06-14-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

FLOOD DIVERSION BOARD OF AUTHORITY Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:30PM Fargo City Commission Room Far~o City Hall 200 3r Street North 1. Call to Order 2. Approve minutes of previous meeting Item 2. 3. Approve order of agenda 4. Protocol for board and committee input into technical decisions Item 4. 5. Update from Project Management Firm CH2MHill (Tom Waters) a. National context for FM Diversion Project b. Summary presentation of Authority Work Directives and Task Orders • Task Order 7: Recreation and Use Master Plan and Design • Task Order 8: Work-in-Kind (WIK) • Task Order 9: Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling • Task Order 10: Utilities Design • AWD-00004 Revision 1: Lower Rush/Rush Connection 6. Approve consent agenda Award of Authority Work Directives and Task Orders to HMG 7. Updates from committees a. Land Management Committee (Darrell Vanyo) • Land Management Plan update • Hardship Policy Subcommittee update • Agricultural Advisory Subcommittee update • Early Acquisition Subcommittee update Item ?a. (1) Item Item ?a. (2) Item ?a. (3) b. Public Outreach Committee (Rodger Olson) Item ?b. (1) • E-newsletter update • Upstream banks/appraisers education update • Report on presentation to Homebuilders Association • Website update • Media analysis Item ?b. (2) c. Finance Committee (Michael Montplaisir) • JPA re-authorization update Action Action Information/action Information/action Item 5b. (1) Item 5b. (2) Item 5b. (3) Item 5b. (4) Item 5b. (5) Item 5b. (6) Action Information/action • Accelerated FY2013 funding letter to Corps of Engineers Item ?c. (1) • Insurance coverage for diversion project Item ?c. (2) • Approve additional representatives from Fargo and Water Resources 8. Update from the Corps of Engineers Information 9. Voucher approval Item 9. Action 1 0. Other Business 11 . Next Meeting 12. Adjournment cc: Local Media AUT H OR I TY FM METRO FLOOD DIVERSION PROJECT Protocol for Establishing Non Technical Design Positions DECISION PAPER NO.: DP-00009 Date: 6/12/2012 Motion is made that the Board of Authority approve the following protocol for the Authority to establish project positions on non-technical features or requirements of the project that may affect project design. Non-technical requirements are generally defined as functional, public, or user needs affecting the use, operations, or maintenance of the project. Non-technica I positions may also be required when alternative features have either equivalent, or no governing, technical requirements. ' • • ' t ' • :SUMMARY OF DEC!SIQN 'fOPIC: . . . Implementation of a project of the magnitude and complexity of the FM Metro Flood Diversion Project requires that non-technical input, such as functional or public aspects of the project, be incorporated into the design process at the earliest time. In addition, projects of this magnitude require that the nontechnical input be provided to the USACE in a timely manner. Positions on routine non-technical features and requirements will be made at the lowest possible level on teams with USACE. However, some non-technical positions will have a significant impact on the project's cost, schedule, or function. It is imperative that positions of this nature be made by the Board of Authority, which has members that represent governmental and regional entities who benefit from the project. The following protocol will be used as guidance for elevating non-technical issues and changes that affect project design. Non-technical requirements or issues that require review or approval by the Board of Authority or its committees include: 1. Non-technical requirements that may result in a potentially significant cost or savings 2. Non-technical requirements that may significantly change land requirements for the project 3. Unique owner maintenance or operational requirements 4. Non-technical requirements that involve high level of public interest In the cases when a non-technical issue or change needs to be elevated to the Board or its committees for input, the following process will be used : 1. Technical and/or administrative staff identifies potential issues which meet the criteria outlined above and advise the Program Management Consultant {PMC). 2. Utilizing input from technical and administrative staff, the PMC presents the issue to the appropriate Diversion Authority committee. 3. The applicable committee provides feedback and advice to the PMC, including whether a recommendation for Board approval is required. 4. In cases that require the establishment of a position by the Board of Authority, the committee will refer the issue to the Board of Authority using the formalized decision process. The PMC FM_DECISION PAPER_NONTECHNICAL PROTOCOL_FINAL_6-14-12.DOCX PAGE 1 OF 2 DECISION PAPER will support this action by preparing a decision paper and obtaining input from technical and administrative staff. 5. Positions on non-technical requirements or issues that are elevated to the Board of Authority or its committees should be made within 30 days of identification of the issue. 6. Non-technical requirements or issues that require a response sooner than 30 days will be discussed with the Board Chairman for determination of appropriate action. Special sessions may be called for Diversion Authority committees or the Board itself in order to expedite position development on critical issues. Virtual meetings may be used if needed. Submitted by: Tom Waters, P.E., P.M .P. Program Manager Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Project Michael Redlinger, Moorhead City Administrator Concur: Yes 6/13/12 Non-Concur: Brian Berg, Clay County Administrator Concur: Yes 6/14/12 Non-Concur: Bob Zimmerman, Moorhead City Engineer Concur: Yes 6/13/12 Non-Concur: Mark Bittner, Director, Fargo Engineering Concur: Yes 6/14/12 Non-Concur: April Walker, Fargo City Engineer Concur: Yes 6/13/12 Non-Concur: Form Rev. 1: 04/02/12 Date Keith Berndt, Cass County Administrator Concur: Yes 6/14/12 Non-Concur: Jason Benson, Cass County Engineer Concur: Yes 6/14/12 Non-Concur: Pat Zavoral, City Administrator Concur: Yes 6/14/12 Non-Concur: David Overbo, Clay County Engineer Concur: Yes 6/12/12 Non-Concur: PAGE 2 OF 2 TASK-ORDER-SUMMARY-06142012 1 Task Order Summary Date: June 14, 2012 Task Order Summary for Houston Moore Group Task Order No. 7 -Recreation and Use Master Plan and Design $240,000 Description: A draft Recreation and Use Master Plan was previously developed to provide overall concepts for the diversion corridor and specific recommendations for the northern portion (I-94 to the outlet). This task order will continue development of the Recreation and Use Master Plan, including preliminary and final design development. Subtask A -Revise select components of the master plan document to reflect the most recent diversion design. Modifications consist of the elimination of row crop agriculture on the left Excavated Material Berm (EMB), the narrowing of the EMB widths, the realignment of the diversion near I-94, and the consolidated CR 31/4 bridge. Subtask B -Undulation Design – Outlet to I-94. Develop a design for an undulating surface, consistent with concepts in the draft Recreation and Use Plan that can be incorporated into design documents. Task Order No. 8 -Work-In-Kind (WIK) $669,330 Description: This task order will include requests by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Local Sponsor (Diversion Authority) to provide WIK services related to the Project. USACE is allowed by the Federal process to request the Diversion Authority provide services as WIK for services that USACE would normally do, but that the Diversion Authority has resources or particular expertise to perform. Subtask A – Meander Belt Width Analysis – The Diversion Channel will contain a low flow channel that will be sinuous to simulate a natural stream. This subtask will estimate the stability of the low flow channel and its meander pattern over time. Subtask B – Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees. This subtask will assist the Authority and the PMC with identifying and assessing the impacts to the Project due to the possible reclassification of the tie-back levees. Assistance may include analysis and comparison of of Federal, State of North Dakota and State of Minnesota regulations, identification of applicable design criteria, and recommendations for options for the project. Subtask C –EMB Openings -Prior to operation of the Diversion, the Fargo-Moorhead area may experience flood events. The partially constructed works should not increase the impacts of flooding. This subtask will determine the location and size of openings in the EMBs to prevent an increase in flood elevations from the “without project” condition. Subtask D – Diversion Inlet Gates -The FM Diversion Feasibility Study recommended a fixed weir for the inlet to the Diversion Channel. A gated inlet may offer some advantages over the fixed weir. This subtask will develop preliminary layout and sizing of a gated inlet to the Diversion channel, and determine advantages and disadvantages of a fixed weir and a gated structure, including reliability, operability, and impacts on the volume, frequency, and duration of water in the staging and storage areas, as well as develop preliminary comparative cost estimates of each type of inlet. Item 5b. (1) TASK-ORDER-SUMMARY-06142012 2 Subtask E – On-Call Services -This subtask will allow Authority staff and the PMC to respond to requests for services not identified to date. Requests will be documented in writing and authorized within the Board Chairman’s approval limit. Task Order No. 9 – Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling $194,341 Description: This task order will provide hydrology and hydrologic modeling services in order to advance design components of the Diversion Channel. Specific modeling subtasks include: modeling of Diversion inlets to determine design flows, modeling to evaluate hydraulic impacts of various Diversion Channel sizes, extending model geometry of the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers, providing technical assistance and support for the physical modeling of the Maple and Sheyenne River aqueduct structures, and on-call services as requested. Task Order No. 10 – Utilities Design $94,000 Description: This task order will provide utility relocation plans, utility relocation designs, and performance specifications for the relocation of utilities from the Diversion outlet at the Red River to I-94. Various utilities such as power lines, communication lines, gas lines, and water lines have been identified and located within the proposed Diversion Channel footprint. These utilities will have to be relocated or abandoned prior to construction of the Diversion Channel. Some utilities will be relocated by contractors under contract with the Diversion Authority, while others will be relocated by the utility owner. Task Order Summary Total Amount ($) Task Order No. 1 Project Management 961,675 Task Order No. 2 Design of Work Package 2 (CR-31 Bridge) 871,000 Task Order No. 3 Design of Work Package 4 (Reach 3) 2,333,300 Task Order No. 4 Design of Work Package 7 (CR-32 and CR-22) 1,421,000 Task Order No. 5 Post-Feasibility Engineering Analysis 605,000 Task Order No. 6 Land Management Services 197,500 Task Order No. 7 Recreation and Use Master Plan and Design 240,000 Task Order No. 8 Work-In-Kind (WIK) 669,330 Task Order No. 9 Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling 194,341 Task Order No. 10 Utilities Design 94,000 Total of Task Order Nos. 1 -10 7,587,146 TASK-ORDER-SUMMARY-06142012 3 Authority Work Order Summary for Moore Engineering AWD-00004, Revision 1 – Rush/Lower Rush Connection $20,000 Description: The scope of this work directive was to reduce the overall project cost by analyzing a value engineering proposal to change the Rush and Lower Rush inlets to the Diversion Channel from a concrete drop structure to a rock ramp. Several options were investigated and required more analysis than in the original scope. AWD Summary Total Amount ($) AWD-00004 – Rush/Lower Rush Connection 125,050 AWD-00004, Revision -1Rush/Lower Rush Connection 20,000 Total 145,050 HMG TO7-A0 1 This is Task Order No. 7, Amendment 0, consisting of 4 pages. Task Order No. 7 In accordance with Paragraph 1.01 of the Agreement Between Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Authority (“Owner”) and Houston-Moore Group, LLC (HMG) (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 8, 2012 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Recreation and Use Master Plan and Design B. Description: A draft Recreation and Use Master Plan has been developed. It includes overall concepts for the diversion corridor and specific recommendations for the northern portion (I-94 to the Outlet). Continue development of the Recreation and Use Master Plan for the Diversion Project, including preliminary and final design development for EMB grading. C. Background: The Diversion Project will be a major feature in the Fargo-Moorhead area. Although it will be a critical component for reducing the risk of catastrophic flood impacts in the area, it will actually be be used only a small percent of the time. The beneficial use of the project features, when not actively used for flood mitigation, need to be determined. 2. Services of Engineer A. Recreation and Use Master Plan. Revise select components of the master plan document to reflect the most recent diversion design. Modification consist of the elimination of row crop agriculture on the left EMB, the narrowing of the EMB widths, the realignment of the diversion near I-94, and the consolidated CR 31/4 bridge. Master Plan revisions will include: i. Executive Summary, insert revised graphics and text from Section 6 and insert revised preliminary construction Cost Estimate from Section 7 ii. Section 4 Diversion Channel Analysis, new graphic that depicts the most recent diversion design and associated text that explains the diversion modifications. iii. Section 5 North Section Alternatives Considered. Change existing draft preferred alternative to preliminary preferred alternative and move to section 5. iv. Section 6 Preferred Alternative, Figures 6.2 – 6.6 and associated text v. Section 7 Implementation, Table 7.3 (Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate) vi. Appendix A.14 Preliminary Cost Estimate Details Revised Master Plan graphics for the preferred alternative will be provided to the Diversion Authority’s Program Management Consultant for review. A draft final Recreation and Use Master Plan will be developed that incorporates the revised graphics and text associated with the most recent diversion design and public input. The draft final Master Plan will be submitted to the Diversion Authority’s Program Management Consultant for a final review. B. Undulation Design – Outlet to I-94. Develop a design for an undulating surface, consistent with concepts in the draft Recreation and Use Plan, that can be incorporated into design documents. For each work package, design teams will provide a digital terrain model (DTM) in a LandXML format and “neutral surface elevation” of the right excavated material berm (EMB) at the 35 percent to 65 percent design phase. Modify the DTM to provide desired undulating surface, Item 5b. (2) HMG TO7-A0 2 balancing overall earth work quantities. Submit to design team as a draft DTM in a LandXML format. If requested by design team, modify DTM and provide Final DTM in a LandXML format. Review design team developed drawings and provide additional details and notes to convey the design intent. Provide guidance to the design teams at bridge locations for bench layout or at-grade trail crossing to be compatible with future trail systems. Provide input to design team developed specifications. Deliverables: i. Draft DTMs for Diversion Channel Reaches: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. ii. Final DTMs for Diversion Channel Reaches: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. iii. Draft DTMs for Bridge Reaches: CR31/CR4 Bridge, I-29 and CR81 Bridges, BNSF Hillsboro RR Bridge, CR32 and CR22 Bridges, BNSF Prosper RR Bridge, CR20 Bridge, CR10 Bridge, and BNSF KO RR Bridge. iv. Final DTMs for Bridge Reaches: CR31/CR4 Bridge, I-29 and CR81 Bridges, BNSF Hillsboro RR Bridge, CR32 and CR22 Bridges, BNSF Prosper RR Bridge, CR20 Bridge, CR10 Bridge, and BNSF KO RR Bridge. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in Article 2 and in Exhibit B. 4. Times for Rendering Services Subtask Start Time Completion Time Recreation and Use Master Plan Volume One -Final June 14, 2012 September 30, 2012 Undulation Design Reach 1 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 November 29, 2012 Reach 2 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 March 22, 2013 Reach 3 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 October 29, 2012 Reach 4 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 November 13, 2013 Reach 5 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 November 13, 2013 Reach 6 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 November 13, 2013 Reach 7 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 September 4, 2013 Reach 8 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 November 10, 2014 Reach 9 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 February 15, 2015 Reach 10 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 April 30, 2015 CR31/CR4 Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 October 29, 2012 I-29 and CR81 Bridges 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 October 29, 2012 BNSF Hillsboro RR Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 December 12, 2012 CR32 and CR22 Bridges 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 October 29, 2012 BNSF Prosper RR Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 June 6, 2013 CR20 Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 June 6, 2013 CR10 Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 September 7, 2015 BNSF KO RR Bridge 95% Design Drawings June 14, 2012 September 18, 2015 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: HMG TO7-A0 3 i. Compensation for services identified shall be in accordance with the Standard Hourly Rates shown in Appendix 2 of Exhibit C of the Agreement. The total compensation for services identified under the Task Order is not-to-exceed $240,000 as defined in the table below. Subtask Assumed Distribution ($) A. Recreation and Use Master Plan B. Undulation Design $ 25,000 $ 215,000 TOTAL $ 240,000 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement and in Exhibit C. 6. Consultants: A. Barr Engineering Company B. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: A. Cost Justification 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: None HMG TO7-A0 4 10. Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is June 14, 2012. ENGINEER: OWNER: Houston-Moore Group, LLC Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority Signature Date Signature Date Darrell Vanyo Name Name Board Chair Title Title DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name Name Title Title Address Address E-Mail Address E-Mail Address Phone Phone Fax Fax HMG TO8-A0 1 This is Task Order No. 8, Amendment 0, consisting of 6 pages. Task Order No. 8 In accordance with Paragraph 1.01 of the Agreement between Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Authority (“Owner”) and Houston-Moore Group, LLC (HMG) (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 8, 2012 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Work-In-Kind (WIK) B. Description: This task order will include requests by USACE for the Local Sponsor (Diversion Authority) to provide WIK services related to the Project. C. Background: As allowed by the Federal process, USACE is allowed to request the Diversion Authority provide services as WIK for services that USACE would normally do, but that the Diversion Authority has resources or particular expertise to perform. 2. Services of Engineer A. MEANDER BELT WIDTH ANALYSES: Background: Meander Belt Width Analysis was begun under a separate contract. This scope expands upon the work completed under the separate contract. Develop a Technical Memorandum (TM) that provides estimates of the probability of nonexceedance for different meander belt widths given design flows and channel geometry of the Low Flow Channel (LFC), variability and uncertainty in the erodibility and shear strength of the soils along the LFC, and most likely scenarios for the sequence of diversion works commissioning. Develop for the following four (4) reaches: I. Diversion outlet upstream to Rush River inlet II. Rush River inlet upstream to Lower Rush River inlet III. Lower Rush River inlet upstream to Maple River aqueduct IV. Maple River aqueduct upstream to Drain 14 inlet V. Drain 14 inlet upstream to Drain 21C inlet VI. Drain 21C inlet upstream to Sheyenne River aqueduct Conduct the following tasks: I. Site visit of Red River and tributaries. II. Conduct geoprobe drilling, sediment coring, and carbon dating at transects along successive point bars in meander loops at the Red River of the North, Sheyenne River, and Rush River (upstream of channelized reaches) to determine channel migration rates over geologic time scale. III. Identify channel avulsion using LiDAR, and develop preliminary hypothesis about possible triggers. IV. Calculate meandering planform statistics for different reaches of the Red River of the North, Rush, Lower Rush, Maple, and Sheyenne Rivers and compare bankfull geometry and streamwise slope for bracketing of the proposed planform and cross section configuration of the LFC. Item 5b. (3) HMG TO8-A0 2 V. Develop RVR Meander models for selected reaches of the Red River of the North, Rush, Lower Rush, Maple, and Sheyenne Rivers to obtain calibration parameters for evaluation of the proposed planform and cross section configuration of the LFC. VI. Quantify the ultimate meander amplitude of the proposed planform configuration of the LFC using RVR Meander in probabilistic fashion to account for the observed variability in hydrologic conditions and soil properties. VII. Provide most optimal, alternative planform and cross section configuration of the LFC that minimizes meandering adjustments in both the short-and long-term. Evaluate need for lateral and vertical erosion control features in the LFC or the main diversion channel. VIII. Assess impact of different scenarios for commissioning of diversion works on short-term LFC meandering adjustments using RVR meander in deterministic fashion. IX. Develop a summary of significant O&M activities for the West Fargo Diversion and Horace to West Fargo Diversion Channels. This will include a map for every year since the Diversion channels were constructed, including items such as quantities and lengths of sediment removal, riprap, structure installations or modifications, or surveys. The following data and definitions will be provided by USACE or Owner: I. The resistance to erosion and shear strength properties of the soils along the LFC, including ongoing laboratory tests of soil erodibility at Texas A&M, as well as more recent geotechnical field investigations conducted along the LFC and main diversion channel. II. The proposed LFC dimensions (cross sections, slope) and planform configuration. III. Design flow discharges for the LFC, including updates on the hydrology of frequent events. IV. Proposed vegetation coverage at the bottom of the main diversion channel. V. Report prepared by WEST Consultants (“Geomorphology Study of the Fargo, ND & Moorhead, MN Flood Risk Management Project”), including electronic files containing historical data compiled and new new data collected. VI. Most likely scenarios for commissioning of diversion works. Prepare a first Draft Technical Memorandum: I. Summarize key findings during initial site visit. II. Describe field investigations along successive point bars in meander loops; include laboratory results of carbon dating, if available. III. Identify channel avulsion areas, and of other geomorphic features (e.g., oxbows) characterizing river dynamics over long spatial and time scales. IV. Present meandering statistics for the Red River of the North, Rush, Lower Rush, Maple and Sheyenne rivers and compare to bankfull geometry and streamwise slopes. V. Provide initial description of approach for meander belt width analysis using RVR Meander, including modeling in probabilistic terms. VI. Develop and calibrate RVR Meander models for selected reaches of the Red River of the North, Rush, Lower Rush, Maple, and Sheyenne Rivers. Prepare a second Draft Technical Memorandum: HMG TO8-A0 3 I. Describe approach for meander belt width analysis using RVR Meander and extended geomorphologic analysis of the Red River of the North and its tributaries. II. Process data for input into meander belt width analysis of LFC. III. Provide meander belt width analysis of LFC using RVR meander, and iterations with sediment transport calculations. IV. Extend geomorphologic analysis of the Red River of the North and its tributaries, including determination of channel migration rates and channel avulsion potential over long time scales. V. Recommend design planform and cross section configuration for Final Design of LFC. Develop a brief, graphics-rich, PowerPoint presentation of the background and results. This presentation must be suitable for a non-technical audience. Deliverables i. REV2 Technical Memorandum – Meander Belt Width Analysis ii. REV2 PowerPoint Presentation B. IDENIFICATION ANS ASSESSMENT OF TIE-BACK LEVEES: i. Background: USACE is undertaking an analysis to determine if the tie-back back levees would be classified as jurisdictional dams. If the tie-back levees are classified as dams, the impact to the project needs to be determined. ii. Assist the Owner and PMC with identifying and assessing the impacts to the Project due to the possible reclassification of the tie-back levees to be jurisdictional dams. Assistance may include: • analysis and comparison of Federal, State of North Dakota, and State of Minnesota regulations • identification of applicable design criteria • analysis of floodplain impacts, including FEMA, state law and rules, and local jurisdiction regulations • assessment of spillway and flowway requirements • recommendations for options for the project C. EMB OPENINGS: i. Background: prior to operation of the Diversion, the Fargo-Moorhead area may experience flood events. The partially constructed works should not increase the impacts of flooding. ii. Determine the location and size of openings in the excavated material berms (EMBs) to prevent an increase in flood elevations from the “without project” case for the 10-yr and 100-yr events. Provide to USACE design teams. D. DIVERSION INLET GATES: i. Background: the FM Diversion Feasibility Study recommended a fixed weir for the inlet to the Diversion Channel. A gated inlet may offer some advantages over the fixed weir. ii. Develop preliminary layout and sizing of a gated inlet to the Diversion channel, including gate sizing and number of gates, to pass flows up to the Inflow Design Flood (IDF). Describe operation during the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). HMG TO8-A0 4 iii. Assess any capacity limitations of the Sheyenne River aqueduct for events up through the IDF. Provide a plan to resolve any capacity issues. iv. Determine advantages and disadvantages of a fixed weir and a gated structure, including reliability, operability, through-town hydrograph, and impacts on the volume, frequency, and duration of water in the staging and storage areas for the 10, 100, and 500 year events. v. Develop preliminary comparative cost estimates of each type of inlet. E. ON-CALL SERVICES: Respond to requests for services from PMC for tasks not identified to date. Requests will be provided by PMC in writing. Work will not be performed by Engineer without authorization by PMC or Owner. Deliverables i. On-call service deliverables as requested. 3. Owner’s Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in Article 2 and in Exhibit B. 4. Times for Rendering Services Subtask Start Time Completion Time Meander Belt Width Analyses Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees EMB Openings Diversion Inlet Gates On-Call Services April 12, 2012 June 1, 2012 June 1, 2012 June 1, 2012 TBD with each task July 31, 2012 July 31, 2012 July 15, 2012 July 31, 2012 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: i. Compensation for