HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2013-036 Ordinance approving Budget Amendment #2-A and Upper Neuse River Basin Assoc. Funding Request 1
ORD-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
INFORMATION CONTACT:
ATTACHMENT(S): David Stancil, 919-245-2510
1. UNRBA Request for Qualifications Tom Davis, 919-245-2510
with List of BMP Nutrient Credit
Measures
2. CardnoEntrix Proposal
3. Email of Support for UNRBA
Appropriation from Orange County
UNRBA Representative Pam
Hemminger
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
2
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.
Bubdi n f ou2 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 a)unrba org and forrest westallLcc)mcgillengincers.com), and Ms. Michelle
Woolfolk, the UNRBA Path Forward Committee Chairperson(michelle.woolfolkLadurhamnc.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
Attachment A. Instructions for Preliminary, Screening-Level Cost Estimates and 4
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 maybe presented with a±10% contingency to reflect a higher level of
confidence, and a f 15% 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-l. 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 requested to existing
Swale nutrient credit values)
Soil Amendments Volume-based Pond Infiltration Practices Street Sweeping
/Restoration Retrofits
Urban Tree Canopy Permeable Pavement Pond Retrofits/Upflow Check Dam Grassed
(Diversified) Filter Swales
Bio-Swales Filter Strips with Toe Leaf Litter Recovery Improved Rainwater
Trenches 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 U flow 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
5
Buffer restoration Managed grazing Cropland conversion Cover crops
Conservation tillage
to trees or grass
Pond creation I Pond renovation Construction Nutrient Vegetative
I
weltand I management plans I treatment;filter
and comprehensive j strips,buffers,
nutrient swales
I management plans
(cropland and
animal operation)
Wood chip Manure composting II Proper manure Proper animal Two stage channels
bioreactors handling,storage, nutrient
�I and disposal I supplementation and ,
feeding strategies
(reduce P
supplementation,
etc.)
Improve functioning 1 Overtreatment of Improvement/ Replace/xepalr E Remove 111ega1
of septic system wastewater for regionalization of lealarag co`llcctton, wastewater
credits wastewater facilities. connections to
Stormwatex systems
or surface waters
Collect Qrpretreat Contain sewage i
et Sweeping e
S Reduce pet waste
grease spills anti zedice transmission to
SSOs=' surface waters
Improved biosolids Repairing failing Educate commercial j Emission reduction Educate home
management BMPs business owners (atmospheric) owners about proper
about proper maintenance of
disposal to onsite wastewater
Stormwater Systems I tre atments stems
Color code: aqua=ecosystem enhancements, coral=agricultural enhancements,
pink=wastewater enhancements, olive=infrastructure enhancements,
purple=programmatic enhancements.
5.b. Credit Accounting Tool Development
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
Bubdi n f ou3 6
CENTER FOR Va 1Wn17
U:%ITE I:SH,c1961 ENTRIX
PROTECTION Shaping the Future
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
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 29 h, 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 9th, 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
WATERSHED �� Cardn�v
ENTR/x
PROTECTION
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.
2
� ,N T E R F�R �� Cardno 8 �
'�:atEZSN,��1 ENTR/X
P R OTECTI O H Shaping the Future
Table 1.Scope of Work Associated with the UNRBA Nutrient Project(Credits,Tool,and Framework Issues) '
. � �. .�. - .- • .�
a. Ideritify and Recommend attributes and quality levels based on CWP existing protocols;Ider�tify metrics to qualify Tier 1,2,3 measures I
(include discussions with UNRBA/DWR,recognizing this translation to Tiers may change as the projec�progresses);Develop webinar for $9,841 73
UNRBA/DWR to discuss; Implement revised database structure I
b. Background research to develop survey to evaluate implemerrtation poterrtial for measures(e.g.key stakeholder groups such as NRCS, $9,358 65
WOC, LG stormwater departmer�ts,DWR)
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
a. Review and confirm list of 55 BMPs to review with UNRBA(e.g.clarify types of ineasures,add specifics needed to isolate a single measure) $1,066 8 I
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 $2�382 21
departments,DWR)
g. ImplemeM survey tool and compile results $3,224 24 �
h.Analyze survey and screening level database to ider�tify 20 to 25 priority nutrient reduction measures $7,801 58 !
_ ----
—
k.Incorporate input from UNRBA/DWR and finalize list of priority BMPs $2,132 16
-.— .. -- - _
_ :_ a- %, =_ _ - — _ -_-_ -
_ � —_ — — — —
Subtotal-Task 1.2 $50,000 376
I
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, $��610 52
effectiveness,etc.) i
d. Modify database based on expert elicitation $2,830 21
0
CENTER FOR (� Cardno 9
�:ATEI;SN.c� ENTR/X �
PROTECTION Shapingthe Future
e.QA data entries,revise as needed
$4,384 32
Subtotal-Task 1.3 $26,400 189
I
b. Review of design parameters within database for each measure $4,824 35
c.Develop recommendations for assessing impacts of specifications based on the database $3,160 20
i
e. Incorporate input and analyze impacts of key design parameters within a BMP class when data are available(e.g.,minimum implementation $5,060 38
requirements)
subtotal-Task 1 A $24,066 175
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 �,
e. Incorporate input from UNRBA/DWR and analyze datasets
$5,060 38
,
Subtotal-Task 1.5 $28,246 203
i
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
i ---_ -- - - _ — _ - — _-- - _
Subtotal-Task 1.6 $22,691 170
':�ora�.�-e�sJ�;;�; �;'��s�� #��"��::
d I
10
�no
� t'"� GN1R��
,,,� E �,�
Shap���e
�5
.�p R d $���p1� 11
�'% 2 ,\����� �N�p,for comt�'�50n an �Z$�q5 64
;"���� �`�,,�� ��selected bY t� �p a��ated with $ +
QROtE . .. - o� �s$
i i a���OS��h�m�1e1 ck�om the 9 th �ope af w \
.• � and up t�tated P�r e opta��fe�ba ba�s for e � $2�a��
4 JF�S�"t,t e8ob Mives of n�s����oach and du�Wiii��t� �o�.1�K�'
r�s tt,e at mgets m g teGOmme �,is m8moran su f + qg4
tha{comf��ach th discuss th oa�h� $Zg,466 24
� b.Draft d0cu�a modelin�A��Gp�JR to6 r�ommQnded aPpr �3 27� 0
r�ammen �th the UN '
�umentin9�' A
c.�eetin9 $� ��
em��and�mand 2'3� $q,62p
�8��i�nai tasks 2'2 �
'b�9°53g
44
�� 1�K q.2
IeCted Pnori�Y mgasu►�S Sg� ot in�tu�in th�s�ud98ty n �Supt��1.
OP pN
T�I(5)tO r se or� ���s n �6
a �od� co���r delivBry fa�
n o�iona�task 3�5�3 ,
e tpol t�a� o�{th�s�S a $
b.Refin .�ooi for carb 9�
c.��eioptoa�t0 aC�for�p°al 9e� �12�3�2
B �K 2.3
� � Revis ��o�.T �r� .,,,`�
�ptiON�'S "�;����..
���..
baGk end�naliie T0°�
p,In�orP°rate f�� � $900 6
� �'�
, ., .
g0
Y : , ^ � � d too�s,�°�� � $4�3�2
y ����"_ ` d $ �p�.7� 3�
eve\ope K
��' � • , , ation lfuna�c�9�p�� u t '
�
` ' Couc���to 9a9e
�n�er�t�n Pa"��e�p
b p�s��'s�o�
,Nith�pP a�dwor�d B`�`'�n�
�
(� Cardno 11
��T E R F�� ENTRiX
.��1EZSN.« Shapingthe Future
PROTECTI�N
$91,025 20
a. Regulatory constraints(e.g.,accounting measures for different secto►s) $5,586 48
' b.Economic issues/methods $y�g,¢6 24
c.Logistical constraints $1,186 12
d. Scaling factors for uncertainty of erfectiveness $1,586 1Z
i
i e.Accounting for locafion in the watershed $3,266 2$
f.ldent�cation of potential cost functions by sector(e.g.,what drives costs and decisions?) $2�586 2�
g.Potential credit basis(e.g.,nifrogen,phosphorus.both?) $2,506 ZO �',
h.Maintenance and verification requirements _ �
OPTIONAL Subtotal-Task 3.2 $36,127 228
i
I
a2.Brainsforming pios/cons,issaeslopportunities(small group exercise->present to full group)
$1,180 10
a3.Discussions on fhe preliminary list of issues(small group exercises to flesh out the issues,add to the list,identify potential solutions, etc.) $1,180 1�
$1,180 10
a4.Nutnerrt Tiading Game(developed for the C8;assumes no revisions are needed for this exercise) $590 5
a5.Identification of next steps, areas of agreemenbdisagreement,what issues can be put fo rest?,whaf issues need more attention? ,
OPT(ONAL Subtota{-Task 3.3 $5,266 44
- : a ` - $1,566 12
b. Submitta�to UNRBA/DWR for comment followed by a confe�ence call for discussion $��706 �4 !�
c.Incorporation of UNRBA/L)WR comments and submitfal fo stakeho�ders _
- - =-- - __._ — -_� -
— - OPTIONAL Subtotai-TasK 3A $43,419 206
; �g���,�;�r};., gtk�,,,, ,
T��� TAS#,��.,,.
. �.. . � , . I
I
fi
12
�.� G��,no
ENTRIX
Shap►���e��
Taskd.l $11,40Q
$0
R �p R subtota�-
�.`'E► ����`�n
���T 1i 1�� $3,900 30
PRO w�� TaskA.2
Subtof�'
a
$Z,g40 �
$570 �
Subtota�'
Task4.3 $3�510
0
�� 0
�.Travel 4� $
b pverhead Subtota�'t�K �,�� '
� �
, ,..
� '���,r jr, ,.r
tion task 3.�bud9et '�
roup���°°P �
a,Travei—nOw 9 0
$� 0
,Y $" 8
�,�� �;4�5�� .� � . . � • $��p40
� ' ' 90
,.• - ���'7�� 98
. . fo�in Task�-3 hOUrs $12�740
` accour�t� urs T� 5,1
assum� Task ti'3 hO een firms K
d�eelYl� u�ed for in gubtot�'
��y pM calls(A►�a� eci acco controi b�w
a•W callsiv�bi�rs;
assum e SY�em to��litate verslon
p,�dlonth�Y Team of file stora9
management 52
c.Set up and tracK�n9 $6 76Q
milestor�e 5.2 '
d Resource and gubtot�-TasK
q�g,120 24
Subtata�-Task 5.3
$3��2� 24
���'�-
' ���.
a Subm�ttal
of mo�h�y invaices
j��.
�wT,A��-� - 7
��'��=
� ENTER FOR �� Cardno 13
�;f�lE1�SN.�� ENTRIX
P R OTECTIO N Shaping tf�e Future
TOTAL PROJECT COST $414,801 2,922 ''
TOTAL OPTIONAL TASK 2 GOST $71,908 534
TOTAL OPTIONAL TASK 3 COST $84,812 478
INITtAL CONTRACT COST $258,081 1,909
Il
�
R
� ENTER FOR Cardno 14
�r � ��
..a1EZSH.��1
ENTR/X
PR OTECTIO N Shaping the Future
Task Name 2#E 201 2p�
_ ....--__.._ . ..----- ------ . - -_....__---------
_... ! f�3 �tr 4 Qd'I Qtr 2 t�tr 3� t2tr 4 C�tr 2 (xEr 2 Q�3 Qkr d
2 �-1 Liter�ture rev�w$nd datahase development �
2 i 1.1 Praaest preparatio�fsuppart tasks �
3 1.2 Screening leve[[iterature re»riew-55�MPs --
� � t3 Develop database 4or�xiarity rneasures ;_�
s ` 1.4 Assessmerx of design paremeters ir�credit esti�tivn `
� f 1.�Statist�al analyses �
7 i 1.6 Complete Task 1 Memo�d praA�database #�
8 I-2 Taol aetect�on and t�evalopment `:
s E 2.1 Dewelop e modelirr��amewark E�
� ,.
�� ; 2.2 RevEse seletietl tool(flption�} '€ . . . . ... . .... . . ... ,.
12 ' 2.3 Preser�custamize�i 4oal and incarpar�e feedback(Opticmal} �
t2 �-3 idse�tiF�ca�tion of€asues associatsd with a uading Rrogram ?
18 ; �.�I(I81it1�1 Bflil fri9B1 VY11El St81C6h9IfS8f8 [�
i4 , 3.2�evelop prQliminary�FSt a#issues(Optio�na�� ( C�
25 � 3.3 Workshop�I'S with stakehotders(4plional} E Q
25 ( 3.4 pocumer�tation ar�workshop�2(Qpfional} �� I
s� !-�IAeetings i
I� 4_1 Bi-monihfy UNRBA BOD meetiags
39 ; d.2 M�sthty NS,AF3 meetangs{56°�) s
zt� -5 P'roject menagemer�t ;�
_ ;3
21 E 5_1 Ir►temal Eearn communicatia� j�
32 ! 5.2 Extemal cortun�rtication E
- -�
--- �
23 � 5.31rr�nices,ete. ; --
,
Figure 1. Draft Schedule for the UNRBA Nutrient Credits Project
i
� q
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.
-f
The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for five (5) bills for the 2013 tax year.
e. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#2
The Board approved budget amendments for fiscal year 2013-14 for Department on Aging;
Department of the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR); Library Services;
Emergency Services; Sheriff Department; Housing, Human Rights and Community
Development.
f. Budget Amendment#2-A—Upper Neuse River Basin Association Funding
Request - Best Management Practices Credit Determination Proiect
The Board approved 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.
g. Eno River Association Conservation Easements— Funding Assistance and
Approval of Budget Amendment#2-B
The Board approved making a contribution of$45,000 of County funds for the acquisition of
permanent conservation easements by the Eno River Association to protect significant natural
resource lands at Infinity Farm (Cedar Grove Township) and along Buckquarter Creek (Eno
Township); and to approve Budget Amendment#2-B.
h. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outlines
and Schedules for Two Upcoming Items
The Board approved process components and schedule for two upcoming government-initiated
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and Zoning
Atlas.
L Safe Routes to School Action Plan Update and Authorization of Next Steps
The Board considered an update on Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan pre-adoption
steps, and received authorization of next steps according to the Amendment form for the SRTS
Action Plan.
j. Preliminary Information and Approval to Finance Various Capital Investment Plan
Projects and County Equipment
The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, moving forward with
financing for capital investment projects and equipment for the year.
k. Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2014
The Board approved the regular meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for
calendar year 2014.
I. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
The Board considered three changes to the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar
for 2013 as follows:
- Adding a joint meeting between BOCC and the City of Mebane for Thursday,
November 14, 2013 at 5:30pm at the West Campus Office building downstairs
meeting room, 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC,
- Adding a closed session on Monday, October 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm at the Solid Waste
Administrative offices, 1207 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC for the purpose of"to
consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of
appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or
employee or prospective public officer or employee," NCGS 143-318.11(a) (6).
6. Public Hearings
a. Economic Development Incentive for Morinaga America Foods. Inc.