TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Tony Olmos, Public Works Director
Raul Saenz, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT:Title
Status Report on the Projects of the Enhanced Watershed Management Program (Public Works Director Olmos).
RECEIVE REPORT
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review and receive report.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No fiscal impact associated with this action. However, future construction of the identified projects could have a significant fiscal impact.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In compliance with the latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (Permit), the City of Manhattan Beach as a Co-Permittee is required to comply with a number of requirements. The largest of these requirements is for the City to develop and implement an Enhanced Watershed Management Program. Since this effort involves watersheds extending beyond the City of Manhattan Beach City limits, the EWMP is being prepared by a multi-agency team composed of the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Manhattan Beach (Beach Cities).
The most significant component of the EWMP is the development of a list of projects that would achieve the desired pollutant reduction levels as required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). This report lists the projects that would need to be constructed in order to meet the Permit pollutant load reduction objectives and deadlines. These projects primarily involve infiltrating a large amount of dry and wet weather runoff (Table 1).
The Beach Cities do not have sufficient funds to implement the listed projects. Since a funding plan is not required as a Permit requirement, the development of the EWMP and submittal by June 28, 2015 will keep the Beach Cities in compliance with the Permit. However, funding remains a large issue that would still need to be resolved in order to comply with the pollutant reduction deadlines identified in this report.
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2012, the Regional Board adopted the fourth Permit under the Federal Clean Water Act for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer system within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County. The Permit identifies conditions, requirements and programs that municipalities must comply with to protect regional water resources from adverse impacts associated with pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff.
The City of Manhattan Beach is pursuing the development and implementation of an EWMP consistent with the Permit and in cooperation with the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance along with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (Beach Cities). As required by the Permit, a draft EWMP plan will be submitted to the Regional Board for review by June 28, 2015.
As described in the Permit, the EWMP will comprehensively evaluate opportunities within the Group's collective watershed management area for collaboration on multi-benefit regional projects that, wherever feasible, will retain: 1.) All non-storm water runoff, and 2.) Storm water runoff from ¾ inch storm over a 24 hour period for the drainage areas that contribute stormwater runoff to the projects. In drainage areas where retention of the ¾ inch storm event is not feasible, the EWMP shall include a Reasonable Assurance Analysis to demonstrate that applicable water quality standards will be achieved through implementation of proposed projects. The EWMP Work Plan describes the approach to cost estimation and scheduling for the EWMP projects, in addition to possible funding mechanisms.
DISCUSSION:
This report identifies potential projects that may be required to attain compliance with the Permit's water quality standards. Also included are order-of-magnitude cost estimates as well as Permit compliance interim and final deadlines. Planning-level cost opinions associated with implementation of the proposed structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the Beach Cities area are provided based on results from the Reasonable Assurance Analysis for the Beach Cities EWMP.
Cost opinions are presented as an aid for decision making, and contain considerable uncertainties. Given the many variables associated with the projects, the budget forecasts are order-of magnitude opinions, and are subject to change based on site-specific BMP feasibility assessment findings and final BMP designs, BMP effectiveness assessments, and results of outfall and receiving water monitoring.
Projects
Figure 1 illustrates the watersheds within the Beach Cities jurisdiction. Potential BMPs were evaluated to determine if they would provide the necessary pollutant load reductions within the receiving waters in these watersheds. The BMPs considered most effective in meeting the Permit requirements were selected and are described in attached Table 1.
Table 1 shows a listing of all of the recommended water quality BMP projects within the Beach Cities jurisdiction and within the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Torrance Watersheds in order to achieve compliance. The listed projects include primarily infiltration and green street projects. Since the projects are conceptual in nature at this point, the cost estimates are in an order-of-magnitude and include a low and a high range. In summary, the total cost range for all of the projects is estimated at:
1. Construction costs from $54.6M (low) to $101M (high)
2. Annual operations and maintenance costs from $1.3M (low) to $2.1M (high)
It should be noted that the Beach Cities are collectively responsible for funding, designing, constructing, and maintaining all of the projects noted in Table 1. Project implementation details and cost-sharing mechanism are yet to be determined. For background information, Table 2 shows the factors considered in coming up with the estimated costs.
The Beach Cities individual contributions would be based on their relative proportional geographic tributary area. For Manhattan Beach, the calculated portion of the tributary area is 12%. Table 3 shows the proportional costs assigned to each of the Beach Cities. For Manhattan Beach, the potential share of the cost is:
1. Construction costs from $6.5M (low) to $12.1M (high)
2. Annual operations and maintenance from $154K (low) to $257K (high)
Two BMPs that were determined to be most viable for Permit compliance in Manhattan Beach include:
· Infiltration trench along the beach (Figure 2) - shallow (3 to 12 feet deep) trenches in permeable soils that are backfilled with a sand filter, coarse stone, and lined with filter fabric.
· Infiltration gallery at Polliwog Park (Figure 3) - a horizontal drain made from open jointed or perforated pipes, or a block drain, which is laid below the water table and collects groundwater. Water is taken to a collection well, or sump.
The Beach Cities project implementation time-line and Permit compliance time frames of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria, Trash/Debris, Toxicity, Copper, Lead and Zinc are illustrated in Table 4. The table is broken down by receiving waters (Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel). In summary, Table 4 outlines the project sequence and associated deadlines in order to achieve the compliance levels as dictated in the Permit. In summary, the following are the key deadlines:
· 50% Reduction in Wet Weather Bacteria by 2018
· 20% Annual Trash Load Reduction from 2016 through 2020
· 100% Reduction in Wet Weather Bacteria by 2021
· 100% Reduction in Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria by 2032
· 100% Reduction in Toxicity, Copper, Lead, and Zinc by 2032
In order to comply with stated pollutant reduction deadlines, the sequence of project implementation was developed, which places the Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach's Infiltration Trench Projects first in line (Table 4).
Specific Green Street BMPs were not identified in the deadline schedule. However, Reasonable Assurance Analysis modeling supports order of magnitude reduction of pollutant loads in areas within the Beach Cities sub-watersheds. This gives the Beach Cities flexibility to implement more cost effective options that better conform to the engineering and environmental constraints, without identifying specific streets.
Project Funding
The availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Currently, the vast majority of cities within Los Angeles County, including Manhattan Beach, do not have sufficient funds to construct and maintain these projects. The City of Manhattan Beach is working with the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and the California Contract Cities Association to partner with other affected agencies to collectively influence State policies, pursue changes in legislation and lobby high level officials for additional stormwater funding. Working together with the other cities increases communication, collaboration, and reduces expensive redundant efforts
In addition to working with other affected cities on a regional level, City staff intends to also work closely with the Beach Cities to pursue the following funding sources at a local level:
· Grants - Collaboration and coordination between the Beach Cities would be important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects. Alternative funding sources would be needed to provide stable O&M revenues.
· Interagency Partnerships - Interagency, like the Beach Cities, partnerships would allow agencies involved to leverage one another's available funding resources to make cost intensive projects possible.
· Local Bond Issuance - There are two types of bonds that can be utilized. One of them is General Obligation (GO) bonds that are issued by local governments and repaid through a property tax surcharge. Another type is a Revenue bond, which are tax-exempt securitized bonds. These bonds are repaid through utility rate increases charged directly to customers.
· Local Stormwater Assessments - Stormwater charges are potentially the most critical local funding source to finance stormwater programs. These charges include stormwater fees and taxes.
· Direct Subsidies - Direct financial subsidies to local projects do not contribute to cash revenue generation. However, subsidies can create a financial incentive to encourage local participation without providing the full cost for project implementation. Such an approach can increase financial efficiency by leveraging financial input from communities.
Unfunded Mandate Test Claim
The regulated community including 23 cities, LA County, and LACFCD joined an unfunded mandate test claim prepared by the law firm of Burhenn & Gest regarding certain aspects of the 2012 LA MS4 Permit. The claim has been stayed by the Commission on State Mandates pending a California Supreme Court decision on unfunded mandate claims made on the previous 2001 NPDES Stormwater Permit. The 2001 Permit case is expected to be heard during 2015 after which time the Commission will consider the test claim on the 2012 Permit.
The unfunded mandate claim process is a means by which local governments can obtain reimbursement from State ordered mandates. In order to be reimbursable a mandate must be:
· A new program or higher level of service
· A state mandate, not a result of federal law or a voter-approved state initiative
· Not voluntarily incurred
· Its cost cannot be recovered from sources other than taxes, i.e., not by a fee, service charge or assessment
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City is mandated to conform to the Permit requirements. Other BMP's were analyzed during the Reasonable Assurance Analysis phase, and only the projects listed in this report collectively met the pollutant reduction targets required by the Regional Board.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
A Beach Cities public outreach report on the Draft EWMP, which will include the subject matter of this report, will be held on May 27th at 7PM at the City of Redondo Beach Public Library.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Figure 1 - Beach Cities Jurisdiction Areas (Watersheds)
2. Table 1 - Total BMP Costs
3. Table 2 - Project Cost Break Down
4. Table 3 - Proportional BMP Cost Distribution
5. Figure 2 - Infiltration Trench
6. Figure 3 - Infiltration Gallery
7. Table 4 - Project Implementation Time Line