Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › SAMPLE DOCS › GOV DOCS › GMA Update
 
Scope of Work - Clark County, City of Camas, City of La Center, City of Ridgefield, and City of Washougal

Attachment A
Scope of Work
Clark County, City of Camas, City of La Center, City of Ridgefield, and City of Washougal
GMA Update: EIS and CFP and Shorelines

Grantee's Responsibility

The GRANTEE is responsible for the preparation of all contract deliverables set forth below. The process and product shall be substantially consistent with the GRANTEE's grant applications submitted to the Department for this round of funding and with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Deliverables will be provided to the Department in electronic format wherever possible. At the Department's or the GRANTEE's request, deliverables may be provided in paper format.

Collaborative Scope of Work

This collaborative scope of work reflects the high level of cooperation among Clark County communities in addressing growth management issues. The ability to pool resources will allow the more effective implementation of the grant funded projects (EIS, CFP and Shorelines Management Plan). As lead agency, Clark County wants to express its appreciation to the other communities for their cooperation.

Project Description: Capital Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

The three main components of the project (capital facilities planning, public involvement, and EIS development) are described as separate major tasks below. However, the county understands that these efforts will occur simultaneously and inform each other. All Participants will work closely together to avoid duplication of effort and make efficient use of available funds.

Deliverables are noted in bold and italic type.

TASK 1.0 REFINE SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this task is to determine the best and most cost-effective way to proceed to develop:

    1. the revised capital facilities element of the Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan,

    2. a focused public investment plan coordinating investments to encourage economic development,

    3. an EIS evaluating the entire revised Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and

    4. a public involvement program to ensure that county residents are adequately informed and offered ample opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process.

1.1 Identify information needed to complete each component

1.2 Review county information and establish priorities

    1.2.1 Transportation

    1.2.2 Stormwater

    1.2.3 Sanitary Sewer

    1.2.4 Other Facilities and Services

1.3 Determine status of city efforts

1.4 Determine status of special district information/

1.5 Review Vacant and Buildable Lands Analysis.

1.6 Growth Hearings Board issues

1.7 Initiate public involvement program and explain approach

1.8 Summarize findings and refine the scope of work for subsequent tasks (deliverable).

TASK2.0 EVALUATE UGA'S TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL AREAS FOR JOB DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Review buildable lands inventory to identify vacant land and thresholds of parcel size and location for land suitable for industrial or office development.

2.2 Decide which public facilities to include in the CFP

2.3 Identify existing deficiencies in each area with vacant buildable land and areas with unused capacity of each essential service using adopted LOS standards.

2.4 Forecast the need/demand for public facilities.

2.5 Estimate the cost of providing service improvements to meet adopted LOS standards for areas with service deficiencies.

2.6 Categorize areas according to the amount of public investment required to get them ready for development. Prioritize areas for expansion of UGAs and urban reserves accordingly.

2.7 Document all steps and results and provide this information to the cities and special districts for input into the definition of the preferred land use alternative. (deliverable).

TASK 3.0 EVALUATE UGA'S TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL AREAS FOR JOB DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Summarize information on existing facilities developed in completing Task 2.0, including identification of:

  • Areas with existing deficiencies,
  • Areas with reserve capacity, and
  • Additional capacity needed to accommodate growth.

3.2 Identify needed capital improvement projects.

3.3 Draft the Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP will comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.030 (3), including the inventory of existing public facilities, forecast of future needs for public facilities, proposed capital improvements with financing plan, and recommended goals and policies.

3.4 Review the Draft CFP with the public and service providers to ensure that all the implications of the FPIP are understood and accepted.

3.5 Finalize the CFP and FPIP incorporating changes and refinements as a result of public and environmental review.

TASK 4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

4.1 Identify Issues and Set Goals

  • Public Information
  • Workshops with Special Districts and other service providers
    • Area Gatherings - Issue Workshops to present the outcomes of Phase II (the policy decisions),
    • Present the need for developing land use alternatives that the community can afford to serve, and
    • Discuss level of service standards and how the alternatives should be formed and evaluated.
    • This scope assumes the consultant team will organize, facilitate, and document these events.
  • Citizens Involvement Team - This group will be convened to help plan outreach for the first round of Area Gatherings and for reviewing and commenting on resulting recommendations.
  • PI Coordination Team
  • Decision-maker Briefings

4.2 Review Range of Alternatives:

  • Area Gatherings - Alternatives Review.
  • Citizens Involvement Team - This group could be convened to help plan outreach for the second round of Area Gatherings, Meetings-in-a-Box, and CitzenSpeak III.
  • Public Information
  • Meeting-in-a-Box and Speakers Bureau
  • CitizenSpeak III - A countywide gathering will be held to review the proposed alternatives and the results of their evaluation in the EIS.
  • Growth Planning Conference - Metro is planning a two-day regional growth planning conference that will be highly visible and will be held at the Oregon Convention Center. The timing of this event should coincide with the review of alternatives proposed for inclusion in the Draft EIS.
  • PI Coordination Team
  • Decision-Maker Briefings
  • CVTV Feature

4.3 Review Preferred Alternative and Draft CFP:

  • Area Gatherings - Preferred Alternative Open House.
  • Citizens Involvement Team
  • Public Information
  • Speakers Bureau
  • PI Coordination Team

TASK 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

    Clark County has determined that the environmental impact review process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will inform the choices among major alternative paths that the County could adopt in its planning policies and practices. The selection of areas to accommodate future growth must consider not only the availability of vacant land, but the cost to provide public infrastructure and the potential impacts to the region's ability to recover salmon and steelhead stocks listed under the ESA.

    The tasks involved in preparing an EIS and documenting compliance with SEPA are described below. Again, there are several on-going planning efforts that will be considered and coordinated, including the preparation of a unified development code and shoreline planning to comply with ESA. This process will allow cities to coordinate the SEPA review of their GMA plan updates with this County review. Also, staff has assembled a substantial amount of information about existing conditions that can be used in the effort. During Task 1, refinement of the scope of work, we would anticipate refining the approach to completing SEPA reviews also.

5.1 Scoping

  • Project description summarizing the preferred land use alternative and the FPIP,
  • Definition of alternatives under consideration, including the no- action alternative and
  • An updated mailing list, incorporating information from the public outreach and involvement effort.

5.2 Scoping meetings- Public and agency scoping meetings to solicit public input about the scope and content of the EIS.

5.3 Describe existing conditions in the county and region.

    Most of the information on baseline conditions will be used in the identification of land use alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative. The design of the preferred alternative will take into consideration the avoidance of critical areas and resource lands, habitat for species listed under the ESA, and the availability and capacity of infrastructure to serve additional growth. For this reason, development of baseline information for the planning effort will be the same as development of baseline information for the EIS.

5.4 Describe alternatives under consideration -Define a reasonable set of alternatives for evaluation that adequately embodies the choices before decision-makers. A "bookend" approach, defining a minimal/no-change alternative and a maximum change (largest UGA) alternative is likely. We anticipate no more than five alternatives would be defined to include:

  • Existing adopted plans,
  • The County-preferred alternative,
  • An alternative reflecting different level of service standards and therefore costs of the CFP, and
  • An alternative or alternatives reflecting a different distribution of growth or land uses.

5.5 Impact Analysis - The potential impacts of each alternative would be identified and evaluated.

    The impact analysis will be organized to enable the public and decision-makers to understand the implications in ways that matter to them. We propose to report the impact analysis on:
  • Natural environment (soils, geology, topography, surface water, ground water, air quality, habitats, plants, animals),
  • Built environment (land use, transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, public facilities, electricity, telecommunications),
  • Rural areas, UGAs, and cities/towns, and
  • Resource lands.

5.6 Identify mitigation measures - Because of the integrated nature of the planning and environmental review process, much of the potential mitigation will be incorporated in the preferred alternative.

5.7 Assemble the Draft EIS

5.8 Public review and comment period-

5.9 Respond to public comments

5.10 Final EIS

MILESTONES

    Proposed Dates

    Phases

    January 2002

    Scoping\Inventory

    April, 2002

    Identify Focused Public Investment Areas and Preferred Land Use Alternatives

    September 2002

    Draft CFP

    December 2002

    Draft EIS

    June 2003

    Final CFP, FPIP and EIS

BUDGET-USE OF GRANTS AND OTHER RESOURCES

Task

Total $

County$

Grant$

Year

1.0 Refine Scope

$ 43,122

$ 13,147

$ 29,975

1/2002 (FY1)

2.0 UGA and Ec. Development

$ 64,969

$ 34,994

$ 29,975

4/2002 ( FY1)

3.0 Capital Facilities Plan

$ 52,279

$ 22,304

$ 29,975

9/2002 ( FY2)

4.0 Public Involvement

$ 87,087

$ 87,087

  

1/2002 (FY1-2)

5.0 EIS

$ 115,530

$ 85,555

$ 29,975

6/2003 ( FY2)

Project Management

$ 23,493

$ 23,493

  

FY1-2

Expenses

$ 11,647

$ 11,647

  

FY1-2

Total

$ 399,895

$278,227

$119,900

  
         

CONSULTING TEAM

Clark County engaged the services of the following consulting firms in this project:

David Evans and Associates, Portland Office: this is the lead partner in the team. They will coordinate the project as well as provide the bulk of the technical analysis.

Henderson and Young: this firm specializes in fiscal analysis.

Parsons Brinkerhoff: this firm specializes in infrastructure and engineering analysis and will assist in many of the transportation aspects of the plans.

Jeanne Lawson Associates: this firm specializes in public involvement.

Perkins Cole: this firm will provide legal counsel related to GMA issues.

Project Description: Shorelines Master Plan

The update of the shorelines management plan is an important part of the county's environmental planning and regulation. Because of the recession of the adopted state regulations and the legislature's work on a new set of regulations, it is not possible to provide a detailed scope of work for the project. The following steps are those that Clark County and cities know must be taken to complete an update. The details of the work will be revealed with the new regulations.

Deliverables are italicized. The County intends to spend the GMA grant funds on task 2.4 and 5.2.

1.0 SCOPING

Define the scope of work for the shorelines master plan the most effective way to complete the work within the allotted time line and the most effective way to integrate with the GMA update, the NPDES Program, the ESA Program and the county code re-write.

2.0 INVENTORY OF SHORELINES

2.1 Assess adequacy of existing information.

2.2 Define needs for additional data.

2.3 Compile data from air photos, field verification and other sources.

2.4 Enter data into GIS system.

3.0 COUNTY DEFINITION OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

3.1 Review state guidance on determination of best available science.

3.2 Evaluate linkages between GMA, SMP, ESA and NPDES use of best available science.

3.3 Define application of best available science for shorelines program.

4.0 DEVELOP PLAN TO MEET STATE REGULATIONS IN CONTEXT OF LOCAL BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

4.1 Review state regulations and changes in local plan needed to meet state requirements.

4.2 Draft policy changes.

4.3 Draft regulatory changes.

4.4 Proceed with required adoption process.

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

5.1 Design a public involvement program in accordance with state regulations and integrated with GMA requirements.

5.2 Implement the public involvement program throughout the process. It may include public meetings of an advisory board, general public meetings, public information, website updates, and other measures.

MILESTONES

Clark County will meet all state required timelines, as specified in the new state regulations, once they are adopted. Some actin is expected in this legislative session, which will allow the county to initiate the project in January of 2002.

BUDGET-USE OF GRANTS AND OTHER RESOURCES**

Task

Total $

County$

Grant$

Year

1.0 Scope

$ 6,000

$ 6,000

  

FY1

2.0 Inventory

$ 115,000

$ 112,450

$ 2,550

FY1

3.0 Best Available Science

$ 6,000

$ 6,000

  

FY1

4.0 Plan

$ 109,000

$ 109,000

  

NA

5.0 Public Involvement

$ 7,000

$ 4,450

$ 2,550

FY2

Project Management

$ 37,000

$ 37,000

    

Expenses

$ 15,000

$ 15,000

    

Total

$ 295,000

$ 295,000

    
         

** This preliminary budget will change when the scope of the new regulations is known.

Status and Close Out Reports

Clark County agrees to provide a status report of 500 words or less on or about March 15, 2002 describing progress to date and the anticipated completion status on June 15, 2002. A second progress report is due on or about January 15, 2003 if the GRANTEE has not completed the project. A close out report of 500 words or less is due at project completion or no later than June 1, 2003. Copies of all reports shall be provided to all communities participating in this collaborative scope of work.