Back to Calendar
Return
|
|
Consent-General Government   # 8.
|
Board of Supervisors |
County Administrator   |
|
|
Subject |
Approve two-year contract, not to exceed $150,000, with Pacific Agroecology for professional economist services related to assessment of agricultural impacts resulting from modifications to the Yolo Bypass. (No general fund impact) (Blacklock/Sabatini) |
Recommended Action |
Approve two-year contract, not to exceed $150,000, with Pacific Agroecology for professional economist services related to assessment of agricultural impacts resulting from modifications to the Yolo Bypass. |
Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Operational Excellence
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
Background
For many years the Delta and Related Issues Subcommittee has been seeking a comprehensive analysis of impacts to agriculture resulting from the implementation of various state and federal initiatives in the Yolo Bypass to increase flood capacity or create new habitat for threatened/endangered species. A map depicting proposed projects in the Bypass is provided as Attachment A to this staff report. Agricultural impacts are traditionally assessed through the environmental review process (NEPA/CEQA) on a project by project basis.
In order for the County to best advocate for avoidance, minimization, and, ultimately, mitigation or compensation for impacts to agriculture and the local economy, it is critical to evaluate all of the proposed projects in the Bypass in a larger context and assess the cumulative impacts to agriculture.
Cost Share Agreement
On March 21, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved a cost share agreement (Agreement #17-41) with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), see Attachment E, that provides the County with $130,000 in funding for the purpose of conducting an agricultural impacts assessment. Should additional funding be needed to complete the assessment, SAFCA has indicated that they are willing to increase and extend the cost share agreement.
Agricultural Impacts Analysis
Though the complete scope of work is provided as Attachment D to this staff report, a brief summary of the work proposed is described below.
- Compile cumulative agricultural impacts report for all current/known future projects in the Yolo Bypass, including projects proposed for the Cache Slough region, in coordination with Solano County;
- Develop recommendations and proposed mitigation measures to support the long term sustainability of agriculture in the region; and
- Provide detailed peer review and comments on agricultural impacts analyses conducted by state/federal agencies on a project by project basis.
|
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
Staff has collaborated with the Delta Subcommittee, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Solano County staff, the State Department of Water Resources, and the Lower-Sacramento Delta-North Regional Flood Management team on this item. |
Competitive Bid Process |
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Requested:
As shown in Attachment C, staff released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in September 2017. There were no submittals received in response to this RFQ.
At the conclusion of the RFQ, County staff contacted several agricultural economists and two universities. The selected contractor has direct experience with the economic modeling used by the state and federal government, has successfully delivered reports and models specific to the region, and is able to meet the deadlines required by the County. |
|
Fiscal Impact |
|
Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
Explanation (Expenditure and/or Revenue) |
Further explanation as needed: |
As described above, the County has executed a cost-sharing agreement with SAFCA which provides up to $130,000 for completing a comprehensive agricultural impacts analysis. Staff anticipates that the cost sharing agreement will be increased to accommodate the expanded scope of work (the addition of impact analysis in Solano County/Cache Slough). However, the water resources budget can absorb the $20,000 difference if needed. |
|
|
|