page 34, task E(2).
Fred Limp of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey* of the University
of Arkansas, will execute the tasks outlined in this section.
7. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
1 The baseline socio-economic condition will be defined in terms of
the characteristics of population, employment, economic base, urban
quality (parks and open space), taxes, transportation, communication
' and utilities and the public health condition•Of these, data on the
quantitative aspects of population and economic base and parks and
open space as well as transportation, communication and utilities,
have been identified in Task A(1) through A(3) --see pages 9 through
12 of this report. Under the present task, the data will be collected
on the qualitative aspects of population, public health, recreation
and community aesthetics(such as education, income, etc.) -- see
'subtasks (a), (b) and (c) as follows:
a. Population and Economic Characteristics
' This will include gathering information on such parameters of the
economic and demographic structure as age, sex, race, income, edu-
' cation and occupation of the aggregate population of the 201 area.
An analysis of the existing conditions will be provided to relate the
economic abilities of the planning area population to pay for the
cost of an improved system of wastewater management, particularly
' of those segments of the population who are below the poverty level
and who live on fixed and marginal incomes.
' This subtask will also involve identifying and analyzing data for
specific geographic areas such as the immediate impact zone for each
of the alternative treatment plant complexes. Identifying population
' by age, race, income and occupation within one-fourth to half a mile
zone from each treatment plant and land application site, will be
essential. to determine later what kinds of people will be more di-
rectly affected by system construction, maintenance and operation.
I
The Arkansas Archaeological Survey has two separate divisions. The
group that maintains the NRHP and administers the nomination process,
45 the one that reviews and comments on the Draft EIS. This.group
is functionally separate and independent from the group that will,
conduct archaeological studies for this EIS. All tasks on archaeo-
logogy are designed to meet all applicable preservation laws and
' regulations at the local, state and federal levels.
-27-
I
Identifying population and households to be replaced (if any) by
the implementation of each alternative,and collecting data on the
land ownership in each of these zones will be another important sub -
task in this category.
b. Public Health
Identification of areas currently served by septic tanks and past t in-
cidence of septic tank contaminiations, will be accomplished in
the problems and issue identification stage and therefore will not
be repeated. But the focus of baseline here is to study wind speed
' and direction and identify odor pollution zones of each alternative
so that population and households within each zone, as well as plant
workers, can be identified and analyzed.
' Another important activity under the public health task will be to
identify the population in the broader multi -county geographic
region which is served by water supplies from the Beaver Lake and
' Lake Francis. To what extent the drinking water from these sources
will be affected by the proposed alternatives and to what extent they
will impact public health -and safety, will be an important issue for
' the EIS to address. Identifying present and future population in the
multi -county region served by the water supply systems
of Beaver Water District and the city of Siloam Springs, will serve
an important purpose later to determine how the requirements of the
ISafe Drinking Water Act of 1974 will be met by each alternative.
c. Parks, Recreation and
Community Aesthetics
Data on geographic distribution of these activities and their acreages,
have been gathered earlier. The task here will be to relate the faci-
lities with the present and projected user needs, demands and utiliza-
tion. More specifically, the recreational use and potentials of
White River, Beaver Lake, Illinois River and Lake Francis, will be iden-
tified, and existing level of the tourist activity will be iden-
tified for Northwest Arkansas. In addition, the existing designated
I.
parks and recreation areas will be related to -the population of the
201 area inoterms of .per capita parks -and -recreation use. A final
subtask in this category will be to identify those recreation and
aesthetic areas that may be located within the immediate impact area
'of each alternative.
The results from these subtasks will form the baseline datum from
which to identify the impacts of the various alternatives on the
recreation and aesthetic environment of the affected areas.
' -28-
I
' d. Data Sources
' With the exception of community aesthetics, all data will be col-
lected from secondary sources. The past studies conducted by the
following agencies and informant interviews with the representatives
t of these organizations, will provide the basic sources of essential
data. The areas of outstanding aesthetic and visual potential
will be identified by field observations.
' (1)The Population and Housing Census for Fayetteville and
surrounding communities in Northwest Arkansas
' (ii) The Ad Valorem Tax Rolls for the Affected Areas
' (iii) Regional and Local Population and Economic Base and
Parks and Open Space studies by the Northwest Arkansas
Regional Planning Commission, Springdale, Arkansas
' (iv) The Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District,
Harrison, Arkansas
' (v) The Northwest Arkansas Chamber of Commerce
(vi) The Northwest Arkansas Real Estate Society
(vii) Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
(viii) Arkansas Department of Health
' (ix) U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
(x) Beaver Water District, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and
(xi) Other sources to be identified as the study progresses
e. Task Output and Personnel
The output from this task will include a series of charts and maps
depicting the existing conditions of the social and economic struc-
ture of the affected population and households. The charts will
' include basic data on the regional and local recreational utilization
and income and occupational structures. The maps will indicate the
geographic distribution of parks and recreation and areas of signi-
• ficant aesthetic potential. All maps will indicate the location of
each structural alternative.
' The criteria to determine community aesthetics will be subjective.
The CAC and public input will be very useful here and will be fully
' sought for this task.
-29-
I
I
Paul Ragsdale of the Ragsdale and Associates will be responsible for
all tasks and subtasks outlined in this section.
8. LAND USE
Existing and projected land use for the 201 area has been identified
earlier under Task 8(3), page 12 of this report. The existing land
use map in that section shows the regional distribution of urban
' activities. The projected land use acreages are also shown in that
section. The task in this section will be to prepare a localized
• land use inventory for the affected areas and to prepare projected
' land use parameters to estimate secondary impacts on urban runoff,
air quality, energy use and other sources of secondary impacts.
a. Existing Land Use Composition
Within Each Impacted Zone
' Using the existing land use map prepared earlier, this task will
accomplish the following:
(i) Preparation of a.detailed color coded land use map for each
zone within the odor and psychologically impacted area
I.
(ii) Using the planimeter method, each individual land use
will be measured and a statistical summary of existing land
use will be developed.
' b. Land Use Parameters
The unit of measurements for these parameters will vary from one
type of secondary impact to another. Following is a brief discussion
of how these parameters will be prepared:
' (i) For urban runoff calculation, the Year 2005 land use will be
geographically to each of the watershed areas
north and south of the drainage divide between White and
• Illinois Rivers.
' (ii) For air quality, the land use projections made earlier will
remain the same except the projected number of trips per
day and vehicle miles per day for the 201 area will be
calculated as an additional parameter for the determination
of air quality impacts.
' -30-
11
II
r
1
U
Li
(iii) For site -specific impacts such as noise, archaeology and
biological species, land use acreages will be allocated
for smaller areas to identify the extent and significance of
such impacts. By using the present Fayetteville land use
plan and by using geographic allocation of the Year 2003
population made by the FPC in consultation with the
City Planning and Zoning Commission, land use acreages
for these areas will be determined to provide parameters
for secondary impacts.
(iv) For energy impacts, projected land use parameters will be
translated into square footages for residential, commercial
and industrial activities by adjusting against such factors
as land use intensity, floor area ratio, setback requirements,
dwelling size, height and bulk and other control parameters
established by the present zoning ordinance for the City.
c. Data Sources, Task
Output and Personnel
This is an analytical task and therefore no additional data will be
needed to complete this task. The output from this task are listed
under (a) and (b) above. Paul Ragsdale of the Ragsdale and Associates
will perform the tasks outlined in this section.
9. ENERGY
' a. Data Need
I
[I
I
L
I
The baseline energy consumption for the operation and maintenance
of the present treatment plant and•the use of energy to support the
existing urban system for the 201 area, will be determined as follows:
Ci) Identify monthly records of energy use for the treatment
plant operation during the last 12 months and express the
total BTU per million gallons of wastewater treated during
the same period of time.
(ii) Prepare an inventory of energy used during the past 12 months
on a month by month basis for electricity, natural gas,
petroleum products for motor vehicles, and home heating oil
for residential, commercial, industrial and transportation
activities
(iii) Express the total consumption in each category in BTU's for
each month and the aggregate BTU consumption for the year, and
-31.-
L
Ii
(iv) Utilizing the land use parameters prepared in the previous
section, express the BTU's for per square foot of residential,
commercial and industrial uses and per mile of vehicular
travel.
Subtask (i) above will serve as a parameter to determine the per
year energy requirements for each million gallons of wastewater treated
under each alternative, and subtasks (ii) to (iv) will provide a
basis to estimate the secondary impacts on energy use and consumption.
b. Data Sources
All data required for this task will be collected from secondary
sources as follows:
(i) The City of Fayetteville Plant Manager's Office
' (ii) The City of Fayetteville Department of Budget and Accounting
(iii) Utility Companies in Northwest Arkansas
Electric Power Companies
.Gas Companies
' (iv) Arkansas Utility Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas
(v) Governor's Energy Advisory Council, Little Rock, Arkansas
' (vi) U. S. Department of Energy, Regional Petroleum Allocation
Office, Little Rock, Arkansas, and
(vii) Various energy use and consumption studies that may have
been conducted for Northwest Arkansas
' c. Study Output and Personnel
n
I
Li
Output from this task will include a series of charts that will depict
the levels of energy currently used for the operation of the Fayette-
ville treatment plant and the levels of energy currently used by the
population, economic base and transportation activities in the 201
area. The charts will also include a series of energy consumption
coefficients that will be utilized to estimate the primary and secondary
impacts of the wastewater management alternatives on the energy use
and consumption through the Year 2005.
-.32-
C
Dr. Erwin J. Fenyves of the Environmental Scientists, will perform
all tasks outlined in this section.
L_
.1
I
I
I
E. FIELD SURVEYS -- DATA
COLLECTION FROM PRIMARY SOURCES
Site visit and field survey activities will be both general and
specific. The general site visits will be made to develop a familiar-
ity with the affected environment prior to conducting environmental
assessment of the various alternatives. The specific site surveys will
be conducted only on archaeology and biology after the City of Fayette-
ville has selected an alternative. These site surveys will be conducted
to make sure that the proposed alternative has no adverse impacts that
are unacceptable under the requirements of the federal legislative and
administrative mandates governing historic preservation and wildlife
protection.
1. GENERAL SITE VISITS
Two such site visits will be conducted for the proposed study.
Ia. Orientation Tr
I
I
I
ilS
I
I�
This trip will be undertaken immediately after the EIS study gets
underway. The EIS team members will make this orientation trip to
familiarize them with the area's environmental setting, and conduct
an informant conversations and interviews with those people and
organizations who are familiar with the major environmental problems
of Northwest Arkansas, and who can provide information about the past
studies and research on the variou aspects of the area environment.
The various data sources identified in the preceding sections will be
expanded to include -additional sources after this orientation trip...
b. Site Visits Prior to Environmental
Evaluation of System Alternatives
The site locations and influent collection corridors for each of the
alternatives in the final list will be visited by key personnel of
the EIS project team so that -they can better judge those impacts-;:thdt
are essentially qualitative and cannot be quantified.
In addition to these site visits,
will conduct a detailed biological
are discussed in the next section.
-33-
the biologist and archaeologist
and archaeological surveys that
I
El
2. DETAILED ARCHAEOLOGICAL
• AND BIOLOGICAL SITE SURVEYS
IThese surveys will be undertaken after the detailed environmental
evaluation of all alternatives and after the project alternative has
' tentatively been selected. These surveys will cover only the plant
site and the collection corridor.
' a. Archaeological Site Survey
Once the preferred alternative is chosen, and depending on the degree
' of probability of that alternative causing impact on significant
archaeological or cultural resources, a detailed on -foot archaeological
survey would be conducted. This detailed on -the -ground survey will
cover both the proposed alignment of the influent line and the proposed
site for wastewater treatment and processing. A sufficiently wide
corridor for the proposed alignment will be surveyed so that, if sites
are encountered along the main alignment, alternative routes could
' be determined within the corridor that would avoid and/or prevent
damage to the resources that may be discovered. In general, mitigation
through rerouting and avoidance is more desirable. If avoidance costs
exceed the costs of mitigation through data recovery, and excavation
of the threatened site, then necessary mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
b. Biological Survey'
' Biological survey will be conducted for the same corridor and plant
site as the archaeology survey. The biological survey will also be
conducted on the foot. The notation will be made for the following
types of species and their habitats.
(i) Amphibians and Their Habitats
• (ii) Reptiles and Their Habitats
• (iii) Native Birds which regularly Migrate through Washington County
• and Their Habitats
' (iv) Summer, Winter, and Year -Round Resident Native Birds
and Their Habitats
(v) Native Mammals and Their Habitats
c. Survey Output and Personnel
' Output from the survey will include a verification that no archaeolo-
gical or cultural sites that are eligible for protection under the
NHPA of 1966 and EO 11593 of 1972 will be affected by the proposed
' action. Likewise, the biological survey will verify that no habitats
'Will not be conducted unlessit is determined by EPA and the USFWS
that a biological survey is essential under this task.
' -34-
I
that are potentially eligible for protection under Section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1977, will be adversely affected by the
' proposed action.
Fred Limp of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey will be responsible
for the archaeological,site survey and John Darling will be respon-
sible for the biological survey.
n
I
I
1
I
CI
I
' -35-
I
C
I
I
I
I
[1
I
I
I
[1
I
I
I
I
TASK 3
CONSIDERATION OF
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
Of the structural and nonstructural alternatives to address the
201 Area's wastewater management problems, the nonstructural policies
will be evaluated first.
The underlying objective of nonstructural policy options is to reduce
waste flow from various parts of the 201 area and subsequently reduce
the cost of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. The EIS
Study will place the nonstructural and structural alternatives in a
state of economic and environmental balance, making them complementary
to each other. The scope of work involved in formulating nonstructural
policies, is as follows.
A. DETERMINATION OF INFLUENT LOAD FOR
THE YEAR 2005 UNDER EXISTING POLICIES
Regardless of how adequate or inadequate they are, the City has some
nonstructural policies which it exercises through such mechanisms as
rates for industrial discharge and the water rates for industrial
and commercial consumptions. The proposal for a pretreatment ordinance
is now pending before the City Board of Directors which will be enacted
within the next several months. Some of the industrial users in the
area have some pretreatment programs of their own or will soon insti-
tute them. As a result, the existing policies will be strengthened
in the near future. The EIS study presents an opportunity to further
improve the existing nonstructural policies.
The first step of developing additional nonstructural policies will
be to project the influent load for the Year 2005 under the policies
which the City pursues at the present time. The parameters for this
projection have been developed in Section B(1), pages 9 and 10 of this
report. The projected influent load will be of same quality as
identified for the present influent in terms of BOD, TSS, nutrient
and metal contents.
If the projected influent volume differs significantly from the recent
projections made by the FPC, the differeing figures will be reconciled
by comparing projection methodologies and a single figure will be
developed for use in the next step of the study.
B. INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
Based on the issues that surfaced during the public scoping meeting
and the problems and issues to be identified in the goals formulation
-36-
I
II
I
I
step of the .201 process, the types of nonstructural policies that
will be considered will include; but not be limited to, the
following:
a. Land Use Control Policies'`
(i) Exercise of zoning controls
I. (ii) Use of the authority to approve subdivisions
(iii) Issuing and enforcing building permits
(iv) Infrastructure policy of limiting the construction
' and extension of streets, sewer lines, water mains,
drainage, etc., in presently undeveloped areas of
the City.
b. Sewer Pricing Policies*
' (i) Limitation of total wastewater quantity discharged
into the sanitary system
' (ii) Limitation of wastewater quality discharged into
the system
(iii) Imposition of rates charged as a function of the
quantity of wastewater discharged
' (iv) Imposition of rates charged as a function of the
quality of wastewater discharged
(v) Porhibition of certain typs of discharge into the
system, and
(vi) Other controls and ordinances as may be required by
.40 CFR, Part 403 (the proposed pretreatment ordinance)
c. Water Conservation Policies''
(1) Consumer education on the use of water
(ii) Pricing policies to reduce the consumption of water
(iii) Other conservation methods
d. Flow Reduction Measures''
Ci) Measures to reduce excessive I/I through proposed
' sewer system rehabilitation program'
(ii) Household water saving devices
(iii) Other flow reduction measures
I
•' *Evaluation of these policies will be made by the Facility Planning
Consultants and reviewed by the EIS Consultant (as agreed to in
March 28th meeting).
37-
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
I
1. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY.OPTIONS TO
REDUCE WASTELOAD GENERATION
Some of the nonstructural policies will have a direct bearing on
the reduction of wasteload while the others will indirectly reduce
the flow of wastewater. The sewer and water pricing policies, pre-
treatment ordinance, and application of new technologies will fall in
the first group. Land use control policies to reduce waste flow will
fall in the second group. Together, they have the poential of
reducing wastewater generation to a considerable extent.
A change in the density standards in the: present zoning
ordinance, will affect the population projection conducted earlier.
This in turn wlll affect the influent volume projected under the
existing policies. Likewise, by discouraging subdivision plat appro-
vals and by making buildingpermitFprocedures more stringent for somepart:
of the City, the City can control the level and type of urbanization
which in turn will affect wastewater generation from those areas.
Under a new infrastructure policy, the City can discourage growth
from occuring in certain places within its jurisdiction,again caus-
ing a change in the pattern and intentisy of wastewater load. Those
policies that are found workable and that can be institutionally built
into the operational policies for city development, will be selected
for inclusion in the EIS study.
The cumulative effect of feasible policies will be evaluated in this
step of the EIS process. These policies'*will be translated into
wastelload by effectuating changes in the population, economic
base and land use projections conducted at an earlier step of the
EIS study. Likewise, the effects of variable water pricing policies
and other conservation programs will be translated into wastewater
load generated from various parts of the 201 area.
2. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS
TO IMPROVE INFLUENT QUALITY
This assessment to be made by FPC will include evaluation and recom-
mendations concerning industrial waste ordinances, user charge schedule
and cost recovery system and development of the general industrial
pre-treatment program as required by EPA regulations. The output
from this assessment will be a revised level of concentration
in the following influent quality parameters under both dry and wet
weather conditions:
BOD DO :Ammonia
TSS .Phosphorus .Metal Contents in terms of Zinc, Cyanide,
Chrome, Cad, Nickel and Copper
*These are local policies to be implemented locally. The EIS will
consider them to the extent they are relevant to environmental impacts,
and to the extent the CAC and the City are willing to consider them
under the 201 study..
-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. PROJECTED INFLUENT. LOAD
AND INFLUENT QUALITY
The influent load projected in Section A, page 36, will now be
revised to reflect new nonstructural policies adopted by the City.
The wastewater reduction estimated in Section 8(1), page 38, will
be adjusted against the projected influent load to determine a new
level of wastewater load. When this figure is further adjusted
against that amount of I/I that cannot be prevented from entering the
sewer system (even after implementing the SS rehabilitation program)
will result in two wastewater projections as follows:
Projected influent load for the Year 2005 under dry
weather conditions
Projected influent load for the Year 2005 under wet
weather conditions+
Each of these influent loads may have varying levels of BOD, DO,
nutrient and metal contents, although the differences may not be
significant. These projections when agreed upon by the FPC, the City
and the CAC, will be used for the remainder of the study.
D. DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
' No new data will be needed for this task which is essentially analysis
and projection oriented. Output from this task will include selection
by the City a set of feasible nonstructural policies and the subsequent
influent load and quality for the Year 2005. The latter is to serve as
a basis to consider structural alternatives for the 201 study.
Another major output of this task will be a written interim report
' that will document the results of the population, economic base and
land use projections conducted earlier by alternate methods (see
pages 8 through 11). This interim report to serve as a dicussion
' paper for a CAC Workshop**, will outline the range of nonstructural
policies that were considered, what the feasible nonstructural options
are and their level of effectiveness in reducing the Year 2005 in-
fluent load and influent quality. The balance of the influent load
must be handled by structural alternatives.
,;See task 7 page 64 of this report for additional details.on this
• public participation workshop.
-39-
I
I
C
I
I
fl
TASK 4
SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM CHOICES AND IDENTIFICATION
OF FEASIBLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES (STRUCTURAL)
With the establishment of nonstructural policies, the EIS process
will move to the step of considering structural alternatives to
handle that level of projected influent that cannot be handled by
nonstructural aspects of the Fayetteville wastewater system.
The elimination of those subsystem choices that do not meet economic
and environmental constraints, and the development of a final list
of system alternatives, is the primary objective of this task. The
scope of work involves the following activities:
IA. CONSIDERATION OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES --
COLLECTION, TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND/OR
REUSE AND RECYCLING CHOICES
' Based on the scoping meeting of December 11th, and discussion with
the City Officials and various civic groups and orgnaizations in
Northwest Arkansas, the Facility Planning Consultants have developed
a preliminary list of the following structural alternatives:
' (i) No Action Alternative -- Effluent Impacting White
• River Only (Under Existing Conditions -- No Change
in the Operation of the Present Plant)
' (ii) Effluent Impacting White River Only (Under New
Conditions -- the Present Plan will be Upgraded)
(iii) Effluent Impacting Illinois River Only (Abandoning
'
the Present Plant and Diverting the Treated or
Untreated Sewage to the Illinois Site)
' (iv) Effluent Impacting Both White and Illinois Rivers
(Upgrading the Quality of the Present Plant and
Building a New Treatment Plant in the Illinois Watershed)
(v) Transporting Effluent to Arkansas River (From the Present
Site or from the Present and Illinois Sites Both)
(vi) Effluent Impacting No Surface Waters (Land Application)
(vii) Time Separation Alternative (Use of Existing or Upgraded
Present Plant During Fall, Winter and Spring Months and
Land Application During Summer Months), and
' (viii) Combination of the Above , and Others to be Advanced by
the CAC, the public and the City of Fayetteville
I
-40-
H
I
Under the combination alternative, a number of additional alternatives
is possible. For example, all effluent need not be taken for land
application or the land application need not be accommodated all in
one place. Instead, several small sites can be considered.
' 1. LAYOUT OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
As soon as the preliminary list of alternatives is finalized which is
' expected to occur within the next 2 to 3 months, the EIS and Facility
Planning Consultants will undertake a joint activity to locate these
alternatives on the overlay maps developed under tasks C(1).and C(2) --
' see pages 13 through 17 of this report. A layout of each of these
system alternatives will indicate the following on the overlay map:
Alignment of Influent Collection Line
.Plant site and/or Land Application Site
.Effluent Disposal Site, and
Sludge Disposal or Reuse Sites
A carefully executed layout of these system alternatives on the over-
lay maps which will represent the environmentally sensitive areas
in Northwest Arkansas, will serve to complete the first environmental
screening of the alternatives.
2. DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
' AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
Data for this task has been compiled earlier in the EIS Study. The
I task output will include the location of a set of structural alter-
natives which will not impact the ecologically sensitive areas in
Northwest Arkansas.
I
I
Li
11
I
I
The task will be a joint activity between. the EIS and Facility Planning
Consultants. K. Husain with assistance from Dee Mitchell who is
intimately familiar with the environmental setting of the area, will
review the FPC's initial location plan for the system alternatives. The
FPC will estimate the size requirements for each site and will analyze
the preliminary locations with particular attention to the
alignment of the influent lines and other initial engineering con-
siderations. In order to achieve a balance between environmental and
engineering considerations, appropriate modifications and revisions
will be made in the systems location and layout before screening of
the alternatives begins.
B. SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM CHOICES
Each system alternative listed in page 40, will have several subsystem
components as follows:
I
-41-
II
I
I
I
I
t1
I
Ti
U
I
I
I
I
H
1
11
I
(i) Collection Methods
(ii) Treatment Methods. including Land Application
(iii) Effluent Disinfection and Dechlorination Methods
(iv) Effluent Disposal Methods
(v) Sludge Processing and Disposal and/or Recovery Methods
Some of these subsystem alternatives will have subprocess options
within a subsystem. For example, the advanced treatment as a sub-
system can include filtration, chemical flocculation, activated car-
bon, or ammonia stripping as subprocess options. Thus, including
subprocess options, each system alternative will have numerous options
that must be narrowed to a single subsystem choice so that a particular
system alternative can include only the best subsystem choices. The
term "best" is implied to mean the environmentally most desired sub-
system at an affordable economic cost. This screening of subsystem
choices will be conducted for the following major components.
1. INFLUENT COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
For each system alternative, the influent collection subsystem could
be:
(a) Gravity Flow
(b) Force Main
(c) Combination of Gravity and Force Main
Each of these subprocess options can include
(i) Alternative
(ii) Alternative
The objective is to
will have the best
big enough to carry
Routes
Sizing
select an option from a, b, and c above which
possible route with the least possible size, yet
the projected influent load for the Year 2005.
Cost estimates for subsystem choices will be prepared by the FPC.
Environmental acceptability for subsystem choices, using the overlay
method, will be determined by the EIS Consultant. The subprocess
evaluation will be repeated for each alternative listed in page 40.
In each case, the objective will be to determine-the.optimum:alterna-
tive reflecting the best possible combination of environmental, engin-
eering and economic factors. In each case, the EIS Consultant will
develop a rank of feasible alternatives environmentally.
-42-
I
I
I
I
I
I
El
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
2. EVALUATION OF TREATMENT PROCESS
AND FORECASTING EFFLUENT QUALITY'
The treatment process to be evaluated under each alternative listed
in page 40, will inc'-ude the following:
Oxidation Fond
SECO'IDACY f"'
Activated
Sludge
TSEATNENT
BIOLOGICAL,
Trickling
Filter
Phys_Cal/Chemical
Filtration
Chemical flocculation
Activated Carbon
ADVANCED °d
TBE.AT?NT
Break Point Chlorination
ion Exchange
Ammonia Stripping
Land Application
Others (as may be chosen
City and C CAC)
by £PC.
The. influent load with given BOD, TSS and nutrient
jected to each process listed above. The removal
and nutrients will be estimated by conventionally
models, to be chosen from the following:
levels will be sub -
rate of BOD, TSS
accepted prediction
(i) Mathematical Foundation for Design, by R.M. Stark and R. L.
Nicholls, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York -San Francisco -
Toronto -London, 1972
(ii) Water Resources Systems Engineering, by W. A. Hall and J. D.
Dracup, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York -San Francisco -
Toronto -London, 1970
(iii) Water Resources Engineering, by R.K. Linsley and J. B. Franzini,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York -San Francisco -Toronto -
London, 1979.
(iv) Others as Desired by EPA Region VI, Dallas
*Effluent Disposal and/or Reuse Methods will be evaluated under Task 5,
page 48 of this report in conjunction with systems consideration. and
evaluation.
;*This task may appear to duplicate the FPC's work but actually it
will not. Of course, this task will be conducted with information
from the FPC, and will provide a "check" on FPC-developed information
on effluent quality by the use and application of alternate methods
for forecasting effluent quality for each type of treatment process.
I
-43-
I
I
I The effluent quality will be forecasted for each subprocess options
under both dry and wet weather conditions. The dry weather effluent
will be compared with effluent limitation standards prescribed by the
State and the EPA. The treatment processes meeting the effluent
standards will be retained for economic evaluation. Cost estimates
for both capital improvement and M&0 cost will be prepared by the FPC.
' The process will be repeated for each alternative listed in page 40
of this report.
' SLUDGE PROCESSING, DISPOSAL
AND/OR REUSE ALTERNATIVES
Sludge volumes from the projected influent load will be estimated for
each alternative in accordance with conventionally accepted design
methods to be chosen from the list below. Using in part the infor-
' mation currently being developed by Dr. D. Parker of the University
of Arkansas, an analysis of the sludge nutrients and metal contents will
be made to determine the type of disposal alternatives that will be
' environmentally acceptable. Both the estimated nutrient and metal con-
tents will be adjusted to be consistent with the nonstructural policies
on industrial pretreatment.
I Sludge disposal and/or reuse alternatives to be evaluated will include
the following:
1(i) Burial
(ii) Incineration
(iii) Land Spreading
(iv) Digestion and Drying with Incineration
(v) Digestion and Drying with Land Spreading
(vi) A Combination of the Above
Capital and M90 cost for each of these subprocess options will be
prepared by the FPC. Environmental acceptability for (ii) and (iv)
• will be determined by air quality analysis -- see page 50 for a list
of predictive techniques. For the rest of the subprocess choices,
environmental feasibility at the designated site, will be determined
by methods to be chosen from the following:
(i) Manual of Practice -The Disposal of Combined Municipal/
' Industrial Wastewater Residues (Metals), EPA 600/2-79-052,
Robert S. Kerr, Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma, February, 1979
I
I
-44..
II
(ii) Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of
Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals,
' MCD-33, EPA 430/9-76-013, US -EPA, Washington, D. C., November,
1976.
' (iii) Applications of Sludges and Wastewaters on Agricultural
Land: A Planning and Educational Guide, MCD 35, Reprinted
by US -EPA, Washington, D. C., March, 1978
IFrom the list of environmentally acceptable subprocess options, the
one with least economic cost or the environmentally best subprocess
option with affordable economic cost, will be chosen for a particular
system alternative. The sludge disposal/reuse selection process will
be repeated for each system alternative listed in page 40 of this
report.
4. DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
No new data beyond what was collected earlier, will be necessary for
' this task. The task output will include the selection of those
system alternatives (in page 40) that reflect the best subsystem choices
for each system alternative. All subsystem choices that will be
eliminated through the preceding evaluation processes, will not be
considered during the rest of the study.
The screening of subsystem choices will be a joint task between the
' FPC and EIS Consultants. From the EIS team, K. Husain supported by
Dee Mitchell, will be responsible for the influent collection alter-
natives. Dr. A. Netzer will conduct the treatment process evaluation
to forecast effluent quality and Dr. Hugh Jeffus of Environmental
Engineers, will be responsible for the sludge processing and disposal
tasks.
IC. SCREENING OF SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES (STRUCTURAL)
Including the no action alternative, the preceding task will have resul-
ted in the selection of 8 or more structural alternatives at designated
locations shown on a base map of the 201 area. Each of these struc-
tural alternatives will meet the mandated water quality goals, and
their operation and maintenance will not adversely affect the sensitive
ecological areas in Northwest Arkansas. Also, these alternatives,
' based on the estimate of costs for subsystem choices, are economically
affordable. One of these system alternatives will be eventually
selected for implementation by the City. The screening of system alter-
natives will involve the consideration of all relevant environmental
factors.
' -45-
II
1. SELECTION BY THE CITY OF 4 OR 5 SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
' The objective is to narrow the list of system alternatives for
detailed environmental evaluation based on primary and secondary
' impacts of each alternative on the affected environment. The com-
parison of alternatives which is the main purpose of detailed environ-
mental evaluation, can be confusing and the real issues may be
clouded if the alternatives are too numerous with no fundamental
differences among them. To retain the competing alternatives of im-
pacts that will vary in size as well as in kind, is a major purpose
of screening the alternatives at this step.
' The screening of structural alternatives will be accomplished based on
subjective evaluation of environmental, economic and engineering
' factors as well as public perception of the effectiveness of alter-
natives to achieve wastewater management goals. The City of Fayette-
ville will seek input from the CAC and the public to determine
which alternatives it wants -to discard at ihis'stage. The City
' will combine the CAC and public input with those of the FPC and EIS
Consultants, and develop a final list of 4 or 5 alternatives including
the no action alternative.
2. DATA SOURCES, TASK OUTPUT
AND PROJECT PERSONNEL
1 No additional data will be needed for this task. The task output
will include the development of a final list of 4 or 5 system alterna-
' tives which will be subjected to an indepth environmental evaluation
in the next step of the EIS study. The task output will also include
a written interim report summarizing the results of all tasks in
screening subsystem as well as system choices at designated locations.
This interim report may serve as a discussion paper in a CAC workshop
which will be conducted prior to subjecting the system choices to
detailed environmental evaluation. The report will later occupy an
important section in the EIS report.
K. Husain will perform that portion of this task which falls within
' the EIS scope, including preparation of the interim report based on
the results developed by Dr. Jeffus and Dr. Netzer under Tasks 8(1)
and 8(2), pages 42 through 44 of this report.
1
I
' :The EIS Consultant will develop a rank of system alternatives based
on environmental factors only, and will make the list available
to the City and the EPA.
1
-46-
1
Li
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1J
I
TASK 5
DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This task will be the heart of the impact statement process for the
Fayetteville 201 Project. An analysis of the primary and secondary
impacts of 4 or 5 system alternatives or more (including no_actiorn)
and their comparison, will result in the determination of a preferred
alternative by the City of Fayetteville.
It is this preferred alternative` on which the City of Fayetteville
may later request grant funds in Steps 2 and 3 of the 201 Process.
a. SCOPE AND TYPES OF
IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED
The type of impacts on each element of the affected environment that
will be assessed for each alternative, will include the following:
(i) Construction Impacts and Their Significance
(ii) Maintenance and Operation Impacts and Their Significance
(iii) Cumulative Impacts and Their Significance
(iv) Irreversible Commitment of Resources Associated with
Each Alternative
(v) Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided Under Each
Alternative, and
(vi) Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce the Intensity
of the Above Impacts
B. POLICY PROCEDURES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The evaluation of environmental impacts for competing system alterna-
tives will be governed by the policy procedures outlined in the
following list of federal rules and regulations. The list is by no
means complete but will serve to indicate how the substantive impacts
of the 201 alternatives for Fayetteville will measure against the
environmental standards and criteria as explicitly or implicitly
required by the following policy procedures.
(i) Council on Environmental Quality, "National Environmental
Policy Act - Implementation of Procedural Provisions",
Federal Register, Volume 43, Number 230, November 29, 1978
(40 CCFR 1500-1508)
(ii) EPA, "Implementation of Procedures on the National Environmental
Policy Act", Federal Register, Volume 44, Number 216, Nov. 6,
1979
I
"The Draft EIS which is an EPA document, may not identify a proposed
alternative by EPA. The EPA, will indicate its preference in the
Final EIS. -47-
I
(iii) EPA, Region 6, "Working Guidelines for the Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements:, August, 1979
' (iv) EPA, "State and Local Assistance -Grants for Construction
of Treatment Works," Federal Register, Volume 43, Number 188,
' September 27, 1978 (40 CFR Part 35) and Federal Register,
Volume 44, Number 34, February 16, 1979 (40 CFR Part 35).
(v) EPA, Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Clean Water Act Final Regulations, Federal Register,
Volume 44, Number 34, February 16, 1979 (40 CFR Part 25)
(vi) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties," Federal
Register, Volume 44, Number 21, January 30, 1979 36 CFR
Part 800)
(vii) Endangered Species Act as amended in 1978
' (viii) EPA Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural
Lands, Memorandum dated September 8, 1978
(ix) EPA, "Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection", Federal
Register, Volume 44, Number 4, January 5, 1979
C. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
IThe scope of work for this task which will provide a clear basis
for choice among the wastewater system options by the City of
' Fayetteville, will involve an indepth analysis of impacts in compara-
tive form on the following elements of the affected environment.
I. (i) Topography, Geology, Soils, and P.laeontology
(ii) Water Resources
(iii) Air Resources
• (iv) Noise Quality
• (v) Biolgoical Resources
(vi) Archaeological/Historical and Cultural Resources
(vii) Socio-Economics (includes public health and Parks,
Recreation and Community Aesthetics)
(viii) Land Use, and
(ix) Energy
I.
1. BASELINE CONDITIONS
Baseline conditions for each of these elements have been identified
under an earlier task of this work program -- see pages 17 through 34
-48-
1
I
I
I
H
I
C
I
I
P
Dr. A. Ogden and Fraser Stephens will be responsible for these
' subtasks. Dr. Ogden will implement subtask (i) and Mr. Fraser will
implement subtasks (ii) to (vi).
of this report. Environmental impacts of these elements will be
measured from their respective base established under a task earlier
in this report.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
(a) Topography, Geology and Soils
The scope of work in identifying and analyzing primary and secondary
impacts of wach alternative, will involve the following:
(i) Reviewing geologic suitability and identifying potential
alterations in natural drainage pattern due to influent
collection line construction
(ii) Identifying areas that may require soil stabilization
during construction period
(iii) Evaluating suitability of soils for various uses such as
for construction of effluent disposal or landfill operations
based on their physical and chemical properties
(iv) Evaluating soil erodability to determine mitigation
measures to address potential erosion problems due to
primary and secondary impacts
(v) Identifying downstream sedimentation due to signficant
soil loss in recent years
(vi) Identifying primary and secondary impacts on prime agri-
cultural and forest lands... and floodplain areas
b. Water Resources
This will be a significant issue to be addressed by the EIS.
Using the baseline data and effluent qualities forecasted earlier, re-
sultant water qualities will be determined as follows:
' (i) Estimating sedimentation impacts of each alternative due
to construation on
I
I
White River and Beaver Lake
Illinois River and Lake Francis
I
-49-
II
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
[1
C
H
(ii) Estimating effluent impacts (direct) of system alternatives
on the receiving bodies of
.White River .Lake Francis, and
.Beaver Lake .Aquifers in Northwest Arkansas
.Illinois River
(iii) Estimating secondary impacts (impacts of urban runoff) on
the surface water system of
.Illinois River and Lake Francis
.White River and Beaver Lake, and
.Aquifer recharge zones
(iv) Identifying cumulative water quality impacts on surface
and groundwater systems listed above.
(v) Compairson of resultant water qualities in the surface
and groundwater systems with the water quality standards
required by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, and
(vi) Analysis of the impacts of each alternative and ranking the
alternatives based on their impact magnitude and significance.
The water quality forecasts will be made by accepted methods, to be
chosen from the following:
(i) Mathematical Foundations for Design - Civil Engineering
Systems, Stack & Nicholls, McGraw-Hill, New York
(ii) Storm Water Management Model: Level 1 - Comparative Evaluation
of Storaee Treatment and Other Management Practices, EPA
bUU/L-//-UbJ, einclnnatl, unto, Mprll i ii
(iii) Urban Storm Water Management and Technology Update and User's
Guide, EPA 600/8-77-014, Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1977
(iv) Urban Rainfall - Runoff Quality Data Base Update with
Statistical Analysis, EPA 600/8-79-004, Cincinnati, Ohio,
September, 1977
(v) Urban Runoff, By Michael C. Livingston, University of
Arkansas, 1973
(vi) Others, if desired by EPA Region VI
-50-
I
[1
K. Husain and Hugh Jeffus will complete subtask (1ii) and the rest
will be implemented by Dee Mitchell. On urban runoff, K. Husain
' will estimate the runoff level due to urbanization for the Year 2005
and estimate the pollutant concentration in urban runoff. Hugh
Jeffus will estimate the resultant water qualities in the surface
• and groundwater system due to urban runoff.
c. Air Resources
The following tasks will be performed in the qir quality impact
analysis of the proposed wastewater treatment systems:
' (i) Primary air quality impacts associated with the construction
' of the proposed alternatives of the wastewater project
will be evaluated and disucssed. Techniques for mitigating
these short-term impacts will be presented.
' (ii) Point source emissions from alternative systems (including
from odor pollution) will be estimated and the primary air
quality impacts associated with them will be evaluated by
' standard, modelling techniques.
(iii) Secondary air quality impact will be estimated and evaluated
for the criteria airpollutants.
• (iv) The primary and secondary air quality impacts will be ana-
lyzed for each alternative wastewater treatment system
and compared with the primary and secondary standards of
the NAAQS
•' (v) Cumulative impacts on air quality due to (ii), (iii) and (iv)
above will be idenfitied and the alternatives will be ranked
in order of the significance of air quality impacts.
The methodologies to be applied for air quality impact estimates, will
be chosen from the following:
' (i) A Guide for Considering Air Quality in Urban Planning, U.S.
EPA, PG -234 341, March, 1974
(ii) Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 4, Land Use and Transportation Considerations, U.S.
' EPA -450/4-74-004, August, 1974
(iii) User's Guide to the Texas Episodal Model, Texas Air Control
Board, Austin, Texas, 1979
' -51-
I
(iv) Users' Guide to the Texas Climatological Model, Texas
Air Control Board, Austin, Texas, 1976
' Cv) Users' Guide to the Single Source (CRSTER) Model, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, N.C. (EPA -450/2-
77-013), 1977, and
(vi) Users' Guide to the Valley Model, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, RTP, NC. (EPK -450/2-77-018), 1977
Dr. Jerry Crowder and K. Husain will be responsible for this task.
Secondary emission impacts and subsequent conversion to ambient
• ' air quality will be estimated by K. Husain. Dr. Crowder will do
the rest of the tasks.
d. Biological Resources
Using the baseline conditions identified earlier (see pages 23 and 24)
1 and the resultant water qualities identified in page 50, the biological
impacts will be identified for aquatic and terrestrial species as
follows:
I
F
I
I
F I
I
(i) Estimating primary and secondary impacts of each
alternative on the aquatic habitats and species in
the receiving bodies of water such as
• White River .Illinois River, and
Beaver Lake .Lake Francis
(ii) Estimating primary and secondary impacts on the biological
species in wetlands, floodplains and other significant
biological sites
(iii) Estimating primary and secondary impacts of each
alternative on the terrestrial flora and fauna systems, and
(iv) Estimating cumulative biological impacts of each alter-
native and their relative ranks in order of total
biological impacts
Forecasting methodologies for biological species, will be chosen
from the following:
(i) The Mitigation
Losses of Fish
-Ou,
A National Workshop
Habitats, U.S.Fore
itieatin
ce
(ii) QUAL - II, Tee -Win Chi, Meta Systems, Incorporation, 1973
-52-
I
(iii) Water Quality Criteria Research.of the U.S. EPA, Proceedings
of an EPA Symposium, Environmental Research Laboratory,
' Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Corvallis,
Oregon, 1976
' (iv) Modelling Dynamics of Biological and Chemical Components
of Aquatic Ecosystems, National Environmental Research
Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
Corvallis, Oregon, 1975
' (v) Others if desired by EPA Region VI
' Dr. Guy Lanza will be responsible for identifying aquatic impacts
and John Darling will perform the task on terrestrial biology.
e. Sound Quality
' Identifying primary and secondary impacts on noise levels will be
similar to that of the baseline assessment made in an earlier section.
See page 21 of this report.
(i) Items (i), (ii), and (iii) outlined in the baseline noise
assessment will be repeated for each alternative of the
proposed wastewater treatment systems. No field monitoring
will be done in this phase of the project.
(ii) The predicted noise levels due to primary and secondary
' impacts of each alternative will be analyzed and compared
to the standards, criteria and levels established by
federal agencies, state noise abatement and control laws
and local noise control ordinances, if any.
Methodologies for identifying noise impacts will be chosen from the
' list included in page 22 of this report.
Fred Little of the Environmental Scientist will implement all tasks
outlined in this section.
f. Archaeological/Historical Resources
The primary and secondary impacts of each alternative on known and
potential archaeological resources will be identified as follows:
(i) Identifying conflicts between each alternative and known
'archaeological and cultural resources
I
I
-53-
(ii) Identifying conflicts between each alternative and areas of
high probabilities of archaeological discovery, and deve-
' lopment of procedures for containing secondary impacts of
all alternatives, and
' (iii) Identifying conflicts between archaeological resources and pro-
ject site and influent pipe corridor (to be identified through
a detailed archaeological survey*Of the project site)
(iv) Development procedures for mitigating adverse impacts if con-
flict between the proposed action and a resource site cannot
be avoided
Dr. Fred Limp of the University of Arkansas will be responsible for
the subtasks outlined above.
• g. Socio-Economics
Using the baseline conditions disucssed in pages 27 through 29, the
impacts on the socio-economic environment that includes public health
and parks and recreation,and community aesthetics, will be identified
' as follows:
(i) Estimating changes in land and property values within impacted
zone of each alternative
• (ii) Estimating project costs for each alternative and conducting a
revenue rate study to identify the relative abilities of the
' various segments of the 201 area population (to be conducted
by the FPC) to pay for the system development
(iii) Assessing relative ability of eachl alternative to phase out sep-
tic tanks Cif necessary) from areas now served by septic tanks
(iv) Estimating changes in the social and economic structure of
population within the impacted zone of each alternative
(v) Assessing the impacts of resultant water qualities in the re-
' ceiving bodies of water on the requirements of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act of 1974 and their impacts on the public health
of the regional population, and
(vi) •Identifying conflicts between each alternative and the desig-
nated parks and recreation, and areas of outstanding community
aesthetiecs.
(vii) Identifying.changes in the recreation potentials of area lakes
and other bodies of water due to each alternative
No additional data will be needed for this task. Paul Ragsdale of the
Ragsdale and Associates, will be responsible for the tasks outlined in
this section.
''To be conducted only if necessary. See the second footnote in
• page 26 of this report.
r r.
I
P
Li
h. Land Use
Primary and secondary impacts of each alternative on the land use,
will be identified as follows:
(i) Identifying anticipated changes in land use for each area
impacted by the implementation of each alternative and comparison
of these changes with the local land use plan(s)
' (ii) Identifying direction of growth in the 201 area and how
the primary and secondary impacts of each alternative will
deter or assist the direction of growth.
(iii) Estimating future levels of urbanization due to the secondary
impact of each alternative and developing the Year 2005 land
use composition for the 201 area, and
' (iv) Assessing cumulative land use impacts of each alternative and
aggregate ranking of each alternative based on impacts iden-
tified in (i) through (iii) above.
No additional data will be needed for this task. Paul Ragsdale of
the EIS team will perform this task.
• i. Energy
Using the baseline information included in page 31 of this report,
the primary and secondary impacts of each alternative will be iden-
tified as follows:
' (i) Predicting the energy requirements needed for the
construction of the alternative wastewater treatment systems
(ii) Predicting the energy requirements needed for the maintanence
and operation of each alternative during the project life
(iii) Predicting the energy forms and requirements needed to
support the increased population, residential/commercial and
industrial sectors for each alternative
' (iv) Potential sources for the total energy demand will be identi-
fied, the availability of the corresponding energy resources
investigated, including the possiblity of the use of an
' aerobic sludge digestion for methane generation.
(v) The cost of energy for the proposed alternative systems
will be estimated and the socio-economic impact of the
' energy problem will be analyzed.
' -55-
Li
' The methodologies for predicting energy impacts, will be chosen from
the following:
' (i) The Planner's Energy Handbook: A Manual for Exploring Rela-
• tionships Between Land Use and Energy Utilization, Federal
' Energy Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, June, 1977
(ii) Land Use - Energy Simulation Model: A Computer Based Model
for Explaining Land Use and Energy Relationships, Federal
Energy Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, June, 1977
(iii) Land Use and Energy Utilization: Final Report, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, New York, June, 1977
(iv) Others if desired by EPA Region VI
No additional data will be needed for this task which will be implemented
by Dr. E. J. Fenyves of the EIS team.
' D. AGGREGATE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
OF ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
Task C, described in pages 48 through 55 of this report, will result
'
in the estimate of impacts of various alternatives on each element
of the environment. While these estimates are essential to assess
the environmental feasibility of each alternative in component terms
' of air, water, species, etc,they do not synthesize the component
impacts into an aggregate index to determine the overall range of
environmental quality associated with each alternative.
I
I
U
I
I
This final task of impact synthesis
clear basis of choice among the alt
this step. It will provide a cross
serve as a basis to determine which
factory in terms of their aggregate
which is intended to provide a
arnatives, will be conducted in
comparison of impacts and will
alternatives are or are not satis-
impact on the environment.
1. AGGREGATE IMPACT EVALUATION
FORMAT AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
A brief discussion of this task was provided in pages 64 to 67 of
our proposal submitted in January, 1980. Table 8, page 67 of that
proposal provides a sample illustration of how the aggregate impact
evaluation can be conducted to establish the ranks of various
alternatives in relation to eacn other. The evaluation methodologies
to implement this task, will be chosen from the following:
' (i) Leopold, Luna B, et al., A Procedure for Evaluating Environ-
mental Impact, Geological Curvey Circular 645, Washington,
Government Printing Office, 1971
-56_
I
I
C
I
I
El
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
ii) Sorensen, Jens, A Framework for Identification and Control
of Resource Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple Use
of the Coastal Zone, Berkely: University of California,
Department of Landscape Architecture (1971), and Sorensen
and James E. Pepper, Procedures for Regional Clearinghouse
Review of Environmental Impact Statements --Phase Two,
Report to the Association of Bay Area Governments (April, 1973)
iii) Adkins, William G. and Dock Burke, Jr., Interim Report:
Social Economic. and Environmental ;Factors in Highway
Decision Making, Research, conducted for the Texas Highway
Department in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: College
Station, Texas; Texas Transportation, Institute, Texas A&M
University (October, 1971)
(iv) Dee, Norbert, et.al., Planning Methodology for Water Quali
Management: Environmental Evaluation System, Columbus, Ohi
Battell Memorial Institute July, 1973
(v) Husain, Khan M., Step -by -Step Procedures for Preparing
Environmental Impact Statements for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Projects, Environmental Evaluation Branch, Office
of Water Programs Operation,, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., October, 1975
Before developing the final ranking of alternatives, consultation
with the City, the FPC and the CAC will be essential. Consideration of
cost has been introduced earlier in Task 4 for screening of subsystem
choices. The aggregate cost of each system alternative will now be
considered in this step.
a. System Improvement
and M&0 Cost'
The cost of each alternative (both capital and 20 -year M&O costs) will
be prepared by the Facility Planning Consultants. A revenue analysis
and a rate structure based on present and projected number of resi-
dential and industrial users, will indicate the limits which cannot
be exceeded by feasible alternatives. The alternative which has the
least adverse environmental impacts at an affordable economic cost of
improvement and maintenance, will be selected for implementation for
the 201 Area.
1
i'This task will be completed by the Facility Planning Consultatns and
reviewed by the EIS Consultant before the cost and revenue figures
are applied to the aggregate assessment process.
-57-
I
I
b. Consultation With the
City, CAC and FPC
An interim report summarizing the results of task C and D, page 49
through 56, will be made availble to the City and CAC. This report.
may serve as a discussion paper for a CAC workshop. The CAC may
recommend amendments to the report as it may see fit, including the
development of its own ranking of alternatives. The EIS Consultant
I
will develop a rank of alternatives based on their primary and
secondary impacts on the affected environment. The FPC may develop a
ranking of its own based on economic and engineering factors. Re-
ceiving these inputs from the CAC, EISC and the FPC, the City Board
I. of Directors will now hold a public hearing before voting on the
"proposed action".
2. TASK OUTPUT AND
PROJECT PERSONNEL
No additional data will be needed to complete the task. K. Husain
' of the EIS team will develop the aggregate evaluation and analysis
of all primary, secondary and cumulative impacts of the various al-
ternatives and prepare a. written report. Task output will assist the
' City in selection of a preferred alternative. The task output will
also include a written report that will outline the environmental
consequences of the various alternatives,and a rank of system alter-
' natives ranging from environmentally most satisfactory to environment-
ally least satisfactory. It will then be up to the City of Fayette-
ville,to decide which alternative it will choose for the Fayetteville
Wastewater Management System.
I
H
I
I
11
I
-58-
I
• TASK 6
PREPARATION OF PRE -DRAFT,
' DRAFT AND FINAL EIS REPORT
With the implementation of the scope of work outlined in the pre -
I ceding sections, all materials that are necessary to prepare an
EIS, will have been generated. The various interim reports and
supproting documents will now be pulled together in a central docu-
I ment in the format provided by EPA's Working Guidelines for the
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements issues in August, 1979.
Following is an abbreviated outline of this format.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• A. The Purpose of and Need for Action
B. A Brief Description of Each Alternative Evaluation
(Including the Preferred Plan and No Action)
C. The Major Conclusions
II. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
III. INTRODUCTION
IV. PURPOSE AND NEED
V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
A. Alternatives Considered by the Applicant
B. Alternatives Available to EPA
C. Alternatives Available to Other Agencies
D. Other Alternatives
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Alternatives Considered by the Applicant
.Geology
.Hydrology
.Air Quality
.Sound Quality
.Biology
.Archaeology/History
.Socio-Economics
.Energy
.Land Use
-59-
I
7
I
I
I
H
I
Cl
I
C
I
I
I
H
I
G
C
B. Alternatives Available to EPA
1. Issuance of Permit or Awarding of Additional Grants
2. Issuance of Permit or Awarding of Additional Grants
on Modified or Alternative Project
3. Denial of Permit or of Additional Grants
C. Alternatives Available to Other Permitting Agencies
D. Other Alternatives
VII. SECTION 5 COORDINATION
A. List of Commenting Agencies and Individuals
B. The Objections or Suggestion made by Federal, State or
Local Agencies before or during the EIS Process
C. Public Participation Through Public Meetings and Public Hearings
VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS
IX. LITERATURE CITED -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
X. INDEX
XI. APPENDICIES -- CONTRACTS, STUDIES OR REPORTS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
With the completion of Task 5, the EPA will formally assume the
responsibility of the preparation of the EIS report with continuing
technical assistance from the EIS Consultant.
A. PREPARATION OF A
PRE -DRAFT EIS REPORT
The report will be prepared first as a Pre -Draft document. The Pre -
Draft will be a concise, easy to read, analytical document complete
with text, charts, maps and essential data. All technical materials,
detailed charts and data will be placed in appendices referenced
with the main text.
Five copies of the main document and appendices will be submitted to
EPA for inhouse review. Copies of the Pre -Draft will also be made
available to the City and members of the CAC. The EIS projeat: officer
and other officials of EPA will review the Pre -Draft and check for its
contents, format and other requirements to meet its NEPA responsibili-
-60-
C
I
ties as a federal agency.
' Concurrent with the inhouse EPA review, the CAC may meet in its final
• workshop to present comments and offer suggestions to amend or refine
the Pre -Draft EIS.
B. PREPARATION OF THE
DRAFT EIS REPORT
The EPA will prepare a list of changes which it wants to make in the
' Pre -Draft EIS. The Pre -Draft document will be revised by the EIS
Consultant reflecting these changes together with those CAC changes
that are approved by EPA. When all changes have been made to the
' satisfaction of EPA, the report will be a Draft EIS ready for circu-
lation to commenting agencies and individuals at the federal, state
and local levels. A camera-ready copy of the Draft EIS will be given
to the EPA for printing 100 to 150 copies or the EIS Consultant will
' print the report and submit the required copies, whichever the EPA
wishes.
IC. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIS BY COMMENTING
AGENCIES AND PREPARATION OF THE FINAL EIS
' The EPA Region VI will circulate the Draft EIS for review and comments
by federal, state and local agencies and individuals. EPA will re-
ceive comments during the Draft EIS review process. During this
' period, the EPA may hold a formal public hearing in Fayetteville.
The comments raised during the review period and during the public
' hearing, will be responded by EPA with full or partial assistance from
the EIS Consultant. The Final EIS will include a comment and response
section in which each comment will be individually responded to. Five
copies of the Final EIS will be sumbitted for inhouse review by EPA.
' After the EPA has reviewed the Pre -Final EIS and checked for its accuracy
contents and organization, a caitiera-ready copy will be given to EPA
for printing the required number of copies or the EIS Consultant will
' print the report if the EPA so wishes.
The EPA will circulate the Final EIS report to those agencies and
' individuals which have commented on the Draft EIS. The EIS Consultant's
contractual obligation will remain in force until suc} tmtte as the
EPA has approved the Final EIS.
I
I
' -61-
U
I
J
I
I
En
I
I
G
I
TASK 7
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to the interest expressed by the City of Fayetteville and
its Public Participation Coordinator, a total of 4 sessions is
proposed to familiarize the CAC with the scope of the EIS work
program and to broaden their understanding of PL 92-500 and the
NEPA process. The first of these sessions will be a coordination
meeting among all the entities involved in the 201 project -- the
City, the CAC, the EPA and consultants. The other three session will
be devoted to the substantive areas of the Clean Water Act and the
EIS process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Following is a brief description of the scope of work proposed for
these activities.
A. EIS WORK PROGRAM COORDINATION
AND CAC ORIENTATION MEETING
The primary purpose of this session will be to orient the CAC
with the scope of work involved in the entire study and their own
roles and responsibilities during the project period. To establish
a time frame for the completion of the EIS will be another major
goal of this session. This orientation meeting will help all
parties move in the same direction within the assigned scope of
their respective functions and responsibilities.
In this meeting, a copy of the EIS Work Program report to be developed
by the EIS Consultant, will be made available to each member of the
CAC.
I B. TRAINING SESSIONS
FOR THE CAC MEMBERS
1. TRAINING SESSION I
The first session will provide a context for the water, quality manage-
' ment planning under various provisions..of the Clean Water Act. This
session will.enable the CAC to develop an overall water quality planning
1
I
En
1
-62-
_1
I
U
• t perspective and how the 201 program fits that perspective. A special
emphasis will be given to the recently announced EPA's National Municipal
Policy and Strategy which seeks to coordinate and integrate grants,
permits and enforcement operating practices with the aim of stream-
lining compliance by the publicly owned wastewater treatment plants.
' 2. TRAINING SESSION II
The second session will deal with the nuts and bolts of the 201 pro -
t gram itself and the contents of the various steps of the 201 process.
A special emphasis wll be given on the interrelationship between the
facility plan, the infiltration/inflow study and the EIS study. To
understand this interrelationship is vital for the CAC to provide
meaningful input to the 201 project in the most expeditious and
judicious manner.
1 3. TRAINING SESSION III
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1979 (NEPA) and its impact
statement provision will be the subject matter for the third and
final training session. In this session, the CAC will be given an
' overview of the NEPA process, why an EIS is needed for the Fayetteville
project, and how the EIS process will run concurrently with the
Facility Planning Process. In addition, this session will familiar-
ize the CAC with the impact assessment methodologies as well as with
' the contents and substance of an EIS document as required by the EPA
Region VI's Working Guideline for the Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statement issued in August, 1979.
4. HANDBOOKS AND INSTRUCTORS
FOR THE CAC TRAINING SESSIONS
The EIS Work Plan report will serve as a handbook for the project
orientation meeting as well as a guidebook to the CAC for all future
' EIS workshops. Three other handbooks listed below will be prepared,
one for each of three training sessions.
' (i) Goals and Policies of the Clean Water Act
(ii) The Scope and Contents of 201 Program, and
(iii) The CAC Handbook on NEPA and the EIS Process
I
' -63-
1
C
I
I
I
I
I
[l
I
I
L
H
I
Li
The first and third handbooks will be prepared by the EIS Consultant.
The Facility Planning Consultant will prepare the second handbook
with review and assistance from the EIS Consultant. The EIS Consultant
will serve as instructors for the first and third sessions while the
Facility Planning Consultant will provide instructors for the second
session. The Fayetteville Public Participation Coordinator will ad-
minister the scheduling and other activities associated with the CAC
training sessions.
The proposed training sessions will serve as a vehicle to develop a
common language between the CAC and the EIS Consultants. An improved
understanding of all aspects of the 201 planning process on the part
of the CAC, will expedite the study process. In addition, an informed
understanding of the NEPA and federal water quality planning process
on the part of the CAC will help incorporate the goals of environ-
mental planning and conservation into the local development programs
and policies.
C. PROPOSED WORKSHOPS
FOR THE EIS PROJECT
Having equipped the. CAC with the tools and techniques that will be
needed for a hands-on involvement under a full scale public parti-
cipation program, the EIS process will move to the workshop stages.
It is through these workshops that the. CAC members will sharpen
the issues and help find solutions to the.wastewater management
problems for the 201 area. A total of 5 workshops';is proposed. These
workshops are linked with the various recommendation points that to-
gether constitute the 201 process. A brief description of each of
these workshops is as follows:
1. WORKSHOP 1
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS,
GOALS AND ISSUES
To identify the reasons that have prompted the City of Fayetteville
to seek EPA's assistance under the 201 program, will be a high
point in this workshop. The relevant issues and problems concerning
water quality, water supply, public helath, water -based recreations
and other environmental problems, will be defined in this workshop.
Specifically, this workshop will involve defining the end -state
conditions that are to be achieved by the 201 project through the
Year 2005. `
a. Handbook for CAC
Data on existing influent and effluent characteristics are available
'Depending on its operation procedures and other needs, the CAC may
decide to hold additional meetings between these workshops The EIS
Consultant will be available to attend these meetings to answer.ques-
tions or provide information which the CAC may need.
-64-
I
with the FPC. The EPA Region VI and the State of Arkansas will
provide projected effluent limitations for various streams in the
' area, and outline other requirements of PL 92-50.0 and P1 92-517.
These requirements must be met by the Fayetteville system through
the Year 2005. These data together with a summary results of the
' scoping meeting of December 11, 1979 and the I/I report by the FPC,
will be compiled in a handbook for use by the CAC in Workshop 1.
. b. CAC Workshop Exercise -- Response
Through Issues Questionnaire
Using the handbook as the basic source of information, the CAC members
will assess the various issues alluded to in the handbook report.
• This assessment will be made through a long questionnaire to be
' designed by the EIS Consultant. The exercise will call for issue
ranking by the CAC members on an individual basis. The responses
will be tabulated to develop an aggregate ranking of the various
issues associated with the existing wastewater facilities for the
'
201 area. These problems and issues will be used as criteria to eva-
luate the alternatives later in the 201 process.
Ic. Interim Report 1
U
The completion of tasks in (a) and (b) above will result in an analysis
and statement of both short and long term goals, constraints and
issues to be addressed by the 201 Plan through the Year 2005. This
statement to be developed by the EIS Consultant, will be included in
an interim report for review and comments by the City and the EPA.
A summary statement of this report will constitute the "Purpose and
Need" section of the EIS report while the rest of the materials and
data will constitute a possible appendix for the EIS report.
2. WORKSHOP 2
'
CONSIDERATION OF
NONSTRUCTURAL POLICIES
' Of the two types of alternatives (nonstructural and structural) that
will be considered for the wastewater management problem, the,non-
strucutral policies will be evaluated first. Workshop 2 will be ,
' utilized by the CAC to review, evaluate and. recommend nonstructural
policies. The review of nonstructural policies will provide the
basis of determining reduced influent load and improved influent
qulaity, and thereby reduce design capacities of the structural alter-
natives for collection and treatment of wastewater.
Based on the issues that surfaced during the public scoping meeting
and the requirements of EIS and facility plans, the CAC will evaluate
4 types of nonstructural policies for the Fayetteville area.
I
-65-
H
Land Use Control Policies
.Sewer Pricing Policies
' .Water Conservation Policies, and
Other Physical and Nonphysical Flow Reduction Policies
IInterim Report 2
An interim report will be prepared to serve as a discussion paper.
',
in Workshop 2. This report will outline what the feasible nonstruc-
tural options are and the level of their effectiveness in reducing
the Year 2005 influent load for the 201 area.
' This CAC workshop will assist in the evaluation of the feasible non-
structural policies for the future, and provide a reasonable estimate
of the alternative levels of wasteload that must be handled by the
structural alternatives.
' 3. WORKSHOP 3
THE SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM CHOICES AND
IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
' With the establishment of a tentative set of nonstructural alterna-
tives, the 201 process will turn to the consideration of structural
alternatives to handle that level of projected influent load that
'cannot be handled by the nonstructural policies.
The screening of those subsystems that do not become a part of the
' best system choices at designated locations, will be a primary ob-
jective of CAC Workshop 3. Based on the scoping meeting of December
11th, and based on their discussion with the City Officials and
t civic groups and organizations in the area, the FPC has developed a
preliminary list of structural alternatives that are included in
page 40 of this report. Each of these alternatives will have various
I. subsystems such as collection, treatment, disposal, etc.
A cost estimate for each of these subsystem and subprocess options
will be prepared by the FPC for review by the CAC.
1
Ia. Interim Report 3
An interim report documenting research results on the cost of sub-
' system choices, sensitive environmental elements, and the availability
of sites for land treatment, will be prepared for use in Workshop 3.
This interim report will be made available to the CAC prior to Work-
, shop 3..
' -66-
I
b. Screening of Structural Alternatives,.
This goal will be achieved in Workshop 3. The objective here is
to conduct an evaluation of the various structural alternatives.
Impact assessment methodologies (presented to the CAC in Training
' Session III) will now be applied to screen structural alternatives.
The CAC will rank the alternatives and recommend those alternatives
for detailed evaluation that are more effective in addressing the
• problems and issues identified in Workshop 1.
c. Interim ReDort 4
An interim report summarizing the rationales for screening subsystem
choices as well as for developing a final list of alternatives will
be prepared for review and comments by the City and the EPA. The
report will later occupy an important section of the EIS report. It
will serve as a discussion paper in Workshop 4 when the feasible
system choices will be subjected to a detailed environmental evaluation.
4. WORKSHOP 4
ASSESSMENT OF THE
FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE AREA
In this workshop, the CAC members will conduct an assessment of the
alternatives based on their primary and secondary impacts. All
technical materials, data and criteria for assessment will be provided
the CAC so that they can develop an impartial assessment of the
alternatives.
a. System Improvement
and M&O Costs
In assessing the final list of alternatives, the CAC will take into
account the cost of construction and maintenance. The cost of each
alternative (both capital and 20 -year M&O costs) will be prepared
by th-: Facility Planning Consultants and reviewed by the EIS Consultant.
• A revenue analysis and a rate structure based on present and projected
number of residential and industrial users, will indicate the limits
which cannot be exceeded by feasible alternatives.
b. Interim Report 5
An interim reu.ort summarizing the CAC and Consultants' recommendation
on the environmentally satisfactory and economically feasible alter-
-67-
I
Li
III
I
I
[]
I
I
C
C
I
I
native, will be submitted to the City Board of Directors fnr final
decision.
5. WORKSHOP 5
REVIEW OF THE PRE -DRAFT,
DRAFT AND FINAL EIS
With the completion of Workshop 4, all materials that are necessary
to prepare a Draft EIS, have been generated. The various interim
reports and supporting documents that have been distributed to and
reviewed by the CAC in workshops 1 through 4, will now be pulled to-
gether in a central document called Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS will be prepared first as a Pre -Draft document for
inhouse review by the EPA. Concurrent with the inhouse EPA review,
the CAC will meet in the 5th and final workshop to present comments
and offer suggestions to amend and refine Pre -Draft EIS. The Draft
EIS will then be prepared reflecting changes as required by EPA.
From this point on, the circulation of the Draft EIS to commenting
agencies and individuals, receiving and responding to comments on the
Draft EIS, holding a formal public hearing, and other activities
related to the administration of the EIS process, will be the respon-
sibility of the EPA. as a federal agency. As a part of this respon-
sibility, the EPA will hold a public hearing in Fayetteville on the
Draft EIS. The EIS Consultant will continue to work with EPA until
the Final EIS has been completed and'approved by the EPA.
-6.8-
H
PROJECT TEAM, STUDY SCHEDULE, ESTIMATED
MANHOURS BY PROJECT TASK AND SUBTASK
AND PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE STUDY
1
I
PROJECT TEAM, STUDY SCHEDULE, ESTIMATED
MANHOURS BY PROJECT TASK AND SUBTASK
AND PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE STUDY
The scope of work described in this report, will be implemented by
an interdisciplinary team of 14 professionals representing the
disciplines of natural and social sciences and environmental design
arts. The team will be led by K. Husain of the Comprehensive
Planning Institute. The CPI as the lead firm will have overall
' management and administrative responsibility for the proposed study.
Serving'as project director',. Mr. Husain will coordinate -the imple-
mentation of all major tasks outlined in this report.
IDr. E. Fenyves of the Environmental Scientists will coordinate the
project tasks assigned to the UT Dallas group. Lidewise, Dr. Mitchell
' will administer the project tasks assigned to the Environmental
• Engineers in Springdale, Arkansas. Dr. Fred Limp, representing the
Archaeological Survey of the University of Arkansas, will coordinate
all tasks associated with the archaeological aspects of the study,
' and Paul Ragsdale will be responsible for that. portion of the study
which has been assigned to his firm.
Upon approval of the scope of work and a budget by the EPA, the
CPI will enter into a subcontract with each of these agencies.
Copies of all subcontracts will be submitted. to the City of Fayette-
ville and the EPA for their review and approval.
A. STUDY SCHEDULE
I
I
Based on our abilities and the talents that are represented on the team,
and based on our commitments and workload in other.:projects, we are
confident that we can move quickly and complete the project within
a relatively short period of time without sacrificing the quality
of any aspect of the study. From the date of the approval of the
scope of work and a budget for the study, the Pre -Draft EIS can be
submitted to the EPA by October 15, 1980. -A proposed schedule is
shown in the table in the next page.
B. REPORTING
' The study progress will be monitored to keep the EIS project officer
informed on a continuing basis. K. Husain will be responsible for
reporting all activities to the EIS project officer. He will stay
in touch with the EPA project officer almost daily. An informal
progress report will be submitted to the City and the EPA each week.
A formal progress report will be submitted at the end of each month.
These monthly reports would be used by the Public Participation
' Coordinator to prepare "responsiveness summaries" as required by
the EPA Regulations.
11
-69-
I
I
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE PIGGYBACK
EIS FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE 201 PROJECT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
I
I
Major Project Tasks
Date of Task
Completion
Project
Orientation Meeting with CAC, City, FPC
May 15, 1980
Orientation
& CAC Training
CAC Training Sessions
May 31, 1980
Project Goals, Issues and Problems, CAC Workshop 1
June 7, 1980
For Consideration of
June 22, 1980
Nonstructural Policies
Baseline
Identification of Sensitive Areas for
June 29, 1980
Conditions
Screening Subsystem & System Alternative
For Detailed Environmental Conse-
Ju]y 22, 198O
quences of System Alternatives on
the Affected Environment
Review and Consideration of Nonstructural Policies and
June 29, 1980
Workshop 2
Screening of Subsystem Choices & Identification of
July 5, 1980
4 or 5 Structural Alternatives, CAC Workshop 3
Development of the Preferred Alternative based on
Detailed Environmental Consequences of Structural
Sept. 22,1980
Alternatives, CAC Workshop 4
Submission of the Pre -Draft
Oct. 15,1980
EIS to EPA
Oct. 24, 1980
Inhouse EPA review & CAC Workshop 5
Approval of Draft EIS by EPA & Sub-
Nov. 7, 1980
mission of -
Completion of the Draft EIS review by
Pre -Draft,
Draft, and
Federal, State & Local Agencies and
Jan. '22, 1981
Final EIS
Individuals
Preparation of the Pre -Final EIS
Feb. 7, 1981
Inhouse Review of Pre -Final EIS
Feb. 17, 1981
Approval of Pre -Final EIS by EPA & Sub-
March 2, 1981
mission of the camera-ready
Completion of the Final EIS Review by
April 29, 1981.
Commenting Agencies & Individuals
Record of Decision by EPA
May 7, 1981
I
-70-
I
IC. ESTI:4ATED MANIHOURS BY PROJECT TASK
AND A PRO OSLD BUDGET FOR THE STUDY
I
1,
The table in page 72 shows the tasks that will be assigned to each
member of the EIS team. It also shows the estimated manhours that
will be necessary to complete each task. The manhours in this chart
are for the professional personnel only, and does not include other
personnel 'such as graphics, secretarial or clerical. A budget summary
(in dollars) for the proposed study is included in the table below.
Budget breakdown for all subcontract consultants is included in
page 73 to 77 of this report.
BUCCET SWIMARY FOR THE FAYETTEVILLE
2'l EIS PROJECT (FOLLOdf11S EPA REVIE)
Ove dead --
Other Direct Casts
'
Direct Fringe 8eneiits.
C.onseltants I :erscnn^_1 Rent, Supplies,
Long Report' II
' Cos. etc. Travel I
Distance I Reproduction ProfitTotal
11
1 ,I —j
Phone
Cap+rtScr.s:v1 Planning !rst it,it,cc
I
I'
I Da llv, t,:xas II $31,259.66 1 420,943.77 1$4,200
.
$ 1,800 I $ 1,840 $8,413 1168
_ H
i I
I
I I.
E I:V Gp]1C]tal ].:SCn:19t9 'I
15,690
12,544
3,000
600- I 200
36,507.36
Jai l.ts, Texaa
14,483.36
ii
I
I
•
Lnvit.n.-<ntil Cngfancrs, Inca
I'
11,219.52
3,609.76
650
I I
250 1 150 2,681.89
20,561.17
ypr ln-.:alc, .rknneas
1
i
— __
-
Arrhafaloatral $JrvVv
II
clv:rsfty of Arkansas
,397
5,882.73
450
200 • 100
12,029.731
i
II
&a sL:c : ,\:a oc tat of
6,475.95
1
I 9,747.34
350
I 300
175
3,368.45
22,616.74
Va:1as. Texas
I
58j850 $3,150
5 2,465
• ToI at
$72,032.13
554,727.60
1418.946.701
160,17,131
• pnea not Inc Rattle Print ,G of 0, aft and Finn I EIS re,ort1 for revlow a,ul cnmmeft
t' t.-,ler.d . state .ue1 Iocal :L:•:nr i es and tndivlduals. Camera-rcadv reports
will be submitted for [nonage print ing by IA N•:x1on VI.
—71—
r
• 4
�tv
p
Y
l >
_
O R A
O O!
O
O
Z
�FjHYNS
IJ
N
NN
K9 TO ZIr_•0
019
Yd
d
N >H
y
m
O 1
Y
r
r
O
p�
Z
•
__
>
1•
r1 W
Z
pLG
H W Sr'O
•Oz
>
•
s
nTInyl+Y1p
•iN�ZHH
lc^1Olpp
wit to
••pmd n{ITE1Hn •<I,
rZ,3
.•.nn
N
-
•.
O
inN
0
-N
r
C C
YCNYIUNZ
O Y
it
4
_-
H Y ni ,.
Y>
H y Y Y M Y
a
F• Y
Y A
Ina
N n
Y 0
Y
m[
C
PRI
��pn
p�j
rYP
AC
M m
b
nOm
n 0
S
N
r
S
N
Z
A
9 O
Y<
OY0
\
nT
p
0
ty0
9 9
C
in
a,
n
r
n
y
N 9 O 44 W J0
YY
Y
00
1'•
!0n b
fl
=•t 9
n B 1'•
]40.
in
b
I'•
Pra
A>
O H
CO.Yb
9 K
1•
CNN
r t;
*4%N FI
Y96
b 9
Bn
V V
OM
NW
00
"0
YY
n
Y M
WOO
N
W
001••
N TI
P n
Y
r>
0 C
Lan P.
00a
n
NO
n
tr
•-1
JCS.
Y
p
q0
US p Y
F< C
rr11
P P P R n
p 9 I�
9 0
9 ✓•
en n y
1C+
.tn.
000
Y Y
p Y
flMC
n O
Or
n
[•
> Y m
® N
0
Y G
n
O
g<
p S
m N
m O
'4.. O
O 9
CO
n
F q •J
rl (
M q
Y
1-
ItO
P Y
Y
n n Y
�J
p-.-
0<
g
NC
a0.
N
of,
PC1 O
L•
n
n
C
M P n n
>
•I n
a n
.<
n r•. P •
n
n
_ft
b
NM
Y W
NO
S m • Y
II M
C C
n
n a
L n
0
0
W
11 0.
9
O 0
a M
0'<
TO
Y P
00 C
05
A
VN
Wm
T
M M
M.
Y
is
--
•n•*
P It-
Y
Y
0 n
0.
fl
S0
O
N
O
M•
n
ita.,
O b
T .10
Ir W
n
NW
O
M
n4
00
n
O
p
Y M
Y Y
Y T
a. n Y
5N
0.n
n\
Y n
n
r
DO
Di
4-n
n Y
n
V
Y
n
0
T
Cl.-
0 m
0
0
ON
N
O p n n
n
'40.0JVV
r
g Y •
0000M
YY
ON O
MO
M
OC
ON Mm,
n
CP9
N LM
00
n
Pt%Mr
N
0 p
O
q
p 9]
p n
ON
a
O
0
•O
M C
a 0 0
P.O
O n
0
P]
t, S
1 5
0
4i
CD 0
0 b
00
'40
0
b b
L
m o
p
p. Y W 11 0
V
C fJ
0.W
Y v
S
O n
00
b<
O O n
N
b
m
r•
n
0 T
9
a O
1• P
R]
0 6
O
o,
n 9
O
Y P
O
Y n
0
m n
a
f1
0 1a
P
b•. n
n
a.-'
p n
W
n O
Y•
b
T
OP.
0
0
N C
Y 9
DC
nit
n
N
9
goFl
0
m
a 0 it,
n M
a
<U
ma
G C Y
a an d
Y O
q
ri0
0
o.
Y O m O
Ca pus
ItO
its
Y p
P
n
q
O n
n 0
w
co
9 p
r-
Y
n N C
SW
9
a
C q
P O
n
p q
n 0
O C
q 0
n P e
0
Y r
p
L
M 0
n 0
w T
Y
n
O
n a 0
0
P J
O
0
9
1+
0.
0 0 11
rt..
0.-s
6
6 T 0
W
M O
✓ Y
P w
n r
S
q
Y O
n 0
0 n
n n
C
O 0
.0
n
n
Ala
Y O
9 0
S 0
Y M Y
W
n<
S
N
s O
0 O
"
n r Y
Y
M P
H
C
Op
p<n
•111
n0
Yn
nq]
<Y f"
FY
9n
KO
MY
YT
O
OP
PO O
Y
PYY
coo
nT
a,
Don
0M
O
0
n
ORa
wwO
nwn
nn0
9
M n
ON
< Y
0O
M
n
y p
p
0
tCB
q Y. Y
0�P
no
C.
011
•1
P•C
Ca-
On
p
• a
n Y
0O
CO
0
DO
0.
COP
nr
m
0
m n
ON
n
b n
011
n
-Y
it..d
0
0 11
n 0
nn
n
•1
N
A
Y9M
FO
p
Y
i-
N S Y
0 R
n K
C
9 n
0 O
a O
Y
n
St
ON
q
59.0
m
y C
On
m 0
N
W
Y n
T O Y
Y H
Q p
P
0t-
0
S M
< O
n 0
•
rt
9 S
0 0
•7
9
O Y
n n
O
YI 6
P
P n n
tr
O
n 0 0
Y S
H Y
p
0..,
q n
n a
0
i0.
,1-
0
n M
0.
O'
v. ••
y<
N n
n N
tI O
O q
0.
n
0
p
]_fl
n
W O
.-'S
C-
Y P
0
O Y
n py
Y Y
00
n
S
Di,
0•
W
V
ry
na
n et
1]!
0
00
n o
n 00
I'Dn
0
[• n
p
0
0
a m
pn r I+
O.
m
0 Cp
0
p
b
9
11 0P
0 n
Y M
0
n
p
0 11
0
0[
b
n 0 11
0
0
r P
0
nit
n^
nY
n
T
o n
N n 0 n
0
n<
M ve C
m 0
0•
0 a n n
n
Y
n
Y a
cm
n
Y n
Y n
C M 0
MY0
0
O
Y
Y
oft
mWW
q
M
b
O q O
Y m
0 b
K q
V d 0.T
'C
K
m
a
M
0
b ma
0] 0
O
n
Y
'to
r
Y C
n M
a
p
N o n
0
011
Mp
•O
MA,
n C
n•
0
0 6
P
O n 0
Y
"let
-Y
0
0
Y
0
"CT
Os
tl0
PY
0
NY
r O
nit
n 0
0 - Y
g
n
n9n
a
op
IY
VOH
00
0O
Y n 0
n
0
n
O
O 0.P
n
m
it
ON '✓
n
n O
M
0.0
A C
n
q q
W M
W
n W
O O
M<
M W 9
ON
0
non
11 0 0
laft
M a
M Y a
n 0
n
g
T
a
Y
n
0
00_0p'
etc
Y J
ON
W
r M
00
p r
Y<
0.
1.,
St
n n n
CD
itt)
fin
0 A
ON
b
10
at
Y
W
9
0
p
Y
P O
0 Y
0
n Y S.
yl p
V
q n
Sit
0.4 flp-
pp
n
n 9 r
0.
n
q n
n
q
0•
0
b •J
P
C
Y
9 P
0
P
9 n
PIN
N
p
i-aC
q
r
' 9
up-
a
Y M
"0
0
Y
n M
n P
n
Nit
P O
0 n q
]
Mg
0 n
11 0
P tr
O 0
Y
0
q]
/
'.O.'.O.O
Y
p
O0
n 0
n
n0
PM
0
qn
n
Cn
0
O 110
0.
.-
MS
GP
n
MP
0
wY
ON
11
0 P w
p O
0
b
0 0
0 S Y
00
0 M
Mm
T•
b
c
p 0
n
n P
r
00
n
n
cc
Y
O
n a
n r�
0
N
•
0
M O
6
n ✓'
Y]
n
n Y
It
W
0 T
Ni
M n
n C
P.
O
L Y
n P
P
P
0
8
O
O
p Y
6
P
0 •1
r
oft
m
0. 0
0 P
n
p O
0
11
•t
< W
SIP
11 9
00.
L.
0 b
9
0.]
p b
Y Y
n n
>'
C r
n
0
b
n 0
Y
Y n
n
n
SC G
O
Y m
M
F
0 S
r
n 6
r
b
6
P
N
O
0 6
0
In
C
n
6
0.< fl
M
0
0
V
0. q
Y
Y
0
W
0
0
6
P
0
M
n
q
• .
1,
n
•
0 I
W
C
m !
Y
I-'
N.
Husain
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
C
P
1
I
P
m
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
O
1
o
I
I
I
a
r
I
1
1
.1
J.
Wiginton
1
O•
1
1
I
I
I
Q
I
1
1
I
1
'I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
J.
Darling
o
0
u.H
I
1
P
m
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
O
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
o•
D.
Mitchell
1
P
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
H.
Jeffu9
Q
In
H
1
1
a
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
1
I
1
I
A.
Ogden
N
I
1
P
I
1
I
I
I
1
-I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PW
1
1
1
1
1
I
F.
Stephens
p
z
P
1'"
I
P
-I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
A.
Nctzer
0
1
1
P
1
1'
I
I
1
1
O
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
C.
Lanza
Q
LJ
1
1
P
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
N
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1I
J.
Crowder
p
tl
P
,
'P
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
P
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
F.
Little
P
I
O
O
=
I
m
8
r
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
E.
FenYves
z
I
.P
'n
Y
1
P
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
l
r
p
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
F.
L1�
g
$
O
O
P
C
1
1
1 I
1
1
rl
1
1
W
W
1
,
I
I
P
W
u
1
m
P.
Ragsdale
1
N
1
I
p
m
C
O
1 'n
N
N
C
O
O
y
pe
p
Y
SO'
a.
P
O_.
Y
P
-
N
O
F•
N
O
p ,
P:
O
•N
P
N
P
Y
O
Y
N
O
W
N
P
N
P
C
C
O
C
W
N
P
C
a.
W
O
W
O
^
P_
W
N
total
Y,
sO-s
�
40
�•Oy1e
Tm
m�
��
J.'
cam
"�0
1L..
•
_
_ -
-----�.---1.�
—.r...�
_
--
-
__
-J
__-s
V.
r Z
NW
[W <
us9 1i
In
OyyNH
>0>0n m>>900ryr1 IH
I>
0111 tWy' n1 O N H W VLana
NN H
H N
nn In 0 W 0 N
N))))yyMNbg11pmpm
In!MiW
fliIlP1R
>NOYn
W.iOi
F
ar Jl
ln•o
IH
•n
dIo'
flr�Iw�I1W
11.4
in
W�
N
l
N Y
P
L
u
'd•
1'IC
1COr
Y
�WpWj
NI
Hm•N+rT-•NH2
floe
CC
c
n
yyY
A
N
m
a
.I
N
IY
o
O
""•L
M
S
Y
♦
Lit
•
R I
I
_J L N �1
•• E'
I (>�
ll
W O
I0 1"1 (1
•p
w
o
. T w
O
rut'
(sj
^I
y W
O I'
Y
y.
n
[n
y
n
Y O
r
n
Iw
m
n
0
o
1p
S b
q n
p 9
a o
n
y wl
O 0
M n
p S
O O
N
m .-c
a -.O
an Y N
n e
p D
9
NI
o
n
Cg O
P O 0
n 0.n
NW
n
n
p N
b n
ftP$
y
0<
n
W
Y
0 W
T<
M Y
0 W
1.4
n b
9
11
NM
P 9
n
VS
a 9
O n
-o
P>
f.
n 0
0
Nit
-n
M9
'4
•O C'1
V.
r•
Y M
n p
it
flit
n pp 0
'0 nit
pfl
it 0
MNO
•gp
MIN
S
Y
Y pY
Y Y
D 0
n
0 9
H_-
0 0
0 0
•m
O w7 pH
A
A N
m b
q•
N •i
P
y
n
O b
n
IOI B
an
O Y
0
•> Y
flit
q P
0
q O S
0 M O
n M
M P
Y
Y
0 6 b
n •1
K
P O
N Y
1
0
E
n
p b
O n
q
n
PT
Y
Y n
n O
Y O
O n
Y W
11 9
Y n
0
n
w n
O O
m
M
is
M
n
n r
1C n
Y n
net
qq n
0 0
0
V n
[pOD
g.
O
M
flis
0.Y
50
00
n M
'4n
M
WI.
O
Sl R
'ID
OQO
Y
a x
Y
I!
900
p
m
q
W
O N
pP M
n M
G ra
D WN
O Y
0f
M
Y
Ftq� p
P
O P
p.04
T
0
p
'p0
•m
P•
O
y
0
C N
004
M04
0. 1. W
0
W
0004
ram
'10
n
C
n
n O
0 O
O O
Y O
A
.L0."y
0
P
6
I�
w
M 0
S
0
yn
Pn
9
P n
0
09
9
n
yg.
50
0
n0
w
'J
9
Pn
O
9 9
VN
0
NO
nn
C
r
gnOn
C
r n
9
9 n
b 0
lnlp.
W 0
n 0
0000
M
O.
Go
P
a
Y
4 -am
b!r P
O
•Op
n
O
C O
T0.
(t�
M
M
Y
n 0
n
0
L.
O
O1
O
w 9
wp
LG
G
Yb
O n
0
Stp
0
b
Y
9 A
bra
n B
nn
-e
SYtl
- Y
OC
m
L
6
CMtl
Y O P
00
C 0.
n'•C
Y a
0R
n
Y
n0
V Y
0
"I-
b
n
R Y
nn
`< O
09'0
M O
a T
M
n
_
Ito O
b O
E
C 6
n-
P•
N H
c'
n n
O
..
n
g j
6 W
LC
Y n
O D
n
V
n qq
n 9 Y�
N b
0'1
M b
0..I
b 6
Y q
n n
awn
Zr,I
n
N
n 0 O
n n
Y Y
n n
.-n
Y 1�
n
p
0
n
q
M n
DIP
an
NC
DPI
] 0
0-n
M
0.-'
Y Y
:P-
0
r
N
n n
m n
O
O
n w
n n
P
b
rI
n
G
O V
O V
•<
O
•C
0 0 0
C M
0 9
rl
n
or, n
fin
6 b
aft
c
n O
0
n
qY
n
I
ntJ
top
Np
N
Vn
n
W W
n
0PP
0
0
T
n m 0
0p
On
O
n
0.
nn
nY
mn
4•
nn
C0
OLC
M
D
N
CM a
O
mR
O
V
fr
0 n
D p
qO
n 9
r
V
S P
0
Y m
<A..
N Y
P
Y O
p r
b
Co
p
0
Y
Y [.
0 0
t'
n
0
- Y
N
y
5•
^ O
^ ls
t_.
Y
N
$
6
Y n
B
11 0
Y
0000
m
m
4• W n
-l
'tl
m Y
'10
0 p
Y
O'0
OW
itI-
0 p
0
ft
C
0
JC
N
c
9
v
O
y pp
pap.
4,
n
11 b
0 n
m Y
0 n
n
0
n
p-'00
p
flit
n
q 0
n
W 6
n 6
Y
n n
q
0
0
0
Y a
n O q
0',
O a
C 0
Y
Y
O
Y O
NO
Y n
0 W
C Y
.00
n
0
y
q
f
D V
F 9
n W
n
n
n
n
r
0
0
O
N n
n
Pt
N
L
Y
MW
•I
•
•
n •
C n
M�
m 0
O
n
Y n
OOn
0
S p
II..
b n
n0
sit
]O
Y
b0
r •
pC
n
O
] M
0sH'
Mn
n
Pt
b
T
M
m
..-n
N
7
09
a
0
O
ft
P
n ••
M
m
�'
Y
0 n
q
Iw D
•pn
n
(
p In
6G
00
0
9 n
00O
Na.
Yb
n 'J
SM
N n
n
5n
Mp
p.4.
ry
p
P
Y Wc Y
0(C
ON
n
O b
pn
Y
ft
Y
n n
wn
1. fl
OO Oct
o g
V O
N
n 0.
S
P.0 p
m
Cj
•
(�
O�[�
O
0
[� 1p.
p>
Y
000
n
n M
M
n w
P b
0
O
E
n
p
011
q O
B M.
CO G
N
0
ff n
i
M P
V n
N
6
La
C
Y
n S
n O
r+ O
0
Fj
O
•S
n Y
0
n
S V
itPt
50.
M 0.
P O
0
n
A n 0
NO
11 C
Y
n
n n
O 0
O
n p
s
Y O
r p
O
n O
n
n
an
0
'cc
O
m
0.-n
0'4
OW
NO
n
0.4
< 0 n
n
00
p
m
ftft
m
0<
11 0•
n
L
AC
0.0
M
.{
a
M
•
q li
Y C
p 0.
Y
0.
6 11
p
y
0
y
b
Y
Y
Y
pp n
r•
n
•t n
s a
n
k0
flit
p
b
O
C q
N Ip
P.O
O n
11 0
in
<0
"'1
0
>
00. O
C
fr
it
C
W C
N
•p O
n
f. P
0
bn
0'.'
Y•<n
045
p
0.
n
9 q
ptl
0I-
W9
P
it
b V
p f,
b9
n
MC
119
Yn
n
M9
PJ
nn
m
NIY
01"
On
P1
C
Hn
Pn
It
it
.vD
g
O
9n
n0
W
nP
ntl
n
FY
net
nV
YC
]O
0 c
Yn
0
OP
Y• -0.O
nM
F
9n
O
n
mA
p
n
n'n
rn
9n
G0
LL<
CY
0
mP
00
0
a
na
pOY
P.W
a
so
m0
rt
inc
nn
OC
•C
N
W
p n
r
tr W
n
n 0
n 1•
9
p
m
Y
0 n
P m
ft 'm
•G
nJ n
0
It [ n
NM
<P1
P 0
0
0
a
NO
Y
b 0
M n
00
n 6
n
n V
n
n
n
n
b
P[
0 O
V O•
Y
0
0
O 6
G P
0C
SF?
m
Y n
0 4
0 0
n
an
b n
0
n
'1
Y
*1.1
F
0 n
n Ie
O
�
y
WO
O
W Y
<
Y
N
n
On
P
tr
O
•44
n
00
an
n 0
P.n
C
Y
O
< L •C
0 C
9
S
Y n
o
0
0
no
Ito
n c
n S
DI'
01-
O
OC
] O
0[
n 0
n
6
YS
NW
0>
P
P
90 n
a
p C
M
n P
V
1n�
S O
m
n M
0
n>
P
nmii
11
no
M
CO
pY
Y
n J
]
Urn
fl'C
O N
9
P
P m
O
B
••
Y
9
n b
P
n
b
9
Y M
n
b
n
n
501
AO
0
o
no
:n
r
n
tt.y
0
<4-
0
Net
00
n
0.0
O
011
n0
�,'lc
n
W
bit
01
nY
n
N
O.n
n
O
O
9
n9
0
0
6
n
0 V
n
n
p
n
0 q
C 0
N O
M
n
'CC'
F?"
W
O P
n P
C..
N
N9-11
Oft
V
YO
•
Y•�'
p
0
n
0
fl
rt
Il<
(1
nb
OLC
n
FVS
n 0
0
0
0
0
P
n0
<
NIt
0 f1
n0
0.n
PCO
e
n
co
O
'O0
Y b
n
m
Y n
n n
m
n
nit
m-
0 0
0
m
J
NO
n
0.
So.
Y lE
O n
0
i41
0
r
n 0itO
'I'D
0
m V
^
Y
O O
.,g
0
0
n
9
Y S
O
Y
r
0
L
b
• P]
Y
O
M
r
N
n 0
9
_0.
0.
0
n
n
•
B
9
<
P
10
0
O
Na
n
n Y
0
S
NO
Y
rO n
W
ON
m'
M
be
ft
n
O
P
W
b
p0
1 0
A
N P
r1
n'0
n
00
n
Y
n
n
C
n
W 0 F
`i
n
9
O
Y tl
0
0
r N
n
N Y
NO
n n
O
Y O
p
b
n
NP.
Y
op.
n
'C
T
Y
n
m
Y
an
O
P
C E
G
n
F 0
•0
p
O
n
n 0.
n
6
to
LC
n
q
n n
b
11 0
G
n
v
a
'.
m 0
O
0
P M
O a
r
Y
O'
n n
n
n 0 O
n Y
0
0
P a
O
NO
n
<S
i
qp
R
O
n
O
Y
M
n
O
0
L n
n
•<
n
-n
p
b
C M
'0 T
m
0
part
9 a
0
Y
O
0
n n
0
W
-
P
n
1
n 0
M
0
Y
Y
O
0.
b
n p
P
n 0
n
Ii
.gip...—yn
...:n
.gym.�a•L_JY
ST.
su
-
-
Ja
-'+O
n-
.ar_
- n
lc
—p-
—,n
c9_0
=C-,
--Y
co
r�'rl'•`
im:1•i.
-o
J`�
_a, _
��Y_
bvy�.
�p
_n I+�^
,_y__
W
a>
n
1.
n
n
n
n
N
{I<
0 n
p
G
O n
0
0
P
n
n n
0
m
n
^ n'
O
W
LC
I
r
n
D
Lm
n
O
a
a
0,
0
a
4
m
w
n
m
0
n
n
Cr
Y
Y
w'
W
N
O
y
1
1
1
1
I
I
W
N
Y
1
1
N
Y
N
N
1
K.
Husain
m
m
0'
- N
O
P
O
N
O
0
O
O
I
P
m
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
m
V
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
J.
Wiginton
W
P
m
m
P
O
C
O
N
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
J.
Darling
CI
Pm
1
Cr
1
1
NI
0'
U.
y
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
PU
1
1
D.
Mitchell
'SG
'11
S
m
Cr
P
P
P
m
P
O
P
0
0
H
1
1
I
1
I
I
t1
I
I
I
N
I
N
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
H.
JOffus
a
N
P
S
•P �'
1
I
1
1
1
O
P
O
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
A.
Ogden
N
O
1
P
I
P
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
l
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
c
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
F.
Stephens
N
I
I
I
IA
W
P
N
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
O
1
I
1
I
I
A.
Netter
'C
P
I
P
m 'I
1
'1
m
O
9
i
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
v
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I1
I
G.
Lanza
Cr
I
,.
N
N
O
m
O
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
J.
Crowder
P
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
11
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
CU1
1
r
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F.
little
N
1
1
I
a
P
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
E.
Fenyvea
m
1
1
P
pt
C
N
m
W
1
1
W
I
I
1
1
I
1
0
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
F.
Liimp
l
1
I
M
O
P
I
P
I
1
I
I
1
1
W
PP.
I
r
I
I
I
1
1
o
0
Ra}tstla e
a
I
Y
1
I
P
W
O
N
—__
O
N
C
N
O
N
O
N
•p
O
O
•O
N
W
O
N
N
P
•V V
O
C
C
N
N
C
N
C
O
TI•lal
I--i
N
O
W
0
P
N
O
O
C
Ia
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
C
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
P
O
v
N
O
W
P
I
11—
4
I' 1
COST SUMMARY FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INSTITUTE
1. DIRECT COST -- PERSONNEL
2
K
Project Manager
Associate Environmental
Scientist
Typist/Secretarial
Technician/Graphics Artist
Subtotal
Manhours
732
633
1040
520
Hourly
Rate
$19.23
10.10
6.50
7.75
Fringe benefits -- social security, unemployment
tax, vacation; sick leave, health and life insur-
ance; liabilities incurance, rent, phone (not
including long distance), office and graphics equip-
ment, furniture, corporate property taxes @ 67h of
Direct Personnel Cost
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. Travel
Out -of -Town, 14 trips $ 4,200
@ $300 per trip
b. Long Distance
30 calls per month for 6 months
@ $10 per call 1,800
c. 5 interim reports, 2,training
handbooks, CAC data book (8 reports)
@ $230 per report 1,840
Subtotal
Total Estimated Cost
Profit @ 140
TOTAL BUDGET =
Estimated Cost
$14,076.36
6,393.30
6,760.00
4,030.00
$31,259.66
$20,943.77
$ 7,890.00
$ 60,043.43
8,412,94
68,456.37
-73-
COST SUMMARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
1. DIRECT COST -- PERSONNEL
Hourly
Manhours
Rate
Estimated
Cost
Senior Environmental Scientists 800
$16.80
$13,440.00
@ $35,000 per year
Typist/Secretarial 350
6.40
2,240.00
Subtotal
$15,680.00
2. OVERHEAD
Fringe benefits -- Social security, unemployment
insurance, vacation, sick leave, life insurance;
liability insurance, rent, phone (not including
long distance), office supplies, equipment,
furniture, corporate property taxes, @ 80%
of Direct Personnel Cost
3. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. Travel
10 trips @ two trips per person
@$300 per trip $3,000.
b. Long Distance
10 calls per month
60 calls @ $10 per call 600
c. Reproduction 200
Subtotal
$12,544.00
$ 3,800.00
Total
Estimated Cost
$32,024.00
Profit
@ 14%
4,483.36
TOTAL
BUDGET =
36,507.36
-74-
COST SUMMARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
1. DIRECT COST -- PERSONNEL
Senior Environmental Engineers
@ $32,000 per year
Typist/Secretarial
Subtotal
Hourly
Manhours Rate Estimated Cost
606 $15.42 $ 9,344.52
300
6.25
2. OVERHEAD
Fringe benefits -- social security, unemployment
insurance, vacation, sick leave, life insurance;
rent, phone (not including long distance), office
supplies, equipment, furniture, corporate
property taxes @ 50% of Direct Personnel Cost
3. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. Travel
b. Long Distance
30 calls @ $8.50 per call
c. Reproduction
-75-
$650
250
150
Subtotal
Total Estimated Cost
Profit @ 15%
TOTAL BUDGET =
1,875.00
$11,219.52
$ 5,609.76
$ 1,050.00
$17,879.28
2,681.89
$20,561.17
COST SUMMARY FOR
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
1. DIRECT COST -- PERSONNEL
Hourly
Manhours
Rate
Estimated
Cost
Project Archaeologist
354
$10.50
$ 3,717.00
Project Assistant
220
6.50
1,430.00
Typist/Secretarial
50
5.00
250.00
Subtotal
$ 5,397.00
2. OVERHEAD
Fringe benefits -- social security, unemployment $ 5,882.73
insurance, vacation, sick leave, life and
health insurance; office space, utilities, phone
(not including long distance),. office supplies,
equipment, furniture, etc. @ 109% of Direct
Personnel Cost
3. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. Travel (local and sites survey) $450
b. Long Distance
20 calls @ $10 per call 200
c. Reproduction 100
Subtotal $ 750.00
Total Estimated $ 12,029.73
Budget =
-76-
I
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COST SUMMARY FOR
RAGSDALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1. DIRECT COST -- PERSONNEL
Principal Planner
Typist/Secretarial
Subtotal
2. OVERHEAD
Hourly
Manhours Rate Estimated Cost
461 $14.95 $ 6,891.95
240 6.60 1,584.00
Fringe benefits -- social security, unemployment
insurance, vacation, sick leave, life and health
insurance; rent, phone (not including long.dis-
tance), office supplies, equipment, furniture,
corporate property taxes @115% of Direct Personnel
Cost
3. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. Travel, 2 trips $550
b. Long Distance
5 calls per month @ $10 per call 300
c. Reproduction 175
-77-
Subtotal
Total'.Estimated Cost
Profit @ 17.5%
TOTAL BUDGET =
$ 8,475.95
$ 9,747.34
$ 1,025.00
$ 19,248.29
n n n n r
$ 22,616.74