Agenda - 05-05-1997 - 9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager COPIES: Don Cox, Chair-Water Resouces Committee Marvin Collins, Planning Director Sally Kost, Budget Director David Stancil, Planner II FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: May 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Formal approval of County participation in and scope of work for proposed Phase II Ground Water Resources Investigation Please find attached the latest revision to the draft scope of work for the proposed Phase II Ground Water Resources Investigation(GWRI). This scope of work has been developed by local USGS staff(in coordination with County staff and the Water Resources Committee). This draft has been also been submitted to the regional USGS office for preliminary approval as a part USGS' process to secure and encumber federal matching funding for the project. I have been recently informed by Dr. Charles Daniel of the USGS, member of the County's Water Resources Committee and probable USGS project manager for the Phase II GWRI, that encumbering the funds for the USGS fifty percent cost share will require a formal notice of intent to participate on the part of Orange County. Apparently, competition for USGS funds is very intense. The only way to ensure that fifty percent matching funds are available is for the BOCC to formally commit to the project as soon as possible. In terms of background related to the attached scope of work, you may recall that the Water Resources Committee and County staff created and approved a draft scope of work for the Phase II ground water investigation in late fall 1996. The WRC draft, along with an estimated $200,000 to $250,000 local share budget, was forwarded for BOCC review and discussion at the December 1996 Goal Setting Retreat. The attached USGS draft scope of work was developed as a reworking and fine-tuning of the WRC draft document. An earlier USGS draft was reviewed by Water Resources Committee, committee staff and by the Planning Director. The attached draft contains several revisions that attempt to respond to the comments evoked by the earlier draft. Specifically, language has been added to Item 6 on page 9 to provide for meetings between USGS and County staff to discuss study findings (data) and to determine the potential implications of these findings on existing and potential County planning strategies and policies. The"Reports" section on page 10 has been revised to include periodic status reports to the Water Resources Committee and an interim oral report to the BOCC ("oral" is emphasized to indicate that USGS' elaborate publishing process will not be involved in the interim report).