Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2007, S51 - MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PROGRAM 1 Ccouncil ''�°March 20, 2007 A aGEnaa Repoin s� j CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Department Head: John Moss, Utilities Director Jay Walter. Public Work Dir for Prepared By David Hix, Wastewater Division Manager Barbara Lynch, City Engineer SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the City's Phase lI Municipal Storm Water Program REPORT-IN-BRIEF Over the last 35 years, the implementation of the Clean Water Act has had a major impact on cities nationally, and San Luis Obispo is no exception. In fact, given the miles of creeks we have in our community, the impact of the Act on our City has been greater than most and is still reverberating today. The issues outlined in this report can be traced back to 1972, when the Act was adopted as law throughout the nation and specifically in 1987 when Congress passed legislation to address stone water. While this recent emphasis on storm water management and the program outlined in this report might seem "new" to council members not on the Council in November 2002, the City has been deeply involved in crafting an acceptable program since May of 2000. There have been a number of"twists and turns" in the road since May of 2000, and November 2002 when Council last provided direction, but what is outlined in this report is still essentially the same in terms of addressing the fundamental direction: What kind of storm water management program is necessary to gain mandatory regulatory compliance and, at the same time, implement important City goals related to flood, creek and environmental protection? Staff has outlined in this report the basic program that we believe is necessary to achieve these goals. While costly, the program is overdue from the standpoint of flood protection and timely in terms of achieving greater creek protection and environmental goals, areas where we have traditionally been leaders among municipal governments. Achieving compliance with regulatory requirements is mandatory and we have little discretion in terms of implementation. Regardless of how we approach this program, any meaningful and compliant option is going to require a serious and staffed effort. sS�/ 0 i . Municipal Storm Water Program Page 2 Final details concerning program costs and staffing will return with the budget. In the meantime, following Council review on March 20th, staff will submit a plan to the Regional Water Quality Control Board based on the program elements and requirements set forth in this report. DISCUSSION Regulatory Background In 1987 Congress specifically mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish storm water programs that address the introduction of pollutants into water bodies from storm water runoff. Storm water was identified in the original Clean Water Act of 1972 to be a significant source of pollution, but its implementation had been deferred because of the emphasis on improving discharges from wastewater treatment plants and industries. Phase I stormwater programs began in 1990 and targeted municipalities of 100,000 or greater; in 2003 the State of California adopted a phase 11 program to address storm water from municipalities of 100,000 or less. Unlike the phase I regulations which issued an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to each entity, the phase II program is a general statewide permit which applies to all municipalities equally, but requires the development of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for each municipality. These programs are generally referred to as Phase Il Municipal Storm Water Programs. The SWMP is the required implementation document that describes the methodologies the City will pursue to protect and improve water quality and ensure program compliance. City Storm Water Chronology and Current Activities 1. May 2000. The City began addressing storm water with an introduction to Council of the program and its requirements. 2. April 2001. A more detailed picture of the program and a discussion of financing options were presented to Council. 3. July 2001. The Council adopted the 2001-03 Financial Plan which described the program and its implementation as part of the Major City Goal for Flood Protection. 4. May 2002. Staff presented a fee program to pay for the storm water program, but that was later deferred and finally abandoned because it did not comply with the requirements of Proposition 218. S. November 2002. Council reviewed and approved the SWMP. 6. March 2003, May 2004 and January 2006. In March 2003, the City submitted its first draft SWMP to the RWQCB. The SWMP was subsequently re-submitted in May 2004 and January 2006 in response to requests for changes by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These requests came 12 and 16 months after submittal, respectively, and have caused long delays. Comments from Non Government Organizations (NGOs) on other agencies SWMPs have led to significant additions being required for all pending plans and City staff have incorporated those comments in a reasonable and cost conscious manner. 7. Present. The City's SWMP has now been revised and is ready to be submitted. s Sf-z Municipal Stone Water Program Page 3 Currently the City is implementing some of the requirements through several departments. However, activities will double and coordination will be required for a compliant and effective Phase II program. A portion of the current program is being implemented and funded by the sewer fund through the Pretreatment and Water Reclamation Facility sections. This approach was necessary to implement urgent mandatory water quality requirements and provide funding, specifically for the City's Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) for Pathogens and development of the SWMP. To remain consistent with City practices that enterprise fund only activities related to their operation, these costs, and a portion of the responsibilities need to shift over to a cohesive City wide program with dedicated and appropriate funding sources. An Unfunded Mandate, a Major City Goal,and Environmental Stewardship This water quality program, like others found in the City's Utilities Department, carries significant implementation responsibilities along with enforcement implications for violations, including penalties and fines. To ensure compliance with these Phase II regulations, the City must provide adequate resources and staffing to ensure implementation per the SWMP. This report details the requirements of the Phase II Municipal Storm Water Program, staff activities in the development of the program, of implementation and recommendations for compliant and effective program. While an unfunded Federal mandate this program does help meet a major City Goal and continues the City's commitment to water quality. A formal on-going maintenance program for the City's storm drain system has been required in the revised SWMP. This program will maintain and possibly increase storm drain capacity by removing debris that deprives pipeline capacity and flow. This routine maintenance along with the required submittal, approval and enforcement of site plans for construction will control runoff that escapes from construction sites and will help reduce sediments that clog storm drains and flood channels. These activities support the City's 2007-09 Major City Goal for Flood Protection and are significantly less costly than a major capital flood control program. The overall goal of this program is the preservation and improvement of water quality by the reduction of pollutants introduced to our local creeks and streams. To achieve this goal, the City's SWMP uses a variety of activities that empathize public education and participation which compliments the City's continuing commitment of environmental stewardship. The City's SWMP and TMDL As discussed in the chronology, the City has submitted several revised versions of its SWMP to the RWQCB. These revisions were required by RWQCB staff because of missing or inadequate documentation of proposed activities and because of added requirements brought forth by NGOs. The willing adoption of the comments from NGOs by the RWQCB has resulted in significant delays and addition of some onerous requirements. In an effort to minimize these burdensome requirements, City staff has addressed the additions in the plan as effectively and cost consciously as possible by working closely with RWQCB staff in clarifying the City's approach and careful development of every activity. SS�—� 0 0 Municipal Storm Water Program Page 4 The additional requirements from the RWQCB have resulted in the original SWMP submittal growing from 22 pages in 2003 to 90 pages in its current version with 64 detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) as opposed to its original 18. While the City's initial submittal generally addressed the required elements of the plan, more detail, additional activities, and concise descriptions of implementation, measurable goals and effectiveness were required. To accommodate this, the plan has been modified to a recommended format that includes discussions, narratives and tables. The majority of these additions have been required for activities such as public education, illicit discharges, municipal operations and the pathogen TMDL, which are described later in this report. The final revision has been completed and is ready for submittal to RWQCB for review, public comment and adoption. Staff believes the SWMP comprehensively addresses the program mandates as effectively, reasonably and cost consciously as possible. Program Elements The Storm Water Management Plan's goal is the reduction of non-point source pollutants entering local water bodies to the Maximum Extent Possible (MEP). Because of the general nature of the Statewide permit, each municipality is required to develop and implement, per regulations, a SWMP that best protects its specific and unique water quality requirements within its jurisdiction. The program has six components that utilize BMPs and other activities to achieve the desired water quality goals and are specifically developed to address each required component. The SWMP also identifies measurable goals, effectiveness and responsible City departments. The six components are' 1. Public Education: Distribution of educational materials or equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm water discharges to water bodies and the steps the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works, Utilities, Administration, and Community Development. 2. Public Participation: Comply with State and local notice requirements when implementing a public involvement/participation program and solicit input from the community. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works, Utilities, and Administration. 3. Illicit Discharge: Detection and elimination of a variety of discharges. Activities in this category include storm sewer mapping, inspection, surveillance, wild animal control, pet waste, enforcement, and regulation of certain authorized non-storm water discharges that may carry pollutants. Authorized discharges include hydrant flushing, potable water spills and springs. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works and Utilities. 4. Construction: Prevent the discharge of pollutants off.site from construction. Activities in this category include plan review, BUT implementation by the site operators, inspections and enforcement of site plans and stormwater requirements. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works,Utilities, and Community Development. ssl - y Municipal Storm Water Program Page 5 5. Post Construction: Ensuring developed sites minimize their impacts to water quality by management and control of site runoff. Activities include storm drainage system maintenance, installation of structural and non-structural BMPs, inspections, maintenance, reporting and enforcement of stormwater requirements. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works and Community Development. 6. Good Housekeeping of Municipal Operations: Prevention and reduction of pollutants from activities such as parks, streets and utility maintenance and new construction. Activities include; BMPs for maintenance, storm drain maintenance, street sweeping, inspection, and training. Departments involved in implementing this component are: • Public Works, Utilities, Administration, Parks and Recreation, Community Development and Fire. The requirements for the SWMP represent a significant increase in mandatory activities that the City is not currently implementing, but must fulfill. Some of the most staff intensive are the required plan review and inspection of construction sites., reporting and storm sewer maintenance, and monitoring of existing developed sites. The SWMP addresses and explains the City's approach for implementation of the plan's elements using BMPs. The SWMP describes how compliance with the phase II regulations will be achieved and verified through detailed and measured activities utilizing existing and new resources. The SWMP is intended to be a living document that will be updated or modified periodically based on the effectiveness of its activities. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) In September of 2005 the State adopted a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pathogens for San Luis Obispo Creek. The RWQCB performed the TMDL study because the creek had been listed as "impaired" by the existence of pathogenic organisms that exceeded the Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) beneficial use standards. The TMDL requires the City to conduct extensive sampling and address the pathogens found in the creek by implementing actions and activities that are required to be included in the City's SWMP. Currently the TMDL requirements are being implemented by the Utilities Department, and are required to be included in the revised SWMP. The RWQCB estimated in their TMDL study that attainment of the REC-1 beneficial use will cost the City $2,000,000 over a ten year period.. However staff hopes that with the additional coordinated efforts of the SWMP this cost will be minimized. Process and Implementation Strategy To successfully implement this program, staff began meeting in September of 2006 to discuss program details, and requirements, implementation and funding. Utilizing the City's project management format, objectives and deliverables were identified along with key assumptions that stakeholders from each effected department helped identify. The most important key assumption the stakeholder group recognized was that this is a City-wide program, and that to be successful and cost efficient, it would need to utilize the expertise from several different departments working in cooperation. Using this stakeholder process and the ss � - s Municipal Storm Water Program Page 6 draft SWMP, staff identified components that their departments are either currently implementing or would most reasonably be required to implement. After this was accomplished, a more defined roles and responsibility discussion was completed to best determine if the program requirements could be met using existing resources and staffing and what City department would act as the program lead. City departments participating in the project management stakeholder process were: Public Works, Utilities, Community Development, Administration and Finance & Information Technology. To determine a lead department for the overall administration of the program, stake holders developed a Pros and Cons list with Public Works, Utilities, Community Development and Administration. This list established that Public Works would be the most effective lead department because of their existing permitting processes and expertise, plan review and inspection experience, storm drain management, development of capital improvement projects, and proximity with Community Development. Although Public Works was identified as the lead department, because of existing expertise and experience within other areas, staff from several departments will provide services identified in this program. Specifically, the wastewater collection section may be best suited to maintain the storm drain system because of their pipeline maintenance expertise. The Pretreatment section and the WRF laboratory should continue to implement the TMDL because of their regulatory expertise with the program. and the sampling and analysis requirements. Community Development will implement changes to ensure plan review and developer submittals comply with the new requirements. During the roles and responsibility discussion it was determined that there were not sufficient resources to fulfill the significant portion of the SWMP. . Some of the most significant needs identified to fulfill the requirements are: 1. Overall program administration and coordination. 2. Review, approval, inspection and enforcement of water pollution control plans for all public and private development. 3. Inspection and mapping of all post construction storm water controls, such as storm water basins and collection devices, and review of the annual reports some property owners are required to submit. 4. Development and enforcement of numerous standards and codes needed to enforce the requirements of the SWMP. 5. Required wet weather and dry weather inspections, complaint response, and enforcement. 6. Reporting requirements. Ss I - Municipal Storm Water Program Page 7 7. Formal storm drain maintenance program. Existing staff can not accommodate the extra work the program will require without negatively affecting current programs and work activities and lowering customer service levels. Proposed Program Implementation To fulfill the additional requirements identified in the SWMP, resources will be required to implement the program. Staff has identified key resources needed to implement the program and ensure its compliant and effective implementation. These components are: program management for administration and implementation; inspection to ensure the many aspects of the program are implemented for plan review and out in the field; maintenance and mapping for the City's storm drain utility; infrastructure maps and assets; and capital purchases for equipment and vehicles to implement the field portions of the maintence and inspection components. What is the City Currently Doing? As mentioned previously, the City is doing several of the activities that are identified in the SWAP and are beneficial to water quality. These activities along with other existing processes or procedures have been incorporated or modified to conform to a coordinated and effective approach for implementation. Below are some of the major activities the City is currently doing: 1. Street Sweeping. Sweeping removes tons of material annually from City streets that would have migrated into local waterways. Although often viewed as an aesthetic service, sweeping is a valuable and effective water quality program. This activity will continue at current levels. 2. Storm Drain Cleaning. A very small portion of the City's downtown core receives cleaning prior to the rainy season. This activity, performed by Utilities and Public Works crews, cleans and removes the debris that enters the storm drain inlets that isn't captured by sweeping. This activity captures significant amounts of material that would have entered the water body or created a blockage in the pipeline. The proposed program would expand this activity to the entire City system. 3. Spills and Illicit Discharges. Spills or illicit discharges that enter or threaten to enter a storm drain or waterway are Public Works Inspection staff or the Utilities Department Pretreatment section. Depending upon the nature of the discharge, staff from one of these sections will respond to a complaint or violation, ensure that it ceases through notification and/or enforcement and subsequently report the discharge to the RWQCB and other agencies if necessary. 4. Public Education. The City'currently has a wide variety of public education materials from several departments that will be utilized in the proposed plan. 5. Total Maximum Daily Load Sampling, laboratory analysis, inspections, investigations and reporting are an on-going activity to comply with the TMDL since its approval by the Regional Board in October of 2004 and implementation in September of 2005. In the 2005— SSI - 7 Municipal Storm Water Program Page 8 07 Financial Plan Council approved a '/a FTE laboratory analyst for TMDL sampling and a Municipal Storm Water Budget to address the cost of implementation of this program. This program is currently being implemented by the Industrial Waste Coordinator and Water Reclamation Facility staff, and funded by the Sewer Fund as a short term cost savings measure for the General Fund. Other Agencies Currently only one agency in the County has an approved SWMP. SWMPs, their implementation and annual costs differ from agency to agency based upon the agency's existing activities, ability to absorb additional activities with existing staff, time when their SWMP was approved, and size of their jurisdiction. These differences make comparisons in costs and services difficult. The following briefly discusses the programs of several local agencies as well as others in the State that are similar to the City. 1. Paso Robles. Currently the only agency in the County that has an approved SWMP, Paso Robles's program was approved prior to the scrutiny that plans now receive from third parties and the additional requirements that the RWCQB now requires. Paso's programs will likely be required to meet most or all of the requirements and activities that are currently found in the City's proposed draft plan when their plan is renewed in several years. Paso Robles's program costs were not available at the time of this report. 2. San Luis Obispo County. The County has recently submitted their SWMP after several revisions and addition of many activities. The County's program differs from the City's because it encompasses all of the unincorporated areas, urban and rural, through-out the County. Many of the activities are similar to the City's including public education. The City does coordinate some activities with the County where appropriate.and cost effective. The County is planning on spending approximately $1,600,000 in the first year of their program implementation. The County recently resubmitted their plan and incorporated comments for NGOs. In spite of this, the NGOs continue to press for additional requirements. 3. Lompoc. Lompoc, like the City, is revising their SWMP and will be re-submitting to the RWQCB in the near future. Lompoc'.s SWMP will likely be very similar to the City's with an annual estimated implementation cost of$200,000 to $500,000. 4. Other San Luis Obispo County Cities. At this time many of the County's cities are working on submitting their programs to the RWQCB later this year. As previously mentioned, their SWMPs will likely be very similar to the City's. No annual estimates for implementation are available. 5. Santa Cruz and Davis. Santa Cruz and Davis have estimated an annual implementation cost of$300,000 respectively for their programs. Municipal Storm Water Program Page 9 Next Steps As a mandated program the City is obligated to move forward with the SWMP's implementation. The RWQCB has required the City to re-submit its draft SWMP so the RWQCB can begin its review, public comment period and final adoption. Listed below are key steps for the program. The dates provided below for RWQCB action on the City's SWMP are staff's best estimates, however significant public comment, RWQCB workloads or other factors may extend comment and adoption periods. 1. Submit the City's revised SWMP to the RWQCB for review, public comment and adoption. _ March 2007 2. Development of Financial Plan documents in identifying resources needed for program implementation. March-April 2007 3. RWQCB Review of City SWMP April 2007 4. Issue Preliminary 2007-09 Financial Plan May-June 2007 5. Hold workshops and hearings on the Financial Plan May-June 2007 6. Comment period for City SWMP Begins June 2007 7. Council Adopts 2007-09 Financial Plan July 2007 8. Adoption of City SWMP by RWQCB October-December 2007 While City staff does not expect the City's SWMP to be approved by the start of the fiscal year, regulators have made it clear that the City must pursue implementation of their plan prior to final approval. Summary Developing the City's SWMP, and related creek and flood protection efforts have been an ongoing staff effort for almost 6 years. The adoption of the pathogen TMDL in 2004 by the RWQCB was the culmination of hundreds of staff hours working with RWQCB staff, writing letters, attending meetings and providing testimony at Regional Board Hearings. The TMDL has resulted in an on-going program that requires hundreds more hours, and thousands of dollars annually. Hundreds of additional hours have been spent developing and revising the SWMP and finally this comprehensive Municipal Storm Water Program to address the regulations. While an on-going City goal and staff work effort, delays in SWMP approval and tight financial times for the last eight years have resulted in irregular updates to the Council on the programs, progress and development of needed program resources respectively. This proposed program is a comprehensive approach that utilizes expertise from many different departments, combines the � S I - � Municipal Storm Water Program Page 10 best features of existing programs and proposes new activities to address the environmental and flood control aspect of storm water. Staff has worked diligently to develop an effective and compliant program that is as cost conscious as possible. It is doubtful that the original authors of the Clean Water Act envisioned this program to be as extensive, complicated and expensive in 1972 as it is today. While costly, this program will comply with the water quality regulations, enhance the City's goal of an effective creek and flood control program and protect and improve the water quality of our local creeks and streams. CONCURRENCES Public Works, Utilities, Community Development, Finance & Information Technologies and the Natural Resources Program have reviewed this report and concur with its recommendations. As mentioned earlier in this report, this process utilized the City's project management program to ensure stakeholder coordination,communication and input. FISCAL IMPACT Added Program Costs The added ongoing General Fund cost of the program is presently estimated to range from $575,000 to $625,000. Several added regular positions are a part of this cost to support added inspection, storm drain system operation, laboratory analysis and program implementation and oversight. Costs for the first year will be higher, due to one-time start-up costs, including specialized vehicles, video equipment, and computers. The specific details of the funding request will be presented to the City Council during the Financial Plan process, after staff has had the opportunity to review program needs in more detail and consider them in light of other budget proposals. Currently Community Development is collecting approximately $50,000 annually from its Waterway Management fee. This fee is a 7% surcharge added to permit fees for projects subject to the Waterway Management Plan and the Municipal Storm Water Program. Portions of this funding are proposed to be applied to the Municipal Storm Water Program with remaining funding coming from the General Fund. The program costs include the on-going implementation of the TMDL program and its funding approved in the 2005-07 Financial Plan, Appendix A, pages 14-16 and 28-30 and currently funded by the Sewer Fund as a short term cost savings measure. Because of the City-wide nature of this program funding of this program will come from the General Fund. Staff is proposing a program that requires the minimum resources possible for a compliant and effective program that will be approved by the RWQCB. Providing adequate program resources are a requirement of the SWMP and the City will be required to submit a budget to the RWQCB that ensures adequate resources have been allocated for its implementation. Program costs may change during implementation and analysis of program effectiveness. SS1-I d Municipal Storm Water ProgramPage 11 Funding Options Implementing this program will largely fall on the General Fund. As discussed below, there are limited cost recovery options. 1. Enterprise Fund. As noted above; efforts to fully recover the cost of this program were explored in 2002, resulting in Council approval of formation of a Creek and Flood Protection Fund, like the Water and Sewer Funds, financed under a multi-year phase-in of user fees. However, it could not be implemented because the State Supreme Court found that a similar fee structure in Salinas was a property-related fee, requiring property owner approval. Accordingly, no fees were ever collected, and the enterprise fund was disbanded. In short, because of limitations under Proposition 218, a similar enterprise fund approach that recovers most or all program costs is not feasible at this time. 2. Limited Cost Recovery for Regulatory Activities. Most of the activities identified in the program will not be eligible for fee reimbursements. However, a portion of the inspection activities related to new construction, maintenance and annual review of required reports and documents submitted by some facilities are candidates for full or partial cost recovery. This option will be more fully explored in the budget request presented to the Council as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan process. ALTERNATIVES Modify program and implement with lower level of resources. Staff believes the proposed plan offers a compliant with a cost effective method of implementation. Implementation with lower levels of resources would probably result in other programs being impacted and service levels suffering. ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 1. Revised Storm Water Management Plan 2. Council Agenda Reports ssi- II