New Search
3 <br /> The guidance tool will take the form of the following deliverables: <br /> • A literature survey that identifies findings from relevant, scientifically valid, and <br /> applicable national and other regional studies and scientifically valid local studies <br /> regarding the pollutant reduction effectiveness and the operational cost of structural and <br /> nonstructural water quality BMPs. The survey will also identify data gaps and <br /> limitations. <br /> • A database that includes local (i.e., Oregon) data that has been collected using the <br /> acceptable QA/QC protocols. <br /> • A narrative that explains which questions about BMP effectiveness remain unanswered or <br /> partially unanswered, prioritizes data needs, and makes recommendations regarding the <br /> studies and data necessary to answer those questions. The narrative will also include a <br /> recommendation for conducting coordinated statewide monitoring in Oregon to work <br /> towards addressing data gaps. The recommendation should address the broad outlines of <br /> how to best collect the data (study design, rough number of samples, parameters, BMPs, <br /> outfall vs. instream, storm vs. dry runoff, event duration, etc.) and what types of <br /> analyticaUstatistical tools should be used to provide the desired answers. The narrative <br /> will stress consistency of data collection analyses and reporting so that BMP effectiveness <br /> can be compared side-by-side to the extent possible and/or practical. <br /> • A series of charts that show marginal cost per unit of pollutant removed for different <br /> implementation levels of specific BMPs and water quality parameters. Costs should <br /> include both capital and O&M. <br /> • A spreadsheet that calculates pollutant reductions by providing a standard range of <br /> pollutant reduction figures and/or effluent qualities for each BMP for a number of water <br /> quality parameters, based on acreage or other quantity units to be input by MS4 <br /> permittees. The spreadsheet will be accompanied by a narrative and footnotes that <br /> describe and justify the pollutant reduction figures associated with each BMP. <br /> The tools should be adequate for Phase I permit holders to use as a partial basis for the BMP <br /> program effectiveness review required in the MS4 Permit Renewal Submittal (see pending Phase <br /> I NPDES MS4 permits). <br /> The scope of work for this project is provided below. The project will be divided into two <br /> phases, Part A and Part B. Part A will consist mainly of a literature review and will set the stage <br /> for the second phase of the project. Part B will include the development of a guidance tool that <br /> incorporates BMP effectiveness information from the literature. However, this specific RFP will <br /> result in funding the Part A only. Depending on the results from Part A, funding for the second <br /> phase of the project may follow through a contract amendment, or through an additional RFP, or <br /> not be pursued, at ACWA's discretion. Funding for Part A of the project is expected to be <br /> $20,000. <br /> Part A Scope of Work <br /> • Review a list of proposed structural and nonstructural BMPs and associated pollutant <br /> parameters of concern to be addressed in the study. This list of parameters and BMPs <br /> will be compiled by the ACWA Technical Advisory Committee for this project and will <br /> <br /> PAGE 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - - Stormwater BMP Effectiveness Review <br /> <br /> February, 2003 <br /> <br />