Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-01_DRAFT MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District December 1, 2004 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on December 1, 2004 at 3 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum was not present. Director Krom arrived at 3:15 p.m.; Director Green arrived at 3:17 p.m., and Director Ferryman arrived at 3:22 p.m., wherein a quorum was declared present as follows: AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Cathy Green, Director Norm Eckenrode, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Tod Ridgeway, Director Jim Ferryman, Board Vice Chair STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, General Manager Carol Beekman, Director of Communications and Administrative Services Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mike White, Controller Gail Garrett, Committee Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. Directors Absent: Steve Anderson, Board Chair Jim Silva, Director/Supervisor Paul Yost, Director OTHERS PRESENT: Carolyn Cavecche, Director Don McIntyre, Consultant Geraldine Lucas, City of Huntington Beach Chris Crompton, County of Orange Norris Brandt, IRWD Larry Honeybourne, OCEHCA Larry McKenney, OCPFRD Ying-Keung Poon, P.E., D.Sc. Zeynep Erdal, Ph.D, CH2MHill Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 December 1, 2003 (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McIntyre clarified in Item 7(C) of the minutes that the urban runoff treatment technology is based on a design by CalTech's post doctoral staff, and is cost competitive with other storm water treatment devices. The minutes of the July 21, 2004 meeting were ordered to be received and filed as amended. (5) REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Don Bankhead did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager did not make a report. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Urban Runoff Projects OCSD Urban Runoff Study: Tom B. Meregillano, OCSD Source Control Division, introduced Zeynep Erdal, Ph.D, CH2M Hill. He presented an update on the urban runoff study which helped determine the District's residual treatment and collection capacities that can be made available to accommodate additional urban runoff flows. Key findings of the study were summarized as follows: 1) Residual treatment capacity is limited to 11 mgd, which will be available at Plant 2 in 2020; 2) 40 mgd of urban runoff can potentially be generated within the District's service area; 3) Estimated cost analysis for facility expansion to treat additional 40 mgd is $96M and $24M for Plants 1 and 2 respectively, not including land acquisition costs; 4) No significant quality impacts on ocean discharge are anticipated; 5) Treatment or urban runoff may increase metal quantities in biosolids; 6) Residual treatment and collection capacities anticipated for year 2020 are consistent with the District's current policy limit of accepting up to 10 mgd of urban runoff. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 December 1, 2003 2. Ci of Newport Beach Urban Runoff Diversion Prioritization Pro'ect: Mr. Meregillano introduced Dr. Ying Poon, Everest International Consultants, Inc. Dr. Poon distributed handouts and presented an update on bacteria monitoring in Newport Bay. The City of Newport Beach obtained Proposition 13 grant money to implement alternatives to reduce AB411 exceedance. A study team conducted a two -week monitoring of five candidate storm drains and three outfalls to evaluate the relative impact to Newport Bay. The field program consisted of flow monitoring and bacteria sampling. Dr. Poon concluded that most storm drains have early morning peaks, the highest being Bayside and El Paseo Drives, possibly due to water sprinkler usage. Bacteria concentrations are higher in the morning, except at Dover, and concentrations at outfalls are 10 to 100 times lower. Dr. Poon gave a visual presentation of the hydrodynamics of tidal effects on both bacteria concentration and flow to determine bacteria loading and the impact of storm discharge on Newport Bay. Director Tod Ridgeway noted that a satellite driven controller, which adjusts the daily water irrigation based on moisture in the air, is available but is also very costly. Norris Brandt explained that IRWD is looking into parallel patenting of a less expensive controller. 3. Orange County Urban Runoff Strategic Plan: Larry McKenney reported that an informational public workshop was held August 24 headed by Vicki Wilson. The County staff is currently working collaboratively and cooperatively with all impacted agencies. He outlined the County's current water quality accomplishments and challenges and reviewed the seven proposed regional implementation steps. The two NPDES stormwater permits encourage the County to look at water quality by individual city and watershed by watershed. He indicated that requirements will become more restrictive over time. Water conservation will be stressed through education. Mr. McKenney described some of the water quality activities conducted by cities, special districts and the County, including local implementation plans, enforcement, treatment wetlands, diversion, conservation, catch basin filters, and public education. Preventing runoff will be the first priority, followed by diversions. Ongoing programs are harbor monitoring, investigating the Santa Ana River problems, and conducting watershed studies in five of the 13 watersheds. He noted that the County will continue as the Lead Permittee for the NPDES Permits as designated by the Regional Water Boards. New Permits will be reissued in January 2007 and renewal discussions are underway. He described the water quality financing structure as well as ways to coordinate, govern and fund the different initiatives, as well as significant cost of coalition building and lobbying for funds. Future policy considerations and identifying priorities will be addressed at the next meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 4 December 1, 2003 B. Future Direction of Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee The County of Orange will continue to engage City and Special District management in examining the possibility of creating a true regional water quality program that would include urban runoff, water supply, water conservation, wastewater treatment and water quality, and to examine alternative funding sources, governance options and necessary implementation steps to achieve such a regional water quality program. After some discussion, consensus was reached to continue to meet on an as -needed basis. (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 determined at a later date beginning at 3:00 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Submitted by: Gail Garrett, Committee Secretary RldeptlagendalAd Hoc CommitteeslUrban Runoff1200=52103 AH Committee 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, December 1, 2004, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Thursday, 23, 2004. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of December, 2004. Penny M. Kyle, Secret Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District Posted: November 23, 2004, 12:00 P.M. r By: Signature H:\DEPT\AGENDA\AD HOC COMMITTEES\URBAN RUNOFF\COMMITTEE POSTING CERTIFICATION FORM.DOC `D�RZY SA4f A Ipb m ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT A ff r phone: (714) 962-2411 fax: (714) 962-0356 www.ocad.com NOTICE OF mailing address: P.O. Box 8127 FountainValley.AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF 92728-8127 street address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain valley, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 92708-7018 Member Agencies WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004 - 3 P.M. • Cities Anaheim DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Brea 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Buena Park Cypress FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra A regular meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff will meet at the above La Palma date and time to discuss issues of mutual interest. 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 Irvine Ranch To maintain world -class leadership in wastewater and water resource management. AD HOC COMMITTEE: URBAN RUNOFF ROLL CALL (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: December 1, 2004 Meeting Time: 3:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Ad Hoc Committee Members Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair ........................... Paul Yost, Director.............................................................. Cathy Green, Director......................................................... Norm Eckenrode, Director .................................................. Beth Krom, Director.. ......................................................... Roy Moore, Director........................................................... Tod Ridgeway, Director ..................................................... JimSilva, Director............................................................... Steve Anderson, Board Chair ............................................ Jim Ferryman, 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 ........................... Norris Brandt, IRWD ............................ .... ................ Larry Honeybourne, OCEHCA............................................ Monica Mazur, OCEHCA................................................... Larry McKenney, OCPFRD................................................. Ying-Keung Poon, P.E., D.Sc............................................ Staff Blake P. Anderson, General Manager ................................. Carol Beekman, Director of Communications & Administrative Services .................................................. Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services ........................ David Ludwin, Director of Engineering ................................ Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance ............. Gary Streed, Director of Finance ........................................ Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager ............................... Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist .............................. Jim Colston, Legal & Regulatory Affairs Liaison .................. Gail Garrett, Committee Secretary ...................................... C: Lenora Crane H:\dept\agenda\Ad Hoc Commillees\Urban Runoff\2004\12\120104 AH Committee Roll Call Sheet.02.doc AGENDA MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE RE: URBAN RUNOFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004 AT 3 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Agenda Posting: 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. Items Not Posted: In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or because there is a need to take immediate action, which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. Accommodations for the Disabled: The Board of Directors Meeting Room is wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations, please contact the Orange County Sanitation District Board Secretary's office at (714) 593-7130 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. Items Continued: Items may be continued from this meeting without further notice to a Committee meeting held within five (5) days of this meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(3). Meeting Adjournment: This meeting may be adjourned to a later time and items of business from this agenda may be considered at the later meeting by Order of Adjournment and Notice in accordance with Government Code Section 54955 (posted within 24 hours). (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Book Page 1 Page 2 December 1, 2004 (4) REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR A. Approve the minutes of the July 21, 2004 Urban Runoff Committee meeting. (5) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (6) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (7) AD HOC COMMITTEES DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B) A. Urban Runoff Projects 1. OCSD Urban Runoff Study: Tom B. Meregillano, OCSD Source Control Division, Zeynep Erdal, Ph.D, CH2M Hill and Anders Winstrom, Ph.D, CH2M Hill (15 minutes) 2. City of Newport Beach Urban Runoff Diversion Prioritization Project, Ying Poon, Ph.D. (15 minutes) 3. Orange County Urban Runoff Strategic Plan: Larry McKenney, OCRDMD Manager (30 minutes) B. Future Direction of Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee (8) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY (9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (11) FUTURE MEETING DATES (12) 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. Book Page 2 Page 3 December 1, 2004 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. (13) ADJOURNMENT WdepllagendalAd Hoc Committees\Urban Runoff120041042104 AH Committee Agenda.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: Gail Garrett (714) 593-7101 (714) 962-0356 (Fax) e-mail: 4parrett _ ocsd.com Staff Contact: Bob Ghirelli (714) 593-7400 e-mail: rohirell0,ocsd.com Book Page 3 Book Page 4 MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District July 21, 2004, at 5:00 p.m. A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on July 21, 2004 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: A❑ HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Cathy Green, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Don Hughes, Assistant to Jim Silva Directors Absent: Patty Campbell Debbie Cook Norm Eckenrode Tod Ridgeway Shirley McCracken Steve Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. OTHERS PRESENT: Don McIntyre, Consultant Bob Beardsley, City of Huntington Beach Geraldine Lucas, City of Huntington Beach Darrel Nolta Jim Sinasek Tom Bonigut Director Don Bankhead: No quorum. Committee unable to make a motion or approve any items; however most of the items presented are "Informational Items." (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Darrel Nolta, a resident of Westminster, is concerned of how best to spend tax payers' money in removing urban runoff to improve beach water quality. Mr. Nolta reiterated that the people have a right to vote on this issue. Mr. Nolta believes that the District is in violation of Proposition 218 in administrating its urban runoff program and that this service should come to a vote by the people of Orange County. Mr. Nolta advocates that the people should pay for this service, since everyone in Orange County contributes to urban runoff. (4) REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Book Page 5 MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUN FF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District July 21, 2004, at 5:00 p.m. A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on July 21, 2004 at 5 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 Cathy Green, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Don Hughes, Assistant to Jim Silva Directors Absent: Patty Campbell Debbie Cook Norm Eckenrode Tod Ridgeway Shirley McCracken Steve Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. OTHERS PRESENT: Don McIntyre, Consultant Bob Beardsley, City of Huntington Beach Geraldine Lucas, City of Huntington Beach Darrel Nolta Jim Sinasek Tom Bonigut Director Don Bankhead: No quorum. Committee unable to make a motion or approve any items; however most of the items presented are "Informational Items." (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Darrel Nolta, a resident of Westminster, is concerned of how best to spend tax payers' money in removing urban runoff to improve beach water quality. Mr. Nolta reiterated that the people have a right to vote on this issue. Mr. Nolta believes that the District is in violation of Proposition 218 in administrating its urban runoff program and that this service should come to a vote by the people of Orange County. Mr. Nolta advocates that the people should pay for this service, since everyone in Orange County contributes to urban runoff. (4) REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Book Page 6 Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 July 21, 2004 The minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting were ordered to be received and filed. (5) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager did not attend the meeting. (6) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not attend the meeting. (7) AD HOC COMMITTEES DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ugdate on urban runoff study Tom Meregillano presented an update on the urban runoff study. The general objectives of the study were presented as follows: 1) to determine the District's collections and treatment limitations in accepting urban runoff, 2) to determine the potential quality impacts to the treatment process, and 3) to determine whether the regional urban runoff treatment of the County of Orange can be met after the District's defines its operational limitation. A technical team was established to provide review and validate all technical information produced by CH2M Hill. Mr. Meregillano reported on the following preliminary findings: 1) Approximately 11 MGD residual treatment capacity through year 2020; 2) District's Planning Division is currently reviewing residual collection capacity findings provided by CH2M Hill; 3) Existing constituents of concerns are not known to impact the District's treatment operations; 4) Based on the preliminary residual treatment capacity, the District currently meets the needs for the County's urban runoff flow projections for treatment of approximately 4 MGD in year 2010 and 10 MGD in year 2020. These flow projects include 29 proposed diversion systems. Flow projects may be subject to change. The Study is approximately 70% complete and a final report is planned to be completed on end of October 2004. The District has coordinated with the County of Orange, through the Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee, to establish a prioritization list of proposed diversion projects. Twenty-nine proposed diversion projects were ranked and prioritized for the District to consider for diversions. B. Presentation on the City of Huntington Beach's Wetland Treatment Promect Proposal Geraldine Lucas / Bob Beardsley presented on a "Talbert Lake Diversion Project." As an alternative to urban runoff diversion into the sewer system, the City of Huntington Beach has planned several key water quality improvement projects. The City was able to secured funding from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange approximately $2.3 Million to fund these projects. In partnership with these agencies, the City plans to divert approximately 3-4 million gallons per day of urban runoff from the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel through series of pre-treatment devices and Book Page 7 Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 July 21, 2004 discharge the treated runoff for natural treatment in Central Park. The diverted water will supply water to two lakes and a nature center situated in Central Park. Total project cost of the project is estimated at $4 Million. C. Presentation on the City of Newport Beach's Purestream Pilot Protect Jim Sinasek, City of Newport Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented several water quality improvement projects in particular a water quality pilot project in partnership with Purestream Inc. Because of proprietary reasons, the technical details of the Purestream treatment system were not discussed. Don McIntyre presented, on behalf of Purestream Inc., the pilot project. Mr. McIntyre informed the committee that the urban runoff treatment technology is designed by CalTech. The treatment system is no larger than a washing machine designed to be fitted below ground and is designed to remove bacteria in urban runoff contained in stormdrains. In situation where natural treatment system and sewer diversions are not practical, this treatment technology is an option. At no capital cost involved, Purestream will provide this technology as a service on a monthly basis. This emerging technology will be available for use sometime in August 2004. D. Presentation on the City of San Clemente's Proposition 218 Ballot Ex erience Tom Bonigut presented on City of San Clemente's Proposition 218 experiences. In need of funding to implement City's urban runoff management planned activities (structural treatment systems, monitoring, and enforcement), to comply with increased NPDES permit requirements, and to maintain existing aging storm drain system, the City embarked on a proposition 218 ballot initiative to seek additional funding to finance these activities. The City completed a public opinion survey to gauge willingness to pay for water quality improvements within the City. The results of the survey indicated that majority of the residents supported a fee. An intense educational outreach plan was implemented to increase awareness of the ballot initiative through public meetings, local press, public forms etc., which the City gained public support not only from local residents but also from environmental groups. Results of the elections are as follows: 1) 17,522 ballots mailed to property owners, 2) 8,586 returned, 3) 418 ballots were invalidated, 4) 8,168 ballots were tabulated 5) 56.6% voted Yes, and 6) 43.4% voted No. A 5- year sunset was included in the fee increase. There are several key lessons learned for the City's experience: 1) ensure voter eligibility, 2) being cautious of outdated tax assessor data, 3) provide clear ballot instructions, 4) obtain full support from the community, City Council, and advocacy groups, and 5) implement an effective campaign effort to disseminate information. (8) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL_ AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY There were none. Book Page 8 Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 4 July 21, 2004 (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) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 beginning at 3 p.m. (12) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (13) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Submitted by: Rose Marsella, Acting Committee Secretary WdepAagendaM Hoc CommitteesWrban RunoH120041042104 Urban Run01TAH Committee Minutes.doc Book Page 9 Book Page 10 AD HOC COMMITTEE Meeting Date 1ziuo4 To Bd. of Dir. AGENDA REPORT Item Number 7A Item Number Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env., Director of Technical Services Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Projects GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Information Items Only SUMMARY District staff and representatives from the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach will report on the following urban runoff projects: ® Orange County Sanitation District -- CH2MHill Urban Runoff Study ® Orange County Resource Development and Management Department -- Urban Runoff Strategic Plan ■ City of Newport Beach — Urban Runoff Diversion Prioritization Project PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS N/A PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGETIMPACT ❑ 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 N/A Book Page 11 ALTERNATIVES N/A CEQA FINDINGS N/A Page 2 Book Page 12 AD HOC COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 12/1 /04 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number 7(B) Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env., Director of Technical Services Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager SUBJECT: Future Direction of Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Participate in the County of Orange's Regional Water Quality Steering Committee 2. Sunset the Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee and transition responsibility for urban runoff issues to the OMTS Committee. SUMMARY In June 2000 OCSD established an Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of providing policy direction in the development and implementation of the District's Urban Runoff Program. In the past four years since its establishment, the Committee has guided the development of OCSD's urban runoff policy, operational controls and legislative initiatives related to the acceptance and treatment of dry weather urban runoff. The following are some of the major milestones accomplished overseen by the Committee: Aug 1999 Emergency authorization to accept and treat urban runoff from stormwater pump station diversions owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach June 2000 Program expanded to accept and treat urban runoff from stormwater pump stations and channels diversions owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange, and Irvine Ranch Water District. Sep 2000 Developed and Implemented Dry Weather Urban Runoff Policy OCSD-01-17 amended March 2001). Sep 2000 Implemented a permitting program to regulate the quantity and quality of urban runoff discharged into the OCSD's sewers stem Jan 2002 Proposed Assembly Bill 1892 amending OCSD's charter to allow OCSD to accept and treat urban Jun 2002 AB 1892 signed into law Jun 2003 Review and approve urban runoff diversion priority list prepared by the County of Orange Stormwater NPDES Technical Advisory Committee. Dec 2003 Complete triennial review of urban runoff policy and program Jan 2004 Recommendation to undertake Urban Runoff Study. Consider staff proposal for Proposition 218 ballot initiative to fund urban runoff April 2004 treatment program. Matter referred to OC Board of Supervisors for review. August 2004 OC Board of Supervisors direct county staff to work with cities and special districts to develop recommendations for funding and governance of countywide urban runoff/water quality program Book Page 13 Recently, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the CEO's office has convened a Regional Water Quality Steering Committee to develop recommendations for a countywide program to manage stormwater and urban pollution. Representatives of the County of Orange, along with several special districts (OCSD, Irvine Ranch Water District, and South Orange County Wastewater Authority) and coastal cities (Laguna Beach, Seal Beach, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach) make up the committee. The committee has met several times since August 2004 to develop recommendations regarding: Future funding needs and mechanisms to finance storm water and urban runoff programs and projects. Options include: o Cost sharing agreements among county, cities and special districts o Utility surcharges o Formation of assessment districts o Voter -approved initiatives (e.g., bonds, Measure M add on, Prop 218 vote) Methods to localize solutions on watershed -based scale. Options include: o Institutional arrangements based on 13 Orange County watersheds o Project/Advisory committees centered in North County, Central County and South County Appropriate shared governance structure. Options include: o Interagency implementation agreements o Joint Powers Authority (JPA) o Form a new special district or a stormwater utility district o Create a super -agency to administer all municipal and special district water - related activities. With the County of Orange leading the effort to engage City and Special District management to examine alternative funding sources, governance options and implementation steps to achieve a regional water quality program, OCSD's Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee should consider the following questions: • Does the Committee agree with the direction the County is heading? • Does the Committee have a preference regarding institutional arrangements and funding mechanisms? • How does OCSD channel its efforts to support the county initiative? • What is the future of the OCSD urban runoff ad hoc committee? Larry McKenney, Watershed and Coastal Resources Manager, will brief the committee on the status of the County's water quality strategic initiative. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS None Page 2 Book Page 14 PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY None 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 (attached) Draft issue paper prepared by Orange County Sanitation staff for Regional Water Quality Steering Committee. ALTERNATIVES Status Quo: Continue to implement OCSD's urban runoff program within the limits of the approved urban runoff policy. ■ Take the Lead Role: OCSD conduct a proposition 218 mail ballot election of property owners within OCSD's service area to fund regional storm water/urban runoff management and treatment services for north and central Orange County. Support the County's urban runoff strategic planning initiative: Continue staff participation in the Regional Water Quality Steering Committee. Sunset the Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee and transfer responsibility for urban runoff management to the District's Operations and Maintenance/Technical Services (OMTS) Committee. CEQA FINDINGS N/A Page 3 Book Page 15 Book Page 16 DRAFT REGIONAL WATER QLFALITY FLTNDiG, GOVERNANCE & IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS The Orange County Board of Supervisors has directed staff to engage City and Special District management in order to thoroughly examine the possibility of creating a true regional water quality program that would include water supply, water conservation, wastewater treatment and water quality. The Board also gave specific direction to examine alternative funding sources, governance options and necessary implementation steps to achieve such a regional water quality program. ISSUE Clean beaches and improved water quality have long been priorities for the County of Orange. For the past five years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors have appropriately formalized their commitment to clean beaches and improved water quality by recognizing these efforts in the County's annual review of its strategic priorities. Since then, much has been done in the ever -changing climate of water quality. In spite of increasingly prescriptive regulations, water quality efforts and activities by municipalities have increased and Special Districts throughout Orange County have been taking an active role in helping to address the growing problem of urban runoff. While meaningful efforts and projects continue to be designed, developed and implemented to improve the health of Orange County watersheds, municipalities and Special Districts have recognized that there is currently no regional, integrated approach to improve water quality. This has, at times, resulted in the unnecessary duplication of efforts, many missed opportunities to partner and cost -share and, most importantly, has limited our ability to regionally prioritize projects on a system -wide basis. Improving coordination on a regional level would promote a more unified approach to water quality, allowing efforts to be forensically focused in lieu of addressing what we can, where we can within our own jurisdictions. It is also important to note that the current regulations have significantly increased the regional and local costs to implement water quality programs. For more than a decade, the Orange County Stormwater Program, comprised of the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District and each of its 34 municipalities (collectively know as the co-permittees), have been responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act, through complying with NPDES permits within their respective jurisdictions. However, since the renewal of the Third Term permits in January and February 2002, the regulatory requirements have continued along the predicted path of becoming more and more prescriptive, forcing each jurisdiction to dedicate more money in order to adequately comply. The information below illustrates the increasing costs to comply with the NPDES permits. Fiscal Year County NPDES Expenditures Countywide Expenditures FY01/02 $1.5 Million $45.8 Million FY02/03 $4.9 Million $59.3 Million FY03/04 $6.5 Million $77.1 Million Again, these numbers reflect the increasing costs associated with the Orange County Stormwater Program only and do not account for any money spent independently by any of the co-permittees outside of their effort to comply. Watershed planning efforts as well as other capital improvements and water quality solutions are being implemented in addition to each co-permittees effort to comply with these permits. In Book Page 17 addition, the figures listed above do not reflect any money spent on water quality activities by Special Districts. While this trend of increasing costs continues, and the regulatory requirements become more prescriptive, it has become clear that our current approach could be improved, In fact, with Special Districts taking an active role in water quality and water conservation, we contend that forming appropriate regional partnerships will help the co-permittees and the Special Districts reduce costs and prioritize projects while achieving an even more positive result. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY VISION In terms of Water Quality, where do we want to be? We would have... • Improved Water Quality and Reduced Beach Postings • Regional Water Quality Approach and Project Prioritization • Stakeholder Buy In and Public Participation • Efficient and Coordinated Best Management Practices (Including Water Conservation) • Sensible and Appropriate Water Quality Standards • Trust and Concurrence with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards • Stable, Dedicated Funding Sources • A Governance Structure that is Easily Understood and that the Public has Trust In • Proven Technologies to Treat and Address Water Quality • Implementation on an Appropriate Physical Scale (Watershed or Other) • These Concepts Build into the NPDES Permits FUNDING ALTERNATIVES County staff has examined several individual options and have created 5 separate categories. Below is a brief list and explanation of funding alternatives for a regional water quality program. • Status Quo Funding — Limited regional cost -sharing between NPDES co-permittees (Cities/County) o Variations of Status Quo Funding ■ Utilize existing structure and dedicate more COUNTY GENERAL FUND dollars ■ Utilize existing structure and dedicate more FLOOD FUND dollars • Implement a hybrid of both variations • Expanded Regional Cost -Sharing — Status quo funding plus contributions from Special Districts and Private Parties ■ Utility Surcharges — New money would depend on those jurisdictions with a utility. This alternative has several advantages and several disadvantages. o Water & Sewer Utility Fee ■ Advantages • No election requirement • No legal constraints on raising funds other than a water quality nexus o Could pay O&M or capital costs Book Page 18 Disadvantages • Can only pay for water quality proj ects/efforts relating to water and sewer • Relies solely on those municipalities /jurisdictions with a water or sewer utility and their willingness to assess a fee • Difficult to administer on a REGIONAL basis with inconsistent water and sewer utilities o Refuse/Trash Collection Advantages • No election requirement • No legal constraints on raising funds other than a water quality nexus • Could pay O&M or capital costs • Charging refuse/trash collection firms directly through franchise fee could avoid problems with controlling rates charged to users Disadvantages • Can only pay for water quality projects/efforts relating to refuse/trash collection • Difficult to administer on a REGIONAL basis with refuse/trash collection firms • Public agencies cannot control rates charged to users. Franchise fee paid directly to public agency may be a preferred mechanism • Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Assessments o Create one CFD and require all who pull any type of permit to agree to annex into CFD. This could take 20-30 years to have any real impact. Voter Approved Initiatives o Prop 218 Vote ® Establish a plan and ask voters to agree to pay a specific fee per year to address water quality on a regional scale o Measure M Add On 9 Utilize existing Measure and add water quality to its renewal o Bond Measures ■ Ask voters to approve bonds to fund water quality efforts GOVERNANCE OPTIONS County staff has examined several individual options and have created 5 separate categories. Below is a brief list and explanation of governance alternatives for a regional water quality program. ® Status Quo Governance o Utilize existing NPDES structure and Inter -Agency implementation agreements and Ad Hoc watershed and project agreements • Regional Co-Permittee & Non-Permittee Inter -Agency Cost -Sharing Agreements o Status quo governance with expanded Inter -Agency agreements to allow cost -sharing and governance from Special Districts and Private Parties Book Page 19 o Im lementation Step: Establish a task force of NPDES co-permittees and non-permittees to examine current spending levels for each agency, inventory what types of activities are being funded and determine what each agency anticipates spending in the future. After this initial analysis is completed, the task force should review future funding options and determine the pros and cons of each available method. • Examine Methods to Prioritize and Implement Water Quality Projects and Programs on a Watershed -Based Scale o Implementation SteR: Examine ways that the county could be divided up into smaller, more manageable water quality areas. ® Partner with Regional Boards and Involve them in this Process o Im lementation St : Invite and involve the Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers and staff to participate in our discussions. • Examine Appropriate Regional Governance Structures and Options o Irn lementation Sim: Involve those who are reviewing Watershed -Based Programs to help examine and develop governance concepts that involve NPDES co-permittees and non- perrnittees. This group would be comprised of NGOs, County, City, Special District and Regional Board participation, • Governance structures would include the method by which funding is appropriated (per capita portion + competitive portion + a regional prioritization portion). Upon the completion of the tasks above, information will be compiled and shared with all participants. This information will be utilized to develop a "Regional Water Quality Vision 2008" statement and plan that all participants would be asked to review, comment, adopt and work towards. Book Page 20 i 4rrrr ■ r a r ■rrRa■ ♦ ■ar■ Ewan* ♦smas arrr* '0 Norm a . •rrarrrrraarre■ ■ a r a e a a a r a r a a a a. ■r�arreaaaraer■ a a a arrrarrrae0a► 'rrrrer�earrrar■ arreaNer�ererer► rA �U V fx aX 'A 5 0 rA EO Om4 V Book Page 21 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (714) 962-2411 www.ocsd.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Street Address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 URBAN RUNOFF STUDY Summary of Findings For the past five years, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has been successfully collecting and treating a limited volume of urban runoff generated in coastal watersheds within OCSD's services area. Since then, questions have been raised on whether OCSD can accept additional amounts of urban runoff above the established 10 Million Gallon per Day (mgd) policy limitation without comprising its primary function of treating sanitary wastewater. The urban runoff study was scoped to address this question, which focused on determining OCSD's residual treatment and collection capacities that can be made available to accommodate additional urban runoff flows. Key findings of the study are summarized below. • Residual treatment capacity at OCSD plants is limited to 11 mgd, which will be available at Plant No. 2 in the year 2020. • County of Orange conservatively projects 10 mgd of urban runoff diversion by year 2020. • 40 mgd of urban runoff can potentially be generated within OCSD's service area. • Hypothetical cost analysis for facility expansion (capital improvement projects) to treat an additional flow of 40 mgd is $96M for Plant No. 1 and $24M for Plant No. 2. e Both treatment plants are land locked for additional treatment units. Land acquisition costs are not included in the cost analysis. m Life Cycle Cost values just for facility expansions can vary between $9.7M and $98M, not including the land acquisition costs. • Conveyance system has potential surcharge points. • 10 mgd of urban runoff can be accommodated in selected trunklines in the year 2020. • No significant quality impacts on ocean discharge quality are anticipated. • No potential toxic impacts can be identified on treatment processes. • Treatment of urban runoff may increase metal quantities in biosolids. • Residual treatment and collection capacities anticipated for year 2020 can accommodate the County of Orange's urban runoff flow projection of 10 mgd. Z�:'� fit' � ��` r; — ' � � � -~ � � ,�•� ` � z+ zr' �v + j •�' f J •�. 1 `` :'ten � � _ i.:j. w r LO 014 -�I ,, mot` • � `, . r �. � • . •�; �' �`-aJ �`a Amp * ' jiT-- ,� {y'f --t r• r .ter.^. -..�: i A %L• } f' ■ � ---- ,_._.._ -may -• �,, - - • s = : _. �• ��.,� ;� .� 1 �•11 iR �� K■r r••r j. Ilk Aci C*+4 l' ice_ � �• .:g•�'ti = - � .r E kk7i q1t I O LO O N �Jbl u r 4,7. `' NI`NN �. .�� :�'ti� � =fib �._,�r,;�•,-• :�.�.�-.� saw '� :i der ' € ,j''1 •� � ,_ �. • � � � t •- :;i..� f�rpy -x. _ r 1 q� Z�� _• {- I 4+ • f� �.: _ � r i:.:. � ,f% L� ■ m LL a� E 0 v 0 N C d d i 0 L CL CN � r' ~�� �_ • r :� �• .1:'.r}. `;-•%d.•ar�=per• I• ,.I r 'fib`''• lF.�.• `�'� � t. vw '� � � � • �_� SKr ..f�• •.y Y .-�.: � •� 3 N_ �r � .i I d�'��- �• i -rpv a�p!I:3n3 11ouA o as s JGPIOH-aaNliW 0 • o O s a c� a� O 0 `h m K i l., os aU 3m r- 0 row 7= 0 V ri la U O 33 3 r� W �__ :a ct 10 O ct mr-49 ■ O to O O � O � 0 a VON( jjj�� V-4 W II� I c - J �. 4) Q Q) � � .V ct O Ct � U Q) 4 � ct a� c� 4-4ct Q � � o ct .ct c� ct o U o 4t a) � • O U b-o 4-1 tl O U v0 0 biC Q) ■ IM i--I ct CA C!� ct ct biO .� O O O bjQ a� ct c� 0 .4-J ct ct Q) .V O 01 tg En ■ tO 0 4 R N f "� 14 (MIIW '8) op! I Floe I* o v N � O I •I � I CN •� • � I 0 CN OD lee I Go 00 I #*I I di 0 11 0 11 Itco ■ ■ Iq � I C I ant, _N Go O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 N L `0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O O r OO OOGO M CO) N N r N O O N r O O O O r O O O r O O r O O O r O O r O r O O r O r r O_ r r (lwoom-io) (Iwool/n:jo) (Iwoounjo) (sID) mo13 (sw) (3dd) IOeN uuo;!loo lejol wjo;!loo leoaj sn0000mlu3 14!n!}onpuoo (mll" 'u) ap1 2 to -qt N O Q O O O O N N �. co M• F� i 0 0 Nco r M a I I O O ! I 0 • N 0 0 � co O O co C w + a H co 0 0 CD 0 0 a I w I o 0 0 co I o � � � o •I r r • 0 I I N f coLA o 0 o o n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O M CO N Lt1 M N nj O O o � 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 O O r (lwoovnn) (lwooimjo) (lwowmn) (slo) Moir (sw) (Idd) DeN wjoploo jejol wjojiloo leoej sn00000jaau3 AI!Ailonpuoo U C-M C� A G 'gyp_ �0 m L G N a0 W IA 5 CI 0 L L � v ao �C c '�a do �E L m� L c 'm o 6. m0 (MAE IL o w(n c O O O O O O O T O O O O O O T O O O O O T O O O O T O O O T CF O T O T T iw ou/nio uwoj!ioo item E m V c r c m m U 'C N E 0 m m 0 (n a) a m N O N N t O N CL E N O U G` Wd o= UOON IL w Wd Wd r 0 UOON u r a c wy p` Wd m o UOON m `o m Wy o Wd W € UOON a o w Wd Wd m E UOON a° Wd Wd UOON O O Wd Wd Lq = r UOON u° O O O O O O O O O O O O O r- O O O O O O O r O � nw ouinjo uuo;iioo iiqoi co N Rf 0 0 m a c `m Vn a Go c m C O 0 z to Q �o N s LO N- OD N 00 Ci N N N W N 00 O CO W c:J W V C7 W N_ W O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O p CD CD 0 0 0 O O J (-lw ou/nio) wjo}iioo ielol O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D O O Ln o U') o LD O U-1 Cl) co N N — (pd6) mol.1 OBBJanb ftliea O w O + + + ul 0 o O o 0 (Aepinjo) 6ulpeoi mjo}lloo lelol z .rj C c� V cM pp w LEM U A h4 rHY / fy rYc *.►�r ti+•'�in� - . r -- _ •L'_ •:}. y�,,� • : r. ti '• § ��'__c "3, ••;. `r 41 r Aldq R.;.. AM _p . 47 l „+ •; :. �' ••l: - -Y-• .- S� �, � '�� � � 'yam _. 1 r • ••J� ` f ti''�,•��� _ �-� � ` C• Leh`.' ¢, R V _ As 1,� +� ,/.fit + `� .� - 't'•��` `� • v Q te1 Q m � ° >°o1 ' `L m > ❑ ° ❑ m 4 M w [C E i v d Rf 0 a. Lu M i k I 7 Y - 16 c IL Cin 49 CL " CL to Z ig o 47 cm a� v r c�E r) � En �„ � ; CV N 1�1ii lV L1i CV �i cn M- 0 M L7 rAA� n V A �r ��. '�; 4 _ � I. 3�I�V- FAA '�• ,T r-•4:'w� m r M 2-8C9��' y� iC /� aS v1 Vi N ff1 SI} RtO. > . Q. �. . a r S1i, t"7. 1C7 h. p� 0 r cv V 47 k''. 0 A i1 I I i 1 1 A O O O O O A O A A � A Co LC1 7 S•7 N r (-iui O() iInj0) uoiiejiva3uoa N d 2 Q O a O O O 4 O o a co f— cp to `7 m [V (jw OOLin a) uaiiequo-oo N ch co O N v CD N V N O N N O r N 7 aD O aD E v H O CD (D I- W 04 N O O O O C. O O O O O w f- O LO 7 m N r (iw OO nio) uo13ejlua3uoo r� ■ T� I r' op dm map _N M co co N co co O N N ro N O O m m E_ vcq ~ O co (M N O V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co c0 sr N N (lW o06/nio) uoilei;ueouoo N N co ] � M ' coco N M----Y I co O CD 14 W I N {'II Ilj � NN O N I O i �- O N N cD coN �I- _ J �i. N IA W � W m Z �I co =3 o m n �r ap O E R a E v H L >rr, N NI O 10 W In C.0 (D N � V Q I N � O i O � N I R N O O N O O O OD O CD N O O O tD V' (lW (lW oo nio) uoi;ejluaouoo ouin=io) uoiiejivaouoo 4-1 CCU cn ct ct nO ct N N 4-4 �-. 4 N N cnUD ct VD � �-+ O U O� '.-j ,��' . - U U Ao a.� 4-4 cn O 0 O1-4 o ..� o o � - ■ I a cn Q O O cn O O cn ct 75 ct 10 +-j cn O I 0. O -N O V • � V � M V tv0 Q •u ct ls� v� Q) cd • v� u . O ct V " o 0 0 ct V ► cd cd O +-J O O O a� 0 Releasing Title V 1. Add date to Fact Sheet near bottom. Remember that the update must appear in the online Fact Sheet and in the color copier queue where Dionne has placed it for easy printing. 2. Add a date to the Ed Torres Notice letter and print on letterhead. Letter is at H:\dept\130\Title V\Notice Final.doc. 3. Mail both to list of Interested Parties. (See Daisy for list.) 4. Post OCSD story, permit and Fact Sheet (Jennifer and Sonja) 5. Post MyOCSD story (Ingrid and Sonja) 0 O kp J '.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Am- 0 JML Z-v. EL W cn a O a LL 0 m m L W J m Q J • tit. � r ��i^` ~;� � r �: �.,: - •--� 1,., ,. i i 7 r ter, .� J. y�3'�cY*' 1. # e +' J _ 1. ■ ^Iril� r�'1l a i 3 0LL 0 a p L � O N I �n i -, � �7�% W-d 0 AMA Ar T 7 r7l n2mmll,--).-,'�\\��w ca J kv7 ^b m CL O a t a� 3 v Z a. ''C cn r_J 0 C F" '7 L W Z as)JEs= MM N N U2 r— O W O O C/) C/) � O O t4-0� o O R R� cn cn ca o E � � U U O c� cn O �..� cn LL E C6 O 0 m 4 o C: O 00 E ' �■■� 4 .� 4--aC � �I- .' .� O O cn C: mo 4-- c: -0 �•— 'E i O O O cm cu '— cn 0 0 C/) 0 O rA, -,qw-lq O U a ) .F d 0 9 City of Newport Beach Urban Runoff Diversion Prioritization Project AD HOC Commillee re Urban Banff December 1, 2004 Ying Poon. RSe.. P.B - E� rrrsr Inktnatinxal Consp$anu, I+w: Rd.,tStein. P.E. -Go of eVex" SwA EVERE81' [^�•"�/q Background ■ Feekly AyeA-iear bacteria mouil &MshowsfrrgnentAB 411 riola lions in Lower Newport Bay a The City obtained Prop 13 grant to implement allernaln-es to reduce.IB411 exrednace F ■ One aA7Wirr being ronsiderrd is dry-wealber slorni drain diversion i - '� a Study to eralnale rrlalire I*Vad t, • 11 - Nesporr Bry - of" ferr nrnef JAW slorm drains to i� N ort B - re.e,,d eup % slam, drain(s) to be diverted Storm Drain Monitoring Program • Two -week —nitoringat five afarrn drains and "rea oubli locawns Row -candnuous Bacteria - morning, noon and aftemoon 1 Study Team ■ City of Neitpory Beach Water Code Enforrement— wlleilivn and dehvery of water quality samples • Orange County Health Care Agency Puhbc Health Laboratory WaterQuality Depvtmeni— water quality t• qk ■ Everest International Consultants, Inc. — project management, storm drain monitoring data analysis, and storm drain rcerluWinrr ■ Geomatrix Consultant, Inc. — storm drxlqo:c• monitoring Field Program — Flow Monitoring _ 1 4 •4. Field Program — Bacteria Sampling 2 Arches V-Ditch Storm Drain Monitoring Data to - � j s � i1�11 V ���f�f V ���.. . �•,f• Arches V-Ditch Outfall Monitoring Data Map s .R Data Summary — Total Coliform z Y Daily Geometric Mean X Daily Average Flow Daily Bacteria Loading M Newport Island Channels-- 5 Lido` Channel ® ==_ 00o io�w ooi laWa�[��i MEE M=O =� i�ioi[a�i MR a��sla OC_ i_i! ®`M©���C7 Summary [ Flow Data ■ HrillWiflan:• 1) Ryside 2) El Paseo in Alost slorm drains bane early morning peaks (1— 6 am) ■ Bacteria Data ■ Doter, Polaris and El Paseo bare similar ronerninvions that are higber than Ryside and Anhes i Coinenlrations at o4alls are 1— 2 orders lower it Higber anneenlradons in the marrrirrpe exzept Doerr 4 Evaluation [ An -lies - most impact to Newport Island Channels [ Polaris - most impact to Newport Danes [ El Paseo -most Gary -wide iR pfas l.] Discussions ■ Need both bacteria con«nlra ion and flow to dole vane baaena loading ■ Need to know hydrodynamic of mlehing water body to evaluate storm distha7 impact Thank You -:7 R LL C - t/1 W -. CD o O U N C p N_ o 0p a c (0 C T �: N a TN 0) R a)CO E E T �•� pcc ., C C i t -0 Q_ Q C O '— CDCl V M My C 0 E 0 o a) N cu L U C > co U UO` Q O N i p j 0 ai U i Q U O O O U f6 Q O � L O E O E O Q) N 2 � � r.r C 4) E N 0co o L eo O QN O N Z a E 6_ W a� 4, r —Z E p U CD 3 m a) N O Z O� C C U N � a m o fn v aa) o O. CO Q% U E to .O � O N L o ` L. N M N p U IL II II O N O O N Y O. EO a U O O p f0 U 3 (p tm U T E O Z a = > Lo 'IT ` M O N lA O N E co LO r > Z c aai � (D a n Q E U CL a c a C U N O ii a a+ aa) d o C C0.7 0 a 9 V N 0 c �a W .O Q a) w O ¢ = L CL C - C O U C_ O C L m E N E 6! ,e C 4 o� c co N 0 N LU Vk •N �p (0 O ca > � O M W N O N a y y U O m L V O U N 0' m 7 CO LL i, p c ° Amm m m � m j U C Y � y C LL N C f N W m V G N 1A O _ E'! m N U) q m ry L a � d UJ u7. 0 M m vs L± L) r+ C N C1 L +• d IL a> L = O E Q 0-3 = Cr m W m 'a V = yJ m O V w• It L L C O C O E E O O O O v � � II II C 0) CM C O 0 CO O +•' 0 E O L � d cn FL U) c 0 C L w O COrn U 0 E aa) 0 0 -00. L V Y " N E L — O O f6 L — -0 E y0 o L}L a7 ey+ -O E N '+ yr y cu N 0 CCL O wN+ N G O Q a7 O ? U 3 0 ai 0 ci c 0 C N O 0 N O C Co CO Cp 7 N Y 0 U 0 +�+ OD L U O- cn 0) 2 N C 0 e» U) Q c rn O L 3� N C U N ai L `0 U �T 0 0 C LLa Q0 I w _s = E U O a) 0 3 c w0 a) t LL LO L-N Aj d )� §� \ M ) /�) k 4 \ § a LO \_m y o, k§3 § \/f \/ k§\ E §2$ �L {�k cm 7) 8\� c $ 0$} 2 -0 $ C 6s15 k /)\ k) �)ƒ @ - \ 2 /%ƒ /) 2}2 ♦ + , CP ■ O a IL § " IL LL . d § 0 z |� = \ ! � �I § ° 0 CL Regional Water Quality Steering Committee o Blake Anderson, OC Sanitation District o Dave Carretto, South Orange County Wastewater Authority e Paul Jones, Irvine Ranch Water District o John Schatz, Santa Margarita Water District o Tim Casey, City Manager, Laguna Niguel o John Bahorski, City Manager, Seal Beach o Dave Klff, Asst. City Manger, Newport Beach o Tim O'Donnell, City Manager, Brea o Dave Rudat, City Manager, Orange e George Scarborough, City Manager, San Clemente z PURPOSE OF MEETING t Highlight existing water quality approach and efforts, funding mechanisms, deficiencies f Describe progress on directive to develop a regional strategic plan for water quality • Highlight policy questions that will eventually require Board decision (program scope; governance; funding) • Obtain Board direction as to how staff should 1 IMPORTANCE OF WATER QUALITY .*..Orange County's ECONOMIC PROSPERITY depends upon clean water. ❖The QUALITY OF LIFE of Orange County residents depends upon clean water. ❖ Failure to protect water quality could result in LEGAL LIABILITY. 4 CURRENT WATER QUALITY APPROACH: ACCOMPLISHMENTS ❖ NPDES Permit Compliance ♦ Few Enforcement Actions ♦ Regional Boards are generally pleased with regional water quality efforts ❖ Fewer Beach Postings ❖ Higher Levels of Awareness ♦ Public education is a significant investment and an increasingly key part of our program 5 CURRENT WATER QUALITY APPROACH: CHALLENGES a Various agencies and non -governmental organlzaIIons play roles in trying to improve water qualify throughout Oronge County • Munldpoillies are under special permits, which are pushing us to Invent wafer quality Isaluflord' as we go, with limited experience and only preliminary data • Millions of dollars are being spent on this approach • Unclear as to what Is working and what impact our efforts have on the entire system • We need an integrated approach and the ability to regionally prioritize 6 2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY VISION a Project and Water Duality Approach ltioritaatlon a Stakeholder Buy In a Improved water quality and re d u ced beach po:lings a Sensible and appropriate water quality standards e Efficient and coodlnoted BMP Implementation (including water conservation) o Regional approach (in partnershp with State) to proving up BMP techndogy a Trust and concurrence of the Regional Boards a :;ruixe• dedicated funding soiirce(o o Watershed -scale a Implementation ofineasures for which that Is most cppropriate a Governance structure that people trust and dorit see as just more bureaucracy e heso concepts bull rtanext r•oun❑ of pe n-0 ren Lwfils GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE O GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE 7 PROPOSED REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Review and Establish Meaningful WQ Standards a. Evaluate Public Outreach L Education Efforts s. Examine and Recommend Approved Technologies 4. Examine Current and Future Regional Funding Needs s. Examine Methods to Localize Solutions on Watershed -based Scale e. Partner with Regional boards and Involve them In this Process 7. Examine Appropriate Regional Governance Structures 3 WATER QUALITY ACTIVITIES COUNTY ACTIVITIES r NPDESA Compliance P, LlP ♦ DAMP, LIPS and BMPs ♦ Monitoring ♦ Treatment Systems ♦ Diversion ■ ♦ Public Education _ ♦ TMDL Compliance ♦ Watershed Approach_ ♦ ACOE Studies 4 CITY ACTIVITIES a Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) � Enforcement � Constructed Wetlands � Diversion $ Treatment Systems a Education CITY ACTIVITIES o Alho Vl*jo o Las AlanHoa • Emergent Wetland l'Iojecl • MUIkIpd Yad, SlormwolxTnsolmenl • Dana Polyd voul • S—I Slam Drdn Dtversloru o Newport Reach • Mom'1 rm Drain Treatment Project r Eoixallon and Enlacement • Shc Leek Ozone Treatment FocBly • Irrigation Control O Hunlinglon Mach • Coldh Basil Screens aid Rien • DNenion • CDs Unlit • DNersbra • 3 Treatment Wellonds • Tredmenl Wetlands o Rancho Santa Margadla • Debris Nab • Aveddo Erripresa Ltsaxgrs—sl • La Dolma siormA'Glm T_Jrr nr Vail • Catch Bosh Men• HOA Catch Bain SeB CerlMkallon and BMP Program • Laguna Reach ♦ Catch Badn CleorkV Projects • Urban Rundf M rslora o San Clemente • Laguna Niguel • Diversion • We1CATNelwwklTredrmd W.1k..hl • Urban Rurdr Trealmenl Syslams • :.-Fnir icesE sorlem Rmlordlon o Sed Mach ;co,l l•ael ♦ Catch Bain Men and Screens o Laguna Woods O Wedmkwter • Barbara's Lake Inve 1W11s n • MUJcdpal Yad improvements o Laguna HrCe IS • ALio Vats Ch.-W1Daae Wetlalds 5 SPECIAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES o Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Demand management ❖ Conservation ❖ Recycling ❖ Education ❖ Rate Structures SPECIAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES a Irvine Ranc h Water District ' ra ♦ Natural Treatment System ' ♦ Diversions ♦ Tiered Rate Schedule orro !i4�s�rV SPECIAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES fi Orange County Sanitation District ♦ Diversions to Sewer . 10 Million Gallons Per Day Capacity . Diverting between 2-3 Mllron Gallons Per Day ♦ Monitoring M�zz- SPECIAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES a South Orange Co unty, Wastewater Authority ♦ Diversions to Sewer . Capacity of I Millton Gallon Per Day . Currently using approximately 50D,000 Gallons Per Day . Serving approximately 33 &ierslons SPECIAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES a Santa Margarita Water District ♦ Gobemadora Basin . Storm Detention . IrealmenI wefarnds . Irrigation Supply NON -GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS & ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES a Monitoring a Public Education fi Scientific Studies a Watch Dog Role a Partners? �. UCirvine -" COAST L'iuvrrxit(liFumolnrtne 21 7 WHAT'S REGIONAL L WHAT'S NOT WHAT'S REGIONAL L WHAT'S NOT REGIONAL Orange County Flood Control District ♦ County -owned infrastructure that has s erved as a "Contaminant Superhighway" for Urban Runoff 4. Since the County Is seen as the regional form of government, we have been designated by the Regional Water Boards as the Lead Permittee for the NPDES Permits WHAT'S REGIONAL & WHAT'S NOT REGIONAL & LOCAL ❖ NPDES PERMITS ♦ 5 Year Permit Terms 2002-07 ♦ Discussions on Permit Renewal are underway. The new Permits will be issued in January and February 2007 r-1 WHAT'S REGIONAL & WHAT'S NOT REGIONAL owusuoe ARG w�xAauiert PtAM I �"'^ i�aloi�ol Akadal Pt " z t�eq,en+wuru,� .ns i i Isw w„sec -. a uod nunw�+rr !. Asxvepd kesaRe. wn.- smx�wn �CarAr.�vrt f, G4�f1 Mrrthptwed WHAT'S REGIONAL & WHAT'S NOT LOCAL i s�tta• ' ., as - A-i macm._R«, A.A 0$=O r La wd Mi Ispfl lddtY/h' . . A-0 Ai.Apd A. UAW, ki t.6Lr '�¢ueaMn ' NeM LYT�ernQ� C ' Wr,q br.urgrrme - -' erw�ea. ay.,1e0 WHAT'S REGIONAL & WHAT'S NOT WHAT'S NOT? •r Legislation ♦ Coordination of Legislative Positions ♦ Prioritization & Initiation of Future Legislation o Grant Applications • Missed opportunities to partner and support efforts, instead forcing us to compete for some funds ♦ Prioritization Involvement of Special Districts ♦ Currently working cooperatively with NPDES co - perm ltees, but without an integrated regional „ 7 GOVERNANCE ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE +o Regional & Collaborative Administered by Executive Level Staff with Elected Buy In Facilitates Public Participation Regionally Funded with System -wide Prioritization e Fiscal Accountability & Equity dr 1 :.Y In. v 10 CURRENT GOVERNANCE b PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SPECIAL DISTRICTS sole c, w.r. olsv c1 ••d sasseleca Vj� 0W 31 WATER QUALITY FINANCING STRUCTURE 32 WATER QUALITY FINANCING STRUCTURE Funding the County's Program •:• Contributions from RDMD Funds • Since Its creation, WCRD has been funded by reallocating Flood, HBP L Road funds to WCRD on an annual basis • City Cost -Sharing for NPDES • Watershed Cost -Sharing Partners • Capital Projects • Studies • TMDLs Grants 33 11 WATER QUALITY FINANCING STRUCTURE Revenue Sources e�Te] 31.1 M: 12 WATER QUALITY FINANCING STRUCTURE Current and Projected Costs Costs are expected to Increase County Countvwidn ♦ FY01/02 $1.5 Million $45.8 Million ♦ FY02/03 $4.9 Million $59.3 Million • FY03/04 $6.5 Million $77.1 Million State budget problems and the lack of dedicated funding sources continue to be challenges The Los Angeles Experience 37 WATER QUALITY FINANCING STRUCTURE Future Funding Options e� Water User Fee * Sewer User Fee * Refuse Collection User Fees �. Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Municipal Stormwater Utility Fee 36 FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 39 13 FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Regional Program ♦ MuM-Agency ♦ System -Based •r County's Role ♦ Continue as Lead NPDES Permlttee ♦ Serve as Reglona I Lead 3 Local Implementer .a Future Governance v Future Funding QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 14 Pd R rt rt o' 0 rt rt C n � O � z CD O � � O Cmm, D CD (n N O n all O O O cn rt n O O �-t O CAD CD N O O opCD 0 OECDr-r �',.t �'0 �. r n O rD CL irD n cn rt w rt ua K 0 ....... ....... ..... Igloos AA -ea L!� fD r � Conductivity Enterococcus Fecal Coliform NaCl (ppt) (MS) Flow (cfs) (CFU/100mL) (CFU/100mL) O 0 O O _ _O O N O O N N N W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 00 O (li O N O N O N O N _ O Cn O Cn O N O O O O O O O O O O O C ■ • 0 N O O O O D O N A Cn K Tide (ft, MLLW) Total Coliform (CFU/100mL) C 1 o C O O C _O C O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C OD N 0 OD O 00 O 0 OD OD 4 OD N O a OD N N 0 A OD N A 0 Conductivity Enterococcus Fecal Coliform Total Coliform NaCl (ppt) (MS) Flow (cfs) (CFU/100mL) (CFU/100mL) (CFU/100mL) o o - o _ 0 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 0 N O O O O O O O O --� 0 0 0 -+ O O O j N W A Ui p 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ? W O O O O O O 0 N O O O O O O "-� 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 OVI O O (T O a � D 10 N O O 0 I I D O N A O K Tide (ft, MLLW) �F11CO 0 r • CO a O O O EL Total Coliform CFU/100 mL O O O O O O O O i O O O o v v o a o O O O O O O S, , (nn m 0 N �D 0 3.0 COv 0� va dv ;r CH c sv � m oID CU v , 1 rV Of rn z 0 0 00 N G7 c N N w Total Coliform CFU1100 mL 1 O j � Q O O O 1 0 0 0 0 s O O O O O _ O O O O O a O O O O O D O O AM a �i 1 yr Noon rD PM AM 0 0 0 Noon ofD m v Pm AM o �o Noon 3, v� PM ° AM rt m o � Noon o �o , PM o AM c � Noon o a C PM v AM D ; Noon p c PM � < AM m C m �► Noon, o ��,■.i�.f, PM v AM v C< Noon a rD PM Total Coliform Loading (CFUlday) m o O o m m m m m m o W W W w (T Daily Average Flow (gpd) N N W W Ut O U1 O U1 O Ut O O O O O O C] O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 Total Coliform (CFU/100 ml-) 0 _ o 0 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O O O O P� CA ►-►• �+ i'D d �. C C/� O d �► • naj a�woWow<a);o0�. 0 CD CD !mr N 3 ai C i` r c.; .r f fr" f CL •fir .h',�• :-^•we W WA W N�CS� AW isJsv ra 4) W :a o 2 v cr `` ` �" ani CDn n W a rF fp ro C. CD Q ro C p m w a�' 1:� m`� g Er z=-' TD �11 y� co x� ©w CWz zM � xi$ _ C .°��:: ••'. w ham' +. f r•`.' ,�, �' ar; {spa �'• ��.,.: _ y+ " �w � - �..:-i:v :p -• i'�i'�. � �x a" .fig •'}Lk� �•{ !! _ �' d 2. �*O"t-��. Spy "'e�7.• lll�y�_...�-.i .: '..i. f'.. +� •1. � alp i .nQ CD . .. A116 p f` Concentration (CFU/100 mL) N W A Ul 0) —I 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N A A O v N c0 O N O A 3 @ 0 rn O CO N_ (D N N_ O N A 0 N 0) A N CO O W N Concentration (CFU/100 mL) --� N W A UT a �! ca O O O C O d O 0 O a D CD ID N m Concentration (CFU1100 ML) �Nw.01.cnw-sm O O O o 4 O 0 0 0 v , CD m O W r a 0 cam '� z c�� m a r 0 n z o • N n 0 S n 0 S d n0i CD 0 N Q C j N a O -m -0CD _ Z (/1 S O �l m < O v O D D m U O > W O < R .ZD1 Z m * Z m Z m Z m O m D D D S r O S - S F S Z W D N < Z D m O w p = �1 O m m < -0 y o m Z o n O z r z m m �] z m < D < X D < T. D < O m O A O m O w n A O O M < n rn M cn � m = o X m mO O x1 [ � ti m � A w O O 7] D Z D O M D m m D < D < z m Z m m Z m m Z -A O C -1 O C � O C -I O C O j m m -i 2 -I n m m -i m m D Z Z m m D m m m 1 m m m m N n S < m m r < p Z m z m m fCT1 Z w z w z w Z w < Fn r w m r= D < p 07 O n _ 1 Z O m m > Z = o m m m m - m z m m z m m z m m z m m z m m z m m z m m z m m z mo m z mo m z m m m m m m m z m z m m z m m z m m z m m z m m Z m m z m m m z z mo m m z m m z m m z m .N+ ai pct c'n '>3 O 3 • • ■•■■ 0 CD - b 'r v i i ■ • ® /• r r r i i• � v •• •••••••• z CD ■■■i/ ■■ ■•■ 0 0 ■■■■■•••®/®■• 0 y • v `D ® • ■■■■■ • ■■l ■/■■■ z ■■■■!®®■■■■ ■■■ ••• 0 m -o a� N ■■■■■®■■■■■ 0■60008 0 c v ■ � 0 ■ ■ i • • • • R • Z m � � n N a ® 0 v Goo • r Z l Nk o � o � o 0 o � O d � n • O O n c� � O � O n O � a 5I CA a m a ?--+�-� n0 rt rt rt V O rt n f "t n rt rt �. O O ri rt O � • V `-1 0 rD rt O rt �1 ::71 a, �C C (efuoS pue pAUD tioIs aSOOAW Isod 'S (efuoS pue aa}!uuap) ieegs ioe3 pue j!uaaad `tioIs dSOO Isod '.v (Isg aol Asle(I aaS) 'saI}Ped palsaaajul jo Is!l of gloq IpIN '£ •oop'Ieu13 90110MA 9lj!1\o£6\jd9P\:H le sl a9119l peayaallal uo lu!ad pue aa}}aI 901ION saaaol p3 ayl 01 a}ep a ppy z •6ullulad (sea aol 1! pooeld seq auuo!Q ejegm anenb aaldoo aoloo eqj ui pue jaauS joe=l eu!luo eqj u! aeadde Isnw alepdn eqj legl aagwawa�I 'wol}oq aeau leegs loe=l of alep ppy A 01411 fiulsealab