RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_06_18_K_Letters_Of_Intent_MS4_PermitCITYOF
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LES JONES, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC W""~'
DATE: JUNE 18, 2013
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE LETTERS OF INTENT FOR MS4 PE
(Supports 2013 City Council Goal 4, Public
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
Infrastructure) n n
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER li/--
Andy Winje, Associate Civil Engineer~
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City's selected approach to the MS4 Permit, in conjunction with other
Peninsula jurisdictions, as the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan approach and
authorize the City Manager to sign and submit Letters of Intent, which will be attached to
the Notice of Intent to the Regional Board indicating the same.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit was adopted by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board on November 8, 2012. The regulation requires Permittees to
select one of three approaches to implement the permit and so indicate by filing a Notice of
Intent to be filed on or before June 28, 2013. Staff believes the Enhanced Watershed
Management Plan (EWMP) is the most advantageous approach for the City because it
provides the greatest length of time to achieve permit compliance and the best
opportunities to achieve cost savings by working with other Peninsula watershed agencies.
BACKGROUND
Staff has presented information on the new MS4 permit to the City Council on several
occasions, most comprehensively at the February 19, 2013 meeting. At that meeting John
Hunter, the City's storm water quality consultant, presented slides outlining the three
approaches the City might take in response to the permit requirements and the relative
merits of each. Also at that time, Staff indicated it was in discussions with the other
Peninsula cities, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles regarding
collaboration opportunities in responding to the permit requirements. Since then, the City
of Los Angeles has chosen to pursue a different approach and is no longer a part of the
proposed group. The City of Rolling Hills, citing its unique situation, has also chosen a
K-1
Authorize Letters of Intent for MS4 Permit Compliance
Page 2of3
June 18, 2013
different approach. Two agencies from the County are involved. The County's
Department of Public Works (DPW) represents two unincorporated County islands,
Westfield and the South Coast Botanic Garden, which are within the Peninsula watershed.
The County's Flood Control District (FCD) is also included, as is typical when the County
DPW is involved as a representative of unincorporated areas. The Flood Control District is
technically a separate agency but uses the same staff and leadership as the County DPW.
In addition to these, the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos
Verdes Estates are the other members. The collection of agencies is being called the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group.
All permittees must formally indicate which approach they intend to pursue by June 28,
2013 in a document submittal known as a Notice of Intent. Staff of the agencies of the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group has worked together over the last several
months to develop a collaborative response to the Regional Board. A Notice of Intent is
being developed on behalf of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group indicating the
intent to follow the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan approach. Each agency may
adhere itself to the Notice of Intent by signing individual Letters of Intent.
DISCUSSION
RPV Staff, in consultation with John Hunter, believes working with the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Watershed Group in pursuit of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan is
the most advantageous to the City. The reasons for this are detailed in a letter from John
L. Hunter and Associates (attached to this report), and summarized herein.
Staff believes working collaboratively with the other agencies will achieve economies of
scale with regard to preparation of the monitoring plan, the implementation plan and other
administrative work. Working together also provides the group an improved standing
before the Regional Board, who favor collaborative efforts and will more easily recognize
the aggregated strength of the agencies. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan
allows an extended schedule for compliance. It also allows for categorical compliance in
watersheds if certain conditions can be met. Whether the group will be able to take
advantage of the categorical compliance opportunity will not be known until further
modeling, performed as the EWMP is developed, is completed. The "cost" for this
extended schedule is that the permittees must identify certain projects early on and commit
funds to have them installed within 30 months. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed
Group has already identified several potentially qualifying projects. Funds have been
included in the City's proposed FY 2013-14 CIP budget.
The least favored approach, known as the Minimum Control Measures approach,
establishes strict effluent limits effective retroactively to December 28, 2012. This means
the City may already be out of compliance, if this approach is selected. The other rejected
approach, the Watershed Management Plan, is similar to the recommended approach, but
offers a shorter extension period.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group proposes to share costs to develop the
EWMP based on tributary area to the various drainages, under a Memorandum of
W:\Andy\NPDES\EWMP\CC Approval\RPVCCA-2013 June 19 -Letters of Intent for MS4 Permit.docx K-2
Authorize Letters of Intent for MS4 Permit Compliance
Page 3of3
June 18, 2013
Understanding currently under development. The Flood Control District participation
comes with a 10% contribution to the costs incurred by the group, on top of the
proportionate cost paid by the County DPW for the unincorporated County islands.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group, with the addition of the City of Rolling
Hills, also propose to share costs to develop a monitoring plan (known as a Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Plan or CIMP), which is a required precursor to the EWMP. Cost
sharing will also be based on tributary area of the watershed agencies, plus the 10%
contribution of the Flood Control District.
In order to attach itself to the group's Notice of Intent, the City will need to file two Letters
of Intent. The Letters of Intent, which are included as attachments to this report, indicate
the agency's intention to participate in two Memoranda of Understanding with the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group defining the efforts and cost sharing arrangement for
development and implementation of the EWMP and CIMP, respectively.
ALTERNATIVES
The City may choose to pursue any of the three approaches alone and give up the
advantages of sharing overlapping costs with a group and the Flood Control District's 10%
contribution. The City may also choose to pursue the MCM or Watershed Management
Plan approach and give up additional time to implement a compliance program.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the response to the MS4 permit regulations is more onerous and costly than in
previous years, it remains the law of the land. Staff believes the compliance approach that
provides the most protection against the uncertain consequences of pollutant loading in
the City's storm water effluent, and the escalating costs to monitor and address these
pollutants, is a collaborative effort of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group in an
Enhanced Watershed Management Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
As has been discussed on other occasions with the City Council, the costs to implement
these new programs cannot be fully known before monitoring data is developed and an
implementation plan is approved by the Regional Board. We have been able to estimate
the costs to develop both the GIMP and the EWMP and sufficient funds for the City's share
have been included in the Storm Water Quality Program of the FY 2013-14 budget that is
under consideration. In addition, funds for implementation of the monitoring plan and the
early identified projects discussed above have been included in the CIP portion of the
proposed FY 2013-14 budget.
Attachments:
Approach Recommendation Letter from John L Hunter and Associates
Letter of Intent for signature -EWMP
Letter of Intent for signature -CIMP
W:\Andy\NPDES\EWMP\CC Approval\RPVCCA-2013 June 19-Letters of Intent for MS4 Perrnit.docx K-3
6131
ORANGETHORPE AVE,
Suite 350
BUENA PARK
CAUFORNIA
90620
(562) 802-7880
FAX (562) 802-2297
www.ilha.net
GENERAL ENGINEERING
LICENSE
A-582340
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE
REMEDIATION
UC. 3382
June 12, 2013
Andy Winje
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Subject: Watershed Management Alternatives
Dear Mr. Winje;
In support of the City's decision to select the most advantageous approach to achieve
compliance with the new MS4 Permit regulations, we would offer the following overview,
analysis, summary and recommendation. ·
Overview:
The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4} Permit (Order No. R-2012-0175} was
adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region on
November 8, 2012. The Order requires for Permittees to select one of three options: (1)
Implement Minimum Control Measures (MCMs), (2) Develop a Watershed Management
Program, or (3) Develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). Each
option contains specific requirements and provides unique benefits.
Analysis:
1. Minimum Control Measures (MCMs}
This option does not require for a Permittee to develop a Watershed Management
Program and instead requires implementation of Minimum Control Measures within 6
months after the effective date of the Permit (June 28, 2013). Although seemingly
simple, this option holds the City to strict numerical discharge limits which will have to
be met in 2014 when monitoring is expected to begin and allows for 3rd Party litigation.
In addition, the City could be held accountable for any excessive pollutant discharge
retroactive to December 28, 2012.
2. Watershed Management Program (WMP}:
Under this alternative, the City must either individually or working within a group of
watershed cities, prepare a detailed analysis of pollutant sources within the watershed
area, strategies for reducing or treating pollutants from those sources and computer
modeling to substantiate the strategies. The main requirements in a WMP are the
following:
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT K-4
i. Prioritize water quality issues;
ii. Identify and implement strategies, control measures, and BMPs to achieve required
water quality outcomes;
iii. Execute an integrated monitoring program and assessment program; and
iv. Modify strategies, control measures, and BMPs as necessary based on analysis of
monitoring data collected to ensure that applicable water quality-based effluent
limitations and receiving water limitations and other milestones set forth in the
WMP are achieved in the required timeframes.
v. Provide appropriate opportunity for meaningful stakeholder input, including but not
limited to, a permit-wide WMP technical advisory committee {TAC) that will advise
and participate in the development of the WMPs and EWMPs from month 6
through the date of program approval.
Cities implementing all aspects of the approved program will, with some exceptions,
be deemed in compliance (at least for an interim period) with the receiving water
numerical discharge limits. There is also protection under the Permit to agencies
participating in an approved Watershed Management Program from 3rd Party
litigation risks.
The first compliance point of this alternative is to notify the Regional Board by June
28, 2013 of the city's intent to follow this path. The final plan must be submitted to
the Regional Board by June 2014.
3. Enhanced Watershed Management Programs(EWMP):
Under this alternative, cities must work as part of a group of watershed agencies to
develop an EWMP. The EWMP option contains the same requirements as the WMP
along with the following:
i. Incorporate applicable State agency input on priority setting and other key
implementation issues;
ii. Provide for meeting water quality standards and other CWA obligations by utilizing
provisions in the CWA and its implementing regulations, policies and guidance;
iii. Include multi-benefit regional projects to ensure that MS4 discharges achieve
compliance with all applicable final water quality based effluent limits and do not
cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations by retaining
through infiltration or capture and reuse the storm water volume from the 85th
percentile, 24-hour storm for the drainage areas tributary to the multi-benefit
regional projects;
iv. In drainage areas where retention of the storm water volume from the 851h
percentile, 24-hour event is not technically feasible, include other watershed control
measures to ensure that MS4 discharges achieve compliance with all applicable
interim and final water quality based effluent limits with compliance deadlines
occurring after approval of a EWMP and to ensure that MS4 discharges do not cause
or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations;
v. Maximize the effectiveness of funds through analysis of alternatives and the
selection and sequencing of actions needed to address human health and water
quality related challenges and non-compliance;
K-5
vi. Incorporate effective innovative technologies, approaches and practices, including
green infrastructure;
vii. Ensure that existing requirements to comply with technology-based effluent
limitations and core requirements are not delayed;
viii. Ensure that a financial strategy is in place.
When the various TMDLs reach the end of their implementation phases, numeric
effluent criteria will become enforceable regardless of whether the WMP or EWMP
path was selected. The primary advantage of the EWMP is that it includes an
additional 12-month extension to submit the program to the Regional Board. Also,
any drainage area where 85 percent of the runoff is captured will automatically be
in compliance with the MS4 permit, regardless of downstream pollutant levels.
The first compliance point of this alternative is to notify the Regional Board by June
28, 2013 of the City's intent to follow this path. The final plan must be submitted to
the Regional Board by June 2015.
4. Group Selection
The WMP and EWMP alternatives have the option of coordinating with a group of
agencies. Rancho Palos Verdes is contained within two separate watersheds; the
Dominguez Channel Watershed and the Greater LA Harbor Watershed. The cities of
Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates also share the same two watersheds.
Coordination with cities outside of the peninsula would require the incorporation of
two separate EWMPs or a separate chapter specifically dedicated to the watershed
not addressed in the chosen EWMP. In addition to the EWMP, a Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Plan (CIMP) will be required. The peninsula cities have agreed
to prepare a CIMP in conjunction with the EWMP. The participating CIMP agencies
are the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and
Rolling Hills.
Summarv:
The MCM option would pose a high risk to the City due to strict numerical discharge
limit requirements and 3rd Party litigation.
The WMP and EWMP benefits are similar, except the EWMP option allows for an
extended timeline and ensures compliance for any drainage area where 85 percent
of the runoff is successfully captured.
Recommendation:
Rancho Palos Verdes would receive the greatest benefit from implementing an
Enhanced Watershed Management Program with the Peninsula cities.
Next Steps:
A Memorandum of Understanding is being prepared for the Peninsula cities and Los
Angeles County for both the EWMP and CIMP. The Draft MOU is expected to be
ready for the June 20, 2013 meeting of the Peninsula Watershed Committee and
will be presented to the City Council shortly thereafter.
K-6
Similarly, as required by the new MS4 Permit, a draft Green Street Policy, which will
establish a strategy for instituting Green Street measures when major
transportation corridors are constructed or reconstructed and a draft Low Impact
Development Ordinance for establishing requirements for infiltration and
biofiltration are ready for review by the City Council. It is anticipated these will
presented to the City Council along with the Peninsula City's MOU.
Sincerely,
J{n Hunter,
P.E., REA
K-7
CITY OF
June 27, 2013
Samuel Unger, Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90013
Attention: Renee Purdy
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER
LETTER Of INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENHANCED
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA WATERSHED AGENCIES
Dear Mr. Unger;
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, with this letter, states its intent to collaborate with the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group (Group) in the development of an Enhanced
Watershed Management Program (EWMP) in accordance with the new MS4 Permit by
Order No. R4-2012-0175 for submission to your Board. The EWMP will address all of the
required elements in the MS4 Permit for each of the watersheds to which the City is
tributary. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group includes only the following
agencies: the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City of Palos Verdes Estates, the City of
Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Flood Control District.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes further intends to cost share in the development cost of
an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). A cost sharing formula has been
negotiated among participating representatives of the Group as to the equitable distribution
of costs.
Should you have any questions, please contact me or Andy Winje at 310-544-5252.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lehr
City Manager
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 /FAX (310) 544-5291
E-MAIL: CLEHR@RPVCOM / WWWPALOSVERDESCOM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER K-8
CITY OF
June 27, 2013
Samuel Unger, Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90013
Attention: Renee Purdy
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER
LETTER Of INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COORDINATED
INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA WATERSHED AGENCIES
Dear Mr. Unger;
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, with this letter, states its intent to collaborate with the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group (Group) in the development of a Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Program (GIMP) in accordance with the new MS4 Permit by Order
No. R4-2012-0175 for submission to your Board. The GIMP will address all of the required
monitoring elements in the MS4 Permit for each of the watersheds to which the City is
tributary. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Group includes only the following
agencies: the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City of Palos Verdes Estates, the City of
Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rolling Hills, the County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles
Flood Control District.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes further intends to cost share in the development cost of a
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (GIMP). A cost sharing formula has been
negotiated among participating representatives of the Group as to the equitable distribution
of costs.
Should you have any questions, please contact me or Andy Winje at 310-544-5252.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lehr
City Manager
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 /FAX (310) 544-5291
E-MAIL CLEHR@RPVCOM / WWWPALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED l"APER K-9