CC - Item 6G - Storm Water Outreach Consulting Services S
E M
O '9
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
PRIDE STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
SUBJECT: STORM WATER OUTREACH CONSULTING SERVICES (REQUESTED
BY COUNCILMEMBER LY)
SUMMARY
This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Councilmember Ly. Please see the
attached correspondence from the Construction Industry Coalition On Water Quality.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT -None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk
Attachment: Construction Industry Coalition On Water Quality Correspondence
ITEM NUMBER: G Cl
V
E M
111 i 'q
O
..........„,")
CIVIC PRIDE
NIIIL!,r.:;s_....''' ''" 0
14CO6•PORgQ59
Attachment
Construction Industry Coalition On Water Quality
Correspondence
I
CICW4 September 22, 2016
Construction Councilman Steven Ly
Industry City of Rosemead
Coalition 8838 E. Valley Blvd
On Water Quality Rosemead, CA 91770
RE: Technical and Policy Assistance on Storm Water Issues
Coalition Members
Dear Councilman Ly:
`° �`►,�
In response to your request for information about ways in which the Construction In
AGC ..w. dustry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ) can assist the City of Rosemead in meeting
CALIFORNIA their water sustainability and storm water pollution goals, we are pleased to offer the
following ideas.
tl CICWQ's membership includes The Associated General Contractors,the Engineering
B�A Contractors Association, the Southern California Contractors Association and the Build-
Building Industy Association
of Southern Califomia ing Industry Association of Southern California. Those organizations represent all the
construction disciplines from grading and trenching to major structures and home
building. We are funded from a trust fund established in the labor contracts signed by
. �\ the Associations and the Operating Engineers, Laborers and Cement Masons.
r
Engineering Contractors'
Association The Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality was formed more than fifteen
years ago to offer practical and affordable approaches to water quality regulations
SCCA aimed at reducing pollution in storm water runoff. In the years since, CICWQ has
emerged as a leader in developing public policy initiatives that support multi-benefit
Southern California outcomes for public and private property development.
Contractors
Association CICWQ funded the first qualitative study on the "regional" approach to managing
storm water, rather than the early parcel-by-parcel, or lot-by-lot approach advocated
,I' , by environmental organizations and some state and Federal regulators. That work was
done by Brown and Caldwell. Today, after more than 15 years of study and practice,
160. the approach that CICWQ commissioned Brown and Caldwell to examine is the gener-
ally preferred approach to managing storm water in California.
CONTRACTORS
CICWQ then partnered with San Diego State University to develop an analysis of the
relative effectiveness of a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs)that could be
used on construction sites to meet Total Maximum Daily Load storm water permit re-
quirements, saving the industry and public agencies millions of dollars in potential con-
struction and treatment costs. The results of this work helped allow more flexibility in
compliance, and demonstrated that in many cases treatment-trains of BMPs in combi-
nation can be implemented to meet stringent permit requirements.
2149 E.Garvey Avenue N.,Suite A-11,West Covina,California 91791
626 858-4611 Phone • 626 858-4610 Fax • www.CICWQ.org
Major Funding Provided by the Construction Industry Advancement Fund and the Fund for Construction Industry Advancement
In 2010, the County of Orange contracted with CICWQ to develop estimates of the cost to comply with on-
site storm water management permit requirements in two recently adopted MS4 permits for areas within the
County. This work, which has been widely cited since its first publication in 2013, is also cited extensively in
EWMPs and WMPs that have been prepared for watershed areas within Los Angeles County. In addition, the
County then retained CICWQ to help develop a water quality credit trading program that will enable even the
most difficult of projects to achieve pollution reduction goals in the most effective and efficient manner, while
demonstrating equal or better water quality. When the work is completed, it is anticipated that this program
and framework will become the model by which cities in Orange County, and perhaps elsewhere, will ap-
proach storm water compliance.
Most recently CICWQ conducted an extensive review of WMPs and EWMPs prepared for watershed areas
within Los Angeles County. This analysis was done primarily as an educational tool to allow CICWQ and its
member companies to attempt to predict the nature and extent of planned public works projects that would
presumably be built to achieve water quality standards, and to assist in CICWQ advocacy with municipalities
for construction of multi-benefit integrated water resource projects. In fact, the CICWQ analysis of the costs
to comply was recently cited by the California Stormwater Quality Association in its advocacy for prioritizing
multi-benefit storm water retention projects, and was cited specifically in the staff report prepared by the
Regional Water Quality Board in its response to comments to legal challenges to the WMPs and EWMPs.
Finally, CICWQ has been an active participant in the development of policy frameworks for proposed storm
water funding mechanisms at both the local and state level to assure that public dollars are spent in a manner
that achieves the most pollution reduction results for the least cost.
The subject of storm water pollution is a highly technical subject with both engineering and political compo-
nents. Storm water and dry weather flows are significant potential liabilities for municipalities. While many
cities have engineering staff to manage their infrastructure needs, storm water monitoring, testing and re-
porting are new activities that can create potential litigation and enforcement actions. Policy makers and staff
need to be aware of the implications and understand the steps necessary to avoid that exposure.
There are currently limited funding sources available for storm water projects. The competition for those
funds is significant. Projects need to be unique in their application, or have multiple partners or test some
unique pollution reduction strategy.
Cities also need to be developing new ordinances and planning documents to implement these new regula-
tions and include items such "green streets" strategies, water reduction and reuse projects and infiltration
projects.
CICWQ can fulfill a unique role for municipalities.
1. Conduct WMP/EWMP/Watershed Planning 101 for executive staff and policy makers to fully understand
the obligations of the City and the relative budgeting allowances and timeframes for implementation.
2. Facilitate and assist executive staff and policy makers in developing priorities for implementing the EWMP
from a construction and operation and maintenance standpoint in order to achieve compliance obliga-
tions.
3. Develop, with executive staff and policy makers, options for funding plan development, including
integrated funding and partnering opportunities with other agencies and environmental groups, and pri-
vate green infrastructure development interests. Partnerships with the private sector should also be
evaluated.
4. Recommend best management structure for long-term implementation of the City Ewmp.
5. Work with City staff and consultants to Identify potential funding sources for EWMP projects .
6. Review City ordinances and develop recommendations for amendments to promote better storm water
management and regulatory compliance, and identification of potential efficiencies with other related
City environmental programs.
The CICWQ team has broad and deep experience in all facets of storm water policy and management.
Mark Grey, Ph.D.
Director of Environmental Affairs and Technical Director
Building Industry Association of Southern California
Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality
Mark Grey is the Director of Environmental Affairs for the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA/SC)
and the Technical Director for the Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ). In these roles, Dr. Grey
directs education, research and advocacy programs on behalf of the building industry in California, primarily focusing
on water quality issues.
Dr. Grey has worked in the fields of water and air quality research and regulatory affairs for the past 30 years in the Pa-
cific Northwest and California. Before joining BIA/SC and directing CICWQ, Dr. Grey operated his own consulting prac-
tice and was the Director of Technical Services for Synagro Technologies, Inc.,the nation's largest organic waste recy-
cler.
Dr. Grey holds a Ph.D. in Soil Chemistry and M.S. in Forest Ecosystem Analysis from the University of Washington in Se-
attle, WA and a B.A. in English from Eastern Washington University in Cheney,WA.
Daniel Apt, CPSWQ, CPESC, QSD, QSP
Environmental Scientist/Environmental Program Manager
Daniel Apt is the founder and president of Olaunu, a small environmental consulting firm based in San Clemente, Cali-
fornia focused on storm water management and water management to improve coastal ocean water quality and re-
ceiving waters. Mr. Apt has more than 21 years of experience in storm water and surface water management and wa-
ter quality. Areas of specialization include Low Impact Development and green infrastructure including planning, de-
sign and implementation of bioretention systems, permeable pavements, LID retrofits, green streets green roofs, and
storm water harvest and use systems as well as municipal storm water management including Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4)compliance, storm water training, storm water program development, municipal plan check,
inspections, permit applications and negotiations, and municipal code updates.
Mr. Apt also has extensive experience in storm water compliance for land development including development of Wa-
ter Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) and Standard Urban Storm water Management Plans (SUSMPs) BMP design,
and hydomodification management; watershed planning including Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance and
integrated water resources management; and construction storm water management including sediment and erosion
controls,storm water pollution prevention plans, and construction site inspections.
Richard A. Haimann, PE,D.WRE,CPSWQ,CPESC,QSD
Water Resources/Environmental Engineer
Mr. Haimann is a national technical leader in Water Resources Engineering, Storm water Management,Clean Water Act
compliance, and Environmental Compliance. He has more than 26 years of experience with water resources manage-
ment and general environmental compliance from groundwater resource restoration to local urban water supply devel-
opment. He specializes in helping public and private clients capture the most value possible from their water systems.
He has grown water-infrastructure consulting practices globally, delivered alternative delivery models for water infra-
structure projects, and helped clients achieve their primary missions while staying compliant with current and future
environmental regulations and water resource availability.
Michael Lewis
Public Affairs-Government Relations
Mike Lewis served for 16 years as Chief of Staff to Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum supervising a 30
-member staff. After leaving the County he formed a government relations consulting firm in 1989. He specializes
in air and water quality regulatory matters and land use entitlements. He has a very strong background in coalition
building on behalf of very complex projects. During his career, he served on the following Boards and
Commissions:
Rapid Transit District
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Foothill Transit Executive Board
San Dimas Planning Commission
He is currently a member of the Board of BizFed and is scheduled to become its President in
2017.
We have attached for your information, copies of the recent publication The Costs of LID which
summarizes our work with Orange County, and the Regional Solutions study prepared by Brown
and Caldwell.
We would be happy to discuss with your staff the specific needs of the City of Rosemead and the
ways in which we can assist the city in developing a work program to achieve your goals.
Thank you for your interest. We look forward to a successful partnership.
Sincerely,
Michael Lewis, Senior Vice President
Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality
The Costs of , '
Low-impact-development BMP installation and operation
and maintenance costs in Orange County, CA
BY MARK GREY,DAVID SOREM,CAITLIN ALEXANDER,AND RICHARD BOON
ith fourth generation municipal sepa trol and may be used to reduce a project's runoff volume
rate storm sewer system (MS4) permits management obligation.Biofiltration and biotreatment type
in California now requiring use of low- systems may be considered for use,but only after feasible
impact-development (LID) stormwater application of infiltration or harvest and use practices.
best management practices (BMPs) for Economic feasibility of LID BMP implementation is also
discretionary new and rede- explicitly recognized in some
velopment projects,the need MS4 permits,and is a required
for accurate LID BMP cost . consideration in the applica-
data has never been greater. '' r tion of the Clean Water Act's
Indeed, for development - maximum extent practicable
project proponents and the standard in California.
presented here
work regulated MS4s,the data are � . The wor P
fundamental both for inform- - "R°�"r,�
examines the installation and
Mg the LID BMP selection "'', % 20 year operation and mainte
process through technical ---->''' ..,:, nance(O&M)costs of installing
. . LID BMPs using case stud
and economic feasibility � '��� �- -. = g study
analysis, and for creating '` scenarios with design detail
the basis of an appropriate -* .,�",.•_,u '. information provided by a
y 7
mitigation or in-lieu fee in +y _ number of different sources
instances where a project s , •` 4 , available to the cost-estimating
proponent cannot meet run- :-4"; .. : . -1„ . team assembled.LID BMP
off retention requirements �� -c cost information was also
entirely using LID BMPs
�: .-- ty .., compiled through a literature
onsite. To address this need, - is -q review to enable compari-
i r . „ ;`.. son of the engineering cost
the County of Orange, on * , �s"L...7 - 3�.,,,..; 1 �'-
behalf of the Orange County R- +s"•_'':1. i , . , ' - estimates with other relevant
Stormwater Program,part- -11... -� work.Monetizable and non-
nered with the Construe- -y. _ monetizeable benefits derived
tion Industry Coalition on '- :* , 1 �,'' from installing and using LID
Water Quality (CICWQ) to _," ;'` = ` ' ' 1 BMPs in the specific case stud-
develop estimates of the .,r, _-*'•- -'`"' E ies analyzed are not examined
costs of incorporating dif- a" "i. < ,'II i in this article,but are the
ferent combinations of LID , a • E subject of a separate ongo-
BMPs into several of the - � ► " -*. y ing analysis that will combine,lei
most commonly encountered Orange County,CA installation,O&M,whole-life-
Orange County development cycle,and cost-benefit analysis.
scenarios.
In the case of California generally,LID BMPs are catego- Literature Reports of LID BMP Installation and
rized as soil infiltration,rainfall harvest and use,evapora- O&M Costs
tive,or biofiltration systems, and must be considered for The literature review identified peer-reviewed journal arti-
application at a project scale in that hierarchical order. des,reports,guidance documents,literature reviews,and
Technical feasibility for infiltration (e.g.,infiltration rate, other publications that contained some type of information
geotedhnical conditions and concerns,presence or absence related to LID BMP costs.The literature found can be cat-
of pollutant plumes)is the principal analytical driver,fol- egorized into discussions of general LID BMP cost consid-
lowed by reliable demand for harvested water,in evaluat- erations,comparisons of LID BMP costs to those of tradi-
ing and selecting LID BMPs.In Orange County,green roofs tional stormwater infrastructure(e.g.,curb and gutter,catch
are not required for evaluation in the LID BMP hierarchy, basin inserts, and conventional treatment control),presen-
although they are considered a hydrologic source con- tation of actual or hypothetical project cost data including
March/April 2013
www.stormh2o.com
the cost for O&M,and reports or discussions of LID BMP systems,with predictable inspection and maintenance
cost-benefit or whole-life-cycle cost analyses. A subset of needs and practices using physical and mechanical prac-
the literature sources was then selected based on utility tices.Harvest and use systems have different O&M require-
and comparability to the intent of the study reported here, ments than those of soil infiltration,infiltration pavers, or
data extracted and categorized,and then other smaller data biofiltration systems except for some common pretreatment
subsets extracted according to data type on particular LID intake inspection requirements to ensure solids removal.
BMPs.Normalizing the data on a per-square-foot(of the Harvest and use O&M requirements include inspection and
LID BMP itself),per-square-foot of contributing impervious potential repair of the cistern storage and delivery systems,
area,or per-gallon or per-cubic-foot-managed basis appears mechanical and electrical systems controlling pumping and
to produce the most useful expressions of LID BMP cost treatment,and the supply systems to outdoor and indoor
data and to be the most common measurements found uses.Harvest and use systems also require electricity for
in the literature,allowing comparison among LID BMP system operation.
categories and types within categories. Data in reports and literature documenting LID BMP
Presentation of LID BMP capital installation costs col- O&M exist but are relatively sparse.We found several
lected from the literature are shown in Table 1,with the different reports,papers,or presentations that document
data sources reported between 2007 and 2011.LID BMP per-project costs and generally include total project size,but
costs are categorized according to LID BMP type,and a low the results were inconsistently reported and would have
and high cost range is shown based either on the installation benefited from more data describing LID BMP geometry
cost per square foot or per gallon of stormwater runoff man- and sizing for cost normalization.Another technique used
aged.Costs reported in Table 1 were adjusted for inflation in the literature is to estimate annual O&M costs as a
to 2011 US dollars using the 20-city Engineering News percentage of initial installation cost.In this regard,a small
Record Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles,CA. dataset is available and shown in Table 1.Annual O&M
On an area basis(of the LID BMP),installation costs costs for surface-based LID BMPs range,in general,from
range from a low of$1 per square foot up to nearly $70 1%to 10%of initial construction costs.
per square foot,except for green roofs.Infiltration and
biofiltration BMPs are the least expensive BMPs to install Cost Estimating Methods and Assumptions
and are reported to cost as little as$1 per square foot A case study approach was selected as a method for
(nonproprietary biofiltration and swales).Infiltration BMPs determining costs of installing,operating,and maintaining
including concrete pavers are somewhat more costly to LID BMPs that meet the onsite DCV and treatment control
install than biofiltration units,with trenches,curb-contained standards specified in the north Orange County model
planters,and paver systems generally the most costly water quality management plan(WQMP).The case studies
infiltration BMPs. are conceptual project development scenarios representing
Expressed per gallon of runoff managed,infiltration and development types thought to most likely be constructed in
biofiltration BMPs are the least expensive LID BMPs to Orange County.Data(property layout and design details)
install,with per-gallon costs in the$1 to$5 range.Cistern for conceptual case studies were supplied from several
costs reported in the literature range from a low of$1 to a sources,including conceptual project design data used by
high of$7 per gallon,with these systems serving outdoor the Orange County Public Works technical consultants to
irrigation demand only.There were no reports of runoff har- evaluate engineering feasibility scenarios(Orange County
vested for reuse serving indoor water demand such as toilet WQMP development stakeholder process);data from
flushing or industrial process water.Extensive and intensive case studies used in a 2009 Geosyntec report titled"Low
green roof systems are the most expensive LID BMPs to Impact Development Metrics in Stormwater Permitting";
install,ranging from$7 to$325 per square foot and from plans and specifications for typical big box development
$16 to$522 per gallon of runoff managed.In the two MS4 scenarios provided by Near-Cal Corp.;parking layout and
permits governing post-construction stormwater manage- structure details provided by Choate Parking Consultants
ment in Orange County,green roofs are not required for Inc.;design drawings and plans and specifications from
consideration (althoug)i they can be used to meet the design CICWQ members;and vendors of LID BMP stormwater
capture volume(DCV)performance standard as a hydro- management products and systems including Contech Con-
logic source control),so detailed estimates are not provided struction Products,Filterra Bioretention Systems,and Orco
here for individual case studies. Block Company.
Each category of LID BMP has specific O&M require- To assist in selecting case study types,a historical
ments,although some common practices are necessary, examination of approved water-quality management plans
such as physical inspection and reporting of results.Soil for priority projects in Orange County between 2006 and
infiltration systems and biofiltration systems share corn- 2010 was combined with a consultative process among the
mon inspection protocols and reporting methods,and CICWQ project team,county staff, and the county's techni-
maintenance generally involves similar methods to examine cal consultants (CDM and Geosyntec Consultants).Based
surface conditions,measure soil permeability,and replace on the results of the WQMP analysis and collaborative pro-
or augment infiltration or biofiltration media or biofiltra- cess,four case study types were selected for analysis and
tion plant pallets.Permeable pavers are relatively simple are shown along with relevant sizing data in Table 2.
March/April 2013 1
www.stormh2o.com
Table 1.Summary of LID BMP Installation and O&M Costs
Installation and O&M Costs of LID BMP Types Found in Literature
Annual O&M as Percentage of
Square Foot of LID BMP Gallon Managed by LID BMP Construction Cost
Category UD BMP Type Low High Low High Low High Sources
Infiltration Trench $14 $43 - $1 5% 20% 1,2,3,4
Infiltration Basin - $15 51 53 1% 10% 4,6,7
Infiltration Planter $25 $65 - - - 2
Infiltration Gallery(pipe, S 1 $3 - - 8
chamber,crate)
Infiltration Pervious asphalt/ $3 S27 1% 2% 1,2,6,9
concrete
Infiltration Pervious concrete 58 537 515 $22 1% 2°,' 2,6,7,9,10
joint pavers
Reinforced grass/ $2 574 2,9
Infiltration joint pavers
Harvest and use Cisterns - $1 $7 - 7,8,11,12
Green roof Extensive $7 5325 $22 $46 - 6,7,9, 10, 13
Green roof Intensive $16 5522 $46 $64 - - 6,7, 10
Biofiltration Bioiilter and 52 $69 5t 56 1% 1% 1,2,4,5,6,7
bioretention
Biofiltration Vegetated/grass $1 541 $1 $3 4% 7to 1,2,4,6,7,10
Swale
Flow-through $26 $69 53 $5 2,6,7,9
Biofiltration plarter
Biofiltration Rain garden 53 517 53 56 7,9, 10
Notes:
All values are adjusted to November 2011 costs using Engineering News Record Cost Index(LA 20-city index)and rounded to nearest dollar
Data sources:
1.R A Larson and J Safferman.2009 "Storm Water Best Management Practices That Maximize Aquifer Recharge"Journal of Green Building 3(1):126-137.
2 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and Sanitation 2009.Green Streets and Green Alleys Design Guidelines Standards, 1st ed
3.The Stormwater Manage's Resource Center.Undated.Stormwater Management Fact Sheet:Infiltration Trench.
4 US Environmental Protection Agency.2006.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,BMP Inspection and Maintenance.Stormwater Menu of BMPs
5 P T Weiss,J.S.Gulliver,and A.1 Erickson 2007."Cost and Pollutant Removal of Storm-Water Treatment Practices"Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 133(3) 218-229.
6.Ramsey Conservation District and The Metro Conservation Districts for the Vadnais Area Watershed Management Organization.2009.Lambert Creek Retrofit ID
and Design Project
7 T.Schueler,D.Hirschmar,M.Novotney,and J.Zielinski 2007 Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No.3, Version 7.0.Center for Watershed Protection,
8 Contech Construction Products Inc.2011 E-mail from Vaikko Allen,regulatory manager,to Mark Grey,Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality.
9 F Montalto,C.Behr,K.Alfredo,M Wolf,M.Arye,and M Walsh 2007 "Rapid Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of Low Impact Development for CSO
Control"Landscape and Urban Planning 82.117-131
10.City of Nashville Metro Water Services.Stormwater and Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Green Infrastructure Design Using Low Impact Development
11 T Younos and D.Gowland.2008 Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting BMP for Stormwater Management Virginia Water Resources Research Center,Special Report
No SR38-2008
12.B.Hicks.2008.A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial Facilities in Arlington County,Virginia.M.S.thesis,Duke University.
13.T.Carter and A.Keeler.2008."Life Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis of Extensive Vegetated Roof Systems."Journal of Environmental Management 87.350-363
For case studies 1, 2,and 4, urban area is limited by building design are not limited to,groundwater less
assumptions were made that sufficient and placement and use of existing than 5 feet below ground surface,geo-
space for locating any type of LID infrastructure.Soil infiltration or non- technical instability,pollutant plumes,
BMP would be available within either proprietary biofiltration systems appear and insufficient or competing demand
the landscape or parking areas and to be the most constrained LID BMP for harvested or reclaimed water.
that Orange County building codes categories for use in urban areas,and Cistern BMP combinations described
would accommodate installing the this applies to case study 3. in the case studies assume that suf-
LID BMPs as described. In general, The ability to locate any one or ficient demand exists to fully drain the
infiltration or biofiltration systems more LID BMPs within the total project cistern within 72 hours of the cessation
were specified that use 2%to 3%of footprint area was assumed to be of stormwater runoff,either within the
the total site area. Locating above or unconstrained by infeasibility factors landscape or by indoor toilet flush use.
belowground cisterns on a project site as defined in the north Orange County Similar drawdown criteria applies to
uses less than 10/0 of the total area. WQMP and technical guidance docu- infiltration and biofiltration LID BMPs.
Using some LID BMPs within an ment(TGD).These factors include,but Accordingly,demonstrating reliable
I March/April 2013
1 www.stormh2o.com
Table 2.Summary of Case Study Types,Project Sizing Details,and LID BMP Combinations
Case Study Types
Urban Mixed-Use Commercial/Retail
CO rr rc•,:U :: Canplc• :• I F ''%"' i2' Commercral/Residential Center
Surface Area(square feet unless noted) Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4
Total project area 43,560 435,600 6,200 540,144
Total impervious area 39,204 217,800 5,600 486,130
Rooftop impervious area 22,000 91,000 5,600 150,000
Ground-level impervious area 17,204 126,800 400 336,130
Total pervious area 4,356 217,800 200 56,715
Total landscape area 4,356 152,460 200 56,715
Total parking/road access/haroscape area 12,848 130,680 0 321,386
Total project impervious area(percent) 90 50 90 90
Design capture volume(gallons) 19,000 120,000 2,800 218,175
Rooftop volume(gallons) 9,000 50,000 2,600 67,300
Infiltration pavers Infiltration basin
Infiltration basin Infiltration basin .
Cistern(1) Infiltration pavers
Infiltration pavers Infiltration pavers .
Green roof Cistern(1)
LID BMP Combinations Cistern(1,2) Cistern(1) Cistern&green roof(1) Cistern&green roof
Cistern&green roof(1) Cistern&green roof(1) Cistern&green roof(2) (1) '
Biofiltration Biofiltration 'Biofiltration
Notes:
1.Cistern water used for landscape or green roof irrigation(if applicable)using a pressurized system with potable backup and backflow prevention
2.Cistern water used for landscape or green roof irrigation or indoor toilet flushing using a pressurized system and requiring treatment,with potable backup and back
flow prevention
demand for harvested water would tration concrete pavers,cistern runoff rational method.
have to be done in order for a cost collection for harvest and use,green The cost estimates developed for
comparison to biofiltration-or biotreat- roofs to intercept rooftop runoff,and this study were prepared using labor
ment-type LID BMPs to be relevant biofiltration systems.Most MS4 permits costs based on the prevailing wages in
and meaningful.If harvested water in California use the 85th percentile, Section 1773.2 of the California Board
demand does not exist,according to 24-hour rainfall event as the prescrip- of Industrial Relations Labor Code.
Orange County model WQMP require- five standard for stormwater manage- Material costs are based on building
ments,then cisterns may be bypassed ment using LID BMPs;this standard materials pricing in the Orange County
in favor of appropriately designed is also known as the design capture area as of April 2011.The equipment
biofiltration or biotreatrnent systems. volume.For the case studies described cost rates are based on the 2010 edi-
Up to five different LID BMP types here,a 0.85-inch rainfall event(also lion of the"Blue Book"prepared by
and configurations were selected to called the design storm)was used as Blue Book International.A team of
develop conceptual cost estimates of the basis for determining the total DCV engineers, contractors,and vendors
installation and the annual mainte- for a particular development scenario. with appropriate construction and
nance,operating,and inspection costs. Runoff generated by the design storm maintenance experience was used for
These include infiltration basins,infil- was converted to volume using the estimating costs.
Table 3. Summary of Case Study LID BMP Installation and 20-year Operation and Maintenance Costs
Surat of Capital and 20-Year O&M Costs
Case Study Types
Office Residential Urban Big Box
LID BMPs Evaluated Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4
Infiltration basin 576,300 5228,200 - $322,000
Permeable pavers $110,400 5414,000 $50,220 S695,500
Cistern:outdoor irrigation $226,600 $814,460 - $994,000
Cistern:outdoor irrigation&indoor use $282,600 - $136,000 -
Green roof $922,700 $1,855,520 $353,100 $4,132,000
Biofiltration $106,470 $463,400 $57,400 $422,870
March/April 2013 '
wwwstormh2o.com
Table 4.LID BMP Per-Square-Foot Installation Costs:Literature Values and Case Study Results
Orange County Case Studies
Literature Reports Commercial Residential Urban Big Box
LID BMPs Low High Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4
$Per Sqare Foot of BMP
Infiltration basin $14 $65 S63 $19 - $21
Permeable pavers S8 $37 112 $8 $28 S8
Green roof $7 $522 S42 $21 $66 128
Biofiltration S1 S69 S87 S29 >5100 S36
Results for an infiltration paver system serving the small urban
The case studies examined four different development mixed-use residential and commercial scenario (0.14 acre,
project scenarios ranging in size from a small urban 2,800-gallon DCV) up to $4.7 million for a cistern and
mixed-use commercial retail and residential property with green roof combination serving the 12.4-acre big-box
no parking provided (0.14 acre), up to a large "big-box" commercial project (Table 3).
type commercial retail center on 12.4 acres. In three of To compare installation and O&M costs, data from
the four scenarios, the percentage of impervious area all four case studies were normalized per square foot of
contributing total impervious
area (TIA), and per gallon of
$70 stormwater managed by the
$63 LID BMP. For all four case
$60 study scenarios,infiltration
basins,infiltration pavers, or
a, biofiltration systems are the
v, least expensive LID BMP
3 $50 1
O options to install and oper-
a)
I $42 ate and maintain compared
E $40 I to cisterns and green roofs.
.s Expressed per square foot
«. of contributing TIA, instal-
2 $30 - L13. $28 lation and O&M costs are
.- less than $10, and when the
o
$21 - urban case study is excluded,
`, $20 - costs are generally less than
a $3 (Figure 1). On a per-
'^ $g : gallon basis,the capital cost
$10 1 $6$7 of installation and 0&M;s
j $2$3 $3 $i$2 2 ' $1$1$2 51 less than $10 for all three
$0 types of BMPs (Figure 2), and
when the urban example is
Office Residential Urban Mixed Use Big Box excluded, cost drop to less
Case Study Land Use Types than $3 per gallon.
•Infiltration Bt Infiltration Cistern IN Cistern •Green t Biofiltration Harvest and use systems
Paver Irrigation Irrigation& Roof and green roof systems cost
Indoor Use at least twice as much to
install as infiltration or biofil-
Figure 1. Case study installation and 20-year O&M cost of LID BMPs per square foot of tration systems.Using cisterns
contributing impervious area to collect rooftop or surface
runoff or both—either below-
assumed was 90%,with LID BMPs sited predominately ground or aboveground—is intermediate in capital cost
within landscaping and parking areas. Five different LID among LID BMPs evaluated.The installation and O&M
BMPs were considered for application within the four cost of cisterns ranges from$2 to $24 per square foot of
hierarchical categories of LID BMPs: infiltration basins TIA (Figure 1). On a per-gallon basis, cistern costs range
and concrete pavers,harvest and use cisterns, green from$5 in a large commercial project to$49 in an urban
roofs, and biofiltration systems. LID BMP total installa- situation managing a low volume of runoff(Figure 2).
tion costs and O&M costs ranged from just over$50,000 BMP configurations that use a green roof as a hydro-
March/April 2013
www.stormh2o.com
logic source control to man- $140
age a portion of the DCV 1 $126
are the most expensive BMP S120
systems on a capital installa- ' S103
don cost basis. Expressed per ` $100
square foot of TIA,green roof
costs range from $10 to $79
(Figure 1) and range from $Bo
more than $20 up to $130 0`0 $61
per gallon (Figure 2). Unless 3 $60 $49
1
a project is lot-line to lot-line, $38
a green roof cannot manage k $40
the entire DCV alone corn- I 518
pared to all other LID BMPs $20 i $12$1
evaluated. I $4 $6 $6 $2 $3 $7 $4 $1 $3 $5 $2
Another way to express So I - .1.1.111E °' . r...Aanli_- .
and compare costs among Office Residential Urban Mixed Use Big Box
LID BMP types is by using
the per-square-foot installation Case study Land Use Types
cost of the BMPs themselves •Infiltration ■Infiltration r Cistern •Cistern •Green Biofiltration
(Table 4). The case studies Paver Irrigation Irrigation& Roof
show that infiltration basin Indoor Use
systems range in cost from Figure 2. Case study installation and 20-year O&M cost of LID BMPs per gallon of
$19 to$63 per square foot, stormwater managed
infiltration pavers range in cost
from $8 to $28 per square foot,biofiltration systems infiltration devices and media must be specified, or where
range in cost from $29 to more than $100 per square some of the volume of runoff captured must be conveyed
foot in urban applications, and green roofs range in cost to the MS4 in underdrain or overflow systems, costs
from $21 to$61 per square foot (Table 4).These costs are still generally low compared to all other LID BMPs.
do not reflect property value.Harvest and use systems Infiltration systems that involve placement of engineered
are typically evaluated and compared volumetrically, pervious pipe sections (metal or metal-reinforced plastic)
so no per-square-foot installation and O&M costs were along with importation of porous rock media (also known
calculated. as infiltration gallery systems) may add up to 20%to the
material and labor costs to install, according to the estima-
Discussion tors used for this project.
Assuming no technical infeasibility constraints, the least- Biofiltration systems for case studies 1, 2, and 4
cost LID BMPs are infiltration and biofiltration systems, assume that soil amendment with engineered soil media
regardless of volume managed or project type (Figures 1 is required and overflow/underflow conveyed to the MS4,
and 2).Where space is available within a project site (the and the capital cost of installation reflects this and results
case studies assumed 3%or less of the total site area)to in costs greater than those for soil infiltration systems.
install an infiltration basin or biofiltration system,the cost Decentralization of infiltration or biofiltration systems
of installing these two types of LID BMPs is under$4 per within a given case study scenario may add as much as
gallon and $2 per square foot of TIA. The analysis shows 10%of the capital cost of installation according to the
that infiltration systems are less expensive to install than estimators used for this project,resulting from additional
biofiltration systems. The infiltration basin costs reflect the equipment and labor mobilization within a given project
use of hydrodynamic separation units for pretreatment; footprint
biofiltration systems may be used as well for pretreat- Similarly, if sufficient space is available within a proj-
ment,but they are more expensive,generally, than ect's footprint to use permeable pavers (within low-speed
hydrodynamic separators. However,they can be used access areas or surface parking areas), this type of soil
to provide a greater level of pretreatment than hydrody- infiltration system can manage runoff on a per-gallon
namic separators for certain pollutants,such as metals basis as low as$3 and as much as$18 in the urban envi-
and some nutrients. ronment. For case study 3,which examines a small urban
There is a minimum cost to install infiltration or scenario,the small volume of runoff managed relative
biofiltration systems, including the use of a pretreatment to the labor effort of installation and material required
system (for surface runoff) and the provision for runoff for DCV management using an infiltration paver system
discharge in excess of the DCV,including conveyance and or biofiltration system is the principal reason the cost of
connection to the MS4.Where hydraulic conductivity of installation per gallon and per square foot of TIA is more
the soil is less than 0.3 inch per hour and more expensive than two to four times greater than in the other case
March/April 2013
www.stormh2o.com
study examples. both effectiveness and cost. Because used to support stormwater manage-
Working in the urban footprint is rainfall arrives in southern California ment decision-making processes. One
more time consuming(labor hours) in the months of November to April of the primary uses of this work is to
than in new development or some in a back-to-back-to-back succes- help inform when the relative cost
redevelopment,or where space limita- sive pattern on a daily time scale,it of installing a 100%DCV LID BMP
tions/utility conflicts do not exist. is necessary to consider drawdown is not commensurate with its ability
Mobilization of equipment and man- times (for infiltration) or reliable to manage the DCV compared to
power is more expensive in the urban harvested water demand (for cisterns) other LID BMPs in the hierarchy of
footprint than in greenfield situations when selecting and designing LID options prescribed in MS4 permits.
or in larger redevelopment situations BMPs. (Drawdown time design guid- This study and the literature review
analogous to case study 1,for example. ance ranges from 48 to 96 hours.) have demonstrated that biofiltration
In addition, feasibility constraints are a Sufficient capacity to accept the DCV LID BMPs are significantly lower
driver of LID BMP choices within the must be maintained in one or more in cost to install and maintain than
LID BMP selection hierarchy, as fewer LID retention BMPs for a site, or cistern systems. Consequently, when
options are available in an urban set- rainfall runoff will bypass the LID retention of all or a portion of the
ting for managing stormwater.Fewer BMP and discharge directly into the DCV cannot be managed using an
options for management appear to MS4 without any treatment. While a onsite soil infiltration system, a proj-
result in increased system costs. biofiltration LID BMP may not retain ect designer will be faced with the
Harvest and use system costs 100%of the DCV,it can be designed choice of evaluating a harvest and
—assuming reliable demand is present to provide greater annual runoff vol- use system versus a biofiltration-or
for stored water—are clearly higher ume treatment because it can manage biotreatment-type LID BMP system,
than those for infiltration and biofil- a larger runoff volume and regenerate which by design filters and treats
tration systems in all cases, but are in capacity more quickly than a cistern some of the stormwater that is not
the same order of magnitude. Costs system, for example. infiltrated or evaporated before it is
for installing a cistern and supporting discharged to the MS4. The applica-
equipment are two to six times more Conclusions tion of the MEP standard as it has
than for installing infiltration or biofil- This study evaluated five different been expressed in California appears,
tration systems.This reflects the cost types of LID BMPs for application in on the basis of this work, to create
of the cistern materials and required Orange County,CA,land development a different LID BMP hierarchy to
connection and supply pumping/con- projects using a case study approach. the one currently being specified in
veyance devices, and provision of an Data developed showed that infiltra- California's Phase I MS4 permits.
overflow device and piping to convey tion and biofiltration systems were the Most fourth-generation MS4 per-
runoff that is not captured in the least-cost practice to manage the DCV mits in California provide a mitiga-
cistern to the MS4 (or to other LID for a given project, and the least costly tion or in-lieu alternative to project
BMPs).Where the potential exists to BMPs to operate and maintain over a proponents. Therefore, a second
use harvested water indoors for toilet 20-year period.This finding is gener- application of this work will be in
flushing demand,the cost of treating ally consistent with a small amount the establishment of an appropriate
the water to nonpotable standards of published literature and reports on mitigation or in-lieu fee for the vol-
specific to California,meeting appli- LID BMP costs in the US. ume of runoff that cannot be man-
cable code requirements for backflow Biofiltration systems are more aged by any combination of onsite
prevention, and conveying this water costly to install and operate than LID BMPs.The possible basis for
within a building footprint add to infiltration systems because of the a charge could be expressed using
installation cost. Cistern costs pre- requirement for specialized soil media normalized metrics introduced in this
sented in this study are for the cistern and amendments,plant pallets, and study,such as per gallon of runoff
system, including treatment costs, infrastructure to convey runoff greater managed or per unit area of con-
pumping, electrical controls, and a than the DCV to the MS4. Cistern sys- tributing impervious surface. How-
separate outdoor irrigation system. If tems and green roofs are more costly ever, these are relatively simplified
the indoor demand projection for har- to install, operate, and maintain,with approaches, and a mitigation system
vested water is justified, a separately costs at least double those of infiltra- may involve other quantifiable fac-
plumbed water system to serve toilets Lion and biofiltration. Literature on tors such as the potential for pol-
costs at least an additional $2 per cistern costs, and especially cistern lutant generation from various land
square foot of building area, accord- operation and maintenance, are uses and location-specific stormwater
ing to mechanical estimators used for scarce,while data in the literature on management needs. •
this study. green roof costs are more prevalent
The maximum extent practicable than those for cisterns. Mark Grey,Dave Soren:,and Caitlin
(MEP) standard in California requires This study addresses some of the Alexander are with the Construction Industry
that LID BMP selection be based data gaps concerning LID BMP instal- Coalition on Water Quality.Richard Boon
upon a number of criteria, including lation and O&M costs, and may be is with the County of Orange,CA.
March/April 2013
www.stormh2o.com
ar-
REGIONAL SOLUTIONSFOR
T R EAT I NG STORMWATER
I N Los ANGELES COUNTY'
•
A MACROFEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared by:'- C A L n IAL L
/ ,CR s a-'.:-111.'1: :. s...- . .---11: '-
na\�...�
--22.. o..w s...
1 - 4 i
r.. r..m.„ f..t ..;.:1
..w..rat �J-;
IM....w.....wT, I! ((r
• •
1 •T • -Y iir_- .'"ice.--" ...,.e. r: .4_-
f i' . ` 4 1 4,1.1 •
i. t({ 1 ii r'i I I !t
1 \ I i;• L,'/11 ii' t . + °I- 1 '' it' .,`' ,, 1 ^ 'y l 11 ''1'.,r' "Y ;11/�1 tS1,1 ' ',c( • :t,, ^''f°
\ r i
x
'1
l
i
Prepared for: The Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ)
April 2003
REGIONAL SOLUTIONS FOR
TREAT ! NG STORMWATER
IN Los ANGELES COUNTY*
•
A MACROFEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared by:
BROWN AND
CALDWELL
Nancy Gardiner
Cindy Paulson, Ph.D; P.E.
Grant Hoag, P.E.
Prepared for: The Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ)
April 2003
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CICWQ wishes to thank members of the Technical Advisory Committee and others who
provided valuable input to this Macrofeasibility Study, including representatives from the
following.
City of Los Angeles
Coalition for Practical Regulation
Executive Advisory Committee of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permittees
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Southern California Association of Governments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION 1
On-Site Versus Regional Watershed Approaches
The Opportunity
Regulatory Setting: Stormwater Permit Requirements
Future Regulations: Total Maximum Daily Loads
2. REGIONAL SOLUTIONS TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4
BENEFITS OF A REGIONAL SOLUTION
Water Quality Improvements
Timing
Long-Term Maintenance
Cost Effectiveness
Multiple Uses
Beneficial Reuse of Stormwater
WATER QUALITY TRADING
3. REGIONAL SOLUTION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 6
FUNDING SOURCES
Operations
Projects
Extractions: Development of Fees and Contributions
NEW STORMWATER FEE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Stormwater Fee Struck Down
Fee Increased Approved
Fee Increased Not Approved
Approval Requirements— Majority Versus Supermajority
City of Los Angeles Tax Bond Initiative
SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL SOLUTION: CASE STUDIES 9
FRESNO
WASHINGTON, DC AREA
DENVER AREA
CINCINNATI AREA
Table of Contents(Continued)
5. MODEL PROJECT 11
MODEL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Impacts on Water Quality
Area Treated
Timing of Improvements
Cost
MODEL PROJECT QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFITS
Initial Estimates
Modeling
Field Data
Funding
6. CONCLUSIONS 14
REFERENCES
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY spending money on thousands of individual,
dispersed facilities—which may or may not be
effective over the long term and will treat
New regulations in Los Angeles County require on- only small pieces of the overall problem—these
site treatment of stormwater runoff in areas that are funds could support broad. regional solutions and
undergoing new development or redevelopment. effective, long-term mechanisms that improve water
This smaller-scale on-site approach, however, is quality cost-efficiency over larger areas.
less effective in controlling water quality than larger-
scale regional, watershed-based approaches.
This Macrofeasibility Study, authored by Brown and REGIONAL ADVANTAGES
Caldwell and sponsored by the Construction
Industry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ), The amended Los Angeles County stormwater
evaluates the potential for achieving stormwater permit relies on Standard Urban stormwater
quality improvements through effective regional Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs)to control runoff, on a
approaches. These regional solutions would employ site-by-site basis, from most new development and
comprehensive best management practices to treat redevelopment areas. On site controls, or
urban runoff from new development sites. as well as SUSMPs, are required regardless of the location of
surrounding sites that have already been the project, environmental effectiveness, availability
developed. Many groups in the Los Angeles area of land for treatment, environmental sensitivity or
are interested in applying these regional, cost.
watershed-based approaches to achieve The SUSMPs must capture, treat or infiltrate runoff
comprehensive, long-term water quality solutions. from individual sites from a 0.75-inch storm event.
SUSMP facilities typically rely on water quality inlet
filter devices. oil/water separators or localized
THE OPPORTUNITY hydrodynamic separators. These are often
proprietary devices with limited long-term
Municipalities, industry and the general public face effectiveness in removing pollutants.
new challenges in managing water quality as a
result of evolving environmental regulations. Recent Moreover, on-site controls, such as SUSMPs, may
amendments to Los Angeles County's municipal work in certain situations. but they are not uniformly
stormwater permits require stricter controls on runoff effective, especially in treating many toxic pollutants
from new land development and significant restricted by TMDLs. Much more effective and
redevelopment projects. Additional controls on reliable are regional stormwater facilities, which use
urban runoff could also result from Total Maximum infiltration. wetlands or"treatment trains," employing
Daily Load (TMDL) limits for pollutants, which are several mechanisms in a series to remove
being developed to improve the quality of impaired pollutants.
waters. Unfortunately. the amended Los Angeles County
Given these pressures, there is a significant window stormwater permit does not encourage regional
of opportunity for the region to make real approaches. Regulatory authorities appear to
improvements in water quality instead of taking a recognize the merits of watershed-based, regional
•
piecemeal, on-site approach. Over the next several solutions, but in practice they discourage such
years, developers will be required to spend millions strategies. Regional solutions require special
of dollars to address stormwater runoff from new approval by the Regional Board Executive Officer.
development and redevelopment sites. Instead of In addition. they must meet many additional
requirements above and beyond those for SUSMPs.
As a result, unless a viable alternative is found,
developers will construct on-site controls that may
not work well and are not cost-effective to
implement.
ES-1
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
REGIONAL BEST PRACTICES The project could use regional BMPs to treat runoff
from the redevelopment project sites, as well as
This Macrofeasibility Study looks at comprehensive, other urban areas in the county. As an extension of
regional best management practices (BMPs) and this Macrofeasibility Study, CICWQ is developing
systems for treating urban runoff from new details of a model project to be conducted in the
development sites. as well as from surrounding next 1 to 2 years in advance of a proposed Los
areas that have already been developed. The Angeles County ballot initiative in 2004 or 2005.
ultimate goal of regional solutions, when fully
implemented throughout Los Angeles County, is to
substantially reduce pollutants in urban stormwater BENEFITS OF REGIONAL SOLUTIONS
runoff at a reasonable cost to the region's residents There are many social and environmental benefits
and businesses. of using regional facilities to treat urban runoff.
Regional facilities can provide greater benefits for
water quality more quickly and cost-effectively than
MODEL PROJECT on-site facilities. They can also include multiple-use
To illustrate how regional solutions could be applied areas, such as greenspaces and ball fields. In
in Los Angeles, a model project can be constructed addition, regional facilities can support
at a centralized location to treat runoff from new and comprehensive watershed planning efforts to
existing developed areas. Downtown Los Angeles provide holistic solutions and meet multiple basin
or nearby redevelopment areas offer potential specific needs.
locations for such a model, given the extent and
proximity of ongoing or planned redevelopment.
Mulri..u,Foae Whoent Sturm w.te, f '
RA i»Id and Baia
to"T ca-srvast /_..- r
storm o.a.n _�` a . -' +c.->., s,,,.k i
4
�__—_�\��►otaut ramment
/ _ _I ►arMnj la
7, m.en Storm Water t /.wer
In a regional approach, storm water is routed through a series of control measures to remove pollutants. Some
controls may serve multiple functions. Greens pace and ball fields, for example, may double as grassy swales
and infiltration basins, respectively, as shown above.
ES-2
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. There
Overall Water Quality Improvement can be special challenges to controlling urban runoff
Municipalities must manage stormwater quality quality in these areas. Many of these communities
throughout their entire storm drain systems, yet on- must balance the competing needs of quality
site controls such as SUSMPs only address runoff schools, fire protection, crime prevention and other
from new development areas, leaving existing basic services with demands for regulatory
developed areas with only limited controls. Regional compliance. By treating runoff from these areas at
facilities, however, can treat entire sub-watersheds, centralized downstream locations, such as in dual-
including both new and existing development, so use public parks, redevelopment efforts could be
overall improvements in water quality are realized maximized and a greater public good achieved at
much more broadly and quickly. lower cost.
Regional facilities can also address urban runoff Regional facilities can also provide other
quality during both dry-weather and wet-weather advantages, such as improvement of wildlife habitat,
flow conditions. This is particularly important in the the creation or enhancement of public parks and
greater Los Angeles area, where precipitation recreation facilities and the preservation of green
occurs about 32 days per year. By treating dry- space.
weather urban runoff during the remaining 333 days
per year, regional facilities can provide greater
overall water quality improvements than SUSMPs, Using Urban Runoff as a Resource
which are intended only to treat stormwater runoff. Urban runoff is increasingly being viewed as a
In addition, regional facilities can provide higher potential resource, especially given water supply
levels of treatment than SUSMPs. Finally, more challenges in Southern California. A number of
centralized facilities are easier to upgrade and agencies in the region are considering plans to
capture and infiltrate urban runoff to recharge
expand as needed to meet water quality objectives,
including needed
requirements. downstream aquifers and enhance water supplies.
Regional facilities offer the flexibility to support this
integrated resource planning and effective use of
Improved Long-Term Effectiveness limited water supplies.
Without proper maintenance, stormwater treatment
facilities can harbor mosquitoes and lose their ability Lower Cost to Remove Pollutants
to remove pollutants. Several large, regional Because regional systems treat runoff from large
stormwater treatment facilities are much more likely drainage areas, the cost of pollutant removal is
to be maintained properly over time than many lower on a unit basis than multiple facilities
small, dispersed facilities. (SUSMPs) that are located throughout the same
Long-term maintenance of on-site SUSMPs would watershed. Taken together, the costs of land
generally be the responsibility of property owners acquisition, engineering design, construction and
and homeowners associations. These private maintenance of a centralized, regional facility can
individuals and organizations do not often have the be significantly lower than that for multiple SUSMPs,
capacity to provide effective long-term maintenance, as shown on the following page.
which is necessary to consistently remove pollutants
and avoid system failures. Regional solutions, by
contrast, are developed through a central agency.
such as a municipality, to ensure regular
maintenance and effective, long-term operation.
Socioeconomic Improvements
Regional systems can also benefit urban
redevelopment areas and enhance public spaces.
Most new development in central Los Angeles
County is "infill,"or redevelopment of vacant or
existing properties, providing affordable housing in
•
ES-3
•
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
•
_ .- - 4,3t,
As seen in the illustration top left,
site-specific controls are used at
multiple locations to control urban
runoff.In the example below,
controls are centralized in a more
efficient, cost-effective, regional
ww •
approach.
•
Support For Regional Solutions need to lend support in petitioning regulatory
authorities to accept regional alternatives.
Regional systems for managing stormwater are
currently in use elsewhere in the country. and they
are gathering momentum in California. Notably, the Cooperation to Secure Funding
Santa Clara Valley Water District is strongly When implemented at full scale. regional solutions
advocating the use of regional solutions to control throughout Los Angeles County will require funding
runoff from the new development in the San for facility construction, as well as annual operation
Francisco Bay Area. and maintenance. If the concepts in this
Macrofeasibility Study are embraced and supported
Adopting a Regional Approach by the region's policy-makers, CICWQ is willing to
To succeed. regional solutions will require help pursue implementation on a larger scale and
leadership, initiative and cooperation among develop a coalition to help secure funding.
regulators, municipalities, the development and Only governmental entities have the authority to
environmental communities and other stakeholders. raise public funds for construction, operation and
In addition to sponsoring this Macrofeasibility Study, maintenance of regional stormwater facilities. The
CICWQ has been working with other stakeholders funding solution for regional approaches lies in a
to consider a model project to demonstrate that partnership among stakeholders to achieve a
regional solutions can work in the Los Angeles area. dedicated, sustainable funding source—through a
Regulatory Support regional ballot measure, for example. CICWQ is
To encourage regional approaches, the current Los ready to work closely with the cities and the County
Angeles County stormwater permit requirements will of Los Angeles to promote a ballot initiative or vote
need to be revised. Local municipalities will also of the electorate enabling a regional solution.
ES-4
•
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Joining Forces
Regional solutions provide an opportunity for all
stakeholders to engage in a positive dialogue about
what can be done to improve urban runoff quality.
Many other groups in the Los Angeles area—
including the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers
Watershed Council, the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, the
Tree People and the City and County of Los
Angeles—have indicated strong interest in
sustainable, comprehensive watershed approaches
to improving water quality. Their ongoing regional
efforts could be coordinated to build support for
regional solutions.
The model project proposed in this study could help
demonstrate the effectiveness of watershed
solutions in improving water quality and quality of
life in the Los Angeles area. The model could also
help provide a roadmap for others to follow in
developing more regional projects in the future.
ES-5
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
While large-scale residential development is largely
1 . INTRODUCTION located in the region's foothills and urban fringe.
Los Angeles's storm drain system, like its sanitary most new development in central Los Angeles
sewage system, collects and moves water, via County is infill or redevelopment. It is often focused
gravity, from higher elevations to the ocean. The on providing affordable housing in economically
main difference between them is that sewage is disadvantaged neighborhoods. The control of
centrally treated before it is released into the ocean, stormwater quality in these areas poses challenges
while stormwater is not Regional policy-makers are beyond the setting aside of land for treatment. Many
now requiring on-site treatment for stormwater. Like of these communities must balance the competing
the septic systems of old, this approach will be needs of quality schools. fire protection, crime
relatively less effective in controlling water quality in prevention and other basic services with regulatory
highly urbanized areas. This Macrofeasibility Study compliance. Runoff from these areas could be
proposes more comprehensive, long-term solutions treated at centralized downstream locations. such
to address water quality in the Los Angeles area as dual use public parks, instead of using valuable
through regional or watershed approaches. redevelopment parcels for stormwater treatment. As
a result, a greater public good could be achieved at
a lower overall cost.
ON-SITE VERSUS REGIONAL
WATERSHED APPROACHES THE OPPORTUNITY
Recently, the region's policy-makers have With the recent county stormwater regulations and
presented one vision for managing stormwater. It expected requirements for treating stormwater
requires capture. treatment or infiltration of the 0.75- runoff to meet TMDLs, there is a significant window
inch storm event from most new development and of opportunity to make real improvements in water
redevelopment sites. This approach relies on quality. Over the next several years, developers will
Standard Urban Stormwater Management Programs be required to spend millions of dollars to address
(SUSMPs). SUSMPs are required for most projects stormwater runoff from new development and
regardless of the project's location or potential for redevelopment areas. These funds could support
pollution. They typically include on-site facilities broader regional solutions and effective, long-term
such as water quality inlet filter devices, oil/water mechanisms to improve water quality over much
separators or localized hydrodynamic separators. larger areas instead of thousands of individual,
Often, these are proprietary devices with limited dispersed facilities, which may not be effective over
long-term effectiveness in removing pollutants. the long term and will treat only small pieces of the
The regulatory authorities appear to recognize the overall problem.
merits of watershed-based. regional solutions. They Leadership, initiative and cooperation among
require, however, special approval by the Regional municipalities and the development community will
Board Executive Officer that such approaches are be needed for regional solutions to succeed. The
technically valid and appropriate. As a result of Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality
these obstacles, developers will be left to construct (CICWQ) has stepped forward to help provide this
on-site controls that may not work well and are not leadership and a roadmap for others to follow in the
cost-effective to implement. future. CICWQ sponsored this Macrofeasibility
On-site stormwater controls may work in some Study to outline a regional solution, funding
places for certain pollutants (e.g., in new alternatives and a model project to show that
developments located on large, flat parcels). They regional solutions can work in the Los Angeles area.
are not uniformly effective. and many are minimally If the concepts in this study are embraced and
effective in addressing the toxic pollutants of supported by the region's policy-makers, CICWQ is
concern in the Los Angeles area By contrast, willing to pursue implementation on a larger scale
regional facilities, such as detention and/or and to develop a coalition to help secure funding.
infiltration or wetlands, can provide higher levels of Achieving regulatory approval will require strong
treatment more reliably. A comprehensive regional support from local municipalities, including
or watershed approach to stormwater treatment assistance in petitioning regulatory authorities to
would provide the greatest overall benefit and water accept the regional approach.
quality improvement.
1
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Many other groups in the Los Angeles area have • Equivalent or improved stormwater quality
also indicated strong interest in sustainable,
comprehensive watershed approaches to improve Protection of stream habitat
water quality. There are several ongoing regional
efforts that could be coordinated, including ones by Promotion of cooperative problem solving by
the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed diverse interests
Council, the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, the Tree Fiscal sustainability with secure funding
People, and the City and County of Los Angeles. Completion in 5 years, including construction
among others. The model project proposed in this and start-up of treatment facilities.
study could be one demonstration of how regional
watershed solutions can improve water quality and These same standards are not required for SUSMP
provide other important benefits for the area. implementation. To encourage the application of
regional solutions, which can provide greater water
quality improvements and other benefits at lower
REGULATORY SETTING: STORMWATER costs. it will be necessary to revise the permit to
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS support regional approaches.
The current regulation that is driving the need for a
regional approach is the Los Angeles County FUTURE REGULATIONS: TOTAL
municipal stormwater permit. In December 2001, MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board (LARWQCB) adopted Order 01-182, which A new frontier of regulation is imminent, as the
regulates stormwater and urban runoff discharges region's water quality authorities seek to develop
from municipalities in Los Angeles County. These and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads
regulations are enforced through a general NPDES (TMDLs)for numerous rivers. creeks and beaches.
permit that places restrictions on stormwater and TMDLs are developed for"impaired"water bodies
urban runoff pollutants flowing through storm drain that contain an excessive amount of a specific
systems. Eighty-four incorporated cities (except pollutant. They specify a numeric limit(load or
Long Beach) have joined as"permittees" under this concentration) of the pollutant that must be
regulation. achieved to guarantee that the water body in
The permit requires most new development or question will meet water quality objectives. All
Th rmit re redevelopment parcels most
pew development elopm entities perceived to be discharging these pollutants
permanent treatment control BMPs for stormwater may be required to install some type of treatment
runoff. The permit essentially designates SUSMP system or device. Municipalities, in particular, face
an enormous challenge in meeting future TMDL
facilities as the required approach. It does, however. requirements. The regional approach to stormwater
allow regional solutions in Section 4.D.9. Special treatment offers more cost-effective strategies for
Provisions - Regional Stormwater Mitigation meeting this challenge.
Program -to substitute for parts or all of the SUSMP
requirements. Within the greater Los Angeles area, there are
Unfortunately, the regional program option seems to already several efforts to restore impaired water
bodies through the TMDL process. Section 303(d),
be offered more as an afterthought than as a viable listing of impaired waters requiring TMDLs, identifies
or encouraged approach. In fact, there are several several specific pollutants in the Los Angeles area.
barriers to the use of regional approaches. The As shown in Table 1, constituents of concern
permit requires special application to the Regional include trash, metals, pathogens, nutrients,
Board for approval as well as determination by the ammonia, and tissue and sediment contamination.
Regional Board Executive Officer that the proposed Future treatment control BMPs for stormwater runoff
regional approach is"technically valid and may be required to focus on these specific
appropriate." Any proposed regional solution must constituents to help meet TMDLs. The Los Angeles
demonstrate that its implementation can meet County stormwater permit also identifies several
requirements far beyond those required of on-site target pollutants, including trash, indicator bacteria,
SUSMP approaches, including: metals, PAHs, nutrients (nitrogen), sediment and
pesticides.
2
. • _ ,.0111111111111111ar.,
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
A recent study conducted by the University of A significant portion of this cost could be reduced
Southern California estimated that 65 stormwater through the implementation of regional solutions
treatment plants costing between $43.7 billion and that treat the water from sub-watersheds throughout
$283.9 billion will be required for stormwater the area.
compliance in the Los Angeles area over the next
20 years (USC, 2003).
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF 303(D)LISTING OF IMPAIRED WATERS IN THE Los ANGELES AREA
Nutrients/ Tissue or
Watershed Trash Metals Pathogens' a Ammonia Sediment Other
Alga
Contam3
Ballona Creek pH,
toxicity
•
Malibu Creek Foam,sediment
•
Los Angeles River pH,foam.odors,oil.
PCE,TOE
San Gabriel River ✓
Santa Clara River ✓ TDS,chloride.nitrite
Dominguez Channel
Metals may include total selenium,total silver,total aluminum,dissolved copper.dissolved zinc,dissolved cadmium,and
( lead(not generally specified as total or dissolved).
2Pathogens are indicated by high coliform count. Ballona Creek also includes enteric viruses.
3Tissue and sediment contamination may include metals(e.g.,cadmium,lead,silver,zinc),DDT.PCBs,PAHs.and other
organic compounds(e.g..aldrin.chlordane,dieldrin).
•
3
Aril=
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
2. REGIONAL SOLUTIONS TO BENEFITS OF A REGIONAL SOLUTION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT There are several significant advantages to using
regional approaches to treat stormwater. Regional
The Watershed Management Initiative Section of facilities can support comprehensive watershed
the LARWQCB 2001 NPDES permit points out a planning efforts in which conditions throughout the
need to"...integrate various surface and ground basin are addressed. They can also support holistic
water regulatory programs while promoting solutions that address multiple basin-specific
cooperative, collaborative efforts within a objectives. Regional facilities can also provide
watershed." It adds that "future success in reducing greater benefits for water quality more quickly and
pollutants from non-point sources and achieving cost-effectively than on-site facilities (Figure 1). And
additional reductions in pollutants from point they can provide multiple-use areas—such as
sources requires a shift to a more geographically greenspaces and ball fields -that also treat urban
targeted approach."The strategy proposed in this runoff.
document reflects that philosophy.
The current stormwater regulations are neither the
most efficient nor most cost-effective means to
achieve improved water quality. In addition. they
lack the vision to efficiently address future FIGURE 1. BENEFITS OF REGIONAL VERSUS
compliance needs, such as TMDLs. This study ON-SITE SOLUTIONS
explores whether a regional solution that functions
on a watershed or local drainage area basis can
achieve greater water quality improvement than
infiltrating, filtering or treating stormwater on-site
using the SUSMP approach.
Natural drainage systems work by draining a
connected area, or watershed, through branching
tributaries, starting at the highest elevations and .
• _•
moving water to a main channel in the basin's .
lowest points. This same watershed principle
applies in urban areas, even though water there is •
often encased in concrete box-culverts and
channels and moves from higher ground to the
ocean through an engineered storm drain system of
increasingly larger drainpipes and channels.
Watersheds can be subdivided into smaller units,
called sub-watersheds, and engineered regional •
systems can be designed to treat stormwater flows
from these smaller sub-watershed areas. Rain vents
in a watershed produce too much water and occur $co.
much too infrequently to justify the type of • Pc .a
management provided by wastewater treatment
facilities. In the Los Angeles area for example, In the first illustration(top), site-specific facilities
storm events occur on an average of about 32 days are used at multiple locations to control urban
runoff.year and the remaining 333 days per year are . In the second example, control is
centralized using a regional approach, resulting in
typically dry (USC, 2003). Moreover, most storms a lower cost per unit of pollutant removed.
that do occur are small, providing frequently less
than 0.1 inch of rain.
4
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Water Quality Improvements private land in Spokane, Wash., showed that the
Now and in the future, municipalities will need to majority were failing due to lack of maintenance.
begin meeting TMDL requirements for pollutants in Large numbers of small dispersed SUSMP facilities
receiving waters throughout the Los Angeles basin. present major maintenance challenges, often
Regional systems can be effective in helping cities requiring several visits during a storm season to
meet these limits. First, regional approaches make it ensure effective operation. Maintenance
possible to manage urban runoff from a larger responsibilities for SUSMPs associated with new
watershed or sub-watershed area, including existing development and redevelopment projects generally
land uses and new development or redevelopment. fall to home-owners associations or management
Regional facilities can also be optimally located and companies. These private organizations are not
sized to reduce pollutant loads from all tributary traditionally set up to provide effective long-term
areas within a sub-watershed, not just small discrete maintenance of stormwater facilities. The
portions, resulting in much greater water quality municipality, however, would still be required to
benefits. In addition, regional facilities can address meet stormwater requirements even if these
both wet-weather and dry-weather flows. Dry- facilities fail.
weather flows, in fact. are suspected of carrying a Fewer facilities combined with municipal
large portion of urban runoff related pollutants in the responsibility for maintenance could result in greater
Los Angeles area. SUSMPs, by contrast, are only
intended to detain stormwater runoff and could have assurance of consistent operation in perpetuity.
little or no effect on dry-weather flows. Regional
facilities can also enhance water quality to a greater Cost Effectiveness
degree by providing larger areas for highly effective. Regional facilities are inherently more cost-effective
land-intensive treatment methods, such as filtration
technologies. Regional facilities, moreover, can be to construct and maintain when compared on a
more easily upgraded and expanded to provide cost-per-acre basis (Urbonaz. 1990). Economies of
higher levels of treatment as needed to meet water scale provide greater pollutant reductions for the
quality objectives and TMDL requirements. Finally, capital and ongoing operation and maintenance
regional facilities are more likely to meet water costs expended.
quality standards because design, construction For example, a facility for storing runoff might have
quality and maintenance can be better controlled. an embankment height of 10 feet or less. Small
increments in height for a regional detention facility
would have minor expense but substantially more
Timing volume for storage than on-site facilities, providing
Regional solutions would generally be constructed greater water quality benefits.
in advance of full-scale development and therefore
provide immediate water quality benefits. In
addition, because regional facilities can be applied Multiple Uses
to treat entire sub-watersheds, and not just new A guiding principle of urban stormwater
development or redevelopment, overall management is that"an urban drainage strategy
improvements in water quality can be realized much should be a multipurpose, multimeans effort (WEF
more quickly. and ASCE, 1992). Because of their larger size and
For instance, if an area were redeveloping at the jurisdiction. regional facilities present more
rate of 2 percent of the watershed area per year, opportunities to serve multiple purposes. Regional
SUSMPs could require 50 years or more to treat facilities can often provide other advantages,
runoff from the entire area By contrast, a regional especially in economically disadvantaged areas,
solution could address an entire sub-watershed in 5 such as habitat improvements, green space
years or less preservation and public park and recreation facility
creation or enhancement.
Long-Term Maintenance Beneficial Reuse of Stormwater
Without proper maintenance, stormwater treatment
facilities lose their ability to remove pollutants and Urban runoff is increasingly being viewed as a
no longer provide benefits for water quality. Poorly potential resource, especially given the water supply
maintained facilities can also contribute to vector challenges in Southern California. The City of Los
problems. A recent survey of on-site facilities on Angeles, for example, is currently working on an
5
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Integrated Resources Plan that would capture a trading program, cost-effective stormwater BMPs
portion of existing dry-and/or wet-weather urban could be applied in optimal locations to achieve the
runoff and infiltrate it to recharge downstream greatest reductions in pollutants and the most
aquifers, enhancing existing water supplies (City of environmental benefits at the lowest cost.A bank of
Los Angeles, November 2001). The Los Angeles credits could then be created to provide for pollutant
and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council is also reduction needs throughout a watershed or sub-
performing a Water Augmentation Study to explore watershed. These credits could be purchased to
the potential for increasing water supplies and achieve the overall reductions required, especially in
reducing urban runoff pollution through infiltration of watersheds with limited opportunities for efficient
stormwater runoff(Los Angeles and San Gabriel controls. The credits could then be applied to fund
Rivers Watershed Council, 2002). Regional facilities centralized investments in larger facilities to achieve
offer the flexibility for future enhancements that more effective stormwater management and control.
would support integrated resource planning and
better use of limited water supplies.
3. REGIONAL SOLUTION FUNDING
WATER QUALITY TRADING ALTERNATIVES
When implemented at full-scale, regional solutions
With the projected addition of another 15 million or throughout Los Angeles County will require
more people to California by 2025 (U.S. Census, significant funding for facilities construction and
■ 2002), increasing urbanization will further annual operation and maintenance(O&M). Since
complicate the task of managing stormwater runoff. regional systems provide multiple benefits,
Given the unique challenges of highly urbanized municipal governments would have responsibility for
watersheds, there are advantages to using implementing these systems. Unlike private
innovative approaches such as Water Quality organizations or developers, governmental entities
Trading. This strategy allows for cost-effective also have the authority to raise public funds for
pollutant reductions within a watershed, where construction, operation and maintenance of regional
feasible, in exchange for credits that can be applied stormwater facilities.
in other, more challenging areas.
Stormwater program costs may be funded under a
The concept of Water Quality Trading, initiated by variety of mechanisms. However, state laws
the EPA in 1996, was based on principles similar to governing creation of new tax- and rate-based
those of air emissions trading programs that helped revenue sources for ongoing program costs are very
solve air quality problems over the last decade. The restrictive.
new EPA trading policy"encourages States and
Tribes to implement trading programs" where The program costs are affected by economies of
possible to achieve water quality improvements with scale. Larger, regionally managed stormwater
"greater efficiency and more flexible approaches" programs are generally more efficient and less
(U.S. EPA, 2002). The EPA recognizes that trading costly than localized projects, especially when these
programs are not only cost-effective, but can also costs include the management, administration and
provide ancillary environmental benefits beyond operation of stormwater facilities. Since costs of a
reductions in specific pollutant loads, including stormwater utility are ultimately borne by the region,
creation and restoration of wetlands, floodplains and an area-wide approach results in the lowest cost per
wildlife habitat. In addition, trading programs can household.
help achieve early reductions in pollutants and
progress toward water quality standards in impaired
waters. FUNDING SOURCES
A Water Quality Trading program could provide Public stormwater programs may be funded through
more comprehensive, watershed-wide solutions to periodic local fees, charges and taxes; agency
urban stormwater runoff challenges within Los general funding, including utility taxes; one-time
Angeles County. Some of the highly urbanized impact fees to developers; land conservancies,
areas, like downtown Los Angeles. provide very state and federal grants; congressional
limited opportunities to capture and treat stormwater appropriations; state low-interest loans; and
runoff effectively. By applying a watershed-based commercially available bonds. The key issues
associated with various funding mechanisms are
described on the following pages.
6
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Operations commercial bonds. Low-cost stormwater project
Operating costs are for salaries, utilities, facility funding is available primarily in the form of SRF
maintenance, administration, contractual services, loans. The Costa Machado Water Act of 2000,
regional service agreement charges and debt. approved by the California voters as Proposition 13,
Operation and maintenance costs cannot be funded provided much of the state matching funds needed
with grant or loan proceeds (i.e., assessment district to secure federal funding for the SRF program. The
or municipal revenue bond proceeds). All operating 2002 passages of Propositions 40 and 50 will
costs must come from local fees and charges, maintain the availability of this funding for many, but
interfund transfers from other sources or tax not all, communities. Funding is restricted to specific
proceeds. In addition, a Mello-Roos Community types of projects. The difference between SRF
Facilities District may be formed to fund operations loans and municipal revenue bonds is currently
(as well as facilities) by levying special taxes against about 2 percent.
the real property within the service area. This Grant funds,while rare, require no repayment.
funding approach is most advantageous for growing Stormwater grant programs for local government
communities. and non-profit organizations are administered by the
Grants and loans can only be used to fund one-time State Water Resources Control Board under the
planning studies or the capital costs of facilities and Clean Water Act (CWA). The two most significant
equipment. Because stormwater treatment grant programs are the CWA Section 205(j) grants
programs have a high proportion of operating to for watershed planning, and Section 319(h) grants
capital costs. operations typically have the greatest for non point source pollution control. Funds are
funding requirements. For example. 75 percent of exhausted in both grant programs, but they may be
the stormwater program budget for the City of Santa restored and available in the future. Statewide
Ana in Orange County is for operation and competition for these monies, however. will be
maintenance. For this reason, a sustainable funding strong.
source for any stormwater program must be local.
State laws regarding creation of new tax- and rate- Extractions: Development Fees and
based revenue sources for stormwater operating Contributions
costs are very restrictive. Los Angeles County and Cities and counties have authority to control growth.
its cities are unlikely to transfer any maintenance With this authority, they may also specify
burden to themselves without some form of development-related funding methods— known as
comparable support. As such, there is a need for a extractions—for growth-related facilities. The
partnership between municipalities and the SUSMP requirements, in effect, limit the cities' and
development community supported by a dedicated, county's legal authority to define the nature of the
sustainable funding source. extraction. They dictate that all development-related
Because regional solutions can address TMDL extractions include specific on-site stormwater load
compliance needs more efficiently and cost- remediation. These SUSMP developer extraction
effectively than SUSMPs, municipalities may benefit requirements are known as subdivision reservations
significantly by supporting regional solutions. and project design and improvements, as defined in
Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 66411, 66476 et al of
the Map Act. The SUSMP requirements also
Projects specifiy stormwater-related O&M requirements for
Municipalities usually fund utility projects from fee new development that would otherwise fall to the
revenues and built-up reserves. To the extent that a cities and county.
facility serves increased loads from new This study's goal is to support the agencies'
development, cities rely on developer impact fees authority to use all forms of extractions. Regional
and contributions in lieu of construction. The most solutions would restore the cities'and county's
common funding sources for larger projects are authority to select development extractions
bond proceeds from the commercial markets. This providing the same level of stormwater load
is also the most costly source because of the remediation that the permit requires at lower
relatively high interest payments on the debt. regional cost and with greater regional benefits.
Government-supported debt, most commonly the Specifically, the regional solution approach seeks to
State Revolving Fund (SRF), provides relief from expand the cities' choices of extractions to include
high interest rates. but it requires more fees in lieu of contributions, as well as mitigation
documentation and is less available than and impact fees. Each fee is slightly different in
7
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
definition and use, but all generate agency proceeds Fee Increase Approved
for use in acquiring land and constructing facilities to Since the approval of Prop. 218, only two California
achieve regional permit compliance. ,
cities have attempted a ballot approval of increased
stormwater fees. In November 2002, the City of San
NEW STORMWATER FEE Clemente conducted the first successful Prop. 218-
compliant ballot to increase household fees from
APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS $2.96 to$7.98 per month. With a 49 percent return
on the approximately 17,000 ballots, the measure
Proposition 218, approved by the state's voters in passed by 57 percent. The ballot effort is believed to
November 1996, added Articles XIII C and D to the have succeeded because the measure provided a
California Constitution. The key feature of Prop. 218 sunset on the fee after five years and the
affecting stormwater fees is Article XIII D, Section 6 moderately wealthy beach community is sensitive to
(c). It states that some fees need to be submitted for water pollution issues.
voter approval. Specifically, it provides that"Except
for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse
collection services, no property related fee or Fee Increase Not Approved
charge shall be imposed or increased unless and In 2000, the City of Palo Alto unsuccessfully sought
until such fee or charge is submitted and approved approval for an increase in stormwater fees. The
by a majority vote of the property owners of the approval rate of 37 percent failed to reach the
property subject to the fee or charge..." simple majority required for passage. The ballot
effort is believed to have failed because the City did
Stormwater Fee Struck Down not adequately inform property owners of funding
needs, the fees were permanent and indexed to
In July 1999, the City of Salinas adopted a new inflation, and stakeholder opposition was organized
storm drainage ordinance. The Howard Jarvis and significant.
Taxpayers Association, et al, initiated a "Reverse
Validation Action"to challenge the fee. The County
of Monterey Superior Court ruled in favor of the City Approval Requirements—Majority
by finding that the fee was not property-related. In versus Supermajority
June 2002, however, the California Sixth Appellate Under Prop. 218, a new fee can be approved by a
District Court (with statewide jurisdiction) reversed 'simple majority approval of parcel owners. based on
the judgment, and the State Supreme Court refused one vote per parcel, regardless of size. By contrast.
a petition to review the case. assessment act bond votes require weighting of
Consequently, some cities have resisted votes based on size of the assessment. However,
implementing new stormwater fees due to the while an assessment act bond can be used solely
burden of the ballot approval process. However, for facility funding. a fee can be used for any
some cities have implemented variations of a dedicated purpose. including O&M.
stormwater fee without the ballot process, as well as Prop. 218 also provides that a new fee may be
water, sewer or trash utility taxes, to support approved with a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of
stormwater program costs. While the Jarvis the electorate in a community. An evaluation of the
Association will resist circumvention of the voter likelihood of a successful vote, therefore, should
approval process or attempts to charge for services include a comparison of property owner voting
historically provided without fees, it has expressed behavior versus the combined voting behavior of
support for ballot measures that seek approval for property owners and apartment renters. In urban
fees needed to fund the incremental new costs of a areas, where a large proportion of voters reside in
stormwater utility. apartments, the success of a stormwater fee
measure may hinge on the difference between the
two voting groups.
e c
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
City of Los Angeles Tax Bond Initiative Such a constituency can initiate and promote the
In the near future, the City Council of Los Angeles outreach needed for a successful ballot for new
may consider authorizing a citywide ballot for a new fees. In exchange, the cities would petition the
ad valorem tax bond of$250 million. The ballot LARWQCB to accept the regional alternative to the
measure is currently being defined. Its intent is to SUSMP and restore their historical authority to
develop funds, to be spent over 10 years, for define development extractions. Public agencies
complying with the Regional Board permit for trash would also accept the responsibility for O&M of all
removal from stormwater flows. It will also fund facilities. Under this scenario, facility costs of on-site
acquisition of parklands with dual use capability for stormwater treatment facilities would be replaced by
stormwater hydraulic and pollutant load a regionally based stormwater extraction or impact
remediation. The bond proceeds are likely to be fee. Existing developed areas and new development
divided equally between the two activities. would enjoy water quality improvement and ancillary
benefits under the regional approach. As a result,
A tax bond requires two-thirds approval for passage, the costs of improvements and their operation would
and the City has yet to define the measure as a be supported by all property owners countywide.
Prop. 218-related tax. It is possible that staff will The level of the extraction fee could be based on
restructure the measure from an ad valorem tax to a the lower costs under a regional stormwater
utility fee before it is presented to the city council. mitigation plan, and fee proceeds could promote
Under the initiative, the city will receive an estimated acquisition of dual use open space facilities where
feasible. All parties would share in the benefits of
$16 million in annual tax revenues. The impact per this alternative.
typical household is estimated at$22 per year. This
funding will not fully support the city's stormwater This collaborative funding strategy provides
program, but the measure will generate new synergistic benefits to all participants. The cities
revenues for compliance with elements of the would implement new stormwater fee measures
permit. with the support of stakeholder funding needed for
successful campaigns. Neighborhoods would
benefit as redeveloped land is transformed into new
SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER FUNDING open space and dual-use parks and developers
Most stormwater program costs are for routine would be free from the requirement of building
operations that are ineligible for either loan or grant inefficient, development specific facilities.
funding. As a result, no stormwater utility, regional
or otherwise, will succeed without local community
funding sources. Nevertheless, while a city may 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
prepare a ballot on fees, law precludes it from REGIONAL SOLUTION: CASE
actively supporting its approval. City funds may only
be used for public information and outreach STUDIES
programs. Nevertheless, in California, successful
propositions often require expensive voter Regional approaches to managing stormwater are
campaigns to succeed. currently being applied elsewhere in the country and
are gathering momentum in California. To a limited
In order to implement new stormwater fees under extent, regional solutions have even been tried in
Prop. 218, a ballot measure must first be approved Los Angeles, at Pan Pacific Park, where a multi-
by at least 50 percent of the parcel owners in the purpose recreation area with soccer fields, baseball
community. Without an extensive campaign, as fields and a picnic site doubles as a detention and
demonstrated in Palo Alto, opposing stakeholders infiltration basin. In response to permit conditions
will easily block the approval of a fee. Private requiring on-site controls for new developments,
groups such as CICWQ, however, are in a position several other cities and counties are exploring
to persuade the public to support approval of the regional approaches. Notably, the Santa Clara
ballot measure. A collaboration of CICWQ, Valley Water District is strongly advocating the use
organizations supportive of environmental causes, of regional solutions to control runoff from new
neighborhood advocacy groups for increased dual- developments in the San Francisco Bay Area.
use parklands and even the Jarvis Association Similarly, San Diego's Model SUSMP includes a
could create a voting block strong enough to provision for using "Local Equivalent Area
develop momentum for a successful ballot measure. Drainages"—drainages from larger sub-
watersheds—as an alternative to the SUSMP.
9
•
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
the San Joaquin River. There, developers are
f required to construct swales on site. The District
emphatically pursues multi-objective facilities and
has built many parks. Funding for new regional
5, ,_4= j facilities is obtained through "prepaid drainage
assessments."
WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA
In other parts of the country, particularly the East
Coast, regional stormwater treatment facilities are
common practice. Since the mid-1970s, the State of
Virginia has been required to control peak
Pan Pacific Park in Los Angeles serves as stormwater flows. Local governments typically
both a recreational area and a stormwater resorted to on-site detention, believing that on-site
treatment basin. facilities required less planning and were relatively
easy to administer. Many of the local governments
in Virginia, however, are now using the regional
}`s - approach for a number of reasons, including:
Lower costs
} .� Increased development opportunities, since less
tc.
land is required
• 411M611641421411 Increased recreational opportunities
----- Ability to manage urban runoff from existing and
± new development
Ability to locate regional facilities strategically
•
and achieve improved watershed performance
Detention and infiltration basins are used
extensively in Fresno, Calif., for regional
treatment of stormwater runoff.
DENVER AREA
Water quality trading programs have also been
FRESNO effectively applied elsewhere in the country to
While the efforts in Santa Clara and San Diego are reduce stormwater pollutant loadings. In the Cherry
recent, some areas of the state have long employed Creek Basin just south of Denver, Colo., for
regional stormwater approaches to flood protection example, watershed based trading helped to reduce
and water quality improvement. For example, the phosphorus loadings to Cherry Creek Reservoir,
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District attempts one of the state's largest recreation areas, while
to stay ahead of development by purchasing land in permitting population growth to occur upstream
the developing urban fringe for regional infiltration (WERE, 2000). The trading program relied on
facilities. Each drains an area of approximately one credits derived from the construction of several
square mile and is funded by a combination of centralized Pollutant Reduction Facilities (i.e.,
monies from tax revenues and developers' fees. detention ponds, retention ponds and wetlands)that
were effective in removing pollutants from
Developers are required to provide construction- stormwater runoff.
phase water quality controls and design source
controls into their developments. The regional
facilities provide post-construction water quality
treatment. except in areas that discharge directly to
10
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
, Have a drainage area of approximately 1 to 2
a--t�' i !' square miles (600 to 1.200 acres)
,r— • I Have an existing drainage system offering
t >` A ,.c.'4* . .'T� . opportunities for stormwater treatment•'`- '-. - "'r" a.-"° ` .,.•-•, - improvements without sacrificing flood control
r ".47.1', �t ': fJ t;` ■ Be located downstream in order to site regional
-, .2 %, - .,4:' , ` `' stormwater controls between developments and
the receiving water•! y� K3 f�?' • Have a cross-section of developed land uses•G. .. ♦ ,•
i , . within the drainage
Offer opportunities for multiple uses such as
Regional stormwater detention facilities were recreation, aesthetic improvement and improved
used effectively to control runoff from new groundwater recharge opportunities
development in the Cherry Creek area.
Offer opportunities for partnering and
cooperation with development, redevelopment
CINCINNATI AREA and community groups
More recently, a study of Cincinnati's Shepherd
Creek demonstrated that trading could cost- The area of greatest interest for the model project is
effectively help control excess stormwater urbanized Los Angeles County. Given the extent of
associated with development in a watershed area significant redevelopment and the close proximity of
(Thurston, et al., 2002). redevelopment projects in this area. it appears that
this area could be targeted for a project using
regional BMPs that treat runoff from the
5. MODEL PROJECT redevelopment sites and other developed areas.
This study proposes the development of a local Flow from the upstream redevelopment site (along
model project, based on credible engineering and with runoff from adjacent developed areas)would
scientific bases, to illustrate the applicability of be routed through the City of Los Angeles storm
regional solutions in the Los Angeles area This drain system into the regional treatment facility. The
model project, sponsored by CICWQ, will provide a treatment process would most likely be a"treatment
real-world example of how a regional watershed- train," or series of treatment systems within the
based solution compares to alternative on-site selected location. For example, runoff could be
(SUSMP) approaches. routed from the existing storm drain system through
a grassed swale into a sand filter, with overflows
The concept of the regional solution is to implement directed into a depressed area built to maximize
centralized BMPs, treating stormwater runoff not infiltration (Figure 2). The remaining treated effluent
only from development projects but also from could then be discharged back into the storm drain.
existing developed areas of the drainage area. The The regional treatment facilities would be sited in
purpose of the model project is to show that a parks, vacant lots or other open spaces at one or
regional solution to treating stormwater from new more locations located downstream of the
development/redevelopment is more cost-effective redevelopment projects. Potential Los Angeles
than an on-site approach and provides greater locations include:
water quality and multi-use benefits.
Staples Center campus redevelopment project
sites
MODEL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Redevelopment projects along Main Street in
Each potential model project site must: downtown Los Angeles
Be located in an area undergoing significant
new development or redevelopment
11
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Figure 2. Conceptual Schematic of BMP Treatment Train for a Regional Solution
Multi•Purpose
Influent Storm Water f
Ball Field and Basin
High Flow Bypass -
to Storm Drain rr Grassy Swale i
,. C
i
'- 1 Porous Pavement
Parking Lot
Effluent Storm Water ' '
rip i-
In a regional approach, storm water is routed through a series of control measures designed to
remove pollutants. Some controls may serve multiple functions, such as greenspace and ball fields
which double as grassed swales and infiltration basins, respectively, as shown above.
12
yt
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Alternatively, an urbanized watershed site in
another Los Angeles community could be selected _
for the project. For example, in the City of Carson,
the California State University—Dominguez Hills .
area is currently undergoing significant residential 'j'3 '��
and commercial new development and - =1""
redevelopment, including construction of a soccer
stadium for the Los Angeles Galaxy. New
development is adjacent to established developed = '
areas, and downstream is the Victoria County Park,
which could be a model project site This location is ...-,.... ..-,,,,,,. ....4.,,,-,:;;;.:..,..,--....
particularly attractive. Portions of the park land are
depressed relative to the adjacent streets, and the Runoff from the L.A.Galaxy Stadium
park is located between the areas undergoing and other developed areas could be
development and the local receiving water treated at a regional facility, such as at
(Dominguez Channel). Victoria County Park(lower photo).
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
The regional solution should result in two overall Impacts on Water Quality
benefits: decreased discharge volume and improved Improvements in water quality associated with
effluent water quality. Together, reduction of volume urban runoff can occur from reducing both flows and
and effluent concentration would result in reduction pollutant concentrations. The model project will
of the total "load" or mass of pollutants removed estimate total reductions in pollutant loading for
from runoff. The model project will evaluate the regional versus on-site approaches.
effectiveness of regional versus SUSMP
approaches by looking at several measures.
Area Treated
One of the major advantages of a regional solution
is that urban runoff from existing development can
be captured and treated along with runoff from new
development areas. In contrast, a SUSMP approach
4. r._ would capture and treat runoff only from smaller,
` dispersed areas associated with new development
� 1- or redevelopment. The model project will estimate
the area to be treated by a regional facility and
_ compare it to the area treated by on-site facilities
... �� associated with new development in a selected
watershed.
Development activities at the new Los Timing of Improvements
Angeles Galaxy stadium on the campus
of CSUS- Dominguez Hills. Because much of the Los Angeles area is already
highly developed, regional solutions that would
capture existing development areas could greatly
speed the collection and treatment of urban runoff.
The rate of recent and planned development and
redevelopment of the selected watershed will be
evaluated to estimate the time required to treat the
entire watershed using SUSMPs versus regional
facilities.
13
Regional Solutions for Treating Stormwater in Los Angeles County
Cost Field Data
The costs of implementing SUSMPs or a regional Some limited field monitoring of treated effluent
solution will be estimated and compared. Capital, as could be performed to compare its quality to typical
well as annual operation and maintenance costs, influent runoff concentration ranges for various
will be considered. The study will also compare the constituents. measured by the Los Angeles County
costs per unit of pollutant removed per acre stormwater monitoring program (more than seven
throughout the selected watershed study area under years of data are available).
both scenarios.
Funding
MODEL PROJECT QUANTIFICATION OF Given the nature of this innovative model project,
BENEFITS joint public/private funding with the support of grant
programs is very likely.
+ Given the high degree of variability in stormwater
quality, it is challenging and costly to collect enough
field data to demonstrate the effectiveness of Best 6. CONCLUSIONS
Management Practices for stormwater treatment
(ASCE and U.S. EPA, 2002). Therefore, the model In conclusion, a regional, watershed-based
project will apply a three-tiered approach to quantify approach is a sensible. cost-effective and
1 scientifically valid approach to water quality
the benefits of a regional system versus on site y pp q y
facilities. The project will start with desktop management. Regional approaches provide an
evaluations, and potentially lead to field data opportunity for stakeholders to come together and
collection and evaluation. The objective will be to talk about what can be done to improve urban water
provide cost-benefit comparisons for regional versus quality.
on-site facilities. There are significant benefits to be gained from a
larger-scale regional solution. Although smaller-
Initial Estimates scale on-site controls, such as SUSMPs, may work
in certain situations, they are not uniformly effective.
Site-specific data will be collected for the selected The proposed alternative employs comprehensive
sub-watershed to support simple estimates of regional BMPs to treat the runoff not only from new
several effectiveness measures. These include development sites, but also from surrounding areas
reductions in pollutant loading, area treated, time that have already been developed. For Los Angeles
required for implementation of watershed controls County, the benefit would be to substantially reduce
and planning level cost estimates. Site-specific data pollutant loads in urban runoff more efficiently and
may include basin characteristics such as existing at a more reasonable cost to area residents and
storm drain system, precipitation, land use. runoff businesses.
coefficients and development plans.
A model project can serve as a case study for
observing the regional approach in operation in the
Modeling Los Angeles area. It is hoped that other groups and
agencies will pursue regional solutions aggressively
Hydrologic modeling can be applied to provide more and gain approval from local regulatory authorities.
detailed estimates of volume reduction and water Cooperation between regulators, municipalities, the
quality improvements through the regional system. development and environmental communities and
Using hydrologic models such as SWMM or HSPF. other stakeholders will be needed to identify a
simulations can be developed to compare the flow sustainable funding source to support full-scale
into and out of the regional system. The model can regional solutions throughout the Los Angeles
be based on actual data (e.g., historical rainfall basin.
record) from the Los Angeles area.
14