Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-07_MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, May 7, 2003 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 3 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: AD HOC COMMITTEE_ MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Patty Campbell, Director Debbie Cook, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Don Webb, Alternate Director Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Directors Absent: Norm Eckenrode, Director Jim Silva, Director/Supervisor Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance Carol Beekman, Communications Manager Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Adriana Renescu, Engineering Supervisor Jean Tappan, Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Don Hughes, Supervisor Silva's office Larry McKenney, County of Orange Norris Brandt, IRWD Richard Boone, OCPFRD George Edwards, OCPFRD Chris Compton, OCPFRD Garry Brown Randy Fuhrman Julie Bixby Dean Albright Eileen Murphy Mary Sue Thompson Monica Hamilton Gerhardt Van Drie John Shafer David Hamilton Jan Vandersloot FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ORANGE C01 WTV C- A *OITATiON DISTRICT MAY 2 8 2003 Julie Bixby and Dean Albright asked the Committee to consider the purchase and conversion of the Shea Property in Huntington Beach for a natural treatment system of wetlands. Randy Fuhrman spoke on the staff recommendations on the agenda and asked that the Committee continue to accept urban runoff and to consider other means for treating urban runoff. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 May 7, 2003 (4) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The minutes of the September 26, 2002 meeting were ordered to be received and filed- (5) REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Don Bankhead did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER Mr. Blake Anderson reported that ACA10 has passed out of committee and will go to the committee on elections later this month. The Legislative Advocacy Committee is working on strategy. Director Cook asked the public to support this amendment and suggested alternative ways to fund urban runoff through existing fees. Larry McKenny stated that cities have a legal responsibility and liability to handle urban runoff and the County is in the process of determining policy questions on partnering before the state requires this. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS — Item A A. Urban Runoff Program Evaluation and Program Development and Implementation 1. Seek approval of the Ad Hoc Committee to continue the Urban Runoff Program to accept additional urban runoff discharges above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD for the next three years (2003-2006). 2. Seek direction of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a policy regarding user charges when urban runoff flows accepted by the District exceed the 4 MGD fee threshold. 3. Contract for the services of a consultant to evaluate the technical, institutional and cost issues associated with continuing the District's Urban Runoff Program and expanding it beyond the 10 MGD cap to meet anticipated needs. Dr. Robert Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services, led a discussion with presentations by Adriana Renescu (OCSD) on the Urban Runoff Background and Status, and George Edwards (OCPFRD) on the County of Orange Dry Weather Urban Runoff Plan. Ms. Renescu provided the background and key facts of the District's program. There are now 16 diversion systems that discharge to the District's sewer system. Flows are about 2 MGD and 16 proposed diversion systems by the County will increase the flows to the District to close to the 4 MGD threshold. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 May 7, 2003 Mr. Edwards provided a briefing on the preliminary findings of their Stormwater Program Dry Weather Diversion Study. He indicated that they continue to validate the findings and explained the objectives. He located the existing and proposed diversions and described the various types of diversions and the estimated cost comparisons. He then described the County's decision making process for evaluating and constructing diversions, which include POTW considerations. The report should be complete by June 30, 2003 and collaborative discussions will begin thereafter on future direction. Ms. Renescu made a presentation on the findings of the OCSD program and expectations for the next three years. Phase II will provide for the development of the long-term urban runoff program. The actions before the Committee are to approve the continuation of the Urban Runoff Program; approval to accept flow above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD; provide direction on developing urban runoff user charges; and fund Phase II development and implementation including the use of consultant services. A discussion on Prop 218 restrictions followed. If passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor, ACA 10 will place before the voters a constitutional amendment to allow municipalities to raise fees for storm water and urban runoff management. The District would not be allowed to directly seek support of the proposal and will have to rely on others to promote the merits of exempting urban runoff fees from Prop 218 requirements. There is a need to educate the city council members and the public on the program and funding mechanisms. Norris Brandt described how the San Joaquin Marsh Wetlands natural treatment process worked and explained some of the costs. The Committee members discussed a wide range of issues including regulatory mandates, mission of the ad hoc committee, time frame, constraints, presentations to city councils, roles of impacted agencies, inland city participation, legal opinion on 218 restrictions, funding mechanisms, objectives, how to do the program most efficiently, impacts if we don't manage the resource, and a discussion on how we are going to implement the program and how to pay for it. Director Roy Moore left the meeting at 4:45 p.m. After discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to: 1. Continue the Urban Runoff Program to accept additional urban runoff discharges above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD for the next three years (2003-2006) and move to Phase II. 2. Seek direction of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a policy regarding user charges when urban runoff flows accepted by the District exceed the 4 MGD fee threshold. 3. Contract for the services of a consultant to evaluate the technical, institutional and cost issues associated with continuing the District's Urban Runoff Program and expanding it beyond the 10 MGD cap to meet anticipated needs. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 4 May 7, 2003 (9) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY There was no other business discussed. (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 beginning at 3 p.m. Committee members directed staff to summarize the key issues for further discussion at the next meeting. (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair pro tern declared the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Submitted by: an Tappan, Cloernittee Secretary ' G:Iwp.dWagendalAd Hoc CommitteesVrban Runo/fl050703AH Committee draft Minutes.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice and the Agenda for the Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Thursday, May 1, 2003. 2003. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of May, ,i V Penny M. IC le, Secre ry Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District Posted: '2003, P.M. By: - Q �L� ��� (T Signa r G:\WP.DTA\AGENDA\AD HOC COMM ITTEES\URBAN RUNOFF\COMMITTEE POSTING CERTIFICATION FORM.DOC ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NE phone: 1714) 952-2411 fax: (7141 982-M5E www.acsd.com NOTICE OF mailing address: I?C. Box 8127 Fountain Valley. CA AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF 92728.8127 street address: 1U84ii Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley. G4 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 927Q8-7018 Member WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 - 3 P.M. Agencies 0 Cities DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Anaheom Brea 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Buena Park FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grave Hun06gton Beach lrsine A regular meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff will meet at the above Le Habra date and time to discuss issues of pertaining to urban runoff throughout Orange La Palma Los Alamitos County. Newport Beech orange Placencia Santa Ana Seel Beach Stanton Tustin Ville Park Yor-ba Linda County of Orange Sanitary Districts Casts Mesa M+duoay City Water Districts lrone -Ranch To maintain world -class leadership in wastewater and water resource management. ROLL CALL (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: Mav 7. 2003 Meeting Time: 3 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Ad Hoc Committee Members Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair..... . .......... Patty Campbell, Director .......................................... Debbie Cook, Director .............................................. Norm Eckenrode, Director ........................................ Beth Krom, Director ................................................. Roy Moore, Director ................................................. Tod Ridgeway, Director ........................................... Jim Silva, Director .................................................... Shirley McCracken, Board Chair ............................. Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair ........................... Others Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel .................... DonHughes............................................................. Don McIntyre, Consultant ......................................... Vicki Wilson, County of Orange ............................... Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach ............................. Bob Beardsley, City of Huntington Beach ................ Scott Baugh, Consultant ........................................ Mike Wellborn, County of Orange ............................ Ken Schiff, SCCWRP............................................. Dr. Stanley B. Grant, UC Irvine ................................ Norris Brandt, IRWD.............................................. Larry McKenney, OCPFRD...................................... Staff Present Blake P. Anderson, General Manager ...................... Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services ............. David Ludwin, Director of Engineering ..................... Gary Streed, Director of Finance/Treasurer ............. Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance.. Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager .................... Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist ................... Jim Colston, Sr. Regulatory Specialist ..................... Carol Beekman, Communications Manager ............. Jean Tappan, Secretary ........................................... c: Lenora Crane AGENDA MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE RE: URBAN RUNOFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 AT 3 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Board for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item, or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. All current agendas and meeting minutes are also available via Orange County Sanitation District's Internet site located at www.ocsd.com. Upon entering the District's web site, please navigate to the Board of Directors section. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Board Secretary's office at (714) 593-7130 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to allow the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM. 1F NECESSARY May 7, 2003 Agenda (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS All persons wishing to address the Steering Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to three minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approve minutes of the September 26, 2002 Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff (5) REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (8) A❑ HOC COMMITTEES DISCUSSION ITEMS (Item A) A. Urban Runoff Program Evaluation and Program Development and Implementation 1. Seek approval of the Ad Hoc Committee to continue the Urban Runoff Program to accept additional urban runoff discharges above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD for the next three years (2003-2006). 2. Seek direction of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a policy regarding user charges when urban runoff flows accepted by the District exceed the 4 MGD fee threshold. 3. Contract for the services of a consultant to evaluate the technical, institutional and cost issues associated with continuing the District's Urban Runoff Program and expanding it beyond the 10 MGD cap to meet anticipated needs. (9) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING 2 May 7, 2003 Agenda (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (12) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee Meeting will be scheduled at the meeting. (13) CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. A. Convene in closed session, if necessary B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT jt GAwp.dta\agenda\Ad Hoc Comm ttees\Urban Runofl\050703 AH Convnittee Agende.doc Notice to Committee Members: To place items on the agenda, Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary Ten (10) days in advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: Don Bankhead (714) 738-6311 (Fullerton City Hall) Secretary: Jean Tappan (714) 593-7101 (714) 962-0356 (Fax) e-mail: jtappan@ocsd.com 3 DRAFT MINUTES OF A❑ HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District Thursday, September 26, 2002 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Thursday, September 26, 2002 at 4 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Patty Campbell, Director Debbie Cook, Director Norm Eckenrode, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Tod Ridgeway, Director Jim Silva, Director/Supervisor Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair Directors Absent: None (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Don Hughes, Supervisor Silva's office Vicki Wilson, County of Orange Larry McKenney, County of Orange Geraldine Lucas, City of Huntington Beach Don McIntyre, Consultant Ken Schiff, SCCWRP Dr. Stanley B. Grant, UCI Norris Brandt, IRWD Randy Fuhrman Mike Rucupio STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Gary Streed, Director of Finance Lisa Murphy, Communications Manager Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Adriana Renescu, Engineering Supervisor Jean Tappan, Secretary Director Roy Moore was appointed Chair pro tem in Director Bankhead's absence. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (4) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The revised minutes of the August 29, 2001 meeting were ordered to be received and filed. They were previously approved. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 September 26, 2002 Board Chair Shirley McCracken asked that introductions be made because of the many guests. (5) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER Mr. Blake Anderson gave an overview of the committee's activities to date and stated that the goal of the Ad Hoc Committee was to define the District's participation and role in the regional urban runoff program. (6) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (7) DISCUSSION ITEMS — Items (A-F) A. Update on latest urban runoff and stormwater research findings including microbial source tracking Mr. Ken Schiff, Deputy Director of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and Dr. Stanley B. Grant, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at UC Irvine, provided an overview of the studies being done on water quality in the ocean and on the beaches, specifically how urban runoff impacts the quality. Mr. Schiff provided an overview of the big picture of monitoring and the results in the Southern California Bight, an area from Point Conception north of Santa Barbara to Punta Banda, Mexico near Ensenada, or about 690 miles of shoreline. He described the existing monitoring efforts, which are greater than in any other part of the country and explained the limitations of monitoring programs. He reported on the results of three studies done in summer 1998, Dry Winter 1999 and Wet Winter 2000. He stated that an epidemiology study would need to be done in order to address changes to the existing bathing water health standards. There has only been one such study done and that was in Santa Monica Bay monitoring three drains only. Another is planned for San Diego. These tests cost about $1.6-1.9 million each and are paid for by agencies at this time. SCCWRP is lobbying EPA to select a study site in California, particularly Southern California. SCCWRP is currently planning a study that will simultaneously test a variety of bacterial source tracking methods and determine the best method to differentiate among human and animal sources of fecal indicator bacteria. Dr. Stanley Grant explained his research and the problems encountered identifying sources of contamination and then ways to fix the problems. His research is designed to better understand the variability of water quality in the surfzone itself. Using hourly test results from an OCSD study his goal is to attempt to identify where the sources are, what they are and, ultimately, how to treat them. Both the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh have been identified as sources and appear to be influenced by the changing tides. Continued study is necessary to determine what actually triggers an event and the sources that may be causing pollution events further upcoast from the River and Marsh systems. B. IRWD's Urban Runoff Program using Natural Treatment Systems Norris Brandt, Assistant to the General Manager-IRWD, explained the agency's planned San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System. It is intended to Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 September 26, 2002 handle dry weather runoff by placing small man-made wetlands throughout the IRWD watershed. About 70% of the nitrogen will be removed from the runoff, as well as 50,000 tons of sediment and 10,000 pounds of phosphorus and prevent them from reaching the Upper Newport Bay, as well as providing a natural resource, riparian habitat and wildlife and water quality benefits throughout the watershed. This is a joint effort among IRWD, the County of Orange and the cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Orange, Newport Beach and Tustin. Sixty-five sites have been identified and construction of the first 37 sites is expected to cost about $30 million and annual O&M costs are estimated between $2-3 million. The build out is expected in 10-15 years. Mr. Brandt said that the COE is following this project closely because it is considering similar facilities on the San Gabriel River. The County of Orange is also interested in it as a possible solution to Coyote and Carbon Creek cleanup efforts. C. Regional management strategies related to urban runoff, water quality and watersheds throughout Orange County Mr. Larry McKenney, Manager, Watershed and Coastal Resources Division, Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department, stated that the County is focused on how they are doing business. The County is being driven by regulatory requirements in the new storm water permits, beach closures and beach erosion. They have embraced the watershed approach and will employ Best Management Practices in the Storm Water program, which will be developed on a county -wide basis. It will include education, developing a watershed model and capital facilities. They are also pursuing research on source tracking methods. Hot spots are being identified and prioritized. A retrofitting opportunities master plan is being developed and should be completed in June. It will present a general approach to a regional solution in partnership with other agencies, including OCSD. Meetings continue between the County and the District on refining what the shared and overlapping responsibilities are. D. Status of City of Salinas Proposition 218 Case Tom Woodruff, General Counsel for the District, explained the case and the court's decision and the likes and differences between it and our situation. It is his opinion that the District could collect a user fee to treat the urban runoff, but not for any capital expenditures without going through the 218 process. E. OCSD Urban Runoff Diversion Program Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist at OCSD, provided an update on the current program. He described the existing temporary and permanent diversions that the County has installed. There are 16 systems in operation with 1 proposed. The flow from these diversions is about 2.5 mgd, well below the allowed 10 mgd. Flows are projected to increase to about 2.9 mgd. Staff is in the process of planning a triennial review of the program that will make recommendations based on the findings at a future Ad Hoc Committee meeting. A list of questions that the directors need to address is being developed. This will be an agenda item for the next Ad Hoc meeting. Mr. Meregillano reported that there have been no adverse impacts on the District's operations to date as a result of taking these urban runoff flows. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 4 September 26, 2002 F. Wrap up and schedule next meeting Board Chair McCracken directed Mr. Anderson and Director Bankhead to determine the date for the next meeting. (8) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY There was no other business discussed. (9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff meeting will be scheduled after consultation between Chair Bankhead and Mr. Anderson. The fourth Thursday of the month continued to be the preferred day for meetings. (12) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (13) ADJOURNMENT The Chair pro tern declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Submitted by: C J an Tappan, Commi ee ecretary GAwp.dtaWgendaW Hoc CommitteeslUrban AunoMO12402 draft Ad Hoc Committee Minutes.doc Me5/7/ODate � To Bd. of Dir. AD HOC COMMITTEE 1 AGENDA REPORT Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Originators: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Adriana Renescu, Engineering Supervisor Tom B. Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Program Evaluation and Program Development and Implementation GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Item Number 1. Seek approval of the Ad Hoc Committee to continue the Urban Runoff Program to accept additional urban runoff discharges above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD for the next three years (2003-2006). 2. Seek direction of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a policy regarding user charges when urban runoff flows accepted by the District exceed the 4 MGD fee threshold. 3. Contract for the services of a consultant to evaluate the technical, institutional and cost issues associated with continuing the District's Urban Runoff Program and expanding it beyond the 10 MGD cap to meet anticipated needs. SUMMARY The Orange County Sanitation District's (District) Urban Runoff Policy, OCSD 01-17 (Policy), directed staff to evaluate the Dry Weather Urban Runoff Program (Program) and determine the impact of the urban runoff discharges on the District's core operations. ■ Since the start of the Program in 1999, the District has accepted up to 2.0 MGD from 16 urban runoff diversions during summer months for treatment, primarily at Plant No. 1. Based on the total annual urban runoff flow received for the past three years, the cost of operation and maintenance to the District is $1,030,000. The District's cost for program administration and runoff testing is approximately $200,000 per year. The majority of pollutants detected in urban runoff are below the District's sewer discharge limits. On several occasions, certain pesticides were detected at levels above the District's local limit of 0.01 ppm. Results of screening tests indicate that toxicity is not a concern with current flows. The District has received 15 proposals to divert more runoff to the sewer over the next three years. If approved, projected flows would approach the 10 MGD cap established by the District's policy. Staff proposes to hire a consultant to conduct a detailed evaluation of the impact of these higher flows on the District's operations and to evaluate other treatment options to manage the projected volumes of urban runoff. Staff estimates the cost of this contract at $350,000 over the next three years. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY A total of $350,000 is estimated for urban runoff consulting services over the next three years: FY 2003/04 — $100,000; FY 2004/05 — $150,000; FY 2005/06 — $100,000. Staff will work with the County of Orange and its member agencies to look for cost -sharing opportunities as well as pursue grants to pay for this work. BUDGET IMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The County of Orange has prioritized and proposed an additional 15 diversion systems for the region. At this time, The County of Orange has not yet provided the District with estimated flow volumes for each of the diversion systems. However, as these diversions come on line, it is likely that the flow to the District will exceed 4 MGD. The District's urban runoff policy establishes a 4 MGD fee threshold below which there is no charge for treatment to its member agencies. Once flows exceed 4 MGD the policy requires all urban runoff dischargers to pay the cost of treatment. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may call for more diversions of urban runoff under the provisions of enforcement orders it plans to issue to eliminate chronic beach contamination. If this occurs, staff believes urban runoff diversions to the district will reach, or possibly exceed, 10 MGD over the next three years. As the volume of urban runoff diverted to the District increases, it will be important to understand the impact of this additional volume and develop a long term strategy for managing the additional urban runoff. The Policy mandates that urban runoff dischargers pay $321 per million gallons of flow diverted to the District when cumulative flows exceed the 4 MGD threshold. The user TM:wh G:\wp.dta\agenda\Ad Hoc Commitlees\Urban Runoil\050703 AH UR AR10.doc Revised: 2-15-02 Page 2 charges only cover operation and maintenance costs. Based on a recent evaluation of the District's fee structure, the current user charge for urban runoff would be $329 per million gallons. Currently, 16 diversions —both pumping stations and flood channels —are discharging to the District's sewerage system. The diversions are owned and managed by the County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, City of Newport Beach, and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). In accordance with District policy, the diversions are interrupted during rain events. The District has instituted a permitting system that requires the permittee to monitor flow and quality and delineates conditions of discharge to protect the District's facilities and ensure compliance with the ocean discharge, biosolids and reclamation requirements. An important policy issue for this committee to consider is whether to retain or modify the 4 MGD threshold for user charges. As noted above, the flow is expected to increase to over 4 MGD in the near future as new diversions are accepted. The following table illustrates the cumulative annual total that would be paid to the District collectively by all urban runoff dischargers with and without this threshold: Annual Cost With 4 MGD Threshold Annual Cost Without 4 MGD Threshold Average Discharge A Average Discharge B Average Discharge C 2 MGD $0 $227,000 4 MGD $0 $454,000 10 MGD $681,000 $1,135,000 Note: The estimated annual $200,000 cost of the District's program administration and monitoring is not included in the table. ALTERNATIVES N/A CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS • Staff Report: Status Update Urban Runoff Program TM:wh G:\wp.dta\agenda\Ad Hoc Committees\Urban Runoff\050703 AH UR AR10.doc Revised: 2-15.02 Page 3 phone: (714) 962-2411 fax: (714) 962-0356 www.ocsd.com mailing address: P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 street address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 Member Agencies Cities Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra Le Palma Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park Yorba Linda County of Orange Sanitary Districts Costa Mesa Midway City Water Districts ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT May 1, 2003 Members of the Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee Subject: General Manager's Letter to the Committee Members of the environmental community have asked us questions like these a number of times: Is the Sanitation District contemplating the use of constructed wetlands to treat urban runoff in the same way the IRWD is proposing to do so in its service area? Will the Sanitation District rely exclusively on diversions to manage runoff in its service area? And most recently, could the Sanitation District purchase the 50 acres in Bolsa Chica for the purpose of intercepting and treating the contaminated runoff from the Wintersburg Channel? As you know, we haven't formally tested the concept of constructed wetlands treatment with the ad hoc committee, but we have mentioned it a couple of times as we've talked about future possibilities. I would guess that any cost-effective and logical approach to any particular problem area would be favorably viewed by the committee and by the Board. The financial (cost -sharing arrangements for the purchase, development, and operational costs), institutional (who manages the diversion or the wetland), governance (who decides about policy issues related to the diversion or the wetland), and technical (what approach should be selected for a particular site) would all have to be addressed as we consider various management options. In fact, these are the kinds of questions we are frequently asking ourselves about most of what we do. In light of the considerable cost implications of our new capital improvement program ($2.4 billion, of which secondary treatment is $444 million), I don't know where the Board's "threshold of pain" will be for long-term urban runoff management projects. As you know, the Board recently voted 13-9 for moving forward on a 5-year, 20% per year plan for increasing user rates to pay for the construction and operation of the facilities we will need in the next 10 years. Because the Board is split on the issue of accelerated user rates, I would expect that this will translate to some discretionary spending decisions as well. Just for your reference, every $1 million we spend per year adds about $1 on the user rate for a household. For operational costs, that's fairly straightforward: add a million dollars to our operating costs --add a dollar per year per household. It's proportionally higher for commercial and industrial users, of course. To maintain world -class leadership in wastewater, and water resource management Members of the Ad Hoc Committee Re Urban Runoff Page 2 May 1, 2003 For capital projects, which are paid approximately 50% from construction reserves and 50% from construction borrowings, the question is far more complicated. We must replenish the money we draw from our reserves and we must repay the money we borrow. As an example, one of the members of the environmental community has suggested that we buy the 50 acres of land in Bolsa Chica that was the subject of the April Board meeting consent calendar for approving an annexation to the Sanitation District's service area. At an assumed value of $100 million (a round number to help with making the example understandable) and 50% borrowings, then the $50 million draw down of reserves would mean $50 per household, spread over some time period, plus a payback of the $50 million borrowed, amounting to about $4 per household per year. Our existing diversions are within 3 or 4 miles of the beach, some much closer than that. However, there are issues within the inland cities too. The environmental community and the regulatory community are interested in getting as far up the watershed as possible to take care of problems where they occur. I certainly understand that concern, but I would be careful about how we decide whether upstream management is appropriate or not. I would suggest an approach like this: For channels with riparian value (that is, those with natural bottoms that support habitat for fish, birds, animals and vegetation) and that contain contaminated urban runoff with substantial amounts of pollutants of concern (that is, toxic or pathogenic materials in harmful amounts that impact or are likely to impact fish, birds, animals, vegetation, or people), upstream management should be a high priority. In this case, spending money on diversions and/or in - stream treatment would have priority as a public spending issue. However, for those channels with concrete bottoms (that is, no riparian value) or with no substantial pollutants likely to cause harm, we would give them low priority and would not spend public dollars to manage the upstream reaches. In these cases, we would consider diversions and other management options in their downstream reaches -as they near the beach. Regardless of the method chosen to control runoff, there will be costs associated with implementing a solution. OCSD is pursuing a legislative fix to allow local governments to continue their efforts to prevent urban runoff from polluting our beaches. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10, authored by Huntington Beach Assembly member Tom Harman, provides local government the authority to levy a fee for urban runoff in the same manner as water, sewer and trash services. ACA 10 is supported by environmental and business groups and local governments because it provides a way for cities and special districts to pay for urban runoff control services. ACA 10 passed its first hurdle in the Assembly Local Government Committee this week. It deserves our continuing support. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee Re Urban Runoff Page 3 May 1, 2003 If you have any questions on the issues discussed above, please give me a call at 714 593-7110. Blake P. Anderson BPA:jt 11 r, ,� _ � � ry � tip'•„: i - Sill� ►i r,w A Hdk� `4 Orange County Sanitation District to TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..—............................. .------ .,- 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ........------------------------ 1 2.1 Urban Runoff Policy ........................... . .... 3 2.2 Charter Legislation ................................. 4 2.3 Urban Runoff Discharge Permits ..................... 4 2.4 Regulatory Hierarch and Obligations Under Regulations ................................. 4 3.0 URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM STATUS ............ . ........ . . 6 3.1 Urban Runoff Discharge Permits Status ......... . ..... 6 3.2 Urban Runoff Diversion Systems and Flow ....... _ .... 9 3.3 Proposed Urban Runoff Diversion Systems.... _ ....... 12 3.4 Urban Runoff Quality .. . .. . ......................... 13 3.5 Urban Runoff Cost ................................. 15 4.0 URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM EVALUATION .................. 16 4.1 Phase I — Current urban runoff Program .............. 16 4.2 Phase II — Urban Runoff Program .................... 17 5.0 CURRENT ISSUES .................................... _ .... 18 5.1 Toxicity .................. ............... .......... 18 5.2 Capital Improvement Needs.. . . . . . . 19 5.3 RWQCB's Requests ................................ 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 5.4 Urban Runoff Program Funding ................. . . ... 19 5.5 Cost Schedule of User Charges ...................... 20 5.6 Funding and Funding Collection Mechanism ........... 21 6.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ......................................... 21 LIST OF TABLES Paqe Table 1 Urban Runoff Discharge ................ . _ _ .... 8 Table 2 Proposed Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion Systems .................................... 12 Table 3 Urban Runoff Quality ................................. 14 Table 4 Results of Marine Acute and Chronic Toxicity Tests Conducted on Urban Runoff Samples Collected March 24, 2003 .................... . . ....... 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Natural Path of Urban Runoff .......................... 2 Figure 2 Diverted Path of Urban Runoff ......................... 3 Figure 3 Regulatory Hierarchy and Diversions .................... 5 Figure 4 Agencies Discharging Dry Weather Urban Runoff ........ 7 Figure 5 Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion System Locations inOrange County .................................... 9 Figure 6 Cumulative Dry Weather Urban Runoff Flow Volumes Discharged into OCSD ....................... 11 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A District's Resolution 01-07, Urban Runoff Policy Attachment B Task Management Plan Attachment C Funding and Funding Mechanism URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM STATUS 1.0 INTRODUCTION As mandated by the District's Resolution OCSD 01-07 (Urban Runoff Policy), District staff has initiated the evaluation process of its Dry Weather Urban Runoff Program (Urban Runoff Program). The evaluation includes an assessment of the Urban Runoff Program to: 1) determine whether the District's core function of the sanitary waste- water treatment is being negatively impacted by accepting urban runoff and 2) evaluate the Urban Runoff Policy based on the future diversion of additional runoff discharges to the sewer system. The findings of this evaluation will provide direction for the continued implementation of the Urban Runoff Program. The objective of this report is to provide the stakeholders and the District Board of Directors with the status of the Urban Runoff Program and a proposed plan to further develop the Urban Runoff Program to accommodate the future needs. 2.0 BACKGROUND "Dry weather urban runoff" is generated during dry weather from routine activities such as irrigating landscape, cleaning streets and sidewalks, and washing cars. The urban runoff contains numerous pollutants such as bacteria, pathogens, pesticides, heavy metals, toxic organics, and other pollutants. This contaminated discharge flows into the stormdrain systems and eventually onto the coastline. This circumstance can cause beach closures was evident in the City of Huntington Beach. The path of urban runoff is illustrated in Figure 1. During the summer (July through September) of 1999, Orange County Health Care Agency closed approximately four and one-half miles of Huntington State and City Beaches for recreational use. The beach closures were due to high concentrations of bacteria detected on the shoreline, which violated AB 411 beach posting standards. As a result, the District, along with other local agencies, launched a series of bacterial source tracking investigations and concluded that urban runoff flowing through the Talbert Channel and the Santa Ana River onto the Huntington State and City Beaches may have caused or contributed to the shoreline contamination. The Natural Up and down the California coast urban runoff has been a leading cause of water pollution and beach closures. While it is well known Perth of Runoff that winter storms transport large quantities of pollutants to the ocean, most people do not recognize that smaller quantities of pollutants are continuously being transported to the ocean by day-to-day activities even during the dry season. Water from hoses Litter, or landscape irrigation flushes a multitude of residual pollutants oust, bird dra pings ve and pad„ ram butts into storm drains leading directly to the open ocean and poses air pollutrorr _ a potential health hazard to the public. Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and garden debris •� Illeggaal dumping of I Carlars, paint Pet cherdcals or all dmPP� i n und�� Nu d P � Oil amomotive 0 Many different pollutants are washed ' into storm drains from daily activities. LsI Urban runoff flows into storm drains and through pipes, which discharge to storm channels and/or creeks without treatment ktaks and splEs _ Urban rraroff flows directly from the storm Exhaust. rust, channels to the ocean at the surftone. weathered paint and metal plating Waves push the pollutants against the L beach while the current moves laterally along the surface. Surfzone �G.�`� Runoff is diluted as it is pulled further out into the open ocean by rip currents. Figure 1 — Natural Path of Urban Runoff Orange County Sanitation District To control and manage the urban runoff being discharged into Huntington State and City Beaches and to facilitate an immediate resolution to the problem of beach contamination, the District agreed to receive some of the urban runoff discharges into its sanitary sewer system for treatment and disposal. The District has been treating and disposing urban runoff since 1999. Figure 2 illustrates the diversion of urban runoff to the sewage system. As part of the Urban Runoff Program, the District has developed and adopted various control measures to ensure that the District's primary operational responsibility is not compromised. Such control measures include an urban runoff policy, legislation, and discharge permits. The following sections describe the control mechanisms. 2 In an effort to protect the local public health and the environment, The Diverted from the impacts associated with urban runoff, some Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) have allowed the discharge of dry weather urban runoff to be diverted into their sanitary sewer Rath of Runoff systems for treatment prior disposal into the ocean. This action has had positive effects by reducing the total number of beach closures Dud hird OWings tmer, along the California coast. retta and particles from Many different pollutants are washed air pollution into stone drains from daily activities. Pesticides, tuedrrcid" tertilizem and garden debris j Illegal BurrsPai d of cleaners, pairR ng ctren•ica�lz or ail Urban runoff flows through pipes to storm channels and/or creeks without treatment. rz Pat }EI{`, r dmPpirip 1t�3'iQO �3lpL0 Fes` Manhole Dd, rrtlperpgttlle J [oaks and spifis ewNdhored xh P— Pump pbai Oe dNdam and plating of wat rall Surfzone`5_� Figure 2 — Diverted Path of Urban Runoff Orange County Sanitation District 2.1 Urban Runoff Policy Orange County Sanitation District y Urban runoff is diverted from the 4/ storm channels/creeks to the local POTW for treatment ti At the POTW the urban runoff �i experiences the same level of treatment as domestic and Wdu5b•lal wastewater. The treated urban runoff s discharged 5 mites out into the open ocean tog feet below the surface of the water. In April 2000, the District's Board of Directors adopted a resolution (Attachment A) for accepting urban runoff during periods when there is no rain event. The resolution has been developed to reduce adverse impacts of urban runoff on coastal beaches and public health. The District's primary function —collection, treatment, and disposal of sanitary wastewater to the sewer system —remains uncompromised. In March 2001, the board amended the resolution to establish interim discharge volume thresholds along with a fee structure for the collection and treatment of urban runoff, and adopted a second resolution, OCSD 01-07, which included the following critical requirements: ® The amount of dry weather urban runoff flow to the Districts sewerage system will not exceed 10 MGD. 3 Dischargers located within the District's service area will not be required to pay any fees associated with the approved discharge of dry weather urban runoff into the District's sewer system if the total volume of all urban runoff discharges does not exceed 4 million gallons per day (MGD). If the flow exceeds 4 MGD, the dischargers will pay for the cost of their discharge, which is $321 per million gallons. • Dischargers located outside the District's service area will pay a cost of $321 per million gallons of dry weather urban runoff discharged to the sewer system. • Over the next three years, the District will evaluate the sources of dry weather urban runoff discharges, the quality and quantity of the urban runoff discharges, and the costs associated with such discharges. • The District will accept urban runoff throughout the entire year on days when it is not raining. 2.2 Charter Legislation In addition to the Urban Runoff Policy, the District developed legislation, Assembly Bill 1892, to ensure that the District can legally operate within its authorized charter and jurisdiction to collect and to treat urban runoff. Introduced and authored by the Honorable Tom Harman, Assembly Bill 1892 authorizes the District to acquire, construct, operate, maintain, and furnish facilities to accept urban runoff from drainage courses within the District's jurisdiction for the treatment or beneficial reuse of urban runoff. Governor Gray Davis approved and signed the bill in June 2002. 2.3 Urban Runoff Discharge Permits With the policy and legislation in effect, the District has implemented wastewater discharge requirements through the District's Source Control permitting program. All urban runoff dischargers are required to obtain an urban runoff permit, which consists of established discharge requirements along with terms and conditions for the general operations of the dry weather urban runoff diversion system. Prior to the issuance of a permit, all urban runoff dischargers must also enter into a legal agreement which further stipulates additional provisions related to the discharge of urban runoff into the District's sewer system. 2.4 Regulatory Hierarchy and Obligations Under Regulations The County of Orange and Caltrans, holders of the stormwater NDPES permit, are the primary enforcement agencies responsible for the urban runoff management within Orange County. However, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board provides an overall enforcement of the stormwater NDPES permits. Figure 3 illustrates a regulatory "hierarchy" for Orange County urban runoff management and summarizes the stakeholders involved. 49 r- 0 RWQCB County of ..............., Caltrans Orange Freeway HB&NB IRWD Cities Stormdrain PCH Urban Runoff Storm Drains Pump Pump Stations e Diversion Diversion Flood ...................� Channels .........i Ocean { Permitted Diversion Owner Holder and Operator of Urban Runoff Facilities NPDES •••• Urban Runoff Flow Figure 3 — Regulatory Hierarchy and Diversions Orange County Sanitation District (direct to beach To continue to reduce the impacts associated with urban runoff on recreational water bodies, the District has been working with the County of Orange to treat urban runoff contained in the stormdrain systems that chronically discharge high concentration of bacteria. As previously mentioned owners of these stormdrain systems —in this case, the County of Orange, Orange County cities, and Caltrans—have obtained urban runoff discharge permits from the District. 3.0 URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM STATUS Since the summer of 1999, the District has been collecting and treating urban runoff (Phase 1), and there has been an observed decrease in the bacterial exceedances along the state and city beaches in Huntington Beach. The University of Irvine is researching this trend as part of several other coastal issues in their study of coastal runoff impacts in the lower Santa Ana River Watershed. Phase I of the program has involved the evaluation of the sources, quality, quantity, and cost associated with the collection, treatment, and disposal of an average flow of about 2 MGD of urban runoff that has been diverted into the District's sewer system over the last three years. The following section provides a status report of the Urban Runoff Program and the preliminary findings of Phase I. 3.1 Urban Runoff Discharge Permits Status Thus far, the District has permitted 15 of the 16 dry weather urban runoff diversion systems. Since August 1999, the District has accepted urban runoff discharges from the City of Huntington Beach, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Figure 4 illustrates the agencies discharging to the District's sewer facilities. Table 1 provides detailed information about the dry weather diversions and the locations of these systems. County of City of Huntington City of Newport iRWD Orange Beach Beach 0 0 > > > m ' 0 0 0 N Urban Runoff Flood Control Storm Drain Urban Runoff Pump Station Channel Pump Station Pump Station OCSD Treatment Facilities Figure 4 — Agencies Discharging Dry Weather Urban Runoff Orange County Sanitation District V Table 1 — Urban Runoff Discharge Orange County Sanitation District Urban Runoff Diversion Systems Location Authorized Daily Discharge Tributary to Plant 1 1 Trunkline or Plant 2 No. Name Managed and Owned by City of Huntington Beach 1 Adams Pump Station 19661 Chesapeake Lane 0.893 MGD* (Cumulative Flow) Miller -Holder Plant 2 2 Banning Pump Station 2201 Malibu Lane Miller -Holder Plant 2 3 Atlanta Pump Station 8151 Atlanta Avenue Coast Hwy- Plant 2 4 Flounder Pump Station 9731 Flounder Drive Miller -Holder Plant 2 5 Indianapolis Pump Station 9221 Indianapolis Miller -Holder Plant 2 6 Yorktown Pump Station 9211 Yorktown Avenue Miller-HolderPlant 2 7 Meredith Pump Station 20192 Mainland Lane Miller -Holder Plant 2 8 Hamilton Station 10101 Hamilton Avenue Miller -Holder Plant 2 9 Newland Pump Station 8612 Hamilton Street Coast Hwy. Plant 2 Managed and Owned by City of Newport Beach 10 Newport Dunes (Gravity Flow) 1131 Back Bay Dr. NB 0.026 MGD Back Bay Plant 2 Managed and Owned by: Irvine Ranch Water District 11 Los Trancos Pump Station PCH across Crystal Cove 0.6 MGD (Cumulative Flow) South Coast Hwy. Plant 2 12 Muddy Canyon Pump Station PCH across Crystal Cove South Coast Hwy. Plant 2 Managed and Owned by County of Orange 13 Huntington Beach Pump Station 8092 Adams Avenue, HB 0.972 MGD (Cumulative Flow) Coast Hwy. Plant 2 14 Greenville -Banning Channel Atlanta Avenue Interplant Interceptor Plant 2 15 Santa Ana River Channel Adjacent to OCSD Plant 1 Sunflower Plant 1 r16 Talbert Channel Yorktown Avenue Miller -Holder Plant 2 * Subject to Change 3.2 Urban Runoff Diversion Systems and Flow During the summer seasons from May through September of each year, which are considered to be a period of high water recreational use, the District receives the most dry weather urban runoff flow volumes for treatment. Figure 5 illustrates the locations of the urban runoff diversions. un :_ WEST7dINSTER FOUN 'JN VALLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH SANTA AM\ �I u rJ IAESA nc n .yt rr� )r U i r I r ncsa NMI No- 4."" _ f BEACH f ti r yj777..+ pE;'AFP ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA y--t i AREA OF t INTEREST TUSTIN LEGEND Oz .V=urC-'ED 6. crs c,r ",. Ue� Dry Weather Diversion (1 7) "_Fo� � C..��y d� �::tee C.". , City/ Coanty Jarisdicrion FiGUU�ED e.4,Ji:F'EG 6! — Fracway / Major Street Local Street N Ylaterwoy aEvrion avE t„i. 23 ,X1 A) Delineated Watersheds in Orange County, CA A -Greenville -Bunning Channel B-The lowest portion of the lower Santa Ana River Watershed C-East Costa Mesa / Newport Beach D-Los Trancos / Muddy Creek IRVINE Uninc. LAGUNA WOODS UIGUNA BEACH Figure 5 — Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion System Locations in Orange County Orange County Sanitation District F'' As illustrated in Figure 5, the 16 diversion systems currently discharging urban runoff into the District's sewer system are located within four delineated watersheds in Orange County: Greenville -Banning, Lower Santa Ana River, East Costa Mesa/Newport and Los Trancos/ Muddy Canyon. During the summers of 2000, 2001, and 2002, the District received an average flow range of 1.8 to 2.0 MGD. In contrast, the urban runoff flows are decreased during the winter seasons. This reduction is mainly due to the diversions being automatically deactivated to prevent rainwater/stormwater from entering the District's sewer system. During the winters of 2000, 2001, and 2002, the District received an average flow range of 0.6 to 0.8 MGD. For the partial winter season from October 2002 to January 2003, the District has received approximately 0.8 MGD of urban runoff. The flow volumes are illustrated in Figure 6. 10 F O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In O In O Ln O LO Cf) ri N N r T &P ,ed swI Ie6 q2 ! ,s 19 w LL T T 3.3 Proposed Urban Runoff Diversion Systems The County of Orange is proposing the construction of additional diversion systems (estimated 15 new diversions). Consequently, the District anticipates that the volume of urban runoff it receives will increase. Table 2 specifies the locations and number of proposed diversion systems within the District's service area. Table 2 — Proposed Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion Systems Orange County Sanitation District Discharger Location of Diversion System City of Huntington Beach Downtown Area Drainage Scenario Pump Station Shields Pump Station Slater Pump Station Marilyn Pump Station Heil Pump Station Bolsa Chica Pump Station Private Coastal Development City of Newport Beach Sea Shore Stormdrain System City of Costa Mesa Santa Ana Delhi Channel City of Seal Beach West End Pump Station City of Fountain Valley Walnut Pump Station County of Orange Southpark Pump Station Harbor -Edinger Pump Station Coyote Creek Although at this time the County of Orange has prioritized these 15 proposed diversions based on their urgency, it has not yet provided the District with estimated flow volumes for each of the systems. It is highly probable that the urban runoff flow volume may exceed the District's threshold limit of 4 MGD. In such a circumstance, the District, in accordance with the current Urban Runoff Policy, is required to charge the dischargers for treatment of the urban runoff, at a cost of $321 per million gallons. It is unknown at this time whether applicants have the funding for the construction of the diversion facilities; therefore, the District cannot project the number of diversions what will be added to the inventory. 12 In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is considering actions to address its findings that urban runoff does have an impact on beach contamination and that the remaining hot spots are located around the point of discharge of urban runoff. Consequently, the RWQCB is assessing those entities responsible for urban runoff drainage and is looking at the interim solution of diverting, in a phased approach and over a number of years, up to approximately 30 MGD of urban runoff. The first focus of the RWQCB is the Santa Ana River, Newport Back Bay, and Huntington Harbor. RWQCB's top priority is the Santa Ana River discharge and the requirement that it be diverted year-round to the District's sewerage system. Currently, the Santa Ana River has been diverted during the summer season (May through October) of each year. This action by the RWQCB adds to the certainty that within the next few years the urban runoff discharge will exceed the 4 MGD threshold. However, due to the limitations of the collection and conveyance systems and the physical requirement of construction and installation of diversion and conveyance systems, the District does not expect that the volume of diverted urban runoff will exceed the originally projected 10 MGD over the next few years. The District has been working with the County of Orange to establish criteria to prioritize urban runoff diversions that have the most water quality impact on Orange County's beaches. These criteria will be utilized not only to further prioritize the diversions of urban runoff discharges, but also to allow the District prioritize the issuance of permits for the construction of diversions because of its limited collections and treatment capacity. 3.4 Urban Runoff Quality The District has been tracking and monitoring the urban runoff quality being discharged into its sewer system since the inception of the Urban Runoff Program in the summer of 1999. The data in Table 3 represents the minimum and maximum concentrations of the priority pollutants detected in the urban runoff monitoring samples. Although the majority of the maximum concentrations detected falls below the local limits stated in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations (Ordinance), the pesticide concentration result for some of the samples exceeded the local limit of 0.01 mg/L. The District has been closely tracking and monitoring pesticide concentrations and enforcing its control measures to ensure that the District's core function is not compromised. 13 Table 3 — Urban Runoff Quality Orange County Sanitation District Constituents Urban Runoff (mg/L) Local Limits Instantaneous/Daily Limit (mg/L) Pesticides ND-0.0178 0.01 Ammonia N 2 N/A Cadmium ND-0.022 1.0 Chromium ND-0.04 2.0 Copper ND-0.18 3.0 Lead ND-0.001 2.0 Nickel ND-0.15 10 Oil and Grease Min ND-32 100 PCB I ND 0.01 Silver ND-0.05 5 Zinc ND-0.31 10 TTO N D-0.029 0.58 ND-3410 15,000 Ibs/day TSS BOD ND-81 10,000 Ibs/day ND — Non -Detectable N/A — Not Applicable In addition to tracking and monitoring of priority pollutants in urban runoff, the District is currently conducting a project that is designed to screen for toxicity from streams of the 16 urban runoff diversions that are currently being discharged into the District's treatment system. The 16 urban runoff source streams are grouped by comparative land use: Group A —Agriculture and Open Space Use, Group B— Commercial and Industrial Use, Group C—Residential Use, and Group D—Mixed Use. Each group is comprised of four urban runoff sources, which are composited into one sample for toxicity analysis. The concentrations are below the District's NDPES chronic and acute toxicity limits, as shown in Table 4 14 Table 4 — Results of Marine Acute and Chronic Toxicity Tests Conducted on Urban Runoff Samples Collected March 24, 2003 Orange County Sanitation District NDPES Watershed Group Test Permit Test Type Limit A B C D Red Abalone Chronic 181 TUc 55.6 TUc 55.6 TUc 55.6 TUc 55.6 TUc Inland Silverside (fish) Acute 5.7 TUa 0.87 TUa 0.82 TUa 0.97 TUa 0.69 TUa Mysid Shrimp Acute 5.7 TUa 0.41 TUa 0.00 TUa 0.00 TUa 0.00 TUa The data provided is preliminary and should be interpreted as information only. However, using these preliminary results, the urban runoff quality does not appear to be toxic. From the toxicity screening study is scheduled to be completed by May 30, 2003. The final report will incorporated into the final results due to the Board of Directors in July 2003. 3.5 Urban Runoff Cost The District has been receiving and treating urban runoff without collecting any treatment or administrative costs. In order to meet an immediate public health necessity, the District agreed to absorb the cost to all urban runoff dischargers for the cumulative treatment flow of up to 4 MGD of urban runoff valued at $321 per million gallons for the District's operations and maintenance (O&M) cost. The fee is based on a formula that includes an assumed concentration of BOD of 20 mg/L and SS of 50 mg/L. These values are based on a preliminary estimate of the average BOD and SS present in the urban runoff and are the same as the average used for industrial and commercial dischargers. As a reference, the BOD and SS concentrations considered for urban runoff are considerably lower than those for domestic, which are 208 mg/L and 218 mg/L BOD and SS, respectively. Recent review and revision of user charges has established a new rate of $329 per million gallons, also based on 20 mg/L BOD and 50 mg/L SS. A review of the latest data for BOD and SS has confirmed the average BOD and SS levels indicated above. Table 5 illustrates the cost which the District has absorbed from 2000 through 2002. The costs shown in Table 5 do not include the District's administrative and monitoring costs of about $200,000 on an annual basis. 15 Table 5 — District's Annual Urban Runoff O&M Cost Orange County Sanitation District Year Annual Volume (MG) O&M (Treatment) 2000 401 $128,721 2001 410 $131,610 2002 445 $142,845 TOTAL 1256 $403,176 To date, the District's total incurred cost is estimated at over $1 million. Based on the information obtained, the estimated total cost for the County of Orange to construct and install the pump stations and diversion systems is $5,590,000. This estimate does not include the operational and compliance monitoring costs incurred by the urban runoff dischargers. 4.0 URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM EVALUATION As mandated by the District's Urban Runoff Policy, the District is evaluating the Urban Runoff Program over the three years of its implementation. The objective of the evaluation is to determine relative impacts associated with the collection and treatment of urban runoff on the District's operations and to determine from the findings whether the District should continue to collect and treat urban runoff. Because of the unpredictable nature of, and the difficulty in controlling, urban runoff pollutants, as well as the toxicity concerns associated with incremental increases of urban runoff flow into the District's treatment facilities, District staff proposes continuing to conduct the evaluation process and implementation of the Urban Runoff Program in a phased approach. 4.1 Phase I — Current Urban Runoff Program The current Urban Runoff Program includes analyzing the following: • Characterization of urban runoff Observable impacts on the District's collection and treatment systems, discharge standards, reclamation standards, toxicity issues, biosolids, and 16 marine environment associated with the treatment of 2 MGD, and potential impacts at 4 MGD and 10 MGD • Project flow volumes for the proposed diversion systems • Future cost and funding The District's staff has prepared a task list (Attachment B) to complete the above objectives with the completion date of July 2003. The findings will be summarized in a final report of Phase I in July 2003. 4.2 Phase II —Urban Runoff Program As indicated previously, considering the outstanding urban runoff diversion requests, the quantity of the urban runoff volume during the next few years is anticipated to increase above 4 MGD but remain below 10 MGD. This is based on the presump- tion that the District will be receiving additional urban runoff flow volumes from newly constructed diversion systems within the District's service area and that the RWQCB will proceed with additional, year-round urban runoff diversion requirements. Depending on whether the Phase I evaluation determines the acceptance of more than 2 MGD to be justified, the Phase II assessment will continue to evaluate the long-term impacts associated with the treatment of 4 to 10 MGD during the next three years. This will allow adequate time and the effective use of resources to accommodate additional urban runoff flow volumes from proposed diversions projects. In addition, this approach will allow the District and County of Orange to work together to develop and implement a long-term regional plan that involves the District's participation in the ongoing management of urban runoff within the District's service area. Phase II will involve the following: • Implementation of proposed urban runoff projects and prioritization of these projects to keep the flow volume within the District's maximum threshold limit of 10 MGD • Assessment of long-term impacts on the District's collection and treatment systems, wastewater discharge standards, toxicity issues, reclamation, biosolids, ocean discharge, and marine environment • Continued cooperation with the County of Orange in valuation of alternative disposal and treatment technologies of urban runoff • Determination of collection and treatment facility needs concerning capital improvements • Assessment of financial impacts of treating 10 to 30 MGD 17 • Assessment of regional needs for constructing additional urban runoff diversion systems If applicable, development and implementation of federal, state, and local, policies, legislations, and regulation regarding the involvement of POTWs treating urban runoff Assessment of maximum collection and treatment capacity limit without capital improvement Development of program to administer and fund long-term urban runoff program To optimize the resources, District staff proposes to obtain the services of a consultant to conduct the Phase II assessment for a total amount of $350,000 and has budgeted for the fiscal year 2003/04, $100,000 for a portion of this service. Based on magnitude of the work, this phase is anticipated to be complete by mid- 2006. 5.0 CURRENT ISSUES Several issues must be addressed to proceed with the implementation of the program on a long-term basis. The following presents the issues and the possible options and recommendations for further consideration and study. 5.1 Toxicity As the urban runoff volume increases, the mass loading of the urban runoff contaminants (such as pesticides and fertilizers) to the District's treatment system increases. This is further compounded by the unpredictable nature of, and the inability to control the sources of pollutants in urban runoff as it is diverted into the District's sewer system. At this time, the toxicity impacts that an average 2.0 MGD of urban runoff would have on the District's treatment process are largely unknown and must be further investigated. The issue of toxicity arose during 1999 and 2000, when the District conducted a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) in response to multiple ocean permit exceedances of the effluent toxicity that occurred in August and September of 1999. The findings of the investigation indicated that the effluent toxicity appeared to be caused by a synergistic effect between ammonia and hardness that may originate from the acceptance of outside flows such as urban runoff, dairy washwater, and brine to the District's facilities. In addition, the District conducted a sediment toxicity study from October 1998 to July 2001, and identified that, in October 1999, the toxicity concentrations were increasing in the sediment originating at the District's outfall. However, the District 18 has not currently identified additional toxicity issues with outfall discharge or the ocean sediment while continuing to accept urban runoff. As part of Phase II assessment, the District's staff recommends conducting a TIE on various influent sources. 5.2 Capital Improvement Needs In addition to toxicity issues, the acceptance of additional urban runoff may significantly impact essential capital improvement projects and may result in important changes to these projects. For example, the District's treatment process will dramatically change by 2013 with the upgrade to full secondary treatment. In addition, the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project will be operational. Urban runoff quality and quantity must be further evaluated to determine how they relate to and impact the capital improvement projects. Due to the sensitive nature of GWRS in applying drinking water standard, urban runoff discharges that contain contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides must be carefully evaluated both from technical and public viewpoints. 5.3 RWQCB's Requests As noted, the RWQCB is going to require Orange County cities and the County of Orange to mitigate the discharge of dry weather urban runoff impacting recreational water bodies in Orange County. In doing so, RWQCB is seeking the District's support to utilize its Urban Runoff Program to divert urban runoff from areas that have been identified as high priority, namely the Santa Ana River, Newport Back Bay, and Huntington Harbor. 5.4 Urban Runoff Program Funding As noted previously, the Urban Runoff Program was implemented as a "stop -gap" measure to address the immediate and urgent public health issue. Accordingly, the District Board of Directors adopted the following fee mechanism: The District absorbs the O&M cost for the treating urban runoff at a rate of $321 per million gallons under a cumulative urban runoff flow volume of 4 MGD. • The District established a fee incentive threshold of 4 MGD. However, if the urban runoff flow volumes exceed 4 MGD, each discharger is required to pay for its portion of the discharge at rate of $321 per million gallons. The payment exemption is nullified and all dischargers are required to pay for their entire discharge. 19 As the demand for the District's urban runoff program increases and enters Phase II, the need for an equitable and feasible mechanism to recover the District's cost for the treatment of urban runoff will need to be addressed. 5.5 Cost Schedule of User Charges Due to estimated available treatment capacity during off-seasons (up to 10 MGD), the District has not yet considered the issue of capital capacity charges, which is currently being imposed on all industrial and special purpose dischargers. The District proposes the following alternatives for user charges schedule for urban runoff permit discharges. Option I • A 4 MGD threshold, with a total annual cost to the District of $ 454,020 ® User charges of $329 per million gallons of discharge when total the volume to OCSD exceeds the 4 MGD threshold Option II • No 4 MGD threshold, with no cost to the District ■ User charges of $329 per million gallons of discharge up to 10 MGD The following is a comparison of the annual user charges the dischargers would pay using the options outlined above: Table 6 — Annual Option Cost Comparisons Orange County Sanitation District Average Discharge A Average Discharge B Average Discharge C Flow 2 MGD 4 MGD 10 MGD Option 1 $0 $0 $681,000 $1,135,000 Option II $227,000 $454,000 20 5.6 Funding and Funding Collection Mechanism As the urban runoff project is evolving into an established, long-term regional program, the District, the region, and the stakeholders need to look at the issue of funding and method of funding collection to cover the District's cost. rIn considering funding and revenue, equity and burden should be assessed. This assessment should be balanced with what the region needs and where the burden of revenue ultimately rests. There are several alternative funding methods, and the most appropriate are detailed in Attachment C of this report. Of these, the alternatives most worthy of consideration are based on the District collecting funding from the urban runoff permit discharge holders or from a single source, namely the agency responsible for the management of regional urban runoff. 6.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS The following issues require the attention, consensus, and direction from the Ad Hoc Committee: To proceed with Phase II of the urban runoff program development and implementation to meet regional needs. The District proposes to use the services of a consultant to conduct the research and to evaluate and develop program elements for continuing, augmented implementation of urban runoff. The cost to conduct the Phase II work is estimated to be $350,000, distributed over the next three years. 2. Funding of the Phase II cost by entities responsible for the Urban Runoff Program based on a fair -share formula similar to that used for the stormwater program conducted by the County of Orange. 3. Funding and revenue options and alternates. The District recommends that authorization be given to proceed with Phase II. The District also recommends that a funding mechanism be put in place for the cost of Phase II. The District also recommends that the stakeholders consider the funding and revenue options presented in this report and initiate consensus -building on the cost schedule, and funding, with implementation to occur in the early stages of Phase II. 21 ATTACHMENT A DISTRICT'S RESOLUTION 81-07, URBAN RUNOFF POLICY A RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 01-07 ESTABLISHING DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF POLICY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF POLICY, AND REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 00-22 :k xxv�:*�••r*��• WHEREAS, certain types of dry weather urban runoff create public health and/or environmental problems which are infeasible to economically or practically control; WHEREAS, THE Orange County Sanitation District ("District") has available limited system capacity in its collection, treatment and disposal facilities which may allow the District to accept certain dry weather urban runoff discharges without adversely affecting the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewer discharges; WHEREAS, District is willing to accept into its sewerage system aggregate dry weather urban runoff flow discharges not exceeding 10 million gallons per day ("mgd"); WHEREAS, District does not have system capacity available to allow wet weather discharges to the District's facilities; WHEREAS, District has developed a Dry Weather Urban Runoff Policy to address certain environmental concerns associated with dry weather runoff; WHEREAS, over the next three (3) years District intends to evaluate (1) sources of dry weather urban runoff; (2) the quality and quantity of dry weather urban runoff discharges to the sewerage system; and (3) District's costs associated with such discharges. The District anticipates that this policy may be revised as a result of such evaluation; WHEREAS, District may accept dry weather urban runoff, provided that the discharge occurs in full and complete compliance with the terms of this Dry Weather Urban Runoff Policy, including any subsequent amendments thereto; WHEREAS, District intends to initially waive fees and charges associated with authorized discharges of dry weather urban runoff to the sewerage system, where such runoff originates within the District's service area, until such time as (1) the total volume of all dry weather urban runoff discharges to the sewerage system exceeds four (4) mgd calculated on a monthly average or (2) the District otherwise modifies its dry weather urban runoff policy to require dischargers to A-1 pay for permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges, operations and maintenance costs and/or any other fees or charges which the District determines to impose on such discharges; WHEREAS, for purposes of this policy, "wet weather" shall mean any period during which measurable rainfall occurs in any portion of the District's service area and shall include the period following the cessation of rainfall until the District determines that the wet weather event is no longer impacting the District's collection, treatment and disposal facilities; and WHEREAS, for the purposes of this policy, "dry weather" shall mean any period which does not fall within the definitions of "wet weather." NO THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1: That the following Dry Weather Urban Runoff Policy is established as District Policy: POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM No person or entity shall discharge urban runoff, directly or indirectly, to the District's sewerage system during wet weather. The District may accept urban runoff into the sewerage system during dry weather conditions ("dry weather urban runoff") provided that the discharger meets the following requirements: A. Requirements for Obtaining Permission to Discharge The dry weather urban runoff diversion to the sewerage system shall address a public health or environmental problem associated with the runoff discharge that cannot be otherwise economically or practically controlled. 2. A dry weather urban runoff diversion structure shall be designed and installed and other necessary provisions shall be implemented to exclude storm and other runoff from entry into District's sewerage system during wet weather. The diversion structure shall be equipped with a lockable shut-off device, satisfactory to the District, and to which the District shall be provided access at all times; 3. Prior to commencement of discharge of the dry weather urban runoff to the sewerage system, in accordance with the policies and procedures set by the District, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a Wastewater Isw Discharge Permit ("permit") from the District. The District may require that the permit applicant enter into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry weather discharge is authorized in addition to or in lieu of issuance of the permit; 4. The permit applicant shall consider and evaluate the feasibility of other disposal alternatives (i.e., discharge into storm drains, reuse and reclamation of the runoff, etc.) for the discharge of the dry weather urban runoff. The permit applicant shall submit to the District a report, satisfactory to the District, evaluating each disposal alternative, and demonstrating why each alternative is not economically or practically feasible to dispose of the proposed dry weather urban runoff in lieu of sewer discharge; 5. The permit applicant's proposed diversion system shall prevent debris and any other pollutants of concern from entering the District's sewerage system. The permit applicant shall submit design drawings and an operations and maintenance plan for the proposed dry weather diversion structure which shall be sufficient to establish that all District requirements will be met to prevent pass through of and/or interference with the District's sewerage facilities. The diversion system shall be capable of measuring and recording on a daily basis the flow discharged to the sewerage system; 6. The permit applicant shall submit best management practices and pollution prevention strategies designed to minimize or eliminate dry weather urban runoff. More stringent practices and strategies may be required depending on the nature of the anticipated discharge; 7. The permit applicant shall submit to the District a proposed method of guarantee the existence of an enforceable mechanism to ensure that the District receives payment for all monies due pursuant to this policy, and any amendments thereto, for as long as the discharge occurs. No permit application shall be complete without such an enforceable mechanism, satisfactory to the District in its sole discretion. This mechanism shall be designed to limit any administrative burden on the District; 8. The General Manager, or his designee, may impose additional requirements as may be appropriate to reduce the burden on the District's collection, treatment and disposal facilities; 9. Collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewer discharges remain the District's primary functions. No additional dry weather urban runoff permits shall be issued if the General Manager, or his designee, determines that such issuance may, alone or in conjunction with other permits, adversely affect the District's primary functions; and A-3 10. The permit applicant shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from liability associated with the dry weather urban runoff to which the permit and/or agreement apply except for the District's active negligence or intentional wrongful acts or omissions but including any negligence which is alleged to have occurred with respect to any District action to render emergency assistance at the diversion system facilities in the event of an operational malfunction or other problem at such facilities. The terms of the indemnification shall be in a form satisfactory to District's General Counsel; B. Requirements After Granting Permission to Discharge The quality and quantity of the discharge shall meet the conditions, provisions or limitations contained in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations (Ordinance No. OCSD-01)`; 2. The permittee shall conduct self -monitoring for the pollutants of concern as directed by the District to ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and limits set forth in the permit/agreement and the District's Ordinances. Unless otherwise directed, the permittee shall conduct self -monitoring of the discharge on a quarterly basis. The results of all self -monitoring shall be submitted to the District, upon request, but in no event later than forty- five (45) days following the completion of sample analysis. The permittee shall monitor the flow and submit reports documenting the quality and quantity of the flow discharged as directed by the District; 3. In the event that the quality or quantity of the dry weather urban runoff discharge to the sewerage system does not meet the conditions, provisions, or limitations set forth in the discharge permit/agreement or Ordinance No. OCSD-01, the permittee shall take immediate action to correct the problem(s) to ensure that full compliance is met. The District may take enforcement action for any violation of the terms of the permit/agreement and/or the District's Ordinances, including termination of the discharge, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. OCSD-01; 4. Dischargers located within the District's service area shall not initially be required to pay any fees and charges associated with the authorized discharge of dry weather urban runoff to the District's sewerage system. Dischargers located outside the District's service area who the District authorizes to discharge dry weather urban runoff, directly or indirectly, to the District's sewerage system shall initially pay District operations and maintenance costs of $321.00 per million gallons discharged. Once the total volume of all dry weather urban runoff discharges to the District's Any reference in this policy to any District Ordinance, policy or permit shall include any subsequent amendments, modifications, revisions or successors to such ordinance, policy or permit. IMI sewerage system exceeds (4) million mgd, all dischargers, including those for whom authorization to discharge has previously been granted, shall pay District operations and maintenance costs, initially at the rate of $321.00 per million gallons discharged. The District reserves the right to impose other fees and charges, including but not limited to permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and modified operations and maintenance charges on all urban runoff discharges in accordance with any future amendment of this policy, and pursuant to any other current or future District Ordinances or policies. Failure to pay fees in a timely manner shall be cause for termination of the permit/agreement and the discharge. All dischargers shall, at all times, be subject to noncompliance sampling fees set forth in Ordinance No. OCSD-01; 5. The permittee shall provide District's employees with access to the diversion location and all areas from which and through runoff originates and/or flows, during all reasonable hours, which shall include any time when a discharge to the sewerage system may be occurring, for purposes of inspection, monitoring, and verifying compliance with the permit/agreement and/or the District's Ordinances; 6. The permittee shall have complete responsibility for the construction, operation and maintenance of the diversion facility or any other associated facilities and for ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the discharge permit/agreement and the District's Ordinances; 7. No later than the commencement of any measurable rainfall, each discharger of urban runoff shall shut off the flow of urban runoff (and accompanying storm water) to the District's sewerage system. The discharge shall not resume until the discharger has obtained District approval for the resumption of the discharge. Such approval shall not be deemed effective until the discharger provides written confirmation to the District of approval, which confirmation shall include the first and last name of the District employee providing such approval and the time at which such approval was issued; 8. If the District determines that the dry weather runoff, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, is adversely affecting or threatening to adversely affect the District's collection, treatment and/or disposal facilities, the District shall so notify the permittee who shall immediately cease all such discharge to the sewerage system. The District may, in its sole discretion, allow the continued discharge provided that the permittee installs, operates and maintains additional facilities as the Districts determines are appropriate to ensure that the dry weather runoff does not, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, adversely affect or threaten to adversely affect the District's collection treatment and/or disposal facilities; A-5 9. Under no circumstances shall District authorization to discharge dry weather urban runoff to the District's sewerage system be deemed to provide a vested right for such discharge; and 10. Except as expressly authorized by this policy or a District Ordinance, no urban runoff shall be discharged directly or indirectly into the District's facilities. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held March 28, 2001. A 5T: Board Se retary Chair A-6 ATTACHMENT B TASK MANAGEMENT PLAN Orange County Sanitation District Special Proiiect Job Plan UR02-033103 PHASE I URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM EVALUATION (Source Control, Environmental Compliance, and Monitoring, Environmental Laboratory, Engineering, Operations and Maintenance, and Finance) Work Plan SUBLEDGER #: 09820373 Start: March 30, 2003 Project Team: Phase I Summary: To complete Team Regular: Phase — I Urban Runoff Evaluation Stop: July 23, 2003 TYPE OF PROJECT Background Urban Runoff is contaminated water that is the result of daily activities such as over - irrigating landscape, cleaning streets, and sidewalks, and washing cars. This contaminated water contains numerous pollutants such as pesticides, heavy metals, toxic organics, pathogens, and other pollutants that flow into storm drain systems and is eventually discharged onto the shoreline, causing beach closures. In effort to reduce the impacts of urban runoff on Orange County beaches, the District has been working with the state and local agencies in Orange County to divert urban runoff that would otherwise be discharged untreated onto Orange County's beaches into the District's sewer system for treatment. In April 2000, the District's Board of Directors adopted a resolution for accepting urban runoff on a long-term basis on days when it does not rain. The resolution is designed to minimize adverse impacts on coastal beaches and public health, while maintaining the high quality of the District's primary function - collection, treatment, and disposal of sanitary wastewater to the sewer system. Once again, on September 27, 2001, the board amended the resolution and adopted a second resolution that included a condition that requires the District to evaluate its Urban Runoff Program over the three years of its implementation for the following elements: • Sources of dry weather urban runoff; • Quality and quantity of dry weather urban runoff discharges; and • Costs associated with the collection and treatment of dry weather urban runoff. Because of the unpredictable nature and the difficulty in controlling urban runoff pollutants, along with the unknown toxicity concerns associated with incremental increases of urban runoff being discharged into the District's treatment systems, District staff will conduct the evaluation process in a phased approach, occurring in three-year AN intervals. This phased approach will allow the time to study a variety of conditions and to thoroughly evaluated, among other pertinent issues, the toxicity concerns associated with any increase of urban runoff flow volumes into the District's treatment system. The following is a brief description of the proposed evaluation process: Phase I— Evaluation of the Current Urban Runoff Program assessing the impacts associated with the treatment of 2.0 MGD of urban runoff; Phase II — Evaluation of the Interim Urban Runoff Program assessing the impacts associated with the treatment of 10 MGD of urban runoff; and Phase III — Evaluation of the Long -Term Urban Runoff Program assessing the impacts associated with the treatment of over 10 MGD of urban runoff. This phase would look at alternative urban runoff treatment methods such as natural treatments systems. The District will complete Phase I in-house based on existing data and information that were generated within the past three years since the implementation of the Program. The District will contract a consultant to perform Phase II and Phase III of the evaluation process. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to perform the Phase — I of the District Urban Runoff Program evaluation, assessing the elements mandated in the District's urban runoff policy in addition to other issues concerning the impacts associated with the collection and treatment of urban runoff to the District's treatment process. The findings from the evaluation may be used to revise OCSD's current Urban Runoff Policy. METHODOLGY The following District staff personnel within their area of expertise were selected to conduct the tasks necessary to effectively evaluate the District's urban runoff program. • Tom B. Meregillano — Urban Runoff Program Coordinator, Source Control • Jim Wybenga — Principal Investigator - Reclamation Analysis, Source Control • Christopher Pelletier — Principal Investigator — Water Quality Analysis, Source Control • Jeff Armstrong — Principal Investigator - Toxicity and Ocean Monitoring Analysis, Environmental Compliance and Monitoring • Ted Vitko — Principal Investigator - Biosolids Analysis, Environmental Compliance and Monitoring • Dan Tremblay — Principal Investigator — Compliance Analysis, Laboratory • Adam Nazaroff — Principal Investigator — Collection System Analysis, Engineering • Steve DeWilde — Principal Investigator — GIS Analysis, Engineering • Doug Cook/Dave Heinz — Principal Investigators - Operations Analysis, Operations and Maintenance SCOPE OF WORK In developing the Phase I Report, District staff will execute the following scope of work. I*� � �q �q /\ 2\ ■k�LO \ 2§2 )00 co un= �§2^� /\E Q � R / / mr= mn= CM /\E /\/ a r § � �E �o c:0 ±/o �\E � \q \� o C\T C\F �0 en= a)n= \\/ /\E k L6 / Y ®0 °0 2 2m0 O / LL cc _ CO 0 a �� / Cl) c w a. w O U @m� 9 > ° U) 2 2 o 2 e n e m 2 �\> > a- Ca 6 i/\� �F�\E �kqf/ \ ƒƒ a) c /k«/� \ § I 5 £ £ _ _ a� c > 2- m 2 2 $ 2 E = �m ■ cf=� �� / k c § & % 3 3 c � Co $ a � ƒ § 2 0 0 5 a) 2 E e \ ƒ \/£k$% $ 0 _ _ ° nas E/ § \ /I /_ - B j2 \ \ / / / @� = _%/ 0 e � /°_ c ° _ $ $ LU p cc c o m c c- e »- a _ o » I / o c == k E k = o E� = E $ _£ m o= e =-@_ / k/ CD o m 3 o m k k a) :E- o \ 2= 2 2§ 5 k$ 3 e= O« 0 e e l ///\ ' E= m 0 cot§ � / I,..��w kEq\ = a CL e m.> o 0e0 = # m 2 I r a) o 2QOo m o q _ N m r � w N W � � � c _ m R A »/ /\ ■k� �■_ 9Ew � q a) co �02 Q /\q c � — mn= � /\E r � § � �§% �k a)n= /\q %v o C\f �) mnc /\ E .X L6 £C ? �\Q O LL CL 0 / 3 w L 0 O @e—E3 z//u/ 2 6 § 3 3 Q// q F- q •0 cli E _ a S k 'n § § % > = E g m / o s § 0 —/ f c§ § = .7 U E 3 @ / 7 0 ° o � § a / R c 0 ± 0 2— o £: $ I o £.o o = f 6 ) \ $ c _ = 2 =: 2 I k/� E 7 = 6 = 2 c� ' @ O = m o c Q 7 u g g E g 2� @�@�%�\3_0 = _ '�.g f = o : � S = ' £ - @ § I U 0 7 n % � � ƒ ƒ ca 0� -r— a) \ 0 > / E 2 7° 0 ) a§ m, / g A t 0 �§ � = w —0r _ 0. m y 0 = LU -0-0 ) 0 0 a) » o- 0 � ° E 0 _ c = R m 0 g / o > _ § §§ 2 m e c=�° E— E— E m \ m (n m c e 0.2 §& -0.0« qe e e e 9 7 o c 7 o= 7§ G 7 e m R -0_ k55 kk�§��E22ƒc/c/CD/ _� _> / E k = m u =.> = 6§ 7§ o m0 2 2 2 2 a= o m o + Q E in » �« � @ « m I -- MI. LL >,q /\ ■�E ■°— .E� L q rr= �o Q /\q 2 � \ C:0 �\o ■ E§; �§g �k a)n= /\/ c� o C\f Eq? Z F\o .be 2 £cc \ ? �mO 2 o Cl) LL �w w a) / m a z cn CL ƒ 2 0 c ccE k/ h / b h \ f 0 Z k n ? m E \ 6 § ¥ % E \ £ c § J R / 5 m 2 5 2 / / /E -C = \ / / k/ \ /ƒ7 Ufa) %� LL c % e k < m \7 �=E 2 3� = ± _E _ = ?f m / o 22§ 23> = > 0\ 0 '% ? / o E 7 _ @ — = 2 0 / / \ Ek � / §f\n§ c E 3m £g=�= &/ G== cz 3/= _E 2 § _ « _ § _� 2 2 6 o o_>= =ge a) E 0 5§ Rb/</ /� 0 0® CZ c �/ 2 U� _0 @ CD LL0 c r� ��/22 �2/ °% S 2� 2 2 I %°@§f � % 0) 019 6 m ocom==e=- n 2� g o »± = I �§ « / �claC-£2 »F==ac2�=oQ£ a° o m 2> c # o 2> 2 2 CU o o£ / a w f o = c— U)= E 0)_ a m 2 @ _> c c 3 e % 2— — E E E o u_ ccn 7( c m I° c 2° O o© c QO&�=Eo2o�3$ 0� s o 0 0 =� E 3 0 E .§.a) » M.0 2 2 2 3$ q q q �« � @ « � R I �v c rS rS E To �o 5o co N N W �+ O E N N O E d �02 C o o C o o � NOU -5C\j w (D (O 0 T T = C O O C o o N N U N U N = C tm' L E rn rn .. O E 0) m C o o OU c o o OU 02 N N w t i O CL N N O cc C o m 0 C C)m 0 r N C)N U Y LO O IM (ohm 0U (0C') 0 N 2 N U 0 U IL Q Cl) o m U J O a W w aJ CZ •5) a) o� 0 m (D� o� 0 p E amm .c acn F- 0 a a cc Cf)o� �o Q A)o y c �_ C � C E p _ Co C15 O= o a) 0)� (% () L _0 U m c L o �C Q (� c� co W o }. (n aD pro +� o (o C c' p (� >LL N •� ai I— .0 0 Q U 7 O C U a) 7 _ p `' co .2 co N >. (q co E C "O C (0 E cn N O C> C E O o (o O � = E U Z mCC U) >+ C CY) > a) (a O U E L r C .0 0 C J 7 C Q co Q U m c '�-' '..' (n '� N C C co �_ t� Q 0 E Q -p C'n W N W X o i Co U-- E p aU o a E o c c� co ? L c-Ep.: E o�CN o°c a)(D OC U a� �o o a) f �� o a"i ns a o �c a a ca Z aa) �mE s co U ..c(ca 0 w fn W y '0 a) L 7� o 7- .+ C C C 7_ a)�o�� c V c0 .x� .E)cca `a 0 a) ion ��� a� c ¢ c a� X�c�.° O co Q- J C m a) � 3 O E E 2 a� O a) a) > p O a) U' " a) E c' O a) � a Cl) L _�_ N •� a) .-. L c m (A R �_ y �, •U _0 o o -0 ._ a) a) �_ (o in C co L O O � '� L >, o (i C C a) � L of 7 = C L ai i U .� C a) o c L U W � 0 o � O •� a s E v L C N co 'O v�i a) co C C co 7� c � a) cow C L a) v�i a) — C R7 4) U ,� Q C o U a) p Q = 7 LL (n A p Q p p p 0 i E p co O Z a) U co p 7 W � � O ` r cmC9 X r N M Lq (o f� (�v a�i ui �ci ui O (o (o (o (o m (o m Y N Q uO to H + >,q �q �\ /\ ■ �E \ \ mr= en= �02 ) Q /\q //E 2 � � - a)n= cn= 0 / \/ / \q tm k ° E �� E q o ) q o /\q /\E © o no. C\i C\T a) mn= on= -� /\/ /\/ 2 L Y kko °0 � 2m0 2q0 O % O a E / w w co G CL p m 0 a \ z , .q d § Cl) 0 a) 326 3 3 2 CL oa) o O E w 2 o A§ = d d/ Z 2 C Z Z e 22@w O O < < < n < < / R 2 /f ® / ƒ 2 t c £ g o ./ / 5 a % � / ƒ \ f 2 a =o-c O § / / ƒ LL c o m ® cz E = 2 g 2 e% k/ / E 0 e - - \ f / C /� �k _ �k�/ o §k/ k ■ \ E 2m 2 § J ° § % R7 R/ n_§� ?G� _02 % ƒ R 2 /E /2 \ƒ=§wk�2$ ®2 a c < @ z 2 § �� /% �m 5 0 �efe§\$/� E Fc E E 2 2$ E co 0 o c c � cn U) o n o/ Q° E -0 E i a » 2 % §O a .@ o% c- 2 .� w S. / S 2 c §5 §$ CLc-0 £fo t = < » ° @ e � n 0 ® - c .c : g= _ E = 2� ® cz o E/§ a= o g E% a w a) m a a 5 a)Ui a) 0) o w e$§% c e= o CO o cn ■ _ ° o m o k° 6 e/ q 2 o 0 e o E0) c c k k �= »2r = k$=«�2k70Q0 & E 0 cn°-f o�=2 o E2 V o\§2°m __- ®�eEc U-0 2 2 FL o 2 inU, 2=o.§�cc�o> CR a)r q q r �Ci ¥ 0 co co C6 �ld @ « co R 0 cr)S �o \q /\ ■fE _ @©— \ &Ea �/ ■ E o �o2 o co §S 0) r = §\o Q �a mU (0 � ƒ\ =n rr= CM /\ /\/ 22■ _ §¢ e/ �k� \\ /\k — 0 E 0 a0 C\F ;n = o cn= c o 0 3q :3\o U) 3\ 2 cc S ? ?E \22 2Q O / k LL /ƒ w w 2 _ \ \ \ as O / % % / � t k\ c 2 c c § co E c B�� / / // W Z 2 2 2 > > > k 0ƒ < m « w w w @ R o m R R w e %� 7 E �_ 0 �0 \ � CDerg§ CD E 2 a §=k.cz - 3 �f k k/ ca E \ E5 -a 2 § cc < //ƒ°3 .y 6& 5 5 b c § 0® c b 2§ _@ f= 7 = c �£ 2=g cn== 2 n 2226E � 2 Eo a2 2g y e 2\ O £§t m/ 2§% = o — = a2 0 7 _0 2 c.--0 /-C//§ k 2 ƒ� §a o� \-c o //�\2 = e 3 ° $ �0=0$$ QQ�m-¥ --E e/[ ' o _ £/OzE ���_[ _ 20 /f ± 2 2 @ w E f 2 0 •- ° E 2 .- o o cc / $£ m 0 = ° u e� o k — =% 3 .g a) co E g o ƒ c «« 5 E I f % a R= CL . _ 0 k\ 3 o= m/ o o==# O =§>10 a w m m±77z �E-g52\ Ca �E/�§�. =S� ®E ®�°2 ' U) 2 0-± 2= 7 7 2 k k\ k\/\ 2 k\/( 2 S 0/ c I 3$ 2 3 0 g 3 k E 0 2 3.E 0 g 5 0 / @ co � oC) KIC4 � c d o d d m � r r r r \ M o � R A � �q �q /\ �\ ■ tm \ \ �E 0)n= CDn= �o� Q /cm /\E � 2 � � (Dn= a) CV) c /\E /\/ a � § § C E c0n coo \E /\0 �o & C\F Cl) n3 (Dn= /\0 /\/ 2 LO 3 m co Y co00 °k� 2 Imo / % LL O a c / / LLI w \ \ \ 2 2 3 m 7 /a cn k k k ( %ƒ k ƒ / ƒ � \ / E \ \ \ cc / / : k / g \ = _ // 2 _ 0 > 2 —1 = ca E L § k 5 % a § / 0 [ 2 t CES $ :? q Cl) 0 .0 k� m c = 2$ 2 § » \ ƒ / / / U E k 2 = L •� 9 : ) ƒ f/ / ƒ$ƒƒ/\ 2 E « = 2 2 ƒ � 2 ± c k o E 7 o§co cn \ / ( o '�k \ E o ° >>, $- / / co(Z \/ c LU § Cl.I % 0 / t 27 S kZ/ 2\ / o = n Q c cz c _$ I o m E� e\ e o / 2 2 �' CZ E § o > 7 2% % k m 2 t m E v CO ES�U)�\§�§2 --■�0co039%\/\S � �� CL O 7 2 m E= E 2 ■@ _ 2 C E J 3 0%§ES9o\/ \ fCE — q q % g _ d d d » > � CM LuB— d CV w 0 Cl)+ CO � �q >q /q /\ /\ ■ tm. ©� \ \ \ �22 ��� 0)n= a)n=mrE Q /\/ /\//\E � a)nc =n= on= � /\E /\//\/ k§¢ c 6 �k� en= wm=mn= /\/ /\//\/ 0 6 C\i C\f �� a) co mn=a)n= \\E /\//\/ 2 L L L fC) �\? £\? �qU Im02go O % / / w w J .5 a a O § 2 a) a) / 2 6 6 5 � / / \ / � © § . m � 2 / � � � k \ L f % § E k k ) [ a 5 � E S % E q 5 c Q JCD ° R c 2 c / E ® § s 2 w° a_ S •q 2 .2 ° 5 § e $ o« 7 ° E / CL 0 / CL / _0 f % 0 Q I i i i i« L" J 2 cc v � r §$ _ � � o_ r r Cn LL a \ m m I ATTACHMENT C FUNDING AND FUNDING MECHANISM c URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM FUNDING AND FUNDING MECHANISM The following provides the alternative funding mechanisms proposed by the District to cover the District's cost of collecting and treating urban runoff: ALTERNATE 1 District receives funding from: Urban Runoff discharge permit holders Funding through: O&M user charges Based on: Actual discharge volume Funding collected from: Urban Runoff Permit Holders Entities affected: County of Orange Cities Caltrans IRWD Benefits • Mechanism in place to collect funds to cover District costs. • Individual dischargers (permit holders and operator/owner of diversion systems) are charged based on actual flow • District uses the existing mechanism provided by the Ordinance and can be integrated in existing systems. • District administrative costs are similar to existing permittees • Dischargers have an incentive to reduce urban runoff Drawbacks • Only entities holding the permit are responsible for cost while other entities may be contributing, and impacting the volume and type of discharge • Funding is splintered between entities and may become an issue of equity • District deals with several entities and consistency of approach may be compromised C-1 ALTERNATE 2 District receives funding from Funding through: Based on: Funding collected from: Entities affected: Benefits Owners and operators of urban runoff facilities (stormdrains, pumping stations, flood channels) O&M user charges Fair share formula (population, housing units, etc.) Urban Runoff Permit Holders County of Orange Cities Caltrans IRWD • All entities in whose areas of jurisdiction urban runoff is generated are contributing • Incentive to reduce urban runoff exists, though effectiveness diminished by lack of central stewardship Drawbacks • Funding is splintered between entities and may become an issue of equity • No mechanism in place to collect the funding • No entity has stewardship of the regional costs and issues Several funding and collection/sharing mechanisms and agreements are necessary • District deals with several entities and consistency of approach may be compromised • Control of flows is through permittees but not necessarily through the paying entities • District must develop mechanism outside its Ordinance. • District administrative requirements are high, requiring several agreements and control points. • Effectiveness of urban runoff minimization is diminished by lack of centralized control C-2 ALTERNATE 3 District receives funding from: Urban Runoff NPDES holders/lead agency Funding through: O&M user charges, SCFCC Based on: Based on actual discharge volume Revenue raised for: District and discharger Entities affected: County of Orange Caltrans' Benefits • One central entity is responsible for funding and fund collection • District enters an agreement with only one entity and uses the existing mechanism provided by the Ordinance • District administrative costs are optimized • Consistency and equity is assured by dealing with only one entity • The lead agency administers the program • One entity has stewardship of the regional urban runoff program in cooperation with other stakeholders • All entities that generate urban runoff, own and operate stormwater systems contribute • Effective incentive to reduce urban runoff may be implemented Drawbacks No major drawback noted at this time ' Caltrans to date does not have a direct discharge to the District. Newport Beach may have an easement to discharge through Caltrans' system. C-3 ALTERNATE 4 District receives funding from Funding through: Based on: Entities affected: Benefits Generators (domestic, commercial, industrial) Proposition 218/sewer service charge Estimated annual costs and per parcel Home and other property owners • Mechanism available and used for domestic sewer discharges • Urban generators are charged directly Drawbacks • Funding subject to public vote • Proposition 218 refers to wastewater, and the definition of urban run off as wastewater may be challenged. • No incentive for reduction of urban runoff • Several entities may be raising revenue from the same source for one program • Property owners are charged based on estimated costs and a one fits all fee basis, without taking in account that impact on District and volume differs. • No regional stewardship or control • Requires public vote under Proposition 218 C-4 a;� 5/7/0 3 Ad--M� C�, Orange County Stormwater Program Dry Weather Diversion Study Presentation to: Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee Orange County Sanitation District May 7, 2003 Study Background ■ Coastal Beach Water Quality Concerns NPDES Municipal Stormwater Program — First NPDES Permit in 1990 — Non -Point Source BMPs — Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) — Diversion as Municipal Activity BMP ■ Special Investigations by RBF Consulting Definition of Terms • Dry Weather — Urban Runoff Diversion feasible throughout year • Wet Weather — Storm Runoff Diversion is not feasible Page 1 Dry Weather Diversion Study Objectives • Inventory Existing and Proposed Diversions • Characterize Existing Diversions (Case Studies) • Alternative BMP Cost Comparison • Propose Decision Making Framework Diversion Locations �ti ;mot L—� ,•,� Diversion Inventory • 38 Existing Diversions (16 OCSD) ■ 38 Proposed Diversions (14 OCSD) • Existing Flows 3.8 MGD (2.5 MGD OCSD) • Proposed Additional Flow (1 MGD OCSD) 10 Participating Treatment Agencies Page 2 Inventory of Existing and Proposed Diversion Facilities Aegion WatmAcd Tdmtif r >i. Ex fig iYa —d n6 ••Ln:• Santa iwa Gd•m G.a, ti - Vti'YrtxattnNm - Id TeA—. o In 5•mi A- Fi wr E - 54n An , Cna F - !�x rr[ Rav G t L. Treev-x..�Z.LuWv Cli H P,{vg9 iu�ew �-n I l] San I��o AImCrc 1 Solt C—.k K 1 1 San I... Cn* L2 In ,',pVn.L, U,k i h.• m P ata[ x Diversion Case Studies Locations - Greenville -Banning Channel - Newport Dunes - Laguna Beach — Cleo Street • Considerations - Description - Term of Operation - Performance - Costs Greenville -Banning Channel Diversion Dam Page 3 Newport Dunes West Channel Diversion Case Studies Findings • Operational 2-3 years • Receiving Water Bacteria Reduction • High O&M for Pumped Facilities • On -site BMPs may be Cost Effective Alternatives — Land Availability/Cost ? — Treatment Costs? Cost Comparison of Alternatives all'rnatrXr 06M Cm Ld,XyciX Na fleaXri Xtlanl Ca XiblC� Mnul' Csf y6al • L•-• •.t*.la in 5'uxiJMMI SJJJXXI SII III f- Wn h.-in S.INUM 517111XI $ILO] L 1 •Inu l niJ tli..nn�l SMIII.IXXI 5171XX1 $II IYI ,• i.1.�rY b•w.•r li•I ul�•I�ur 51511,IXX1 SJI11xM1 Sn II.1 n. l,��l u.�t n.•� If• n�. •m b. n nll'I S1.JIISIMXI 557JXXI SHIM •�AI.X..nnuip� Page 4 Diversion Decision Making Process - • Use Decision Path • Consider BMP Alternatives -- - • Consider Operational Feasibility and Treatment Thresholds • Prioritize Proposed Diversions Decision Path • Water Quality Data Availability of Inflow (�- Beneficial Use Impairment (Quality) C Source Control Infeasible r No Cost -Effective Alternative BMPs No Flow Dependent Beneficial Uses POTW Operational Feasibility Stakeholder/Community/ Regulatory Support POTW Considerations- ■ No Feasible Alternative • Connection & Conveyance Feasibility ■ Discharge Permit • Wet Weather Flow & Debris Controls ■ Operation/Maintenance Costs ($321/MG) • Treatment Costs (OCSD 4 MGD/10 MGD) • Temporary or Long Term Service Page 5 Diversion Evaluation Criteria • Quality of Runoff and Receiving Water (Bacteria) ■ Extent of Watershed Urbanization • Proximity to Recreational Waters • Usage of Recreational Waters • Lifecycle Costs Present Status and Schedule • Draft Report Completed • Preliminary Final In Review until 5/20/03 • Final Report Completed by 6/30/03 • Collaborative Discussions on Future Direction Questions and Discussion Page 6 ORANGE COUNTY STORMWATER PROGRAM DRY WEATHER DIVERSION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The dry weather diversion study was prepared to evaluate the dry weather diversions to the sanitary sewer that are in place or proposed within Orange County. The findings are incorporated into the Dry Weather Diversion Plan that identifies decision -making criteria to be used in selecting diversions as a preferred BMP. The current Orange Coun NPDES permits do not have a specifi�requirement for d�ywea��terdiwverseio.ics,_ tQ e implemented. r an�runvff resulting in dther or nuisevr, be a source of pollution to receiving waters. Diversion of dry weather or nuisance flows to the sanitary sewer is a viable alternative for treatment of urban runoff. The Orange County coastal beaches continue to be subject to beach closures and warnings due to unsafe bacteria levels. To reduce these impacts, the County and its permittees have implemented drainage system diversions of dry weather flows to the sanitary sewer throughout Orange County. The existing diversions have been in operation from less than one year to more than four years. The dry weather flow diversions are in place at Talbert channel/Lower Santa Ana River pump stations and channels, Newport Dunes, Aliso Creek, and various Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and San Clemente coastal storm drains near the outfall to the ocean. There are 38 existing diversion projects operating within 9 of the 13 watersheds within the county. Diversion facilities vary in design from in -pipe diversion systems to large open channel diversion structures. Dry weather diversion projects are subject to the policies and requirements of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)-- the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). OCSD does not charge a fee for acceptance of dry weather flows for the first 4 million gallons per day (MGD) for all diversion sources. Once this threshold has been exceeded, ALL discharges (including the initial 4 MGD allowance) are subject to an assessment fee. Further, OCSD reserves the right to increase and/or modify this charge and/or require a capital facilities recovery fee (CFRF) at any time. The discharge fee structure for SOCWA is much less clear. SOCWA member agencies may choose to accept dry weather diversions to their own system without charge provided there is sufficient plant capacity. Member agencies are generally not willing to discuss total dry weather diversion capacities since most plant capacity is reserved for future use (future urbanization). An alternatives analysis was prepared to compare cost of dry weather diversion with other forms of equally effective treatment. Wet basins or constructed wetlands may be cost-effective in the long-term especially if fees are imposed by POTWs for treatment of urban runoff. Furthermore, the POTWs view dry weather diversion as a temporary, short-term practice. Three case studies were evaluated with varying characteristics:1 )Size of Diversion Facility (Open Channel or Pipe Diversion), 2) Proximity to Recreational Areas (Beach Usage, Recl Water), 3) Volume of Dry Weather flows diverted, and 4)Water Quality. For each case study, diversion has proven effective in reducing exceedences of bacteria concentration standards. No major issues were encountered over the two-year operational period. Construction and O&M costs varied by site due to operational needs. Alternatives to diversion may be more cost-effective for other sites. Based on the assessment of current dry weather diversions and review of POTW policies, the Dry Weather Diversion Plan was developed to serve as a framework for decision -making, identification of additional potential diversion locations, BMP type selection and prioritization of implementation of the proposed sites. The dry weather diversion plan includes: 1) Dry Weather Diversion Decision Process, 2) Water Quality Data Availability, 3) Beneficial Uses Downstream of Diversion, 4) Source Control - Bacteria and Dry Weather Runoff, 5) Equally Effective and Cost -Effective BMPs, 6) Impacts to Downstream Recreation Uses, 7) Impacts to Habitat Downstream, and 8) Community/Regulatory Agency Support. A recommended procedure for prioritizing implementation of diversion facilities was developed. Potential threats to water quality as indicated by bacterial loads (concentration x flow volume) and proximity to recreational waters will determine how a diversion facility would rank/score compared to others proposed. Prioritization involves the following elements: • Classifying a facility as being a high or low priority based on site information • A quantitative assessment of the site (identify concentrations, flow rates, and potential issues. • Proximity to recreational waters (review list of beneficial uses downstream) • Quantity and quality of dry weather flow • Characteristics of watershed (% urbanized and size of the. watershed) • Beach Usage • Cost (Capital Cost and Life cycle cost) There are an additional 38 dry weather diversions proposed within Orange County watersheds. It is anticipated that each of the proposed diversions will be evaluated based on the Dry Weather decision criteria provided herein. A life cycle cost analysis should first be performed to determine if another BMP can achieve the desired project objectives for a lower cost. For projects located in the SOCWA jurisdiction, diversions must be considered temporary, and the 'permanent' BMP with the lowest life -cycle cost should be selected for implementation when capital funds are available. It should also be noted that under the current agreement with OCSD, the current 4 MGD threshold should probably not be exceeded. Further analysis of the existing diversion case studies reveals that the present worth of these existing diversions is less for the wet pond/wetland scenario if a flow -based fee is required to be paid to OCSD. Orange County Stormwater Program Dry Weather Diversion Decision Path Water Quality Data available? Yes Does flow impair REC I or REC 2 waters? F Do Water Quality Sampling/Monitoring. Bacteria concentration high? Check Yes Yes Possible to identify source of bacteria and reduce/eliminate source or dry weather flow? No Yes Are there other forms of treatment besides diversion that are equally effective and cost- effective, and/or can provide additional benefits? No Assess Location of Diversion Facility Evaluate POTW Criteria I Yes Are there capacity and facility constraints? No Yes Are there adverse impacts to downstream recreational uses through the diversion of dry weather flows? No Yes Would there be loss of habitat downstream that can not be mitigated? No Y.C5 Do the community and regulatory agencies oppose diversion? No I Proceed with Diversion I Santa Ana Region or San Diego Region Basin Plans lists REC use? REC 1- contact water recreation REC 2- non -contact water recreation No No No sanitary treatment BMP needed No Diversion LL � O 0 , C ) N C W c 0$ t Q z o �d= •Rpo C.,, w o. � c�o L 7�Q a ® p LL Big Z u B C o v -AT 9um01 1 UO) 000FIDA zu�r�iE- O Z o Y C Y �8 C � co a C � Y V C H cc Q co IO Z m 0 o w w 0 Alternative to Shea Parkside: r�.r� w.■ s..wr »�... rs,,. i711t�710M sr � ._�e R�r+ w.s�r■ �... � e K... Opn*MrP�4rr Water (hWily WePands Concept 48.8 Acre Site Natural Treatment Wetlands 1. A cost effective, environmentally sound alternative for handling urban runoff and improving water quality 2. A natural ecosystem (plants and "good" bacteria) removes sediment, pathogens, and other contaminants from the urban runoff that drains down Wintersburg Channel into Huntington Harbour and the ocean 3. And preserve open space and wildlife habitat for all to enjoy Wetlands for the Watershed OR Residences with more Runoff? You have a Voice! Join the Parkside Alternatives e-mail discussion list. To subscribe yourself, send an e-mail message to majordomo@bixby.org and in the body (text) of the message type: subscribe parkside [visit www.bixby.org/parkside, or call Mark Bixby at (714) 625-0876, for more info] Natural Treatment System Page 1 of 2 Frequently Questions A. Urban runoff is any water that flows into storm drains. In Southern California, the weather is dry an average of 347 days per year. However, polluted urban runoff flows to the ocean year-round due largely to inefficient watering of landscaping, hosing down of sidewalks and driveways, and washing of cars. This water carries trash and other pollutants with it. Urban runoff causes pollution of local streams and the ocean. A. The Natural Treatment System is a cost effective, environmentally sound alternative for treating dry weather runoff and small storm events. The creation of man-made wetlands will use natural ecosystems to remove sediment, nutrients, pathogens and other contaminants from dry weather runoff and prevent these contaminants from reaching the Upper Newport Bay. At the same time, it will provide additional neighborhood open space and wildlife habitat. Q3. WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THIS? WHY CAN'T WE JUST USE OUR EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM? A. Sewers and storm drains are two separate systems. Sewers were not designed to handle the flow of urban runoff from the storm drains. The Natural Treatment System is an environmentally sound and more cost effective alternative to building bigger sewers and retrofitting existing sewers to accept the increased demand on the system. This approach avoids the high costs and increased traffic congestion from the digging up of roadways that would be necessary to accommodate a retrofit to the existing sewers. Further, combined sewers and storm drains have been problematic for treatment plants in other areas of the country, where the combined system can be overwhelmed during periods of heavy rain. This creates sewage spills, which obviously,Jefeats the goal of improving water quality. The Natural Treatment System allows sewers and storm drains to remain separate. Q4. What does IRWD get out of this project? A. IRWD, other public agencies and the communities within the watershed will all benefit from a coordinated, regional approach to treating urban runoff. The creation of the Natural Treatment wetlands will avoid the costs of building bigger sewers and retrofitting existing sewers to urban runoff. Q5. WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THIS PROJECT? A. We believe the need to implement the Natural Treatment System is immediate http://www.naturaltreatmentsystem.org/FAQ.html 3/29/03 Natural Treatment System Page 2 of in order for cities and the county to comply with the next phase of the Clean Water Act. IRWD completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Draft Master Plan in March 2003. Public comments will be received until May 12. It is anticipated that construction on some Phase I sites could begin as early as Fall 2003. Q6. HOW MUCH WILL THE PROJECT COST? A. The estimated cost of construction for all sites is $41 million, which will be spread over several years as the sites are built. The cost of installation, operation and maintenance of the Natural Treatment System will have a substantially lower financial impact on residents and businesses than the alternative of diverting urban runoff flows into the existing sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. Q7. WILL WATER RATES GO UP? A. Yes, but only marginally. The District is actively seeking federal and state funding to offset costs. The District has already received some funding and is confident more will be received in the future. Since May 2002 IRWD customers have been seeing a line item on their bills, itemizing their share of urban runoff treatment costs at San Joaquin Marsh. Currently this item is not being added to the customer's water bill, but will be in the future. The line item amounts to two percent of the customer's water commodity charge only (not including the monthly fixed charges for water and sewer service). This provides a fair allocation of the costs, Those who use more water and therefore contribute more to urban runoff will pay more to treat it. For most single family residences, the amount on the line item is now generally less than 50 cents per month. The estimated monthly charge at full buildout of the NTS system will be 65-98 cents per typical residence. Q8. WHO WILL MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM? A. IRWD will maintain and operate the Natural Treatment System to ensure the program's continued success. Our experience and successful wetlands restoration program at the San Joaquin Marsh will now be used throughout the watershed. IRWD's boundaries are almost identical to those of the San Diego Creek Watershed, therefore it is logical for IRWD to take the lead on this regional project. Q9. HOW MANY OF THESE WETLANDS WILL YOU BUILD? A. Originally 65 opportunity sites were evaluated. Through the master planning process, those have now been reduced to the 31 best sites in terms of treatment effectiveness, constructability, availability and cost. Q10. WHERE WILL THE LAND COME FROM TO BUILD THEM? A. The Natural Treatment System will use existingstorm water and flood control basins. In addition, cities and various agencies will work with developers on the construction of wetlands and other facilities needed for the system in new communities. Landowners will provide property and pay to construct the treatment wetlands and other facilities in new development areas. In some cases cities and developers will contribute property easements and funding to the Natural Treatment System program. Rev. 03/03 h4://www.naturaltreatmentsystem.org/FAQ.hbnl 3/29/03 Urban Runoff Program Phase I — Program Status Phase II — Development uFFI Orange County Sanitation District May 7, 2003 Objectives ♦ Approval to: ♦ Continue Urban Runoff Program ♦ Accept urban runoff flow above 4 MGD and up to 10 MGD ♦ Direction to develop urban runoff user charges ♦ Fund Phase II development and implementation, and contract consultant Background and Key Facts Urban Runoff is a Source of Beach Contamination a= stone drain 7 J System � f r�rinOff � Some of the Urban Runoff Has Been Diverted to OCSD since 1999 pumpstation - in stormwater well � 3 � OCSD wastewater treatment plant FBerms In srormwater- , channers Regulatory and Administrative Measures Purpose: control impact on sewerage system ♦ Urban Runoff Policy, OCSD 01-07 ♦ Assembly Bill 1892 ♦ Urban runoff permits ♦ Discharge conditions ♦ Monitoring 2 Regulatory Hierarchy r— aSK`d J ..........:.Np ounty ..............: Caltrans of Orange 4'11IRWD Cities storm Drain PCR Direct Urban Runoff Stonn Drain Flood Control to beach Pump Station Pump Station Channels OCSD Key Facts ♦ OCSD started to receive urban runoff in 1999 ♦ OCSD receives "dry weather" urban runoff only ♦ Diversion of urban runoff is interrupted during rain events Key Facts (Co.rd) ♦ Dischargers pay user charges if cumulative urban runoff flows exceed the 4 MGD threshold ♦ Urban runoff user charges are set in policy at $321 per MGD ♦ User charges are for Operation and Maintenance only 9 Urban Runoff Program Status Current 16 Urban Runoff Diversion Systems IRWD County Huntington Newport of Orange Beach Beach 2 4 9 1 Urban Runoff Flood Control Storm Drain Urban Runoff Pump Stedons Channels Pump Stedons Pump Stations OCSD Current 16 Urban Runoff Diversion Systems `j Beach Huntington I County of Orange PFRD J-'rlNewport , J Beach .y p+` f d PL Crystal Covee Oudell Pipe 1 4 Urban Runoff Program Phase I Findings (2000-2003) Phase I Findings ♦ Since the start of program, OCSD has received an average of 2.0 MGD ♦ Discharges have been highest during summer ♦ Majority of constituents of concern are below OCSD local limits, with exception of pesticide ♦ Preliminary toxicity results show no concern at 2.0 MGD 5 Phase I Findings (aunt'd) ♦ Because total flow has been below 4 MGD, dischargers have not paid user charges ♦ Total cost for O&M for 3-year discharge estimated at $1,030,000 ♦ OCSD's cost for program administration is estimated at $200,000 / yr Long -Terra Urban Runoff Program (Phase II) Phase II — Evaluation of Technical, Institutional and Cost Issues for Urban Runoff Diversion of Up to 10 MGD ♦ Implementation of proposed urban runoff projects ♦ Prioritization of projects ♦ Assessment of long-term impacts ♦ Cooperation with Orange County to evaluate alternative disposal technologies ♦ Determine capital improvement needs Phase II — Evaluation of Technical, Institutional and Cost Issues for Urban Runoff Diversion of Up to 10 MGD (curd'd) ♦ Financial impact of flows of 10 to 30 MGD ♦ Assessment of maximum collection and treatment capacity without capital improvement ♦ Development of program to administer and fund long-term urban runoff program Phase II Expected Flow ♦ 15 proposed diversion systems ♦ RWQCB is seeking to divert urban runoff from Santa Ana River, Newport Back Bay and Huntington Harbor ♦ Urban runoff flow greater than 4 MGD, but less than 10 MGD for the next 3 years System Limitations ♦ Availability of urban runoff conveyance system ♦ Availability of collection system capacity Phase II Phase II Cost ♦ $350,000 over a 3-year period ♦ Propose using consultant services Phase II Issues Impact on Toxicity ♦ 1999 and 2000 — permit exceedances ♦ October 1999 — increase in sediments toxicity ♦ Mass loading expected to increase Impact on Capital Improvement Projects ♦ Upgrade to secondary treatment ♦ Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 11 Funding Current Funding ♦ OCSD absorbs O&M costs ♦ User charges rate at $321 per MGD ♦ Fee incentive threshold of 4 MGD ♦ Over 4 MGD, all dischargers pay entire discharge Phase II Funding Issues ♦ Flow increase over 4 MGD, estimated to be under 10 MGD ♦ New user charges at $329 ♦ Develop equitable and feasible mechanism to recover OCSD costs ♦ Capital capacity charges not considered (flow expected to be below 10 MGD) Funding Options Option I ♦ 4 MGD threshold ♦ User charges of $329 per MGD when total volume exceeds 4 MGD up to 10 MGD Option II ♦ No 4 MGD threshold ♦ User charges of $329 per MGD of discharge of up to 10 MGD Funding Mechanism 1. Urban runoff discharge permittees 2. Owners and operators of storm and urban runoff systems 3. Lead urban runoff agency 4. Urban runoff generators County of _I' Orange $ Cities B • Storm Drains RIND $ Cities A $ Caltrans :Storm Drains -Storm Drains -Flood ntrol •FreewaylHighvray Chanty Diversions • Diversions Storm Dreins U—si OCSD <��� pe County of Orange $ Cities B • Iiierm tiralrrs IRWD $ Cities A $ Caltrans • Flood nlrol •Storm Drains •Storm Drains • FreewaylHighway • Diversions • Diversions . {feral Storm Drains OCSD 10 T e`SmCounty of Orange Cities B 1 • Storm Drains e� IRWD ea Cities A Caltrans • Storm Drains m Oralns G d els no! • FremayMighway - Diversions • Dry Ions . Diu ons Storm Drains OCSD Issues on the Table ♦ Continue Urban Runoff Program? ♦ Proceed with Phase II ($350,000)? ♦ Keep 4 MGD threshold" for user charges? ♦ Develop funding mechanisms? Questions? Visit our website: www.00SD.com 11 URBAN RUNOFF AD HOC COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEMS May 7, 2003 I. Introduction (Bob Ghirelli, OCSD) II. Urban Runoff Program Background and Status (Adriana Renescu, OCSD) III. County of Orange Dry Weather Urban Runoff Plan (George Edwards, County of Orange) IV. Urban Runoff Program Evaluation (Adriana Renescu, OCSD) Phase I Findings ® Urban Runoff Program Phase II V. Cost and Funding Options (Adriana Renescu, OCSD) ■ Current Cost and Funding • Funding Options ■ Funding Mechanism Alternatives _