Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-15-2013 - 5fORD- 2013 -036 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 15, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 5 -f SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #2-A— Upper Neuse River Basin Association Funding Request - Best Management Practices Credit Determination Project DEPARTMENT: DEAPR PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. UNRBA Request for Qualifications with List of BMP Nutrient Credit Measures 2. CardnoEntrix Proposal 3. Email of Support for UNRBA Appropriation from Orange County UNRBA Representative Pam Hemminger INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 919 - 245 -2510 Tom Davis, 919 - 245 -2510 1 PURPOSE: To approve Budget Amendment #2 -A to provide requested funds to the Upper Neuse River Basin Association to complete a project to increase the number of Best Management Practices available for affected parties to use in meeting nutrient reductions required by the State. BACKGROUND: The Falls Lake Nutrient Management Rules require local governments, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the agricultural community, and other regulated parties located in the Falls Lake watershed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient loading in stormwater by 40% and 77% respectively by 2036. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be used to achieve nutrient reductions in stormwater runoff from sources that include new development, existing development, and the agricultural community. Currently, nutrient reduction credits have been approved by the state Division of Water Resources (DWR) for only a few BMPs. As a result, regulated parties foresee significant difficulties meeting the nutrient reduction targets mandated by the Falls Lake Rules. At this time, the Upper Neuse River Basin Association ( UNRBA), of which Orange County is a member, is undertaking a project to expand the number of BMPs that have been assigned nutrient reduction credits by DWR. This process is commonly known as "expanding the BMP toolbox ". Currently, structural stormwater devices that are mainly utilized in urban areas are the primary type of BMPs that have been assigned nutrient reduction credits. As shown in the UNRBA Request for Qualifications associated with this project (Attachment 1), the UNRBA has compiled a preliminary list of 55 BMPs that do not have nutrient reduction values established for 1 their use. BMPs included on this list include agricultural practices, ecosystem practices such as riparian buffer enhancement measures, wastewater practices such as improving the functioning of onsite wastewater systems, programmatic practices such as street sweeping, and infrastructure enhancements such as the repair or replacement of leaking wastewater collection lines. The consultant retained by the UNRBA estimates that the cost of analyzing the 55 potential BMPs and determining nutrient reduction credits for approximately 20 to 25 of these BMPs will range from $258,081 to $414,801, depending on which optional tasks are ultimately included, as shown in Attachment 2. The final scope of the project depends, in part, upon the dedicated funding that is received from the UNRBA members for this project. At the September 18, 2013 UNRBA Board of Directors meeting, the following commitments for funding were reported: NC Division of Water Resources $50,000 City of Raleigh up to $150,000 City of Durham $50,000 Upper Watershed Stormwater Utility Group $50,000 Durham County $25,000 Town of Hillsborough up to $5,000 Total $330,000 At this time, Orange County is being asked by the UNRBA to provide $20,000 for the BMP nutrient credit determination project, in order to achieve $50,000 in total funding from Durham County, the Town of Hillsborough, and Orange County. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The UNRBA has requested that Orange County provide a total of $20,000 over a two -year period for the BMP credit development project. The $10,000 in County funds for FY2013 -14 is proposed to come from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance. The General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance is approximately $36.5 million. With approval of Budget Amendment #2 (also on the October 15, 2013 Board agenda), $215,539 will have been appropriated from the Unassigned Fund Balance prior to this proposed action to appropriate $10,000. The remaining $10,000 would be included in the County Manager's recommended budget for FY2014 -15. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends that the Board approve Budget Amendment #2 -A authorizing the County to provide the requested $10,000 from FY2013 -14 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance, with the remaining $10,000 to be included in the Manager's recommended budget for FY2014 -15. Attachment 1 3 Instructions to Firms Submitting Qualifications for the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) Nutrient Credit Study and Credit Tool Development Project Thank you for agreeing to submit qualifications for the UNRBA's Nutrient Credit Study and Credit Tool Development Project. The UNRBA plans to supplement the work of the Jordan Lake Nutrient Science Advisory Board regarding credit development in order to provide communities subject to nutrient management strategies an expanded list of Best Management Practices (BMPs), or tools, to achieve their respective reduction goals. At this time, the UNRBA's technical steering committee, the Path Forward Committee, is seeking qualifications from environmental engineering firms to perform this work. The UNRBA's technical steering committee is seeking short qualifications packages from selected firms identified by our member governments. The technical steering committee will recommend to the UNRBA Board the development of a contract to one firm, or team, to perform the desired tasks. Qualifications packages will be ranked based on the experience and expertise of the key staff members and that of the firm or team. At this point in the project development, a specific project scope is unavailable. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with the detailed information to develop a comprehensive project proposal, schedule or definitive project cost. However, the technical steering committee will be developing cost and schedule information in order to establish a definitive project scope and, in consultation with the selected service provider, the contractual conditions necessary to complete this work. Firms are being asked to develop preliminary, screening level cost estimates and schedules indicating a prospective upper and lower bounds of these components to complete the two project tasks. These estimates do not need to be exact and, if you are awarded the contract, you will not be held to these cost estimates when a contract is developed. This Qualifications package should contain the following information: 1. Cover Letter 2. Project Leader and key project staff in an organization chart. This chart should identify the location and firm of each key staff member. 3. Resumes of Key Staff, with relevant experience, highlighting your team's background in review and synthesis of research literature, and development of statistics on that info; BMP design; BMP monitoring and evaluation for nutrient performance; and development of engineering methods, formulas, modeling to describe BMP nutrient performance. Resumes should include the percent of time the proposed staff member is available for this project. Individual resumes should not exceed 1 page. 4. Firm and Team Experience with structural BMP design, management, performance, and installation. Please include the Firm's background relative to nutrient reductions associated with structural and non - structural BMPs, and developing regulatory credits for BMPs. 5. Preliminary Cost Estimates and Schedules for the following hypothetical tasks: a. Credit Development b. Credit Accounting Tool Development Each section of the qualifications package should be numbered similar to the outline. The entire qualifications package, including the preliminary cost estimates and schedules, should not exceed 15 pages. Brief outlines of your approach to developing the preliminary cost estimates and schedules should be included. Specific instructions for the preliminary cost estimates and schedules are provided as an attachment. Submittal instructions: Qualifications are due at noon on Friday, June 7, 2013. Qualifications should be emailed to the UNRBA Executive Director, Mr. Forrest Westall (forrest.westall&unrba.org and forrest.westall&mc ig l�gineers.com), and Ms. Michelle Woolfolk, the UNRBA Path Forward Committee Chairperson ( michelle .woolfolkkdurhamnc.gov). All packages should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). The Executive Director may contact the firm or team with follow -up questions. Page 1 of 3 0 Attachment A. Instructions for Preliminary, Screening -Level Cost Estimates and Schedules The information you should use to develop your preliminary, screening -level cost estimates and schedules are provided below. The UNRBA technical steering committee does not expect those firms invited to provide qualifications to conduct an extensive project planning analysis as part of the qualifications package. The committee is requesting the development of preliminary, screening -level estimates using a minimum level of effort. However, these estimates should have some basis in how the firm will approach the task. That basis should be included as a 1- paragraph description with each upper and lower level estimate. Estimated costs may be presented with a ±10% contingency to reflect a higher level of confidence, and a f15% contingency to reflect a lower level of confidence. Using the list of the 5 submittal components, information under item 5 should address the following: 5.a. Credit Development Low end estimate: Develop nutrient credits for sixteen (16) nutrient reduction measures as listed in Table A -1. The credits will be developed using data from existing studies and located in existing publically available databases. A measure of central tendency will be the basis of the removal credit recommendation assigned to each BMP. A project database will be created for this task. Sources of data and information may include but not limited to the International Stormwater BMP Database, the National Stormwater Best Management Practices Database, NC State University BMP Databases, Chesapeake Stormwater Network, the USEPA Green Infrastructure Case Studies, and other appropriate organizations or credit development processes. Table A -1. Practices for the Low -End Credit Development Estimates Over/Under -Sized Level Spreader/Filter Check Dam Grass Swale Green Roof (revision Bioretention Strip combined with (Diversified) basins: permeable requested to existing Swale walkways, planters, nutrient credit values) Soil Amendments Volume -based Pond Infiltration Practices Street Sweeping /Restoration Retrofits (Refine) Urban Tree Canopy Permeable Pavement Pond Retrofits/Upflow Check Dam Grassed Filter Strips with (Diversified) Filter Swales Bio- Swales Filter Strips with Toe Leaf Litter Recovery Improved Rainwater Riparian buffer Trenches Blue Roof Harvesting High end estimate: Similar to the low end estimate, develop recommended nutrient credits for fifty -five (55) nutrient reduction measures as listed in Table A -2. Credits will be developed using data from existing studies and located in publically available databases. Instead of a measure of central tendency as the basis for assigning credit, the service provider would be expected to use an analysis of the distribution of reported removal efficiencies to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the removal efficiencies. Table A -2. Practices for the High -End Credit Development Estimates Over/Under -Sized Level Spreader /filter Permeable Pavement Infiltration devices/ Flood plain Bioretention Strip combined with (Diversified) basins: permeable restoration Swale walkways, planters, infiltration trenches (Refine) Soil Amendments Pond Retrofits/ Check Dam Grassed Bio - Swales Filter Strips with /Restoration Upflow Filter Swales Toe Trenches Leaf Litter Recovery Urban stream Riparian buffer Catch basin inserts Blue Roof restoration restoration (50 -feet and vortex wide buffers) separators Constructed Sand filters Peak flow control Proprietary devices Impoundment of wetlands with for water quality urban, degraded various designs credits streams Enhancing or Land or forest Riparian buffer Increase tree canopy Cattle exclusion, repairing existing protection restoration with with and without riparian buffers varying width buffers Page 2 of 3 Buffer restoration Managed grazing Cropland conversion Cover crops Conservation tillage to trees or grass Pond creation Pond renovation Construction Nutrient Vegetative weltand management plans treatment; filter and comprehensive strips, buffers, nutrient swales management plans (cropland and animal operation) Wood chip Manure composting Proper manure Proper animal Two stage channels bioreactors handling, storage, nutrient and disposal supplementation and feeding strategies (reduce P supplementation, etc.) Improve functioning Overtreatment of Improvement / Replace /repair Remove illegal of septic system wastewater for regionalization of leaking collection wastewater credits wastewater facilities. system lines connections to Stormwater systems or surface waters Collect or pretreat Contain sewage Street Sweeping Reduce pet waste grease spills and reduce transmission to SSOs surface waters Improved biosolids Repairing failing Educate commercial Emission reduction Educate home management BMPs business owners (atmospheric) owners about proper about proper maintenance of disposal to onsite wastewater Stormwater Systems treatment systems Color code: aqua = ecosystem enhancements, pink = wastewater enhancements, purple= programmatic enhancements. 5.b. Credit Accounting Tool Development coral = agricultural enhancements, olive = infrastructure enhancements, —W Low end estimate: Determine credits for existing BMPs in the Falls Lake watershed using previously published area loading to determine loading to each BMP. Use existing credits or credits determined in 5.a. above to estimate the load reduction of the BMP. Transport to the lake will not be considered. High end estimate: To incorporate attenuation as nutrients are transported to the lake, develop delivery factors associated with watershed impoundments (i.e., West Fork Eno River Reservoir, Lake Orange, Little River Reservoir, Lake Michie, Lake Butner, Lake Rogers, and Beaverdam Impoundment) and stream channels. Delivery factors shall be based on an empirical or mechanistic watershed model (e.g., WARMF or HSPF) that can also be used to estimate jurisdictional nutrient load estimates. Page 3 of 3 Attachment 2 CENTER FOR !d atEZSN,ES PROTECTION Memorandum Date: September 16, 2013 To: Forrest Westall, UNRBA From: Alix Matos, Cardno ENTRIX and Dr. Neely Law, Center for Watershed Protection RE: Revised Draft Scope for the UNRBA Nutrient Project 6 4�0� Card" ENTRIX Shaping the Future Cardno ENTRIX and the Center for Watershed Protection were asked by the UNRBA to develop a draft scope of work for the UNRBA Nutrient Project. The UNRBA will use this as a basis for discussions regarding scope of work and budget. This memorandum provides a draft scope for the two tasks associated with the RFQ released by the UNRBA for a Nutrient Credit Study and Credit Tool Development Project. This draft scope also includes a third task which was identified at a meeting held in Hillsborough, NC on July 29th, 2013 attended by members of the UNRBA and staff at NCDWR, the Center for Watershed Protection, and Cardno ENTRIX. The level of effort associated with this third task was modified following responses to the initial draft scope provided by you in an email dated August 91h, 2013. This scope of work has been revised several times based on discussions and reviews with the Executive Director. Verbal and written comments from members of the UNRBA have also been considered in these revisions. Table 1 provides draft descriptions of the work, hours, and budget associated with these three tasks. Hours and budget are provided at the subtask level to provide information for planning and review of the appropriate tasks that are needed to complete the products and work required under the RFQ. Green line items generally indicate documentation while gray line items indicate meetings, conference calls, or webinars. This scope includes the following assumptions: The screening process will reduce the number of nutrient reducing measures from 55 to between 20 and 25 measures. The final number of measures developed for this project will depend on discussions with UNRBA and NCDWR regarding development of additional supporting documentation for some measures. In other words, if additional documentation is requested for certain measures, this effort will reduce the number of BMPs that are included in the project. • Variations in credits based on design parameters will be based on available data • Based on the meeting held in Raleigh, NC on August 28th, 2013 (attended by members of the UNRBA and staff at NCDWR, the Center for Watershed Protection, and Cardno ENTRIX), the development of an accounting tool for these measures may evolve depending on the outcome of additional meetings and discussions and the results of the screening analysis. o Task 2 will be divided into one standard task (2.1) and two optional tasks (2.2 and 2.3). The budget associated with Task 2.1 will be increased to allow for a more formal review and selection process for the calculation tool. This budget CENTER FOR IAIAIEZSN,E�1 PROTECTION �� Cardn'o ENTR /X Shaping the Future will come from Task 2.2 which is an optional subtask to develop the calculation tool(s) that are selected under Task 2.1. The scope of work associated with task 2.2 will be developed with this budgetary constraint pending the outcome of task 2.1. o The budget for Task 2 assumes that a technical memorandum will be provided regarding the development of the customized tool(s) for this watershed. This scope does not include development or revisions to existing user's manuals. • Based on the meeting held in Raleigh, NC on August 28th, 2013, Subtask 3.1 will be part of the official contract. Subtasks 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 will be optional subtasks. • The credit tool will not be updated to account for carbon under this proposed scope (this would be an optional task that requires additional budget). • Stream transformations and trapping in impoundments will be estimated using pre - developed empirical methods. • Weekly calls between the project managers and monthly calls among the team are covered in the hours allocated for technical work. A draft schedule is provided in Figure 1. Optional subtasks are shown with blue, hatched bars. CENTER FOR WAIEZSN.ES PROTECTION Table 1. Scope of Work Associated with the UNRBA Nutrient Project (Credits, Tool, and Framework Issues) �� Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future TASK 1 - Literature review d database development 1.1 Project Preparation /Support Tasks Budget Total Hours a. Identify and Recommend attributes and quality levels based on CWP existing protocols; Identify metrics to qualify Tier 1, 2, 3 measures (include discussions with UNRBA/DWR, recognizing this translation to Tiers may change as the project progresses), Develop webinar for UNRBA/DWR to discuss; Implement revised database structure $9,841 73 b. Background research to develop surrey to evaluate implementation potential for measures (e.g. key stakeholder groups such as NRCS, WOC, LG stormwater departments, DWR) $9,358 65 c. GIS analysis (geology, stream networks, subbasins, etc.) $1,160 12 d. Develop and incorporate trapping /transformations in impoundments and streams $13,200 122 e. Draft summary; incorporate comments; finalize summary of trapping $2,720 22 Subtotal - Task 1.1 $36,278 294 1.2 Screening Level Literature Review - 55 BMPs a. Review and confirm list of 55 BMPs to review with UNRBA (e.g. clarify types of measures, add specifics needed to isolate a single measure) $1,066 8 b. Preliminary research and data collection for 55 BMPs (literature review of peer and non -peer literature and other data sources) $12,070 89 c. Populate database with a subset of key attributes for each nutrient reduction measure $3,984 30 d. Assess quality of existing and new data sources $2,452 18 e. Develop survey to evaluate implementation potential for measures (e.g. key stakeholder groups such as NRCS, WOC, LG stormwater departments, DWR) $2,382 21 f. Describe survey and instructions at a UNRBA BOD meeting (invite additional survey participants to meeting as needed) $1,450 10 g. Implement survey tool and compile results $3,224 24 h. Analyze survey and screening level database to identify 20 to 25 priority nutrient reduction measures $7,801 58 i. Draft memo with recommendations for categorizing 55 measures:1) High priority (quality data likely meets Tier 3 conditions), 2) Medium priority (e.g., requires additional data or expert elicitation /good implementation potential), and 3) Low Priority (e.g., lack of data to evaluate and low implementation potential). $8,594 66 j. Webinarto present draft list of priority BMPs (including those requiring expert elicitation) and discuss with UNRBA /DWR $1,040 8 k. Incorporate input from UNRBA/DWR and finalize list of priority BMPs $2,132 16 I. Finalize documentation and include in Task 1 memo $3,805 28 Subtotal - Task 1.2 $50,000 376 1.3 Develop Database for Priority Measures a. Additional research to complete database for 20 -25 priority measures $10,536 76 b. Develop expert elicitation survey (e.g., SWCD, NSAB BMP subcommittee, DWR) survey to fill in gaps where needed (local conditions, effectiveness, etc.) $7,610 52 c. Solicit input during NSAB BMP subcommittee meeting to elicit expert opinion; invite additional experts to meeting as needed $1,040 8 d. Modify database based on expert elicitation $2,830 21 CENTER FOR ! alklEZSP..ES PROTECTION Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future e. QA data entries, revise as needed $4,384 32 Subtotal - Task 1.3 $26,400 189 1.4 Assessment of design parameters in credit estimation (specifications will be limited based on the available data) a. Meeting with UNRBA /DWR to discuss lessons learned from PTRC process regarding design parameters $520 4 b. Review of design parameters within database for each measure $4,820 35 c. Develop recommendations for assessing impacts of specifications based on the database $3,160 20 d. Develop webinar to discuss recommendations with UNRBA /DWR $2,200 16 e. Incorporate input and analyze impacts of key design parameters within a BMP class when data are available (e.g., minimum implementation requirements) $5,060 38 f. Draft summary of design parameters or minimum implementation requirements $6,306 46 g. Conference call with UNRBA/DWR to discuss draft text $840 6 h. Finalize documentation and include in Task 1 memo $1,160 10 Subtotal - Task 1.4 $24,066 175 1.5 Statistical analyses a. Review of statistical methods (e.g., provided by City of Durham, urban BMP database methods, etc.) $3,580 23 b. Review of data (reformatting for stats program, exploratory analyses, identification of potential analysis methods) $7,840 56 c. Develop recommendations for analytical methods based on a few example practice types $2,060 14 d. Develop webinar for UNRBA/DWR to discuss recommended methods and example results $1,680 12 e. Incorporate input from UNRBA /DWR and analyze datasets $5,060 38 f. Draft summary of statistical analyses and outcomes $4,026 30 g. Webinar to present results $1,680 12 h. Finalize documentation and include in Task 1 memo $2,320 18 Subtotal - Task 1.5 $28,246 203 1.6 Complete Task 1 Memo and provide database a. Compile cost estimates for priority measures $7,382 56 b. Summarize costs and credits and translate (draft recommendations) to DWR quality Tiers $4,770 36 c. Finalize draft and discuss with UNRBA/DWR on a webinar $7,754 56 d. Incorporate comments and finalize Task 1 Memo. Provide electronic copy to UNRBA/DWR $2,525 20 e. Deliver electronic database to UNRBA /DWR $260 2 Subtotal - Task 1.6 $22,691 170 TOTAL -TASK 1 $187,681 1,407 CENTER FOR ! alklESSP..ES PROTECTION Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future .. d Development 2.1 Develop a modeling framework to supplement current calculation tools a. Meeting with the UNRBA /NCDWR to generate a unified statement of purpose for the calculation tool $4,264 32 b. Draft document that compares the JFLSLAT, the WTM, and up to one additional model selected by the UNRBA for comparison and recommends a modeling approach that meets the objectives of the stated purpose of the model. $10,010 75 c. Meeting with the UNRBA I NCDWR to discuss the recommended approach and obtain feedback from the group $2,269 17 d. A final memorandum documenting the recommended approach. This memorandum will form the basis for the scope of work associated with the Optional tasks 2.2 and 2.3. $8, 515 64 Subtotal - Task 2.1 $25,058 188 OPTIONAL 2.2 Revise Selected Too /(s) for Priority Measures (include nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment) a. Modify Too /(s) to r selected priority measures selected $26,466 194 b. Refine tool to account for delivery factors $3,276 24 c. Develop Tool for carbon (this is an optional task that is not included in this budget) $- 0 d. Revise tool to acct for local geo $1,620 14 e. Draft summary of customized Tool $28,174 208 OPTIONAL Subtotal - Task 2.2 $59,536 440 OPTIONAL 2.3 Present customized Tool and incorporate feedback a. Develop webinar /presentation to present revised Tool $4,852 36 b. Incorporate feedback and finalize Tool $3,523 26 c. Finalize Task 2 documentation $3,997 32 OPTIONAL Subtotal - Task 2.3 $12,372 94 TOTAL - TASK 2 $96,966 722 Program TASK 3 - Identification of Issues Associated with a Trading 3.1 Identify stakeholders a. Meeting with UNRBA /DWRNVOC to identify stakeholders and project participation levels (DWR, local SWCDs, WOC, NRCS, environmental groups, NPDES dischargers, EPA, WBC, etc.) $2,252 16 b. Discussions with EPA and World Business Council to gage interest in participation (funding, pre - developed tools, etc.) $900 6 c. Meeting with UNRBA/DWRNVOC to review results of screening level survey developed for Task 1.2 $1,160 8 Subtotal - Task 3.1 $4,312 30 `Igo CENTER FOR 1A.WEZSN,ES. PROTECTION �� Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future OPTIONAL 3.2 Develop preliminary list of issues/data gathering a. Regulatory constraints (e.g., accounting measures for different sectors) $11,025 20 b. Economic issues /methods $5,586 48 c. Logistical constraints $2,946 24 d. Scaling factors for uncertainty of effectiveness $1,186 12 e. Accounting for location in the watershed $1,586 12 f. Identification of potential cost functions by sector (e.g., what drives costs and decisions ?) $3,266 28 g. Potential credit basis (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, both ?) $2,586 20 h. Maintenance and verification requirements $2,506 20 i. Develop information packet for workshop (background information on trading, preliminary list of issues, description of the workshop format and objectives) $5,440 44 OPTIONAL Subtotal - Task 3.2 $36,127 228 OPTIONAL 3.3 Workshop with Stakeholders al. Introduction to concepts, structure /rules of the workshop, etc. $1,136 9 a2. Brainstorming pros /cons, issues /opportunities (small group exercise -> present to full group) $1,180 10 a3. Discussions on the preliminary list of issues (small group exercises to flesh out the issues, add to the list, identify potential solutions, etc.) $1,180 10 a4. Nutrient Trading Game (developed for the CB; assumes no revisions are needed for this exercise) $1,180 10 a5. Identification of next steps, areas of agreement /disagreement, what issues can be put to rest ?, what issues need more attention? $590 5 OPTIONAL Subtotal - Task 3.3 $5,266 44 OPTIONAL 3.4 Develop high -level framework /identification of issues a. Draft document describing the issues and interactions among the issues associated with a trading program $18,140 89 b. Submittal to UNRBA/DWR for comment followed by a conference call for discussion $1,566 12 c. Incorporation of UNRBA/DWR comments and submittal to stakeholders $1,706 14 d. Workshop with stakeholders to allow input on draft and assess likelihood of participation in a trading program $10,139 46 e. Finalize Task 3 document $11,869 45 OPTIONAL Subtotal - Task 3.4 $43,419 206 TOTAL - TASK 3 $89,124 508 Additional contract) 4.1 Bi- monthly UNRBA BOD meetings a. Bi- monthly UNRBA BOD meetings $11,000 80 11 CENTER FOR ! alklESSP..ES PROTECTION Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future Subtotal - Task 4.1 $11,000 80 4.2 Monthly NSAB meetings (50 %) a. Monthly NSAB meetings (50 %) $3,900 30 Subtotal - Task 4.2 $3,900 30 4. 3 Neely Law Expenses a. Travel $2,940 0 b. Overhead $570 0 Subtotal - Task 4.3 $3,510 0 4. 4. Susan Bodine Expenses a. Travel — now grouped into option task 3.2 budget $- 0 Subtotal - Task 4.4 $- 0 TOTAL - TASK 4 $18,410 110 TASK 5 - Project Management - Assumes 2 year project duration 5.1 Internal Team Communication a. Weekly PM calls (Alix and Neely); assumed accounted for in Task 1 -3 hours $- 0 b. Monthly Team calls /webinars; assumed accounted for in Task 1 -3 hours $- 0 c. Set up and management of file storage system to facilitate version control between firms $1,040 8 d. Resource and milestone tracking $11,700 90 Subtotal - Task 5.1 $12,740 98 5.2 External Communication a. Bi- weekly calls with Forrest $6,760 52 Subtotal - Task 5.2 $6,760 52 5.3 Invoices, etc. a. Submittal of monthly invoices $3,120 24 Subtotal - Task 5.3 $3,120 24 TOTAL - TASK 5 $22,620 174 `K CENTER FOR ! a'AlEZSP..E01 PROTECTION Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future 13 TOTAL PROJECT COST $414,801 2,922 TOTAL OPTIONAL TASK 2 COST $71,908 534 TOTAL OPTIONAL TASK 3 COST $84,812 478 INITIAL CONTRACT COST $258,081 1,909 13 CENTER FOR 1A.WEZSN.ES. PROTECTION �� Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future Task Name 201 201 201 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 1 Qtr 1 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 1 - 1 Literature review and database development 2 1.1 Project preparationisupport tasks 0 3 1.2 Screening level literature review - 55 BMPs 4 1.3 Develop database for priority measures 5 1.4 Assessment of design parameters in credit estimation O 6 1.5 Statistical analyses O 7 1.6 Complete Task 1 Memo and provide database 0 s - 2 Tool selection and development 9 2.1 Develop a modeling framework O 10 2.2 Revise selected tool (Optional) 11 2.3 Present customized tool and incorporate feedback (Optional) 0 12 - 3 Identification of issues associated with a trading program 13 3.1 Identify and meet with stakeholders 14 3.2 Develop preliminary list of issues (Optional) O 15 13 Workshop #1 with stakeholders (Optional) 0 16 3.4 Documentation and workshop #2 (Optional) 17 - 4 Meetings 1s 4 1 Bi- monthly UNRBA BOD meetings 19 4.2 Monthly NSAB meetings (50 %) 20 - 5 Project management 21 5.1 Internal team communication 22 5.2 External communication 23 5.3 Invoices, etc. Figure 1. Draft Schedule for the UNRBA Nutrient Credits Project 9 14 15 Attachment 3 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Pam Hemminger [mai Ito: pshemminger @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:45 PM To: Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Alice Gordon; Bernadette Pelissier; David Stancil; Michael Talbert; Donna Baker Subject: support of the UNRBA agenda item Dear BOCC and Interim Manager- As your representative to the UNRBA (or Falls Lake Watershed Association) I wanted to write you in support of an item that will be before you at your October 15, 2013 meeting. I will be out of the country during that time visiting my daughter and will not be able to speak in support of this item. The UNRBA has voted to proceed with having a consultant bring us a Tool Box of Credits in dealing with nutrient trading in the Falls Lake area. For Stage 1 rules of the lake, each jurisdiction is to proceed with a plan to reduce nutrients for new development and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in these areas for existing development (eventually). Without knowing what kind of credits we would receive for different BMPs, it would be hard to chose a plan that gives up the biggest benefit for the least cost. The state should be developing this Toolbox of Credits but to date they only have 5 credits posted and have told us that they have no funding or plans to develop this list in the near future. The estimated cost of the Toolbox development is around $430,000. Raleigh has issued a "challenge grant" of $150,000 and the rest of the jurisdictions have pledged to meet their goals - ours being $20,000 over 2 years. Hillsborough is contributing $5,000 and Durham County is pledging $25,000 with the city of Durham pledging much more. Most of the other entities have a storm water fee pool to pull these funds from, Orange County has to move monies from other budget lines in done outside of the budget planning during the year. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has given a grant of $50,000 towards this project. Several of us met with the new chair of the EMC this week to discuss this project and other parts of the UNRBA progress. He was very receptive and supportive of our efforts. The UNRBA is much further ahead of its rules implementation than the Jordan Lake Watershed Association. So what does Orange County get for $20,000? In my mind this is a wonderful opportunity to procure a list of credits that we can use to reduce our nutrient loading towards our goals in Stage 1 of the rules. We do not have to develop our own list or recreate work with our own staff time. This list will be available to everyone in the UNRBA and maybe later to other watersheds in the state. We could not produce this information on our own for less than $20,000. We are trying to stay on the schedule set forth in the Falls Lake Rules to reduce nutrient loading and improve water quality in the lake so that the EPA does not set TMDLs (total maximum daily loads) for our area or start reviewing all new development. Have you had enough acronyms for one topic? In closing, please support the allocation of $20,000 towards this project. The other jurisdictions have already committed their funds. 16 We were able to keep agriculture items on the list because of our participation in this group, which benefit Orange County. We have already committed to an increase for monitoring the lake for four years in hopes of reanalyzing the water quality in the upper part of the lake and the UNRBA has made great progress towards its goals in stage 1 while collaborating with DENR, DWR, the EMC and many other jurisdictions both inside the watershed and outside the watershed. I would also like to be reappointed by the BOCC for another year as one of your two representatives on the UNRBA. The group would like me to chair the UNRBA for another year as we work through both the monitoring contract, the Tool Box of Credits project and some other upcoming legal requirements. The UNRBA meetings are open to anyone and we welcome your attendance. This is a complicated issue that takes a great deal of time and study. I welcome your questions and comments but will not be returning until October 23. Thank you for your time in reading this email and I hope for your support of this item- Pam Hemminger Chair UNRBA and Orange County Representative Donna - would you please send to the newer Commissioners as I did not have their emails handy before leaving on my trip.