HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1979 - 0189 RESOLUTION NO. 79-189-11
AUTHORIZING FILING GRANT APPLICATIONS RE STUDY
OF FEASIBILITY OF WATER RECLAMATION FOR POSSIBLE
ENHANCEMENT 'AND. RESTORATION OF THE BOLSA'CHICA
WETLANDS
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING FILING APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS FOR STUDY OF FEASIBILITY
OF WATER RECLAMATION FOR POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENT AND
RESTORATION OF THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County,
California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to
sign and file, for and on behalf of County Sanitation District No. 11, an Application
for Federal Assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and any agreements or other documents necessary to secure and
receive a grant under said act and a State grant under the Clean Water Bond Law of
1970 and/or 1974 for study of feasibility of water reclamation for possible enhancement
and restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands; and,
Section 2. That County Sanitation District No. 11 hereby agrees and further
does authorize the aforementioned representative to certify that if grants for its
study are made pursuant to the aforementioned Federal and State statutes, it will
comply with all applicable State and Federal statutory and regulatory requirements,
including,but not limited to, the Assurances contained in the Federal Grant Application
and the State Grant Contract, The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended,
relating to the right of the public to obtain information and records, The National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, U.S.C. 470 et seq. , as amended, relating to the
preservation of historic landmarks, The Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act, 18 U.S.C. 874,
40 U.S.C. 276c and the regulations- issued thereunder, 29 CFR 3.1 et seq. , and The
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq. , and the regulations
issued thereunder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held December 12, 1979.
ST.47E OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
COUN7*Y OF ORANGE )
I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-189-11 ,
was regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Board
on the 12th day of December 1979 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Ron Pattinson (Chairman) , Don MacAllister and Harriett
Wieder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County,
California, this 12th day of December 19 79 .
i Wa e yaI er, Secretary,
Bah-r o£ it ors of County
S tat' n Di trict No. 11
of Oran e County, California
c.-, 0'i
BOLSA CHICA
RECLAMATION STUDY
A Reconnaissance Report
Prepared for the
Orange County Sanitation Districts
by the
Orange and Los Angeles Counties
Water Reuse Study
Transmitted by:
Wiley Horne
Project Manager
January 5, 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title
1 . SUMMARY
2 . INTRODUCTION, SCOPE, AND PURPOSE
3 . WATER QUANTITY NEEDS
4. WATER QUALITY NEEDS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS
5 . DELIVERY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS
6 . INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
7. CONSTRAINTS AND QUALIFICATIONS
App. A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
App. B INITIAL MEETING: NOTICE AND ATTENDANCE LIST
bpi
tow
Wod
Wd
mw
w
-1-
�•+ CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
This is a technical report whose purpose is to esti-
mate water demands, facility needs, and delivery costs for
conveying reclaimed water to the Bolsa Chica planning area in
Orange County, California, to create and maintain a freshwater
marsh. This Report does not constitute a proposal to create
such a marsh nor does it attempt to answer the various policy
r+
issues which would be raised by such a proposal.
Four reclamation plants were evaluated as potential
sources of water. Of these, an extension of the proposed Green
Acres Project, Stage 2, was found to be most feasible. Based
on marsh acreage in the general range of 300-1, 200 acres,
estimated reclaimed water demands fall generally in the range
of 1, 000 to 5, 000 acre-feet per year, depending on acreage and
assumed rate of flow-through. The practical range of reclaimed
water deliveries would be limited, however, by Green Acres
Project design. We have estimated a reduced range of flows and
wetted acreage which could be supported by the Green Acres
Project, with a minimum of design modification.
y
Freshwater marsh acreages in the range of 300-800
tow acres could be supported by Green Acres flows in the range of
1,250-3, 500 acre-feet each year, delivered between April and
Ow
-2-
December, with relative simple design changes. The conveyance
facilities associated with these deliveries include 6, 000 to
15,000 lineal feet of 12-inch to 20-inch diameter pipeline
added to the proposed Green Acres project. The system head
s requirements would not be increased.
The current estimated cost of extending the Green
aA
Acres Project to support a Bolsa Chica marsh land would be
approximately $70/acre-foot, evenly divided between capital and
a operating costs, for deliveries in the range of 1, 250-3, 500 AFY.
These costs represent the incremental cost of water deliveries.
The costs do not include a pro-rata share of total Green Acres
costs . Nor do they include an estimate for the on-site distribu-
tion facilities, or labor and materials, for marsh management.
These latter costs would have to be developed in conjunction
with a specific on-site design concept and management plan.
The water quality 'parameters presently projected for
the Green Acres Project appear to meet public health and other
criteria for a marshland program, however, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) can issue tentative permit require-
ments only in conjunction with a specific land-use and operating
plan. It is further cautioned that any full-scale marsh develop-
ment program would have to be preceded by a demonstration
program acceptable to the RWQCB and carried out under a temporary
permit. The demonstration program would have to show enhancement
Ow
-3-
of the aquatic environment, as a condition for complying with
the California Bays and Estuaries Policy of May 1974. The
actual requirements for the demonstration will be dictated in
part (and perhaps lessened) by the results of a test program
now being carried out by the Irvine Ranch water District.
too
Should further work be found to be desirable, it
should proceed concurrently under two main headings :
Technical Institutional and Legal
o Develop on-site design concept o Identify legal powers
and management plan required by program
sponsor
o Identify aesthetic requirements, o Determine how those powers
and design specifications can be created: Agreements?
which will satisfy aesthetic Joint powers agency? New
needs . special district?
o Develop architect/artists o Identify preferred manage-
drawings showing how marsh ment authority
,r fits into land-use plan
o Identify source of funds
o Prepare implementing plan
The above work could only be undertaken as a joint effort among
all the private, City, County, State, and Federal interests
'�' which are involved in Bolsa Chica planning.
0
N
1 4�
'a 4 �MEAD6W R
Country Cl"
4'' w rcRSOU -TI
'N , In
31f-
RN
//AM
V,
fA
%
7
k�f(i Chico29
WE DES
dw
-- --- ,. ---0
UMP
IN—mvio INS 1—
""A
... . ........ 60L sq CHICA
PLANNINcal AREA
i 1J,
M ------
IJUNTINGTON ;BEACH;�3 RPIN
36 .. .... all ir
4
54 N
Oil Oil
lip Well Well HUNTING-rOl
ol I W I
0 1
r
u
JIM,F-
0
-WukWr9bFu—rg
•y ��
CHANNE�
Traimp ate,
T an ioW
LR
eA 'lv.4 Bch 0 an Vi
I If 12 Lf OCK R 0
MW to
0
�EOJECTFi
fjf 4A/ Ac wArs
Ir S
-10 LO _!ES NDD- Tam
7
ell -L
0 1-4 S,ff J A
F.-- R
it
� �,��u�
-jr-
927 71 26
0 • a
.4 AV II L CAPS AN A
ell
ik-
Tan Q
UAL
f-L-4j` DMA-A VE 1
-2-Linrw-�. A vr":
Schl 11
Crest View
C3�) n
r
Y-0 t7. rl�l r rl c A z Re C aw.*VIA01,119
NP- if
d,
0 Wo-e KS 36
61 p
Z •
. --1
Center
' 111. P1
0
H
Sc
0 •-
0 0 0 0 c Jeff! L E
.0.0 0
;00 0
1:
to
C . .- .- to
0 Iz Im
vo 0 '
0 0
0.
0
.0 0
0 0- 0
0 0 .00
Park
it r
1!Oo-f -------- -
..,q Sr, 57 W'.• i -----------------
0
*J
'Poo 0
0 e %
o
0
0
2 0 0
0
.
0
%% NevrLMW H$
11 *0 0
0. Se
0 0 00 Goo r
# 0 -.0
0
'o, .#* 0 0 OR Z7
u o AyE 0 46 1-o -WOiR
0 - 0 0 0.
0 a 3 0:0: 00 0.
0 0
0 0 0 r g r• ? I
-- 0 a Qo"4
0
0, 0
U#1 t n ach�,
0 ;o 0
A 0 0 0
ou -P-cli
0- 0`-
C 1 0 P IFT
t
0 0 ...
'% -Se It0 IF 0
N
ri
rk
ar O L 5A C 14 A
N Z
•
� . - , , .. - I vtCl Nt T Y
N-BEACH 10
F/ A P
-4-
b
CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION, SCOPE, & PURPOSE
A. Brief History
On November 15, ! 978 the California Coastal Commission
granted to Orange County Sanitation District No. 11 a permit
(see Appendix A) to construct approximately 3 miles of interceptor
sewer, known as the Coastal Interceptor, along the Pacific
Coast Highway in Orange County. The Coastal Interceptor parallels
the Pacific Coast Highway on the seaward side from Lake Street
to Brookhurst Avenue and along Newland Street, City of Huntington
Beach. Opposite this page is a vicinity map, showing the
r.r Coastal Interceptor relative to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands area.
One of the special permit conditions placed on the Coastal
Interceptor was the preparation of a Bolsa Chica Reclamation
Study, to serve as an environmental impact mitigation measure.
Concurrently, on June 28, 1978, the Orange and Los
Angeles Counties Water Reuse Study was initiated by a Joint
�+ Exercise of Powers Agreement among six regional water and
wastewater authorities, with funding in part -from a Section 201
Clean Water Grant from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX and the California Water Resources Control Board. In
wr
-5-
February 1980, the OLAC Mid-Course Report was published. The
MCR contained the results of a two-county marketing and engineer-
ing effort. One of the projects included in the MCR was the
Green Acres Project, sponsored by the Orange County Water
rd
District (OCWD) . This project is mentioned at this point,
because it is a potential source of water for a Bolsa Chica
Marsh Restoration Program.
*x
The Green Acres Project is envisioned as a landscape
irrigation project within a 5-mile radius of OCWD's Water
Factory 21 in Fountain Valley, California. Since the MCR was
completed, more refined engineering work has resulted in a
Green Acres Project construction plan, complete with pipeline
staging, pump station configuration, pump controls, and irriga-
low tion schedules . This refined engineering was completed in a
Pre-Design Engineering Study, completed by OCWD in September,
�.r 1981. The planned layout of the Green Acres Project is shown
on Figure 6, in Chapter 5.
In September 1981, the OCSD asked the OLAC Water
Reuse Study to meet with those agencies having planning authority
for Bolsa Chica, and establish a plan of study which is responsive
to the permit condition established by the Coastal Commission.
An initial meeting was convened in order to incorporate the
best thinking of the agencies with planning authority for Bolsa
Chica, prior to conducting the work.
-6—
,.r
B. Bolsa Chica Reclamation Study, Results of Initial Meeting
On September 14, 1981 the OLAC Water Reuse Study and
the Orange County Sanitation Districts hosted an initial advisory
meeting at Orange County Water District Offices in Fountain
Valley, California. The meeting announcement and attendance
low
list are included as Appendix B.
At the meeting, each of the participating agencies
described their authority, on-going activities, and responsi-
bilities for Bolsa Chica planning. The meeting participants
agreed on a set of Policy Limits, Technical Scope, and
Objectives for the Study:
1. Policy Limits
The planning and potential development of the
Bolsa Chica Wetlands Area is a major issue in Orange
r County, involving local, county, and federal interests.
The Bolsa Chica Reclamation Study should not become in-
volved in the political and environmental issues sur-
rounding development plans .for Bolsa Chica.
'r The proper scope of the Reclamation Study is a
straightforward technical analysis of the physical facili-
ties, as well as capital and operating costs, of conveying
ti
110
-7-
r
flow from Water Factory 21 to a delivery point at Bolsa
Chica. No on-site hydraulics or network analysis is
appropriate at this time: that would be part of a more
detailed on-site utilities plan compatible with the Local
+.r
Coastal Plan for the development of Bolsa Chica.
.r
2. Scope and Objectives
Those attending the Initial Meeting also reached
general agreement on the Study' s technical scope and
objectives:
o To identify one or more technically feasible
plans for conveying reclaimed water to the Bolsa
++ Chica wetlands for the purpose of marsh restora-
tion.
o To define the technically feasible plan in terms
of physical layouts of pumps, pipelines and
appurtenant facilities.
o To estimate water quantity needs for marsh
flow-through and make-up of evaporative losses.
ar
—8—
low
o To estimate water quality and permit require-
ar
ments for the intended use.
o To estimate capital, operating, and annual costs
for each technically feasible plan.
d
o To discuss the institutional requirements of an
operational project, including administrative
and legal responsibilities .
It should be emphasized at this point that the
present Study does not make a judgment as to whether a
restoration program utilizing reclaimed water is desir-
able. That is a decision which would have to be considered
as part of the Local Coastal Plan. This Study explores
the technical and financial requirements of delivering re-
claimed water to Bolsa Chica, if it were found to be
desirable by proper authority.
e.
a.�
NO
-9-
rr
CHAPTER 3
400
�.+ WATER QUANTITY NEEDS
A. Introduction
The annual water needs for a marsh restoration pro-
gram can be analyzed in two categories: (1) flushing flow, to
prevent stagnation, nuisance growths of algae and bacteria, and
�+ vector problems, and (2 ) make-up water, to replace net evapora-
tive losses . Net evaporation refers to the excess of evaporation
over rainfall, and varies seasonally.
The demand for flushing flow and evaporative make-up
water depends on a number of underlying variables such as
seasonal operating cycle, wetted marsh area, mean depth of
water, net evaporation rate (by months ) , and mean annual turnover
rate. This chapter analyzes water needs for broad variations
er
in the underlying variables, then makes specific assumptions
which are used in Chapter 5 to analyze delivery system sizing
and cost.
B. Analysis of Flushing Flow
At the initial meeting for the Bolsa Chica Reclamation
ar
Study, the participants agreed on the following annual cycle:
m
bw
-10-
two
wo WET MONTHS 8 DRY MONTHS
Natural Artifical (reclaimed) Water
stream is Imported to Meet Marsh
low run-off Needs
meets
marsh needs
wo
Dec. 1 Apr. 1 Nov. 30
From December 1 to April 1, the freshwater marsh
low
habitat would be maintained by diversion of rain runoff from
natural streams tributary to Bolsa Chica. From April 1 to
November 30 there is an 8-month "dry cycle" when the marsh
would be maintained by reclaimed water imported from the
Fountain Valley area. At the initial meeting it was also
agreed that the mean depth of water over the wetted area could
Ono be assumed to be one foot (1 ' ) .
Finally, based in part on earlier work performed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and unpublished work now
underway by the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers, the wetted acreage
should be analyzed within a range of 300-1200 acres . This
range is believed to be consistent with Orange County' s draft
plans under its Local Coastal Program, and with the general
scope of work required by the California Coastal Commisssion as
a permit requirement.
Under the above assumptions, annual flushing demand
can be expressed as the product of mean depth of water, in
feet, multiplied by mean turnover time, in weeks, and
d.
—11—
r wetted area, in acres. This relationship is graphed on Figure 1.
The equation governing Figure 1 is as follows:
`" Annual Flushing Mean depth 36 weeks
Flow = of water x Wetted Area x Mean turnover
(in acre-feet- (in feet) (in acres) time (in weeks )
+••� per-year)
The term on the right for "turnover time" has been corrected
for the 8-month-dry/4-month-wet annual cycle. The term refers
to mean turnover time relative to the shortened 8-month, or
36-week, time span.
Meari turnover time is often expressed as "% turnover" ,
where, for example, 100% turnover refers to one complete replace-
ment of the marsh water volume during the 8-month dry cycle.
Figure 1 correlates mean turnover time, in weeks, with the
turnover" variable on the right vertical axis . As an example,
if the wetted area is 600 acres, the mean depth of water is
1 foot, and the mean turnover rate is 18 weeks, i.e. ,
200% turnover within a 36-week period, then the
Annual Flushing Flow = 1 foot x 600 acres x 36 weeks
(depth) (area) 18 weeks
(200% turnover)
= 1,200 acre-feet per year.
The annual flushing flow will later be added -to the evaporative
make-up requirement to determine the total water need for a
marsh restoration program.
FIGURE 1
.. BOLSA CHICA FLUSHING FLOW REQUREMENTS
ro
JT
GL ySHi�f/6 FLOW�PEQ'U/�E'E/>
,D,Py CycGE SOO ��� So
w
;000Afy
7) Z4 i
Y
2,000�fy 2 '
'� 3,oao,4Fy
/1
¢ 9uo
0
-4 iao 200 boo ¢oo ;do 7410 Bae 906 i000 Iwo ;Zoo
r .1/o1'E; Mr.o IV 4Y4(7:f pl'cFl�
Foor
ar
—12—
too
From Figure 1, it can be seen that the annual flushing
flow would vary generally between 1, 000 AFY and 4, 000 AFY,
depending on specific assumptions.
r
C. Analysis of Evaporative Make-up Requirement
Figure 2 illustrates the general relationship between
evaporative make-up water, net annual evaporation rate, and
wetted acres. In general
Annual make-up = Net evaporation x Wetted Area (in acres)
r•+ water (in AFY) rate (in ft/yr)
Again, because we are interested in the imported or artificial
water requirement during the 8 dry months of the operating
cycle; we want to define the net evaporation rate as feet of
water evaporated during the April 1-November 30 (8-month) dry
low cycle.
To illustrate, if the net evaporation rate during the
April-November dry cycle averages 3 .3 feet in the Bolsa Chica
area, and if the wetted surface area is 600 acres, then
Annual make-up water = 3.3 ft/yr x 600 acres = 1, 980 AFY
.r
tow
FIGURE 2
BOLSA CHICA MARSH LAND EVAPORATIVE
MAKE-UP WATER DEMAND
ww
w �V.4Po�4.4 T/YE Ga ssES
/o /ODD 2,000 3 000 ¢000
Indtow
�000 s o� QFy_
w
tow
q 9
B
`d Q 6 `� M441V 4mVa.44-
EYA,OD�PArioN
+�+ � S •PATS =.3.3 FT�U.P.
%w
4,000
lt4
".'
goo
u.r
O i410 Zoo 300 40a soo rood 700 doe goo ioao //cd 120a
ww
Ni,ErrE.0 Af,6.4.0
dr
-13-
bow
IQ.d D. Seasonal Analysis
WW The net evaporation rate must be determined seasonally.
Figure 3 illustrates the seasonal relationship between rainfall
and evaporation, as determined for the Long Beach area by the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Long Beach is
viewed as a climatologically similar area to Bolsa Chica. Net
evaporation is calculated as the arithmetic difference between
evaporation and rainfall (i.e. , evaporation-rainfall ) during
each month. It can be seen from Figure 3 that evaporation has
historically exceeded rainfall during the period March-November,
with rainfall exceeding evaporation during the December-March
two winter cycle.
WW For present purposes, we can calculate net evaporation
based on the historic March-November dry cycle for the Signal
`d Hill Station. During this period shown on Figure 3, the long-
term statistics on rainfall and evaporation are as follows:
IEW
o Average annual rainfall. . . . . . . . 1.0 feet
o Average annual evaporation . . . . . . 4.2 feet
o Net annual evaporation . . . . . . . . 3 .2 feet
0 Net evaporation (dry cycle) . . . . . . 3 .3 feet
FIGURE 3
ww LONG BEACH STATION AT SIGNAL HILL
RAINFALL VS. EVAPORATION
SrArisr/cs /44:r4/ZJ 6LA7-
8 �EYAPo.�I.gTio•ti a y�"�
H Y/,eA*-- rt NNUA C Ev e ro c a reN-Sa N w.
Avas. ANwiAd, NsrEv.4w4Ar14y -j8"woo
7 /Ysr.E✓Aoaaar/oN�ifs,/,e-,t'or)-¢6" 33'
r.i
taw 6
S
and
bmw
bod
V
� 3
2 �
�.4/N�.4L L oYE,Q
ww /00 yE.4,Q YfX 4G.F
v4w axe APR MAY Jam elwy '06 .SEDr acr Noy DEG
`-:47-w aw,rEo ow leeaw -r ,-,:;p47,ow �..9. o'ovvey FLoao CoivT.PoG D-sT
W
FIGURE 4
BOLSA CHICA WATER REQUIREMENT ASSUMING
600-ACRE WETLAND MARSH
TOTAL �YArE,?
/
_As wu4i- D,MAaD ,3yeiyl4,f
k1w /' O/ EvAPO,P,4 TN�p GOSJLsS Z�DODAFy
/ � • /DD�D rl�.P,V�Y��P ��o DO.4�Y
go
/ / QQ Ei�AR f /OD�Tu.PNOYE�Q=2GDOAfY
3 E✓�,D. tloo °a r�.P,vays,p=3,ZOOAFY
how
Q S000 /vOfarol
¢so moi�foii�s
� mo�sh
4-YAP0 e4ri vG [a$S.ES
SOO
j.
bow
,06� J�� FEB ,s1,gR APB Ica y r/uNf r/b�y ,9vG sEo ��- .vc✓
-14-
ap
Figure 4 combines the above analyses of flushing flow
rr
and evaporative make-up in order to determine the total water
r„ requirement for a marsh restoration program. The net evaporative
make-up requirement of 3 .3 feet per dry cycle is taken from
Figure 3 . The flushing flow is determined from Figure 1, based
on a 600-acre wetted area, and assuming a selected percentage
(%) turnover. In Figure 4, the total water requirement is
calculated for both 100% and 200% turnover rates during the
April-November dry cycle, for a 600-acre marsh.
The data in Figure 4 would be doubled for a 1,200-acre
marsh, or halved for a 300-acre marsh. Similar ratios can be
calculated for other marsh sizes.
Figure 5 generalizes the analysis shown in Figure 4
over a broad range of values for wetted acreage and % turnover.
We want to be able to calculate the total annual water demand
for any value of wetted acreage and mean turnover time (or
turnover) . For example, a 500-acre wetted area and a mean
turnover time of 24 weeks (or 50% turnover) during the 8-month
dry cycle, translates into a total annual water demand of about
2, 000 AFY.
'�' The equation governing Figure 5 is obtained as follows:
FIGURE 5
GENERALIZED CHART OF. BOLSA CHICA WATER DEMANDS
w
00
S6 ;od a Aft` 2,oaoAFy �;�ODgFy ¢,dDO,�Fyj
- SD
Z
� S,ODD�Fy j
�V a6 Ida
32
?e
O iL
a¢
J
20
16
/Z
�.r 400
6
0
p io0 2O0 30O ¢00 SOD God 700 BOO 900 /000 11100 /100
ur
wl,6rrLW A.eEA,
two
-15-
O+
,a:i o Total Annual Water Demand = Annual Flushing Requirement
+ Evaporative Make-Up
_ (mean water depth) x
(wetted area) x
bw
(% turnover/100 ) +
(net evap. ) x (wetted
area)
fto
Rearranging and combining terms, we obtain
o Total Annual Water Demand =
rr
Wetted Area (% Turnover/100 + 3 .3 ) ,
which is the desired result, where we have
substituted the values Mean Water Depth =
+� 1 foot, and Net Evaporation = 3 .3 feet/year.
In general, Figure 5 indicates that total water demand would
tend to fall into the range of 1,000 AFY to 5, 000 AFY, depending
on specific assumptions. In Chapter 5, delivery system layouts
„d and costs are evaluated relative to annual water deliveries
within this range. The goal is to generate facility needs and
costs for a broad range of possibilities concerning future site
development.
W
-1-
CHAPTER 4
WATER QUALITY NEEDS AND
POTENTIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
Reclaimed water contemplated for use in a marsh
restoration program must meet two kinds of quality require-
ments: (1) public health criteria appropriate to the degree of
public contact with the water; and (2) water quality criteria
deemed adequate to prevent nuisance conditions (overgrowth,
two
algal matting,, insect vectors, odors) from developing in the
00 receiving waters. As a practical matter, both the public
health and water quality criteria for a Bolsa Chica program
would be issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region.
IAW It is not possible for the Regional Board to provide
specific criteria in the absence of a specific project, including
a proposed point of discharge and plan for use of the reclaimed
water. The Regional Board's requirements would depend upon
whether the receiving waters were to be restricted from public
access, or whether swimming and boating would be permitted.
Similarly, the quality requirements for the reclaimed water
,r -2-
would depend on the day-to-day operating regime to be used:
duration of wet and dry cycles, degree of mixing with saltwater
tidal flows, and flow-through rates.
State Bays and Estuaries Policy
In May 1974 the California Water Resources Control
Board adopted a Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries of California. As it pertains to marsh reclamation
programs, the Bays and Estuaries policy requires that it be
wr
demonstrated that the reclaimed water will enhance the receiving
waters and affected marsh lands. This policy is enforced by
�..+ the Regional Boards through the NPDES permit program. Procedur-
ally, when a wastewater discharge to a marsh is proposed, the
`r project sponsor petitions the Regional Board for an NPDES
permit containing all the conditions which must be met. The
Regional Board would then issue a temporary permit to conduct a
demonstration program to show the enhancement required by the
policy. A successful demonstration would lead to a permanent
NPDES permit for the full-scale program. At this writing, the
Irvine Ranch Water District is conducting such a demonstration
w
program in the Newport Bay vicinity under a temporary permit
issued by the Santa Ana Regional Board. The results may be
applicable to the Bolsa Chica area.
hot
-3-
ASSUMED WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Informal discussions conducted with the Santa Ana
Regional Board indicate that a reclaimed water source which
meets the Department of Health Services ' (DOHS ) highest treat-
ment requirements under the California Administrative Code,
Title 22, would meet the health criteria for the intended use.
..+ The Green Acres Project must also meet the State's highest
quality requirement for irrigation waters distributed to parks
and golfcourses. Therefore, the Regional Board believes that
Green Acres effluent would probably be suitable for use as a
Bolsa Chica restoration water source, especially in regard to
meeting public health requirements. The Regional Board staff
cautions, however, that day-to-day marsh management would have
to be designed to prevent nuisance conditions from arising,
such as undesired algal growths, odors, or insect vectors.
The Regional Board would expect to comment further on
the technical requirements of a marsh management program at
such time as a specific proposal is made. The Board staff has
indicated that it will cooperate with any agency desiring to
formulate such a proposal. For present purposes, the Study
will proceed on the assumption that Green Acres effluent would
1�1
be suitable for a Bolsa Chica restoration program, and that
management plans can be devised (and demonstrated) to prevent
nuisance conditions from arising.
r.r '
-4-
w Table 1 is a summary of effluent quality character-
istics for the proposed Green Acres Project. The constituents
" which are of primary interest for Bolsa Chica planning are the
total coliform and fecal coliform values of 1.9 and 0 .05 MPN/100
milliliters, respectively, the phosphate value of 0 .07 mg/liter,
and the turbidity value of 0.5 FTU. The coliform MPN values,
combined with the turbidity measurement, are indicative of a
+� highly clarified and virologically safe effluent under the
criteria established by the California Department of Health
services in the Administrative Code, Title 22 . The unusually
low phosphate value is based on the assumption that the Green
r
Acres effluent will be lime-clarified. If so, the low phos-
phate value would simplify marsh management by limiting plant
growth. If the decision is made to filter, rather than lime-
clarify, the final effluent, marsh management would have to
accommodate a higher inflow of plant nutrients.
r
TABLE 1
GREEN ACRES PROJECT
PROJECTED RECLAIMED WATER QUALITY
Average
Constituents Units Value [a 3
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 1,040
Total Hardness mg/1 260
- ' Turbidity FTU 0.5
Electrical Conductivity µmho/cm 1,591
pH 7:7
Color units 18
Ammonia Nitrogen mg/1 30
Organic Nitrogen mg/1 1.5
Nitrate Nitrogen mg/l 1.0
Phosphate - P mg/1 0.07
Boron mg/1 0.67
Sodium mg/l 223
Potassium mg/l 15
Magnesium mg/1 2.5
Calcium mg/I 249
Chloride mg/I 249
Sulf ate mg/1 286
Silica mg/1 11
Fluoride mg/l 0.92
Carbonate mg/1 55
Bicarbonate mg/l 85
Cyanide mg/1 0.037
MBAS mg/I 0.17
Phenol mg/1 0.009
COD mg/1 26
two TOC mg/l 11
Total Colif orm per 100 ml < 1.9 [b 3
Fecal CoIiform per 100 ml < 0.05 [b3
tow
Silver mg/1 0.0007
Arsenic mg/1 < 0.005
«+ Aluminum mg/l 0.0415
Bor ium mg/1 0.0219
Beryllium mg/1 < 0.001
Cadmium mg/1 0.0031
Cobalt mg/1 0.0029
1 of 2
TABLE 1
j GREEN ACRES PROJECT
PROJECTEP'RECLAIMED WATER QUALITY (continued)
Average
Constituents Units Value_[a]
Chromium mg/1 0.0085
Copper mg/1 0.0209
Iron mg/1 0.0627
Mercury mg/1 0.0005
Manganese mg/1 0.005
Nickel mg/1 0.0293
Lead mg/1 0.0003
Selenium mg/1 < 0.005
Zinc mg/1 < 0.10
[a] As sampled from October 1979 to September 1980.
_,Mel
[b] Green Acres water will receive additional chlorination
prior to distribution.
hug
hmd
how
1 _
-1
r
7 .
2 of 2
how
Now
CHAPTER 5
bw
DELIVERY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS
w
A. Sources of Reclaimed Water
er
Four alternate sources of reclaimed water for Bolsa
Chica have been considered:
1. Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant. Owned and
operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, tertiary effluent is presently used
r
to irrigate E1 Dorado Park in the City of Long
Beach. An irrigation system expansion within
Now
Long Beach is presently in design stages .
Looking to the future, it may be feasible to
"" convey LBWRP flow into Orange County (under
Joint Powers arrangements) to irrigate agricul-
00
tural areas at the Naval Weapons Station in Seal
aw Beach. If so, the planned distribution lines
would terminate (in 18-inch diameter) approxi-
mately 4 miles northwest of Bolsa Chica, and
would conceivably be extended. Like Green
y Acres, the LBWRP tertiary-treated water meets
r
Chapter 5 -2-
,., the DOHS ' highest Title 22 criteria. The ex-
tension into Orange County could become feasible
lo" during the mid- to late-1980s.
w
2. Seal Beach Water Reclamation Plant (proposed) .
This facility has been contemplated as a joint
venture between the Orange County Sanitation
JU+ Districts and the Orange County Water District,
and would be located in the Seal Beach Naval
`o Weapons Station vicinity. Historically, the
project has been viewed as a sea-water intrusion
r.r
barrier modelled after the Water Factory 21
prototype, and employing advanced treatment
technology including reverse osmosis. In recent
amid years, project planning has been deferred owing
to high rates of increase in the cost of fossil-
fuel electricity generation.
The earliest feasible construction date now
appears to be well into the 1990s. If con-
structed, approximately 4 miles of pipeline
would be needed to convey flow to Bolsa Chica.
3. OCSD Regional Plant No. 1 (without Green Acres) .
RP No. 1 produces a high-quality activated
MW
ap
Chapter 5 -3-
..r sludge (secondary-treated) effluent, which is
presently chlorinated for discharge to the
Pacific Ocean. In the absence of the Green
Acres Project, use of RP No. 1 effluent would
ar
essentially require much of the investment
presently scheduled for Green Acres, but without
the off-setting revenues from sale of water.
The specific facility requirements would include
plant modifications at Water Factory 21 to
filter or lime-clarify the RP No. 1 effluent and
re-channel the flow, a low-head pump station to
deliver effluent to Bolsa Chica, rehabilitation
of a portion of the existing 30-inch sea-water
line extending southerly from WF 21, and con-
struction of 4-5 miles of new 12-20-inch dia-
meter pipeline to convey 2, 000-4,000 AFY of flow
from the 30-inch seawater line to receiving
«r
works in the Bolsa Chica vicinity.
+� 4. Green Acres Project. Planned for construction
in the early- to mid-1980s in two or more stages.
The Stage 2 Project (see Figure 6) would term-
inate approximately one mile from the upper
northeast reaches of Bolsa Chica, in a 12-inch
diameter pipeline, at Huntington Beach Central
Park.
%W
CO Chapter 5 -4-
so B. Ranking of Sources According to Feasibility
Table 2 is a summary ranking of the four reclaimed
water sources listed above. The primary factors used in the
evaluation were (1) the feasibility of the pre-requisite or
underlying venture, (2 ) the incremental cost of extending the
underlying project to serve Bolsa Chica, (3 ) earliest feasible
construction date, considering the current planning status of
the underlying project.
tow It is readily seen that the preferred option would be
a short extension of the Green Acres Project. This option is
wMi highest in technical feasibility, lowest in incremental cost
for a Bolsa Chica extension, and earliest in potential construc-
and tion date.
The only other option which appears to be a practical
possibility at this time would be an extension from the Long
Beach WRP in Los Angeles County. However, this project would
be contingent on implementation of an inter-county irrigation
project to service farming interests at the Seal Beach Naval
rm
Weapons Station.
Due to the complicated institutional arrangements,
,.. this project appears substantially less feasible than the Green
.r
TABLE . RANKING AND FEASIBILITY OF RECLAIMED WATER SOURCES FOR BOLSA CHICA
Alternative Sources
Evaluation RP No. 1 RP No. 1
Factor- Long Beach Seal Beach (without (with,
WRP WRP Green Acre) Green Acre)
1. Pre-requisites for Extension of irriga- Construction of ad- Extensive plant modi- Extension of Stage 2
use as a Bolsa tion lines into vanced treatment fications at WF 21 and pipeline approx-i-
Chica Water Source Orange County under plant for seawater other OCWD facilities, mately 1 mile to
Joint Powers Agree- intrusion barrier; 5-mile pipeline exten- Bolsa Chica .
ment; 4-mile pipe- 4-mile pipeline sive to Bolsa Chica.
line extension to extension to Bolsa
Bolsa Chica. Chica,
2. Earliest feasible Late 1980s Mid-1990s Early to mid-1980s Early to mid-1980s
construction date
3. incremental Cost
of Bolsa Chica
Deliveries
o Capital $2 million $2 million $4 million $0.5 million (typ)
o O&M $50/AF $10/AF $70/AF $35/AF.
o Total $150/AF $110/AF $270/AF $70/AF
4. General assess- Good Fair Poor Excellent
ment of future
feasibility
5. Ranking 2 3 4 1
I.
ANA
• ' p Till
1.•, � a'�d1l�i' yrn 'fie l !
Ong
1, 1r•.
fir^a: ;a ,.+� +', s►
���•�ti�l` C��'•a:► f® sLv1i�>:.ff:��.r - J.7gw
Ts
40,
'S!�� r,r''�.' S..�: ' ,.. �. .nr.' `Sq/n��� •'11�a,i , P'Id :frj!'!„�'
:�, ,pip
` ` ".pp•il, 3""l�±o •fifd:,.:! +•r l it+'
,ram
.�� �i'"j'1.'�-St.� � •� al, �f�Y'.^:;- •Y�'a► f �� �t•.tie.N 3•M� �'1 -.f y.
•\�\ � 1�,1r. � � . � ,r,l�►�,i�►p`..r::� +.,.��C.,ri�b"r),�tiji7/�� :.,�i,c •'�
��0 7 � .'.,!r�'7rlb�i�Vr'�!�/,a?'�:►.e: ''��r'E 11f�� ''` •�,
3�
i I
1.
�jNI ,r/P
�6L•�� 11S �-
ISM
Mmlffl
Mall
IV
Sir•.. ,,... gyp. /{p.� t�, ��
4` OLµsi5*i • �r�cG 1vt!
75
go-
n� a
•td7 r
3
Chapter 5 -5-
Acres extension. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter
1W
explores in greater depth the costs and operating requirements
00; of extending the Green Acres Project to serve Bolsa Chica.
C. Green Acres Extension Project
There are three main considerations in analyzing an
extension of Green Acres to serve Bolsa Chica:
,r o Facilities Needed. Identification of connecting
pipelines needed to convey project effluent to
receiving works at Bolsa Chica.
w
o Operating Limitations. Seasonal and daily
r
limits placed on Bolsa Chica deliveries as a
result of peaking demands by the Green Acres
irrigation customers.
o Cost Allocation. The cost of Green Acres water
to a Bolsa Chica Restoration Program manager
.r
would depend largely on whether the Program were
charged average or incremental costs, the latter
being substantially cheaper. Incremental cost
pricing might be used if there were a perception
of an overriding public benefit, shared more or
less equally throughout the County. Below, we
w
Chapter 5 -6-
analyze facilities and costs in relation to
potential deliveries in the range of
.., 1, 000-3 , 500AFY.
1. Major Facilities Needed for the Extension.
For present purposes, we have assumed that wide
deliveries would be made to a receiving reservoir or to distri-
bution valving located approximately at Edwards Street at
�.. Taylor Drive (see vicinity map- , Chapter 1) . This point is on
the perimeter of the Bolsa Chica planning area, and lies in the
"~ natural freshwater streambed which once fed the marsh area.
The precise design and location of the receiving works would
.r
depend on the final land-use and grading plans for the area, as
well as on the seasonal water surface elevations and desired
degree of operating flexibility for the freshwater/seawater
°w marsh area.
The Green Acres Project is presently designed to
terminate at Huntington Beach Central Park (approximately
Slater Ave. at Golden West Street) , approximately 6, 000 lineal
feet from the hypothetical Bolsa Chica receiving works at the
intersection of Edwards Street with Taylor Drive.
M.
ftni
aM
MO
Chapter 5 -7-
From Figure 4, it can be seen that a seasonal peaking
factor of about 1.5 is sufficient to offset high summer evapora-
tion rates. The potential range of annual average deliveries
and associated seasonal peaking requirements is given in Table 3.
In Table 3, we have assumed a potential range of "mean annual
flows" , expressed in acre-feet per year. The mean annual flow
is converted directly to a mean daily rate, in million gallons
per day (MGD) , correcting for the actual 8-month delivery
b
period. The mean daily rate is then multiplied by 1.5 to
obtain the peak daily rate during the driest summer months .
Finally, the peak daily rate is converted to a required pipe
"r capacity, in cubic feet per second (cfs) , on the assumption
that deliveries must be made within a 12-hour daily period.
This latter assumption is explained below.
One important design feature of the Green Acres
a••� Project is that it is required to complete all irrigation
deliveries during the 12 evening-night hours to minimize per-
sonal contract with spray from the sprinkler heads. During the
remaining 12 hours, the pipelines could be used to make deliveries
to customers who could take daylight deliveries, including the
Bolsa Chica marsh project. Therefore, we have calculated the
hydraulic delivery capacity based on a 12-hour delivery cycle.
Green Acres Project design permits service to Bolsa
Chica through 1211, 16" or 20" diameter pipelines. Each diameter
r
.r TABLE 3. POTENTIAL RANGE OF ANNUAL AND
SEASONAL DELIVERIES TO BOLSA CHICA
:■r
Ind
Item Range of Delivery Levels
Mean Annual Flow 1,500 AFY 2, 500 AFY 4 ,000 AFY
"W
Mean Daily Rate, 2.0 MGD 3 .3 MGD 5.4 MGD
(during 8-month
dry cycle)
J"
Peak Daily Rate 3.0 MGD 5.0 MGD 8.0 MGD
(1.5 x mean day)
Required pipeline-capaeit . 9.3 c f s 15 .5 c f s 24 .8 c f s
(based on 12-hour
delivery schedule)
yr
d
a.+
TABLE 4. LIMITING FLOW TO BOLSA CHICA VIA GREEN ACRES
PROJECT, AS FUNCTION OF TERMINAL PIPE DIAMETER
rr Pipe Limiting Limitin Flows
Terminal Cross- Design Corresponding
Pipeline Section Velocity Instantaneous Annual
Diameter (ft2) (ft/sec) (cfs) (AFY)
12" 0 .785 . 10 7. 85 1,266
(planned)
16" 1. 396 10 13. 96 2, 252
imp
20" 2 .182 10 21. 82 3,519
(maximum)
F.r
ar
r
ur
wr
r.r
rr
Chapter 5 -8-
corresponds to a maximum delivery rate, and hence to a limiting
marsh acreage. Table 4 correlates the diameter of the Green
Acres feeder pipeline (terminal leg, shown on Figure 6) with
maximum flow rate in cfs and to corresponding annual flow (in
AFY) using the seasonal peaking and time-of-day operating
restrictions cited above. The range of feeder diameters is
1211 , 16" and 2011 : 12" is the present planned diameter, and
rr could be used with no incremental up-sizing of the planned
Green Acres system. The 16" and 20" diameters represent incre-
mental up-sizing of the terminal pipeline branch extending into
the Huntington Beach vicinity near Bolsa Chica, and would
involve incremental capital costs for the larger pipe sizes.
4" Up-sizing beyond 20" is not considered as it would involve a
major Green Acres project expansion and re-design.
40
Table 5 shows the incremental capital cost associated
No
with each pipeline diameter. There are two types of incremental
capital cost: First, the cost of up-sizing planned pipelines,
am
specifically the 9, 000 ft. reach of planned 12" diameter extending
from Ocean View at Beach Blvd. to Slater at Golden West; Second,
the cost of extending the terminal pipeline reach by approximately
6, 000 ft. to serve Bolsa Chica. Figure 7 is a graph of pipeline,
capital costs used to estimate the data in Table 5. The cost
index ENR 3800 corresponds to January 1980 dollars.
[ [ [ [
TABLE 5. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST OF EXTENDING GREEN ACRES
TO SERVICE BOLSA CHICA, AS FUNCTION OF TERMINAL PIPE DIAMETER
Limiting Incremental Capital Cost
Limiting Up-Sizing of Extension of
Terminal Acreage Total
Pipe Annual at 100% 9,000 Lin. Ft. 6,000 Lin. Ft. Incremental
Flow from 12" to to Bolsa Chica
Diameter Turnover Capital
(AFY) Indicated at Indicat d
(acres) Diameters Diameter Cost
12 1,266 294 0 $276,000 $276,000
(planned)
16 2, 252 524 - $108,000 $390,000 $498,000
20 3, 519 818 $270,00.0 $480,000 $750,000
(maximum)
a. Incremental cost. of expanding from 12" to 16" is $12/lin. ft; from 12" to 20" is $30/lin. ft. ,
all at ENR 3800 (Jan 1980) .
b. Installed costs; 12" = $46/lin. ft; 16" _ $65/lin. ft; 20" _ $80/lin. ft. (ENR 3800) .
��i���111111t11111tllitttl�i111111flliflii!!!II
t�
��rr��r.■rrr� .—�..— rrwro .. .r..r rr.w.uuwrr.rrrr.
��w.■a��rr■■a�iaa as•raaa[aras--aaarr rrara.asr■[■.[r.[■rraaaar.
,_r��...�...rr��..r.w.r.r—rr. • Iraaraaalar■■l■[l//r.aaaarr
: . �ra�a.araa�re•as!/��ae•a���ran�.■ •e.rrarrararr[alr[l//e.aaaaasa
�a.�raaa�r��ae,��aaa�a���s,war�a■ I�raarara/ra[■l[[araraasa>.r.
���St�l•t!!�>rr V.!•at•rf t•...I.�IR1.11111��A.•.�1:pl. UM.
• r���r.t_�=I.RI..l�� �� l�/tsifteRlf�lf.t.1111111 ■
� ., ���s�llw�lt�■■ :It■■tit■���I�H�IIIIII■■>t■�■■11
rr���r�rs�wwrw.r r.r rraa--raarunu[ua/u/rraaaaar
a:-..ro—rwrrwraaa.a■.■a Sam rrarirs
�a��aaaaaiSOMMIraafaal� �Ir�■[■iiatiia�ararai/nr/[[atsaaa�ao
' � a—�a��aa�rr�[�r�r� rr�iriaiia--��iii�i■wiiiii■iiiraaaarr.
.r.�r�r�r�raa■ra�r■e.r� ��lararlrs—rarrraarra[■l■[ll■rrarrrr■
��rRaaa:•�ass�ae,�aat a�.at•nraa.r..ra/raaa+.aaraara�/n//raa[rar.a
Vass•t�t1111��!••ttiil.l■�lllllllll�ltl.■.t■
l ��r>rt��tA�'.f�t•1•�.t•.11�t•�t•�.�tl./R\R1RIll[llR�...aa■
��f���t�ttt/I!�!•�•.•.11����tf�!•../R11111i1111���.•!r■
—�t��et!!IllS�t•t•1111t1.t•����tli M.I.RIRIllll/itat•■■.t•f
!•M��il•■����/> I'll ��>■■111I11>tl■Ililllill>t■■■■fll�
����Ii�>s��■>•■■��1lll■■■■�i11111�1�(IIIIi1•■t�■)f■�
1 .w�...r�.�rwr.�r r..�.��rr��—�r ar arars w.a wrararoraru■nr■r aarrao
�.���a'w1>•�rr...r rrr■�r—.■arra■r a w—raaorsan/a[aar[aa[r a a r a.a■
��r[r��r��[r��arrw[r.—=—asanuw—raasrrruaaanuurrvaraa
t_��>_�.�a���r.r..r��r.--arrar■awa.narr=u■rauumur.[rrrrr
��a��ala.aas,.aars.raa[r1�a■llrralaa�raarr■/nLl[[rrraataa
���IS�t,�ll�I��t�tARR>t�l<t•!♦•>r.lnsRlf Illtlt�tf..r.tt■
a�/�l.elssslR.�.aaa�S!l�lt•�IR.�.11aaltl�Rl.�.lal.rlllllll.lafar.fA.t■
• ���R..n�ns��alr>.>r�>•��.a�i�a������.�.Ir�nt1u11■ong>..as
VOM
s���at>_I�>•■��>•t�l■�■r■■��>t>tn11■■>.�■�u■s�.a��uln r■■�■Ir�e
��� --��Ilil���liitl111[Illlllll�Illllil
a �����iU��il11lIII1111I1lIUIIIUII!'�illllllt
�������IIIIII�III11111IU1U`�i til�llllllllllt
�����Itlll�l,":iillllllllf1111111111II11
f !I
Chapter 5 -9-
2 . Operating Costs and Limitations
Under the assumptions stated above, Green Acres
operations would not impact Bolsa Chica deliveries, except to
limit those deliveries to the 12-hour "day-light" period. This
is a conservative assumption, as it might be possible to utilize
a portion of Green Acres hydraulic capacity during the night-
low time hours while irrigation deliveries were in progress.
However, since the irrigation and Bolsa Chica deliveries would
both be peaking in the same July-August summer months, the more
conservative assumption will be used.
w
The incremental operating cost of serving Bolsa Chica
is primarily the cost of pumping. Under the planned system
design, the Green Acres pumps would utilize approximately
550 kWh/AF in energy to make Stage 2 deliveries. At 6.5� per
kWh, this translates into an incremental electric power cost of
about $35/AF. Because Bolsa Chica would represent a lower lift
than the average customer, it would contribute less than the
average load on the system, particularly since deliveries would
be made during a time of day separate from the irrigation
deliveries. However, for conservative estimating purposes we
will use $35/AF as a current estimator of incremental O&M cost.
.r
two
4"
VW TABLE 6. INCREMENTAL COST OF EXTENDING GREEN
ACRES PROJECT TO SERVICE DOLSA CHICA WETLAND AREA
(ENR 4500)
WW
ADProx. Approx. Capital Unit Costs, $/AF
A2inuar Wetted Cost Annual
-Flow-. Acreage (Table 4) c Capitals O&Me Total Cost *
(AFY) (acres)b
1,250 300 $327, 000 35 35 70 $87 ,500
(12"
diameter)
service
2, 250 525 $590, 000 35 35 70 $157, 500
r (16"
diameter)
service
3, 500 800 $888 ,000 34 35 69 $242, 000
(20"
too diameter
service
a. As estimated in Table 3, based on 12" , 1611 , 20" diameter service
connections.
b. Based on 100% annual turnover rate; see Figure 5.
c. Taken from Table 4, but scaled upward from ENR 3800 to ENR 4500.
d. Assume amortization of 12%/20years; multiply capital recovery
factor of 0•.13388 times -capital .cost, and divide by annual flow.
e. Based on 550 kWh/AF delivered, at 6 .54/kWh.
dr
r
No
00
ad
Chapter 5 -10-
3 . Cost Allocation to Bolsa Chica
The extension of Green Acres to serve Bolsa Chica has
an incremental cost which has been estimated in terms of the
capital cost of up-sizing and extending pipelines, and the
direct cost of pumping. The basic assumption below is that the
Orange County Water District, if requested, would probably
serve Bolsa Chica at incremental cost.
Table 6 contains the incremental cost calculations,
stated at current price levels (approx. ENR 4500 ) . The unit
cost of service to Bolsa Chica, stated in $/AF, is approximately
bob $70/AF, in current dollars, and is largely independent of the
quantity of water delivered. The annual cost of cost of service
4' would be approximately $90, 000/yr for 300-acre wetted area;
$160,000/yr for 525 acres; and $240, 000/yr for 800 acres, all
bw
based on the stated assumptions.
moo
It should be noted that the incremental cost analysis
,d assumes that Bolsa Chica would not be charged pro rata for the
use of capacity in the main pump station and distribution
`" mains; or engineering, administrative, and legal costs; or
operating labor and materials; or other costs necessary to
LMEO
build and operate Green Acres. If charged on an average cost
(or pro rata) basis, the cost of service to Bolsa Chica might
,�
be 4-5 times the figures cited above. However, incremental
Chapter 5 -11-
wcosts might be charged if it could be shown that extension of
service was for the general good of Orange County residents,
and there were no unjust subsidy involved.
i
tri
LI
I► I
-i
i
ii
U
i
i
�i
�I
i
CHAPTER 6
INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROBLEMS
A. REQUIREMENTS
The primary requirement for a Bolsa Chica Marsh
Reclamation Program would be a sponsor capable of and willing
r to finance and operate such a program. This sponsor could be a
single agency or government entity, or a joint powers agency
consisting of several entities acting together under stated
rules. Either way, the sponsor would have to take the following
general actions, or their equivalent:
1. Acquire the Necessary Authorizations and Powers.
a. Petition Orange County to add the reclamation
program to the Local Coastal Plan, compatible
with the land-use planning for the Bolsa Chica
area.
b. Petition the California Regional water Quality
Control Board for a permit (perhaps a temporary
permit) to undertake a marshland reclamation
program using reclaimed water.
Chapter 6 -2-
c. Meet with the Orange County Water District to
ascertain the term, conditions, and costs of
obtaining service through the Green Acres Project.
2 . Enter into Joint Management Agreements with Other
Entities to Develop On-Site Facilities Plan and
Management Plan
a. Contingent on acquisition of a suitable reclaimed
water source, execute a mutual operating agreement
with the Orange County EMA, the California DFG,
and the U.S. Corps of Engineers to coordinate
freshwater/saltwater operations .
b. Based on the joint management agreement, enter
into detailed studies with the partner agencies
and the land owner to develop an on-site facil-
ities plan and management plan, consistent with
the Local Coastal Plan and other applicable
State and Federal plans for the area. Form
technical and policy advisory bodies to assist
the Study effort.
r
Chapter 6 -3-
3 . Establish Financial and Management Structure
Based on detailed facilities plan and management
plan, execute the implementing agreements .
bw
These would be a series of agreements necessary
(i ) to acquire the reclaimed water supply, (ii)
aw
to construct the necessary off-site and on-site
aw facilities, (iii) to hire a management team
capable of long-term system operations.
r
B. PROBLEMS
The above steps can only be stated in general terms
at this time, in the absence of a program sponsor. If a program
r sponsor can be identified, with adequate financial and operating
capability, then a detailed chart of actions could be developed.
In any event, there are certain technical problems
which are inherent in the reclamation concept, and which would
have to be faced by the sponsor:
1. Potential Nuisance Conditions.
r Reclaimed water is an excellent growth medium for
aquatic life. Combined with sunlight and pleasant
r
temperatures, high levels of algae and littoral plant
Chapter 6 -4-
growth could be predicted. Once set in motion, it is
not entirely predictable what biological conditions
..� might develop in the marshland, or what operational
steps might be required to maintain an aesthetically
pleasing environment. The management authority would
require financial reserves well beyond the "probable"
r
or estimated operating budget to be capable of handling
all operating contingencies. There are inherent
uncertainties in managing a biological system, and
these uncertainties may translate into unanticipated
costs.
ri
2. Public Acceptance/Public Participation
,r Under current land-use plans, the marsh area would
stand in rather close proximity to very expensive
commercial and residential property. The level of
acceptance of the reclamation-fed marshland by the
prospective land-owners is not known, and could lead
to problems after a substantial financial commitment
had been undertaken. A thorough public decision-making
process would be necessary in advance of the program
to avoid controversy after the program was underway.
m
r
rr
Chapter 6 -5-
3 . Legal Standing of the Program Sponsor
A key step for the program sponsor is to assure
itself that it has or can acquire the powers neces-
sary to manage the program. For example, could an
agency having adequate financial capability and
operating expertise--and having used its best efforts
*� to accommodate the interests involved in Bolsa Chica--
be challenged in its authority and asked to vacate
�r after the program was underway? Would a special
district have to be formed by the State Legislature?
This is a question which is beyond the scope of this
,r Study, but which would require a qualified legal
opinion at the outset of program planning.
r
CHAPTER 7
CONSTRAINTS AND QUALIFICATIONS
This is a reconnaissance-level inquiry whose primary
purpose has been to estimate the water quantity requirements
and approximate cost of delivering reclaimed water to receiving
works in the Bolsa Chica vicinity for the purpose of maintain-
ing a marsh area. As a technical effort, the major policy-
level questions have not been addressed herein:
1. Is a reclaimed water-fed marsh an aesthetically
desirable venture for Bolsa Chica?
r
2. Can a marsh program be designed to be compatible with
••� State and County land-use plans? If so, what are the
physical design options and limitations?
ae
3 . Who has the authority--or the power to grant the
authority--to undertake a marshland program, given
the interplay of private, City, County, State, and
Federal rights and authorities within the planning
4+ area?
4. Who would be the preferred sponsor or management
authority to undertake such-.a program?
nut
r
Chapter 7 -2-
5. What would be the source of funds to construct and to
operate the facilities, and to manage the affected
1 ands?
In addition, the technical analysis herein was per-
formed without making assumptions concerning the operating
regime. Therefore, a generalized model was used to calculate
w evaporation losses, flushing flows, and seasonal peaking require-
ments . If a decision is made to perform further analysis, then
tw water demands should be re-calculated based on actual proposed
operating plans, and the results used to refine the facility
ur
needs and costs reported in Chapter 5. The costs developed
herein are believed to be realistic in estimating water delivery
costs, however, the reader is cautioned that on-site facilities
and marsh operating costs have not been estimated.
Finally, the basic concept of a marshland program
must be predicated on a successful demonstration of aquatic
enhancement pursuant to the California Bays and Estuaries
Policy, and upon suitable legal arrangements with the land-
owners and affected agencies.
ea
ad '
• i
APPENDIX A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
GRANTED
' ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11
lw ON
NOVEMBER 15, 1978
BY THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
�J
taw
� 1
r
i
"ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIOV - - —
63 sward Street,San Francisco 94105— Ws) 5. 3555
C O A S T AL DEVELOPMENT P E R M I T
On November 15, 1978 , by a vote of 9 to 0 T the California
�+ Coastal Commission granted to Orange County Sanitation District No. 11
Permit A— 253-78 , subject to the conditions set forth below, for development
consisting of construction of approximately three miles of sewer interceptor
more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at
`r alonE the seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway from Lake Street to Brookhurst Street,
northeasterlv on Brookhurst Street and along Newland Street City of Huntington Beach.
After public hearing held on October 16, 1978 , the Commission Found
�- that, as conditioned, the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions
of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976; will not prejudice the ability
of the local goverment Having ,jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal
Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California
°'w Coastal Act of 1976; if between the sea and the public road nearest the sea, is in
conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act of 1976; and either (1) ;,till not have any significant adverse
a+ impact on the environment, or (2) there are no feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse
impact that the development as approved may have on the enviroment.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Ccmmi.ss' on ra, A �� 197R
low
Executive Director
By r
f
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of the California Coastal Commission,
Permit A— 2U-78 , and fully understands its contents, including all conditions
few imposed.
ate ZrZL1' ee
tow
-2-
"" Permit A- 253-7g is subject to the following conditions:
A. Standard Conditions.
1. Assij=-•nent of Permit. This permit may not be assigned to another person
except as provided in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 13170.
2. Notice of Receirt and AeR nowledanent. Construction authorized by this
permit shall not 7; nence until a copy of this permit,. signed by the permittee or
authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of its contents,
is returned to the Commission.
3. Mmiration. If construction has not commenced, this permit will e_,m=* s
.. tiro (2) years from the date an wirLch the Commission voted on the application.
cation for extension of this permit must be made Dx--or to the axmration date.
4. Construction. All construction must occur in accord •4th the proposal as
set forth in the application for permit, subject to axq special conditions set forth
below. Any deviations from the approved plans roust be r-s ie:,red by the Co=zd se-on.
Pursuant to Calif c=i.a Admi n%strati ve Code, Title 14, Sections 13164-1316E.
ar
. 5. Interpretation. Interpretation or revisions of the terms or conditi=s of
this permit must be reviewed by the State Coastal Commission or its Executive
Director. All questions regarding this permit should be addressed to the State
Commission office in San Francisco unless a condition expressly author-zcs review
by the Regional Conmri.ssicn or its staff.
B. Spacial Conciiti.c4ns.
1. Semi ce Area. The service area for the proposed• interceptor shall. not in-
elude�+ elude the Bolsa Chica wetlands, shovm generally on H hibit 4, and the applicant
shall neither Quarantee nor provide service to any development within that arsa prior.
to certification of the Local Coastal Program for the area. Further, the apoLcant
tow shall not cause the lands in question to be "assessed for benefit" from the approved
project. Prior to initiation of construction, the applicant shall submit a District
Board resolution, in a form approved in writing by the rxecuti;re Director of the Com-
WO m .ssion, assuming that the lands in question -dil rot be considered for an e:cation of
the district prior to July, 1981, except as consistent with a certified Local Coastal
Program.
2. Consti-action L-macts. The approved project shall be constructed in phases,
and that portion of the project along the sand dunes on the seaward site of Pacific
Coast Highway in Huntington State Beach sha-11 be tamed to minimize construc:._cn J'J^pac ,s
in the area. Every effort shall be made to coordinate construction tiiaing with the
proposed redevelopment of Huntington State Beach by the Departme_*nt of Panks and Vic.ea-
tion under a valid coastal permit. If no Der•nit for redeveio pens has been obtained by
the Department of Parks and Recreation by September, 1979, contraction may proceed,
and the applicant shall restore the dune area in Huntington State Park. P.estoration
shall include recontouring of the dune formations and replanting gritl1a appropriate
dune ve;etation under a landscape plan approved by the Execative L rector.
r
3. Reclamation Study. Within 60 days of approval of the per-nit appl i::ation,
li the appcant shall submit a reclamation study worn. program to the Zxecut_re Director
for approves;.. The reclamation study is intended to analyze the feasibility of utiliZzLig
Permit A-2 —78
reclaimed water to enhance and restore all or portions of the Bolsa Chi.ca wetlands.
The work program shall be developed to accomplish this study and shall include, but
r, not be limited to, analysis of costs to extend distribution lines from Treatment Plant
No. 1, both with and without the "Green Acres" project; the hydraulic profile of the
area to determine discharge points; institutional constraints.such as the reauiremer_ts
of the State Department of Health; alternative finding sources; vegetation surveys;
and soil borings to determine rates of percolation. The study shall be performed
in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and shall be completed in draft form prior to September, 1979•
tM
tMO
.r
ago
i
J
r.i
i
i�
1 � APPENDIX B
ri
INITIAL BOLSA CHICA MEETING:
r; ANNOUNCEMENT
AND
ATTENDENCE LIST
J
i
I
r
e�
ism
�d
i
f�l
1�1
i
`I
Orange and Los Angeles Counties
WATER REUSE STUDY 0 Water Reuse Study
1111 Sunset Boulevard,Los Angeles,Calif./Mailing Address: Box 54153,Los Angeles,Calif.90054
,.r
Telephone: (213)623-4572
September 14, 1981
MEMO TO: State, Federal and County Agencies with Bolsa Chica
Planning Authority
FROM: Wiley Horne, Project Manager
Orange and Los Angeles Counties Water Reuse Study
SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA RECLAMATION STUDY; INITIAL MEETING AT
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT OFFICES
1. Meeting Announcement
I 'd like to thank you in advance for participating in
this initial meeting to get our effort off on the right foot. A
map and directions are attached.
MEETING PLACE: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
LOCATION : 10500 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
DATE : WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1981
TIME : 9 :30 A,M, TO 12:00 NOON
2. Background
The Bolsa Chica Reclamation Study is being conducted
by the Orange County 'Sanitation Districts to meet a legal require-
ment of the California Coastal Commission. Upon completion, the
Study will be submitted by OCSD to the Coastal Commission to
satisfy a permit condition placed on the Districts ' Coast Trunk
Sewer. The Sanitation Districts have requested that the OLAC
Water Reuse Study help prepare the Bolsa Chica Study in coopera-
tion with your offices and other interested parties. T_ anticipate
the Bolsa Chica Reclamation Study to be a Letter Report of
•The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region A
• Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts California State Water Resources Control Boaro
ur • Orarge County Sanitation Districts California State Department of Water Resources
• Orange County Water District California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Los Angeles Region
• City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Ana Region
• City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Southern California Association of Governments
No
-2-
approximately 30 pages (plus maps and exhibits) to be delivered
•+ to OCSD in 3-4 months. The first priority is that this Report
be satisfactory in scope and approach, and consistent with your
respective policies and plans.
3. Study Goal
Your thoughts are needed on what the Bolsa Chica Study
goal should be. Based on our telephone conversations so far, I
tentatively suggest that the goal of this work should be to
identify the most feasible plan for delivering reclaimed water
to Bolsa Chica for the purpose of marshland restoration, and the
financial requirements for carrying out that plan.
4 . Scope, Objectives, Constraints
The main purpose of the September 23 meeting is to get
a group consensus on the scope, objectives, constraints, and
technical approach to the Study. I would suggest the following
as a starting point for discussion:
SCOPE . . . . . . • To identify one or more technically feasible
plans for conveying reclaimed water to
Bolsa Chica for the purpose of salt marsh
restoration. The plan should include the
following: facilities layouts and design
capacities; seasonal water deliveries (for
flushing + evaporation loss make-up) ; engi-
neering, construction, and operating costs;
potential agency responsibilities for manage-
ment and operation.
�+ DECISION . . . . f Should the plan analyze on-site release
points, marshland hydraulics, and seasonal
operating procedures? I would suggest
Md leaving these as design-level problems.
OBJECTIVES . . . • To identify realistic project layouts, design
capacities, and costs at different levels of
"' reclaimed water delivery, e.g. , 1,000 AFY,
1,500 AFY, 2,500 AFY. Seasonal variation
in flushing flows and evaporative make-up
W, to be reflected in project design.
• To analyze the technical feasibility and cost
of using effluent from the proposed Green
`r Acres Project to help restore the marsh.
r
-3-
• To estimate the water quality require-
s, ments and legal permit conditions govern-
ing release of reclaimed water to the
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel and to
the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Area.
• To identify the on-going management duties,
cash-flow needs, and legal obligations of
MW the operating entity.
CONSTRAINTS . . . a. Available water. A key problem is to esti-
mate the amount of reclaimed water which
would be available during each month via
the Green Acres Project. Deliveries to
Bolsa Chica would have to be compatible
with peak day, peak month, and seasonal
operating conditions during early and later
years of Green Acres Project operation.
Limiting hydraulic conditions could occur
during the Green Acres peak delivery
months of June, July, and August.
b. Water Quality. The Green Acres Project
will deliver a water quality which meets
State of California Title 22 "unrestricted
recreation" requirements, as commonly
applied to stream discharges. This water
quality must be compared with the RWQCB' s
tentative requirements and guidelines for
°• effluent discharge to both the Wintersburg
Flood Control Channel and the Bolsa Chica
Wetlands.
c. Use of Wintersburg Channel. Physical
delivery of reclaimed water to Bolsa Chica
could involve use of the Wintersburg Flood
Control Channel. Use of the Channel,
including any structural modifications
(inlet channel, turnout works) , would have
to be approved by the Orange County EMA
and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The
Reclamation Study should reference any con-
straints which these agencies anticipate
would be necessary, as well as any future
plans to improve the channel.
.r d. Bolsa Chica Wetted Acreage. Assume a range
of 300-1300 acres, per analysis by U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service (see attached
letter) .
`1
-4-
e. Other Issues. Certain considerations
cannot be fully addressed at this time,
but should be identified as implementa-
tion problems. These may include financial
responsibility for preventing nuisance con-
ditions, such as, mosquitos or undesired
algal matting, the need to coordinate
seawater/freshwater releases to the marsh,
.r consistency with Corps of Engineer plans
now under development, and consistency
with State and County plans for Bolsa
r Chica.
5. Bring to Meeting
It will be most helpful if participants can bring
along copies of pertinent reference material -- maps, reports,
guidelines, agency plans, and anticipated permit conditions.
These will eventually have to be referenced. We can save several
weeks of mailing time and interoffice correspondence' if you can
bring these materials with you.
6 . Preliminary Agenda
Please see attached. We can change as needed at the
meeting. See you there.
WH:fr
Attachments (4)
Enclosures (2)
w
r
rr
ear
.. BOLSA CHICA RECLAMATION STUDY
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
FOR
SEPTEMBER 23, 1981
wo
1. INTRODUCTIONS
.r Identify agencies involved, their responsibilities, author-
ity, and current plans relative to Bolsa Chica. Establish
names of contact personnel.
r
2. SCOPE OF WORK
We need to reach a general agreement on each of the following:
a. Sources of effluent .
Water quality constraints on the effluent
c. Conveyance routes; e.g. , surface channels and/or pipelines
r
d. Point of delivery at Bolsa Chica
v
e. Probable range of wetted acreage, and mean depth of water
f. Probable pattern of seasonal flushing, e.g. , number of
turnovers desired during each season of the year.
g. 'List of all issues and constraints to be considered.
.r h. Where should this Study stop?
3. NEXT STEPS
Establish date of Draft Report to your agencies, review period,
and submittal of revised report to OCSD.
•,a
MAILING LIST
Jim McGrath Bill Clark
�r California Coastal Commission Orange County Sanitation
631 Howard Street, 4th fl Districts
San Francisco, California 94105 P.O. Box 8127
(415) 543-8555 Fountain Valley, California 92708
Sharon Lockhart (714) 540-2910
Dale Pierce Lola Handy
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Orange County Water District
Div. of Ecological Services P.O. Box 8300
2400 Avila Rd. Fountain Valley, California 92708
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
-+ (714) 831-4270
Don Lollock
California Department of
Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-1383
Ron Hein
Department of Fish and Game
111 27th Street
Newport, California 92663
(714) 684-9330
,., Claude Wong
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
300 N. Los Angeles St. , Rm 6647
Los Angeles, California 90053
(213) 688-5407
Bob Nicklen
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
6809 Indiana Ave. , Suite 200
�w Riverside, California 92506
(714) 68.4-9330
Herb Nakasone
r Orange County Environmental
Management Agency
811 No. Broadway
Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 834-5392
FROM ORANGE COUNTY A/P FROM LOS ANGELES AREA
"W Exit A/P north on MacArthur Take 405 (San Diego Frwy) South
•• to S.D. Freeway (405) to Fountain Valley
Take 405 north, exit on Take Euclid Avenue off-ramp
. / `j:. ., � Euclid off-ramp Turn right (west) onto Ellis Ave.
Erd PEN �""�� . OPEN j Turn right on Euclid, and 10500 Ellis Ave. is 1/2-mile on
Y, �• immediately right on Ellis the left
10500 Ellis Ave. is 1/2-mile
on the left l
+ yt AIIY,INOB7I.F.(lJ Hti.11Y-fHF.R�°
Wei
ja
s s BIiRBANK ERMAIM
AtUAW
E
—ILI
1• +•` � • � � -�.�`ill..� �'a• o,.,.,
� - c.l, s_ A$AOENAV7
in �� L• "� _ -0- -
•STUXI
_ ! 1l-*" = f 1 iflff. i v.ret.'- SEE on
NOWWUDD I -
• :I. p +�.. AlMA1ElAA I E _ .� „�.. �"`
two
•�i• j '� •' �� t� � E}L IKMTE� .i..�..`.. _ ar.n tr a
J �•a a, �� - r , 'a L...! •`•r S= ; :a 3, y NEST COYIMA� - '~
LOS
.t ^ � j Y1R0 (01�14 ��j Y � f •�r
�a ) t YtSAif7.Plt r j• AfYQA `� W WM \
Y.n..ri xa'7 j i•• .mmm •• l" f OKLEW= 7i •,s �• , .�.5
No
W=CATS • „,\ I �` j
•� \ -- -- -< a }-t ;�; .� _-- � ♦eesta __eovNrr
a MAWTYX R t ETIINO� u
� � � •r, I� ��- � t u,o,r l � --.I,
>a, _ •IIfMA MAx E... tlriLnll
INIEE,OM7!
Ki"H~(', 9 z, �. :� ! -ram u,Yr.i �.F. L•
Y.>o. -— -
nsttta - + r ± ;� •: •..-. c•wig , i
_h -•� I ..,t-
�► � • mm, .. rr�+a �*��- h � ifiAROElI 6ROYE`I .,. +_— �.
ttr �,�, Q 1 ti AAv�. 7■'� awe.. I %ran ANAI s
rr ARC IL �!(
I F I C 4 0 C E A .V
A i
� K 11.'*E♦
{ •1 - tIA1
4(1
i
Aft
r
EUCLID OFF-RAMP TO ELLIS AVE.
✓.,,.,.� S� e.... " L ...tiP5 � � I / cocci
•OS �y t I 1 I /:.
TAL9E�T AT �eeMACARTMUR s
� .v~ g�osoo I 8 S Q laoo b' coo
y YS 3 �
�7s-i ! 1O_••.� nny _ O ,7d Wlltlo.Ll•
T.Col
on
•IS�.r.in �• 7 w =EI�A�c V /� AFC � �.
VWl. .µ .�• ' ; yCG ti�
iiA1�01dAA.ST+7
C nOwn=
0� I AV / � 3 � t
kAle3
Yt1
Y�
4P/
No
1410
d
d
ti+
1
�//,CES' /�RNC DING lr//�JT� �'GU.� ✓71�c/
0•
IAJ:ay
tow of
Iq
am
boo �T
lqw
�I
I �