Agenda - Orange County Water District

Transcription

AGENDA
WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE MEETING
WITH BOARD OF DIRECTORS *
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 8:00 a.m. - Boardroom
*
The OCWD Water Issues Committee meeting is noticed as a joint meeting with the Board of Directors
for the purpose of strict compliance with the Brown Act and it provides an opportunity for all Directors to
hear presentations and participate in discussions. Directors receive no additional compensation or
stipend as a result of simultaneously convening this meeting. Items recommended for approval at this
meeting will be placed on the December 16, 2015 Board meeting Agenda for approval.
ROLL CALL
ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution determining need to take immediate action on item(s) and
that the need for action came to the attention of the District subsequent to
the posting of the Agenda (requires two-thirds vote of the Board members
present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous
vote of those members present.)
VISITOR PARTICIPATION
Time has been reserved at this point in the agenda for persons wishing to comment for up to
three minutes to the Board of Directors on any item that is not listed on the agenda, but within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. By law, the Board of Directors is prohibited from
taking action on such public comments. As appropriate, matters raised in these public
comments will be referred to District staff or placed on the agenda of an upcoming Board
meeting.
At this time, members of the public may also offer public comment for up to three minutes on
any item on the Consent Calendar. While members of the public may not remove an item
from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, a Director may do so at the request of a
member of the public.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS NO. 1 – 3)
All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved by one motion, without separate
discussion on these items, unless a Board member or District staff request that specific items
be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
1.
MINUTES OF WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
Approve minutes as presented
PURCHASE ORDER FOR AUTOSAMPLER FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPHY (HPLC) FOR THE ADVANCED WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE
LABORATORY
RECOMMENDATION:
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of
Purchase Order to Agilent Technologies for the amount of $7,851
for Agilent 1260 Infinity Standard Autosampler for the existing HighPerformance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) Agilent 1200
instrument
1
3.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH JAMES PIKE FOR PRADO VIREO MONITORING
RECOMMENDATION:
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 0637 with James Pike to
extending the termination date to December 31, 2017, and
increasing the not to exceed reimbursement amount to $126,000
over a two-year period
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
4.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SCHEEVEL ENGINEERING FOR TECHNICAL
SUPPORT FOR PRADO DAM WATER CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATION:
5.
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 1077 with Scheevel
Engineering for an amount not to exceed $99,795 for technical
support for increased water conservation at Prado Dam
NORTH BASIN REMEDIATION EARLY ACTION
RECOMMENDATION:
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting:
1) Authorize issuance of Agreement to AECOM in the amount not
to exceed $42,796 for modification of the existing well EW-1
design to include a connection to the sanitary sewer;
2) Authorize preparation of the necessary CEQA documents; and
3) Authorize preparation of Geologist’s/Engineer’s report for project
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
6.
PROPOSITION 1 WATER RECYCLING GRANT FOR LA PALMA RECHARGE BASIN
PROJECT
7.
UPDATE ON DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR INTEGRATED REGIONAL
WATER MANAGEMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY
CHAIR DIRECTION AS TO WHICH ITEMS IF ANY TO BE AGENDIZED AS A MATTER
FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 16 BOARD MEETING
DIRECTORS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS
GENERAL MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
2
WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Denis Bilodeau Philip Anthony Dina Nguyen
Shawn Dewane
Roman Reyna
Alternates
Steve Sheldon
Jan Flory
Harry Sidhu
Roger Yoh
Cathy Green
-
Chair
Vice Chair
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
Alternate 4
Alternate 5
In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been
posted in the main lobby of the Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA not less
than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are
available for public inspection in the office of the District Secretary. Backup material for the Agenda is available at
the District offices for public review and can be viewed online at the District’s website: www.ocwd.com
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related
modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may
request such modification or accommodation from the District Secretary at (714) 378-3233, by email at
[email protected] by fax at (714) 378-3373. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable District staff to
make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
As a general rule, agenda reports or other written documentation has been prepared or organized with respect to
each item of business listed on the agenda, and can be reviewed at www.ocwd.com. Copies of these materials
and other disclosable public records distributed to all or a majority of the members of the Board of Directors in
connection with an open session agenda item are also on file with and available for inspection at the Office of the
District Secretary, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00
pm, Monday through Friday. If such writings are distributed to members of the Board of Directors on the day of a
Board meeting, the writings will be available at the entrance to the Board of Directors meeting room at the Orange
County Water District office.
3
1
MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
WITH WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
November 10, 2015 @ 8:00 a.m.
Director Phil Anthony called the meeting to order in the Boardroom of the District office located in
Fountain Valley, CA. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Secretary called the roll
and reported a quorum as follows.
Committee
Denis Bilodeau (arrived 8:20 a.m.)
Philip Anthony
Dina Nguyen
(arrived 8:10 a.m.)
Shawn Dewane
Roman Reyna (arrived 8:15 a.m.)
Alternates
Steve Sheldon
Jan Flory
Harry Sidhu
Roger Yoh
Cathy Green
(arrived 8:35 a.m.)
(arrived 8:25 a.m.)
(arrived 8:10 a.m.)
(arrived 8:15 a.m.)
OCWD Staff
Mike Markus - General Manager
Joel Kuperberg - General Counsel
Christina Fuller - Recording Secretary
Jason Dadakis, Bill Dunivin, John Kennedy,
Megan Plumlee, Randy Fick, Adam Hutchinson,
Roy Herndon, Bonnie Howard, Adam Hutchinson,
William Hunt, John Kennedy, Chris Olsen,
Sandy Scott, Ben Smith, Marsha Westropp,
Greg Woodside, Mike Wehner, Dick Zembal
Others
Darren Schwartz – ACCO Engineered Systems
Steve Conklin, Mark Marcantonio - Yorba Linda Water Dist.
Howard Johnson - Brady & Associates
Keith Lyon - Municipal Water District of Orange County
Tom McCarthy - City of Anaheim
Paul Shoenberger, Phil Lauri - Mesa Water District
Bob Stevin– Newport Beach
Sergik Danieli – Alternate Power Construction
John Earl – Surf City Voice
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar was approved upon motion by Director Dewane, seconded by Director Green and
carried [3-0] as follows.
[Yes –Anthony, Dewane, Green/No – 0]
1.
Minutes of Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the Administration and Finance Issues Committee meeting held October 14, 2015
are hereby approved as presented.
2.
Ratification of Public Right-Of-Way Encroachment Permits for Continued Access to DistrictOwned Monitoring Wells
Recommended by Committee for approval at November 18 Board meeting: Ratify execution of
three renewed public right-of-way encroachment permits with the County of Orange for one-year
terms to allow continued access to District-owned groundwater monitoring wells for the purpose
of periodic monitoring and maintenance, for a total cost of $1,416.25
11/10/15
3.
Contract No. TAL 2015-1, Talbert Barrier West End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System –
Notice of Completion to Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Recommended by Committee for approval at November 18 Board meeting: Accept completion
of work and authorize filing a Notice of Completion for Contract TAL-2015-1, Talbert Barrier West
End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System project.
4.
Amendment to Agreement with Cal Building Systems Inc. for Administration Building Fire Alarm
System Replacement Project
Recommended by Committee for approval at November 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance
of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 1076 with Cal Building Systems Inc. for an amount not to
exceed $1,968.
5.
Agreements to Habitat West and The Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) for On-Call
Restoration Planting and Maintenance In Prado Basin
Recommended by Committee for approval at November 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance
of Agreements to Habitat West and the Santa Ana Watershed Association for $156,000 for a threeyear period with a $52,000 annual limit for hourly work associated with planting, irrigation
systems and weed management in Prado Basin through December 31, 2018.
6.
Amendments to Agreement with Black & Veatch and to Agreement with Bonterra/Psomas for
Construction Phase Services for Contract No. Fb-2012-1, Fletcher Basin Project
Recommended by Committee for approval at November 18 Board meeting: 1) Authorize issuance
of Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 0771 with Black & Veatch for $10,700 for construction
phase services; and 2) Authorize issuance of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Bonterra /
Psomas for $2,860 for construction phase services.
MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION
Directors Nguyen and Sidhu arrived during the following discussion.
7.
Contract No. FV-2015-2, Award Contract to ACCO Engineered Systems for the Admin Building
HVAC System Replacement and Upgrade Project
District Engineer Chris Olsen reported the existing HVAC system at the District consists of chillers, a
boiler, air handlers and an energy management system (EMS) that provides heating and cooling as
necessary for the OCWD and MWDOC Administration Building. He advised that the current system is 23
years old, and is inefficient and has become more costly to maintain and operate. Mr. Olsen stated since
the chillers, boiler, and EMS serve both OCWD and MWDOC, the purchase and installation of these
items would be cost shared between the two agencies, with OCWD’s portion being approximately 66%.
He advised that a total of seven construction bids were received and presented staff’s recommendation
to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder, ACCO Engineered Systems. The Committee then
took the following action.
Upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Dewane and carried [5-0] the Committee
recommended that the Board at its November 18 Board meeting: 1) Receive and file Affidavit of
Publication of Notice Inviting Bids for Contract FV-2015-2, Admin Building HVAC System
Replacement and Upgrade Project; 2) Accept bid and award contract to the lowest responsive
bidder ACCO Engineered Systems in the amount of $849,000; and; 3) Establish a project budget
of $950,000.
[Yes –Anthony, Nguyen, Dewane, Sidhu, Green/No – 0]
2
11/10/15
Directors Reyna and Yoh arrived just prior to discussion of the following item, and Directors Flory,
Bilodeau and Sheldon arrived during the discussion.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8.
Update on Prado Dam Water Control Manual Deviation
Executive Director Greg Woodside gave a brief update on the Prado Dam water deviation from the Army
Corps of Engineers. Mr. Woodside explained the temporary planned deviation to the Water Control Plan
to hold water up to 505 feet mean seal level for an approximately five-year period or until the Feasibility
Study is completed.
9.
Prado Basin Sediment Removal Demonstration Project
Mr. Greg Woodside gave a brief presentation on the District’s demonstration project for the removal of
sediment in Prado basin.
10.
Urban Runoff Diversion Project to Orange County Sanitation District Plant #1 - Funding Request
Executive Director John Kennedy gave an update on funding requests for the OCSD Plant #1 – Urban
Runoff Diversion Project.
ITEMS TO BE AGENDIZED AS A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NOVEMBER 18 BOARD
MEETING
It was agreed to agendize Item Nos.2 - 7 on the Consent Calendar at the November 18 Board meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m.
_______________________
Director Denis Bilodeau, Chair
3
2
AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
To: Water Issues Committee
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Budgeted: No
Budgeted Amount: No
Cost Estimate: $7,851
Funding Source: General Fund
Program/Item No. E.15.17110.1038
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A
Staff Contact: M. Wehner/L. Yoo
Subject:
PURCHASE ORDER FOR AUTOSAMPLER FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPHY (HPLC) FOR THE ADVANCED WATER QUALITY
ASSURANCE LABORATORY
SUMMARY
Staff recommends the purchase of an Agilent 1260 Infinity Standard Autosampler for the existing
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) Agilent 1200 instrument. This instrument will
be used for the measurement of aquatic herbicides using EPA 532.1 and 549.2; to support the
District’s Title 22 (T22) compliance, basin-wide monitoring and Groundwater Replenishment
System (GWRS) operation.
Attachment(s):
 Agilent Technologies proposal
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Purchase Order to Agilent
Technologies for the amount of $7,851 for Agilent 1260 Infinity Standard Autosampler for the
existing High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Agilent 1200 instrument.
BACKGROUND
The District Laboratory performs EPA method 532.1 and 549.2 in support of Title 22 compliance,
basin-wide monitoring and GWRS plant operations. The Laboratory has one HPLC system to
analyze five EPA methods, 531.2, 532, 547.1, 549.2 and 550.1. During periods of heavy
workload, depending on a single HPLC system without a backup instrument causes delays in
sample processing and reporting. After the Laboratory traded in its LC/MS/MS 4000 Mass
Spectrometer in 2014, the remaining Agilent 1200 HPLC and an autosampler are currently
available. To take advantage of this “orphan” system, staff budgeted and purchased a Diode
Array Detector (DAD) and Data System in October 2015 from Agilent Technologies. The DAD
makes the Agilent 1200 pump a complete HPLC system. Unfortunately, the current 8 year old
autosampler cannot be controlled by the Agilent’s chemical data station (Chemstation software).
Because of this, staff recommends purchasing a new autosampler from Agilent Technologies.
The Laboratory staff is recommending the sole-source purchase of an Agilent 1260 Infinity
Standard Autosampler for the existing HPLC Agilent 1200 instrument. Staff was able to
negotiate a 45% discount on this autosampler unit.
The Lab has a long history of local service and application support from Agilent Technologies.
Their service engineers and application support specialists are very knowledgeable with regard
to EPA methods. This will minimize the method development task on this HPLC instrument in
order to be able to analyze and report the data quickly.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) None
Quotation
Lily Sanchez
Supervising Chemist
Laboratory
Orange County Water District
18700 Ward St
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-6930
Product/Description
G1329B
1260 Infinity Standard Autosampler
Features flow-through design up to 600 bar.
Includes 100-vial (2mL) tray, CAN cable and
100 uL loop. Optional extended injection range
and thermostatting.
Quote No.
Create Date
Delivery Time
Page
1946787
11/03/2015
3 Weeks
1 of 2
Contact
Phone no.
Valid to
Diane Sherwood
714-634-7384
01/02/2016
To place an order: Call 1-800-227-9770 Option 1
For Instruments Fax : 302-633-8953
For Consumables Fax : 302-633-8901
Email : [email protected]
For Genomics Fax : 512-321-3128
For additional instructions, see last page
Qty/Unit
1.000 EA
Unit
List
Price
13,217.00 USD
Extended
Net
Price
Discount
Amount
5,947.65-
7,269.35
With the following configuration:
Ship-to Country : USA
Installation (44K)
Familiarization at Installation (44L)
Item Total
7,269.35
Special discount of 45.00 % is applied.
Gross Amount
Total Discount
Net Amount
Sales Tax
Total
:
:
:
:
:
$
$
$
$
$
13,217.00
5,947.65
7,269.35
581.55
7,850.90
Quotation
Lily Sanchez
Supervising Chemist
Laboratory
18700 Ward St
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-6930
Quote No.
Create Date
Delivery Time
Page
1946787
11/03/2015
3 Weeks
2 of 2
Contact
Phone no.
Valid to
Diane Sherwood
714-634-7384
01/02/2016
To place an order: Call 1-800-227-9770 Option 1
For Instruments Fax : 302-633-8953
For Consumables Fax : 302-633-8901
For Genomics Fax : 512-321-3128
For additional instructions, see last page
TO PLACE AN ORDER, Agilent offers several options:
1) Visit http://www.agilent.com/chem/supplies to place online orders using a purchase order or credit card.
2) Call 1-800-227-9770 (option 1) any weekday between 8am and 8 pm Eastern time in the U.S., Canada & Puerto Rico.
3) To place an order for Consumables, please fax the order to 302-633-8901.
To place an instrument and/or software order, please fax the order to 302-633-8953.
To place an order for Genomics, please fax the order to 512-321-3128, or email to [email protected]
4) Or you can mail your order to:
Agilent Technologies
North American Customer Contact Center
2850 Centerville Road BU3-2
Wilmington, DE 19808-1610
To place an order, the following information is required:
· Purchase order number or credit card, delivery date, ship to, invoice to, end user, and quote number.
. GSA customers please provide GSA contract #.
EXCLUSIVE OFFERS FOR NEW INSTRUMENT CUSTOMERS, go to www.agilent.com/chem/exclusiveoffers
TO CHECK THE STATUS OF AN ORDER:
1) Visit http://www.agilent.com/chem/supplies to check the status of your order.
2) Call 1-800-227-9770 (option 1) any weekday between 8 am and 8 pm Eastern time, in the U.S., Canada &
Puerto Rico. You will need to know the purchase order or credit card number the order was placed on.
FINANCING AND LEASING - A wide range of options are available. For more information or to discuss how monthly payments could suit your
operational or budgetary requirements,contact your Agilent Account Manager.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
·
·
·
·
Pricing: Web prices are provided only for the U.S. in U.S.dollars. All phone prices are in local currency and for end use.
Applicable local taxes are applied.
All Sales Tax is subject to change at the time of order.
Shipping and Handling Charges: Orders with a value less than $4000 or those requiring special services such as overnight
delivery may be subject to additional shipping & handling fees. Some of these charges may be avoided by ordering via the Web
Payment Terms: Net 30 days from invoice date, subject to credit approval.
* Quotation Validity: This quotation is valid for 60 days unless otherwise indicated.
* Warranty period for instrumentation is 1 year. The Warranty period for columns and consumables is 90 days.
It is Agilent Technologies intent to ship product at the earliest available date unless specified otherwise.
The sale of standard Products and Services referenced in this quotation is subject to the then current version of Agilent's Terms of Sale, and any LSCA Supplemental Terms or other applicable
terms referenced herein. If any Products or Services are manufactured, configured or adapted to meet Customer's requirements, the sale of all Products and Services referenced in this
quotation is subject to the then current version of Agilent's Terms of Sale for Custom Products and any LSCA Supplemental Terms or other applicable terms referenced herein. A copy of
Agilent's Terms of Sale, Agilent's Terms of Sale for Custom Products and the LSCA Supplemental Terms is either attached or has been previously provided to you. Please contact us if you
have not received a copy or require an additional copy. If you have a separate agreement in effect with Agilent covering the sale of Products and Services referenced in this quotation, the terms
of that agreement will apply to those Products and Services. Agilent expressly objects to any different or additional terms in your purchase/sales order documentation, unless agreed to in
writing by Agilent. Product and Service availability dates are estimated at the time of the quotation. Actual delivery dates or delivery windows will be specified at the time Agilent acknowledges
and accepts your purchase order. The above conditions shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by the law. You may have other statutory or legal rights available. Commodities, technology or
software exported from the United States of America ("U.S.") or from other exporting countries will be subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and all exporting countries' export
laws and regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law and the applicable export laws and regulations is prohibited.
3
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: G. Woodside/R. Zembal
Subject:
Budgeted: Yes
Budgeted Amount: $63,000
Cost Estimate: $126,000 over 2 years
Funding Source: General Fund/SAWA
Program/Line Item No. 1080.53001.8010
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH JAMES PIKE FOR PRADO VIREO
MONITORING
SUMMARY
The District’s activities in the Prado Basin, including water conservation and wetlands
operations, resulted in agreements and permits committing the District to annually monitor
endangered Least Bell’s Vireos throughout the Prado Basin. The District has an existing
agreement with Mr. James Pike to perform vireo monitoring and other related duties for the
last three years. Mr. Pike has performed these duties outstandingly for the District for
more than 20 years and is the recognized authority on Prado bird life. The cost of this work
is reimbursed to the District by the Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA).
Attachment(s): Scope of Services for Vireo Monitoring.
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 0637 with James Pike extending the termination date to December 31,
2017, and increasing the not to exceed reimbursement amount to $126,000 over a twoyear period.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Orange County Water District has paid for the monitoring and management of the
endangered Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo) and other rare birds in the Prado Basin since the
early 1980s. The District’s commitment to Vireo management came about as an offsetting
measure for potential impacts to the Vireo resulting from Prado water conservation and
wetlands operations, maintenance, and re-construction. The requirements have been
detailed in agreements among the District, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and
Wildlife Service, and as mitigation in Corps’ permits and US Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Opinions. As it pertains to the Vireo, OCWD is to provide two knowledgeable,
biological monitors annually and furnish them with a 4-wheel drive District vehicle during
the spring and summer nesting season. One of these positions is split between two
biologists who are halftime OCWD employees and halftime Santa Ana Watershed
1
Association (SAWA) employees. The second position has been held by James Pike who
has been performing this work for the District for more than 20 years but paid for on a
reimbursement basis by SAWA. OCWD contributed $1,000,000 in 1995 to SAWA to pay
for the Vireo monitors. SAWA invested those funds and in theory, pays for the work out of
the investment proceeds. The temporary seasonal employee category has been deemed
to be unsuitable for this work, mostly because of the highly irregular hours and
independent nature of the work. Starting in 2010, the second monitoring position was
changed to a contractor rather than a seasonal employee. The contractor focuses upon
documenting the number of Vireos, Southwestern Willow Flycatchers, and other rare birds
nesting in the Prado Basin and will also collect additional reproductive and ecological data.
The board previously approved an agreement with Mr. Pike in February 2010 to reimburse
Mr. Pike for $55,000 per year. Starting in 2013, Mr. Pike’s reimbursement was $60,000
per year through 2015. Staff believes this request for an increase of $3,000 per year is
justified since Mr. Pike has been reimbursed at a constant rate for the last three years.
Mr. Pike is widely recognized for his expertise with bird identification and ecology and for
his specific knowledge of the terrain and birds of the Prado Basin. Because of his
extensive experience in the Prado Basin and the efficiency of his work, it is recommended
that the existing agreement with Mr. Pike be extended for an additional two year period.
While performing his primary vireo monitoring duties he also continues to document bird
species that are new to the Prado Basin, maintaining a regional bird list for the District; he
organizes all of the vireo nesting data and compiles the annual Prado vireo report; he is the
lead monitor of bird nesting boxes at Prado and organizes the data into an annual report;
he regularly checks for nesting birds in Prado Operations areas at the request of
Operations and “clears” those areas as prescribed in OCWD’s permits; and is available for
advice and consultation on other District projects and operations.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
02/17/2010, R10-2-33: Board approval of Professional Services Agreement with James
Pike for vireo and wildlife monitoring and services in the Prado Basin at $55,000/yr for
three years, 2010 – 2012.
12/19/2012, R12-12- 146: Board approval of Professional Services Agreement with James
Pike for vireo and wildlife monitoring and services in the Prado Basin at $60,000/yr for
three years, 2013 – 2015.
2
Scope of Services
Vireo Monitoring Contract
Introduction: The Orange County Water District has paid for the monitoring and
management of the endangered Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo) and other rare birds in the
Prado Basin since the early 1980s. The District’s commitment to Vireo management
came about as an offsetting measure for potential impacts to the Vireo resulting from
Wetlands Operations, maintenance, and re-construction and Water Conservation. The
requirements have been detailed in OCWD project descriptions, Agreements among the
District, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, and as
mitigation in Corps permits and Biological Opinions. As it pertains to the Vireo, OCWD
is to provide two knowledgeable, biological monitors annually and furnish them with a 4wheel drive District vehicle during the spring and summer nesting season. One of these
positions is split between two biologists, one of whom is a full time employee, the other
is a contractor; both work halftime on OCWD assignments and halftime for the Santa
Ana Watershed Association (SAWA). The second vireo monitor works as a contractor
and mostly during the nesting season on vireos and exclusively at Prado. All three of
these biologists are paid for on a reimbursement basis by SAWA. OCWD gave SAWA
$1,000,000 in 1995 to pay for the Vireo monitors. SAWA invested those funds and in
theory, pays for the work out of the investment proceeds. An Agreement between OCWD
and SAWA is under review that would memorialize this financial arrangement. The
contractor dedicated exclusively to Prado focuses upon documenting the number of
Vireos, Southwestern Willow Flycatchers, and other rare birds nesting in the Prado Basin
and also collects additional reproductive and ecological data.
Least Bell’s Vireo: The Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [Coues]; "vireo") is a
small, insectivorous bird of the family Vireonidae. This vireo was described by Dr. Elliot
Coues (1903) and aspects of its life history are summarized in a recovery plan and final
rule (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986a, 1986b).
Vireos typically occupy "[l]ow riparian growth either in the vicinity of water or in dry
parts or river bottoms. The center of activity is within a few feet of the ground, in the
fairly open twigs canopied above by the foliage of willows and cottonwoods. Foraging
cruises may take the birds higher into the trees but territorial interest, with song perches
and nest sites, is in the lowest stratum of vegetation. Nests frequently are placed along
the margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways. Most typical plants
frequented are willows, guatemote [mulefat], and wild blackberry. Less commonly live
and valley oaks, wild grape, poison oak and sumac in the margins of watercourses are
visited and may be nested in. On the desert slopes, mesquite and arrowweed in canyon
locations may be occupied” (Grinnell and Miller 1944).
The vireo was formerly described as common to abundant in riparian habitats from
Tehama County, California to northern Baja California, Mexico (Grinnell and Storer
1924; Willett 1933; Grinnell and Miller 1944; Wilbur 1980). The vireo currently
occupies a small fraction of its former range (Goldwasser et al. 1980; United States Fish
and Wildlife Service 1986) and is a rare and local species. Grinnell and Miller (1944)
1
noted that declines in southern California and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley
coincided with increased cowbird parasitism. Numbers continued to decline until about
1986 when only 300 pairs were documented throughout the U. S. range (U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1986; RECON 1988).
The vireo’s dramatic decline (Salata 1986; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986) has
been attributed to the combined effects of the widespread loss of riparian habitat and
brood parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) (Garrett and Dunn
1981). The Least Bell's Vireo was listed as an endangered species by California in 1980
and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986. Critical habitat was designated for the
vireo in February 1994, including most of our study area. The enactment of protective
measures and subsequent management led to steadily increasing vireo numbers and, by
2005, there were nearly 3000 territorial male vireos (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2006).
Although known to be present along the middle reaches of the Santa Ana River much
earlier (Goldwasser 1978), field studies of the vireo commenced in 1983 (Zembal et al.
1985; Zembal 1986) and continued annually (Hays 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989; Hays and
Corey 1991; Pike and Hays 1992; The Nature Conservancy 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997; Pike and Hays 1998, 1999, 2000; Pike et al. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015).
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii extimus [Phillips]) is a relatively small, insectivorous songbird. It is a recognized
subspecies of the Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Although previously
considered conspecific with the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), the Willow
Flycatcher is distinguishable from that species by morphology (Aldrich 1951), song type,
habitat use, structure and placement of nests (Aldrich 1953), eggs (Walkinshaw 1966),
ecological separation (Barlow and MacGillivray 1983), and genetic distinctness (Seutin
and Simon 1988). The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is one of five subspecies of the
Willow Flycatcher currently recognized, primarily by differences in color and
morphology (Hubbard 1987; Unitt 1987; Browning 1993; Pyle 1997).
The breeding range of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher includes the southern third of
California, southern Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (Hubbard 1987;
Unitt 1987; Browning 1993). The species may also breed in southwestern Colorado, but
nesting records are lacking. Records of breeding in Mexico are few and confined to
extreme northern Baja California and Sonora (Unitt 1987; Howell and Webb 1995).
Willow Flycatchers winter in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America
(Phillips 1948; Ridgely 1981; AOU 1983; Stiles and Skutch 1989; Ridgely and Tudor
1994; Howell and Webb 1995). They are generally gone from breeding grounds in
southern California by late August (The Nature Conservancy 1994) and are exceedingly
scarce in the United States after mid-October (Garrett and Dunn 1981).
Southwestern Willow Flycatchers occur in riparian habitats along watercourses where
dense growth of willows (Salix sp.), Baccharis, arrowweed (Pluchea sp.), buttonbush
2
(Cephalanthus sp.) and other wetland plants provide dense thickets. Nests are built in
thickets, 4-7 meters (13-23 feet) or more in height. Occupied habitat is usually canopied
in willows or cottonwoods (Phillips 1948; Grinnell and Miller 1944; Whitmore 1977;
Hubbard 1987; Unitt 1987; Whitfield 1990; Brown 1991; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1993, 1995). The subspecies of Willow Flycatcher generally prefer nesting sites
with surface water nearby (Bent 1960; Stafford and Valentine 1985; and Harris et al.
1986) and in the Prado Basin they virtually always nest near surface water or saturated
soil (e.g., The Nature Conservancy 1994).
Like the vireo, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher has suffered extensive loss,
degradation, and modification of essential riparian habitat due to grazing, flood control
projects, urban developments, and other land use changes (Klebenow and Oakleaf 1984;
Taylor and Littlefield 1986; and Dahl 1990). Estimated losses of wetlands between 1780
and the 1980's in the Southwest are: California 91%; Nevada 52%; Utah 30%; Arizona
36%; New Mexico 33%; and Texas 52% (Dahl 1990).
This species is also impacted by brood parasitism by cowbirds (Unitt 1987; Ehrlich et al.
1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 1995). Parasitism rates of Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher nests have recently ranged from 50 to 80 percent in California
(Whitfield 1990; M. Whitfield and S. Laymon, unpublished data), to 100% in the Grand
Canyon in 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Mayfield (1977) thought that a
species or population might be able to survive a 24% percent parasitism rate.
Willett (1933) considered the Willow Flycatcher to be a common breeder in coastal
southern California. Unitt (1987) concluded that these birds were once fairly common in
the Los Angeles basin, the San Bernardino/Riverside area, and San Diego County. More
recently, E. t. extimus was documented only in small, disjunct nesting groups (e.g., Unitt
1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Status reviews done prior to State or Federal
listing of the flycatcher considered extirpation from California to be possible, even likely,
in the foreseeable future (Garrett and Dunn 1981; Harris et al. 1986). Unitt (1987) then
reported the known population in California to be 87 pairs and estimated the total
population of the subspecies to be under 1000 pairs, more likely 500. A total of only 104
pairs was recorded in California in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished
data).
With the decline in flycatcher numbers on the South Fork of the Kern River, only two
California populations consisting of 15 or more pairs have been relatively stable in recent
years, that being along the San Luis Rey River and the Santa Margarita River. Of eight
other nesting groups known in southern California, all but one consisted recently of six or
fewer nesting pairs (Unitt 1987, Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher was listed as endangered on February 27, 1995 (59
Federal Register 10693) and critical habitat, which includes much of the Prado Basin,
was designated for the species in 1997 (62 Federal Register 39129 and 44228). Breeding
Willow Flycatchers were also State listed as endangered in California and Arizona.
Population estimates will also be developed for additional species including the Yellowbilled Cuckoo and Yellow Warbler.
3
Methods: Searches and monitoring visits will be conducted almost daily for Least Bell's
Vireos and Southwestern Willow Flycatchers in the Prado Basin and environs. The
number of field-hours invested in these efforts will be tracked by the Contractor and
reported. Initially the monitoring will be concentrated in areas where vireos and
flycatchers occurred in prior years, but suitable habitat over the entire accessible study
area will be eventually surveyed. The majority of the field time should be spent at sites
occupied in recent years.
All individual birds or pairs will be noted during each visit to each section of the Basin.
Data will be taken on bird location, movement, behavior, food preferences, nest
placement, sex, and age. Singing vireos will be identified as males. Non-singing, adult
vireos were deemed to be females if they are either: 1) in the company of non-threatening
males; or 2) conspicuously engaging with impunity in breeding behaviors within the
boundaries of well-defended and well-defined home ranges. Fledgling young will be
identified on the bases of their plumages, behaviors, and vocalizations.
Nests of the endangered birds will be intrusively monitored, although great care will be
taken to minimize visits, scent cues for predators, habitat damage, trailing, and
disturbance. Nests will be located from a distance when possible and the contents
checked with a mirror. Data will be taken on reproductive timing and success, cowbird
parasitism, and depredation. Cowbird eggs will be removed or replaced with infertile
ones and young cowbirds will be removed. The eggs will be removed with adhesive tape
to avoid human contact with, and scent on the nest or contents. Nest monitoring will be
conducted as prescribed in memoranda and permits from the State and Federal wildlife
agencies. However, no nest visits will be conducted if: 1) there is a chance of inducing a
nest "explosion" or premature departure by nestlings; 2) approaching the nest would
result in habitat destruction or trailing; or 3) no additional significant information or
benefit to the occupants would result from the visit.
Once fledglings have left a nest site or a nest is otherwise emptied or abandoned, data
will be taken on nest dimensions, placement, height above the ground, and supporting
plant species. Unsuccessful nests will be carefully examined for signs of parasitism or
other disturbance. Nests will be assumed depredated if all eggs or unfledged young are
destroyed or removed. Cowbird parasitism events will be classified as such only if a
cowbird egg(s) or pieces are found in, or below, the affected nest.
Habitat management shall include trapping and removing cowbirds, March - August.
About nine modified Australian crow traps will be deployed adjacent to habitats occupied
by breeding vireos and flycatchers for a total of approximately 800 trap-days. Each trap
will measure approximately 6' by 6' by 8' and superficially resemble a chicken coop (see
Hays 1988). Cowbirds, attracted by live decoy cowbirds, ad libitum food and water,
enter the traps through slots in the center of the traps' upper surfaces. Traps are to be
checked 6-10 times per week, all non-target birds will be released immediately, and
cowbirds are to be humanely dispatched.
4
The Vireo Monitoring Contractor will dedicate 1,200 hours or more as needed to monitor
the Vireos and other nesting birds of the Prado Basin from March through July annually.
The contractor will use the accepted techniques as outlined above for documenting the
number of territorial males in the Basin. Several other beleaguered avian species occupy
the Basin with the vireo and flycatcher and should be studied opportunistically. Specific
effort should be made to census the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, a species designated
as endangered by the State of California and now a candidate for Federal listing.
Auxiliary duties of the contractor will include nest box monitoring and reporting and
checking for nesting birds at the request of Operations to clear areas for maintenance
work.
An annual report will be written by the Contractor detailing the years’ results,
incorporating the contributions made by the Prado and SAWA Biologists and following
the format in Pike et al. 2009. The standard definitions to be used therein of terms
pertaining to avian breeding biology are to be those recommended by the Least Bell's
Vireo Working Group: Adult, "an after hatch year bird”; Complete nest, "a nest built by a
pair; capable of receiving young”; Expected fledglings, "number of nestlings seen on the
last visit”; Failed nest, "a nest which had eggs but produced no known fledged young”;
False or bachelor nest, “an incomplete nest built by a lone male”; Incomplete nest, "a nest
built by a pair; abandoned prior to completion”; Juvenile, "a fledgling which has been out
of the nest more than 14 days”; Known fledged young, "a fledgling seen out of the nest”;
Manipulated nests, "... e.g., cowbird egg removed”; Presumed failure, "... apparently
complete nest that did not receive an egg; no powdery pin feathers seen in the nest; adults
seen without fledglings..."; Presumed successful (nest), "... powdery pin feathers seen in
the nest; nest intact”; Productivity or breeding success (population), "the number of
known fledglings divided by the number of known breeding (nesting) pairs...";
Successful nest, "a nest which fledged at least one known young”; Successful pair,
"produced one [or more] successful nests”. Lastly, "territory" may be used
interchangeably with the broader term "home range” in the annual report, assuming the
reference is to the area simply defined by encounters with individual "Territorial males".
The Annual Report will be finalized in December.
5
4
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: G. Woodside/A. Hutchinson
Subject:
Budgeted: No
Budgeted Amount: N/A
Funding Source: Reserves
Program/Line Item No. 1044.53001.9900
General Counsel Approval: Required
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SCHEEVEL ENGINEERING FOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR PRADO DAM WATER CONSERVATION
SUMMARY
The District is working with the Army Corps on two activities to increase capture of
stormwater at Prado Basin. The first is the Prado Basin CA Feasibility Study which will
lead to a permanent change in the Water Control Plan to hold water up to elevation 505
feet mean sea level (msl) year-round. The second is a temporary planned deviation to
the Water Control Plan to hold water up to 505 feet msl until the Feasibility Study is
completed. Additional technical support is needed to support the requested deviation.
Attachment(s):
 Proposal from Scheevel Engineering
 Presentation
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. 1077 with Scheevel Engineering for an amount not to exceed $99,795 for
technical support for increased water conservation at Prado Dam.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Over the years, the District and the Corps have worked together to steadily increase the
volume of storm water that can be temporarily retained behind Prado Dam. Currently,
the District can store water up to elevation 498 feet during the flood season and up to
505 feet during the non-flood season (starting in March). Flood season storage is
approximately 10,000 acre-feet and non-flood season storage is approximately 20,000
acre feet.
The Corps and the District are currently working on the Prado Basin CA Feasibility Study.
The Feasibility Study is evaluating ecosystem restoration opportunities and permanently
increasing the flood season buffer pool to elevation 505 feet. Modeling by the Corps and
the District indicate that increasing the flood season pool to 505 feet will, on average,
provide 4,000 to 6,000 acre-feet per year of additional storm water capture.
The preparation of the Feasibility Study has been underway with a goal to complete the
study within three years as required by Corps policy. However, it has recently become
apparent that the three-year schedule requirement cannot be met. District staff is
working closely with Corps staff on the Feasibility Study and preparing the revised
schedule.
Planned Deviation
Rather than wait for the Feasibility Study to be completed, the District has requested that
the Corps provide for temporary re-operation of Prado Dam to hold water to 505 feet msl
year round during the drought and until the Feasibility Study is completed and
implemented. In October 2014, the Board authorized submitting a letter of intent to the
Corps that the District was willing to pay up to $200,000 for the cost to process the
deviation. The Corps and OCWD also approved a Memorandum of Agreement to
process the deviation.
Staff has been working closely with the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to process a deviation for this winter. Technical evaluation of the proposed
increased water conservation has involved several issues, including:





Changes in the release rate from Prado Dam and potential erosion downstream of
the dam
Changes in deposition of sediment in Prado Dam
Changes in deposition in the Santa Ana River upstream from Prado Dam
Increased days of inundation in Prado Basin
Potential impacts on riparian habitat due to increased days of inundation in Prado
Basin
The Corps and OCWD are preparing a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for a
deviation for this winter (through March 10) for water conservation up to elevation 505
feet. The Corps is accepting comments on the draft EA through December 16.
The Corps and OCWD are also preparing a draft Biological Assessment (BA) to transmit
to the USFWS to review. Staff anticipates that the EA and BA will provide the foundation
for the Corps to approve the deviation for this winter.
Under the General Manager’s authority, the District entered into an agreement with
Scheevel Engineering in April 2015 for a cost not to exceed $17,000 for technical support
for increased water conservation at Prado Dam. This technical support was needed to
prepare the Environmental Assessment.
Additional analyses are needed to address technical issues and develop a monitoring
plan. Staff requested that Scheevel Engineering submit a proposal to conduct this work
due to the need to develop and implement the sediment monitoring program this winter.
A copy of the proposal is attached. Since the monitoring program needs to be
implemented in January 2016, there is not sufficient time to issue a request for proposals
for this work. The scope of work includes participating in meetings with the Army Corps,
OCWD, and USFWS to finalize the sediment monitoring plan, implementing the sediment
monitoring plan, evaluating the results, and preparing a report. As part of this effort,
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will be removed from the diversion channel
that conveys water from the Santa Ana River to the OCWD Prado Wetlands. This
sediment removal activity will provide an opportunity to improve our sediment transport
modeling capabilities. Going forward, modeling of sediment transport will be important to
addressing concerns of the USFWS regarding the impact of increased water
conservation on sedimentation in Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River, and
corresponding potential impacts to Santa Ana Sucker fish habitat.
Scheevel Engineering proposes to provide the technical support at an hourly rate of
$125, which is very competitive with other firms that provide this type of expertise.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 1077 with Scheevel Engineering for an amount not to exceed $99,795 to technical
support for increased water conservation at Prado Dam, increasing the total cost to not to
exceed $116,795.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S)
4/15/2015, R15-4-47: Approve and authorize execution of Memorandum of Agreement
with Department of the Army for Review and Processing of a Deviation Request to the
Water Control Plan at Prado Dam, subject to approval as to form by District legal
counsel; and authorize payment of $200,000 to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for review and processing of the deviation request
10/15/2014, R14-10-141: Authorize the Board President to execute a Letter of Intent to
reimburse the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for costs not to exceed $200,000 and
process a planned deviation request to temporarily increase the Prado Dam flood season
buffer pool from elevation 498 feet to 505 feet.
10/1/2014, R14-10-129: Approve and authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement Number 0911 with Northwest Habitat Institute to conduct additional tasks for
habitat assessment and modeling for the Prado Basin Feasibility Study for an amount not
to exceed $29,500, bringing the total agreement amount to not to exceed $214,500.
5/22/2013, R13-5-47: Approve and authorize execution of Agreement with Northwest
Habitat Institute to conduct habitat assessment and modeling for the Prado Basin
Feasibility Study for an amount not to exceed $185,000.
3/21/2012, R12-3-28: Approve and authorize revised Agreement with the Department of
the Army for the Prado Basin, California Study for the evaluation of water conservation
and ecosystem restoration opportunities in Prado Basin.
November 25, 2015
Attn: Mr. Greg Woodside, P.G., C.HG
Executive Director of Planning and Natural Resources
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
RE:
Professional Consulting Services Proposal
Prado Dam Planned Deviation Support - Amendment Request #1
Dear Mr. Woodside:
Scheevel Engineering, LLC respectfully requests a contract amendment for professional
consulting services to support OCWD and USACE in the development of the Prado Dam Planned
Deviation and associated sediment monitoring activities. The specialized services offered by
Scheevel Engineering, LLC will include the tasks outlined below in Table 1: Scope of Work.
Table 1: Scope of Work
1)
Scope Item Description
Diversion Channel Sediment Monitoring
a. Meetings – Attend meetings at OCWD, USACE and in the field to develop the
monitoring plan and report findings. Includes time for additional meetings with
other stakeholders such as USFWS.
b. Existing Data Review – Review existing data relevant to the design,
construction and implementation of the sediment monitoring plan. Incorporate
existing data/reports into analysis as needed.
c. Establish Transects – Coordinate with USACE to select 3 monitoring transects.
Utilize the services of a professional land surveyor to develop the baseline
survey and provide benchmarks/control points for future use.
d. Riverbed Gradation – Collect channel bed sediment samples during non-storm
periods and deliver to OCWD for sieve analysis to develop gradation curves.
Scheevel’s sub consultant to perform analysis of silt and clay component on a
limited number of samples to define the fine-grain component of the channel
bed.
e. TSS Sampling – Collect Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from the diversion
channel during 1 base flow period and 2 storm flow periods. Deliver to OCWD
to perform lab analysis to determine TSS. Scheevel’s sub consultant to
perform particle size distribution analysis on a select number of samples to
define the fine-grain component of the TSS.
f. Bed Load Sampling - Collect bed load sediment samples from the diversion
channel during 1 base flow period and 2 storm flow periods. Deliver to OCWD
for lab analysis to identify the bed load gradation curves. Scheevel’s sub
consultant to perform particle size distribution analysis on a select number of
samples to define the fine-grain component of the bed load.
Page 1 of 5 Scheevel Engineering, LLC ● P.O. Box 28745 ● Anaheim, CA 92809 ● Phone: (714) 470‐9045 ● Email: [email protected] g. Stream Flow Measurements – Perform stream flow measurements at surveyed
transects to correlate flow rates to TSS and bed load parameters. Confirm flow
rate measurements at available gaging stations.
h. Sediment Transport Modeling Support – Reduce and summarize field data for
use by a 3rd party to model sediment transport of the channel. Provide support
to the 3rd party and to OCWD in developing model assumptions calibration and
model run iterations. Assist OCWD with interpretation and application of model
results.
i. Reporting and Design – Generate technical memos and data analysis
summaries for OCWD and USACE use. Design and provide sketches of
sediment removal alignments and provide field support for
construction/excavation of sediment removal alignments.
2) Upper SAR Sediment Monitoring
a. Meetings – Attend meetings at OCWD, USACE and in the field to develop the
monitoring plan and report findings. Includes time for additional meetings with
other stakeholders such as USFWS.
b. Existing Data Review – Review existing data relevant to the design,
construction and implementation of the sediment monitoring plan. Incorporate
existing data/reports into analysis as needed.
c. Establish Transects – Coordinate with USACE to select 5 monitoring transects
between Prado Dam and the Riverside/San Bernardino County line. Utilize the
services of a professional land surveyor to develop the baseline survey and
provide benchmarks/control points for future use.
d. Riverbed Gradation – Collect river bed sediment samples during non-storm
periods and deliver to OCWD for sieve analysis to develop gradation curves.
Scheevel’s sub consultant to perform analysis of silt and clay component on a
limited number of samples to define the fine-grain component of the river bed.
e. TSS Sampling – Collect Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from the upper SAR
during 1 base flow period and 2 storm flow periods. Deliver samples to OCWD
to perform lab analysis to determine TSS. Scheevel’s sub consultant to
perform particle size distribution analysis on a select number of samples to
define the fine-grain component of the TSS.
f. Bed Load Sampling - Collect bed load sediment samples from the SAR during 1
base flow period and 2 storm flow periods. Deliver to OCWD for lab analysis to
identify the bed load gradation curves. Scheevel’s sub consultant to perform
particle size distribution on a select number of samples to define the fine-grain
component of the bed load.
g. Stream Flow Measurements – Perform stream flow measurements at surveyed
transects to correlate flow rates to TSS and bed load parameters. Confirm flow
rate measurements at available gaging stations.
h. Sediment Transport Modeling Support – Reduce and summarize field data for
use by a 3rd party to model sediment transport of the SAR. Provide support to
the 3rd party and to OCWD in developing model assumptions calibration and
model run iterations. Assist OCWD with interpretation and application of model
results.
i. Reporting and Design – Generate technical memos and data analysis
summaries for OCWD and USACE use. Design and provide sketches of
sediment removal alignments and provide field support for
construction/excavation of sediment removal alignments.
Page 2 of 5 Scheevel Engineering, LLC ● P.O. Box 28745 ● Anaheim, CA 92809 ● Phone: (714) 470‐9045 ● Email: [email protected] 3) Planned Deviation Support
a. Provide support to develop environmental documentation
b. Evaluate and analyze sedimentation issues related to increased water
conservation
c. Evaluate and analyze erosional issues related to increased water conservation
d. General support and technical analysis for the Prado Dam Planned Deviation
e. Meetings, conference calls and project coordination
Upon your review of the above scope of work please let me know if you would like any additions
or subtractions. Scheevel Engineering, LLC provides all services at an hourly rate of $125.00.
Travel time is free of charge and no additional fees or charges apply unless approved by OCWD.
All materials, supplies or other expenditures will be at OCWD’s discretion.
The above scope of work includes sub consultant field and lab cost required to identify, collect,
analyze and report the variables outlined above that are required to refine and calibrate sediment
transport models for the SAR. Please note that costs to build, calibrate and run the sediment
transport models are NOT included in this proposal. The original contract amount for the initial
scope of work was $17,000.00. Fees associated with the additional scope of work equate to
$99,795.00. The budget from the initial contract has been exhausted, therefore, the total request
for this amendment equals $99,795.00 (ninety nine thousand seven hundred ninety five
dollars). A breakdown of the fees associated with the proposed amendment is illustrated in Table
2: Schedule of Fees.
Page 3 of 5 Scheevel Engineering, LLC ● P.O. Box 28745 ● Anaheim, CA 92809 ● Phone: (714) 470‐9045 ● Email: [email protected] Table 2: Schedule of Fees
Baseline Data (Year 1): 1 Baseflow Measurement & 2 Storm Flow Measurements
OCWD Wetlands Diversion Channel (3 Transects)
Time
Material Sub‐Consultant
Sub‐Total
(hours)
(lump sum)
(lump sum)
@ $125/hr
Santa Ana River Prado to Riverside/San Bern County Line (5 Transects)
Time
Material Sub‐Consultant
Sub‐Total
(hours)
(lump sum)
(lump sum)
Total
Meetings
4
$ 150 $ 650
8
$ 300 $ 1,300 $ 1,950.00
Existing Data/Info Review
4
$ 225 $ 725
6
$ 450 $ 1,200 $ 1,925.00
Field Work
2
$ 100 $ 7,575 $ 7,925
4
$ 500 $ 12,800 $ 13,800 $ 21,725.00
Field Work
Lab Work (sieve)
Lab Work (atterberg)
8
3
$ 200 $ 225 $ 1,425
$ 375
$ 1,440 $ 1,440
22
3
$ 800 $ 450 $ 4,000 $ 5,425.00
$ 375 $ 750.00
$ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 3,840.00
Field Work
TSS Lab Work
Particle Size Lab Work
8
3
$ 500 $ 600 $ 2,100
$ 375
$ 1,553 $ 1,553
18
3
$ 1,400 $ 1,200 $ 4,850 $ 6,950.00
$ 375 $ 750.00
$ 2,588 $ 2,588 $ 4,140.00
Field Work
Lab Work (sieve)
Lab Work (atterberg)
14
$ 2,500 $ 300 $ 4,550
28
$ 6,500 $ 450 $ 10,450 $ 15,000.00
Field Work
8
$ 500 $ 450 $ 1,950
18
$ 800 $ 900 $ 3,950 $ 5,900.00
Sediment Transport Modeling
10
$ 500 $ 1,750
16
$ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,250.00
Reporting
18
$ 1,100 $ 3,350
24
$ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 8,350.00
Sediment Monitoring Total
82
$ 3,800 $ 15,558 $ 29,608
150
$ 10,000 $ 27,438 $ 56,188 $ 85,795.00
Planned Deviation Support
Support environmental documentation
Evaluate sedimentation issues
Evaluate erosional issues
General support and technical analysis Meetings, calls and project coordination
28
34
20
18
12
$ 3,500.00
$ 4,250.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 2,250.00
$ 1,500.00
Planned Deviation Support Total
112
$ 14,000.00
112
Total
194
$ 43,607.50
262
Establish Transects
River Bed Gradation
TSS/SSC & Particle Size
Bed Load
$ 1,440 $ 1,440
$ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 3,840.00
Stream Flow
$ 3,800
$ 15,558
$ 3,500.00
$ 4,250.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 2,250.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00
$ 10,000
$ 27,438
$ 70,187.50
$ 99,795.00
Page 4 of 5 Scheevel Engineering, LLC ● P.O. Box 28745 ● Anaheim, CA 92809 ● Phone: (714) 470‐9045 ● Email: [email protected] Table 3: Amendment Request Summary
Scope Item Description
Amendment #1
1) Diversion Channel Sediment Monitoring
2) Upper SAR Sediment Monitoring
3) Planned Deviation Support
Total
Fee
$ 29,608.00
$ 56,188.00
$ 14,000.00
$178,867.00
Original Contract Amount
Total
$17,000.00
Amendment #1 Request
Total
$99,795.00
Total Amended Contract Value
Total
$116,795.00
Scheevel Engineering, LLC is prepared to continue work on the project immediately. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide professional consulting services to OCWD.
Sincerely,
Scheevel Engineering, LLC
Nate Scheevel, P.E.
Owner/Principal
Page 5 of 5 Scheevel Engineering, LLC ● P.O. Box 28745 ● Anaheim, CA 92809 ● Phone: (714) 470‐9045 ● Email: [email protected] Prado Dam
water conservation
D
Total flood
control capacity
Elevation: 542 feet
Storage volume:
170,000 acre-feet - - - 0
Temporary storage
D
Non-storm season
Elevation: 505 feet
Storage volume:
20,000 acre-feet - - - ,
Storm season
Elevation: 498 feet
Storage volume:
10,000 acre-feet--.......
CORONA
Potential Issue
Follow-up Activity
Inundation of habitat: additional
days of inundation due to
holding at higher elevations
Monitoring by OCWD staff
Changes in sedimentation:
potential impact to Santa Ana
Sucker habitat
Sediment monitoring program
and technical analyses to provide
information to improve
understanding and enhance
existing sediment transport
model
Releases of captured water if
needed due to predicted large
storm
Selected monitoring
5
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: W. Hunt/R. Herndon/
D. Mark
Subject:
Budgeted: No
Budgeted Amount: $0
Funding Source: General Fund
Program/ Line Item No.: 1075.53010.9936
NORTH BASIN REMEDIATION EARLY ACTION
SUMMARY
Staff is moving forward in developing a project proposal to operate North Basin
extraction well EW-1. VOC plume capture in the vicinity of EW-1 is both necessary and
urgent to protect the Principal Aquifer. The project would entail installation of well
appurtenances and piping necessary to deliver water to the sanitary sewer for recycling
at GWRS for a temporary period. The project also would include construction of a
treatment plant to deliver potable-quality water to Fullerton’s distribution system.
Attachment:
 AECOM proposal for design of the sewer tie-in for EW-1
 Presentation
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for December 16 Board meeting:
1)
2)
3)
Authorize issuance of Agreement to AECOM in the amount not to exceed $42,796
for modification of the existing well EW-1 design to include a connection to the
sanitary sewer;
Authorize preparation of the necessary CEQA documents; and
Authorize preparation of Geologist’s/Engineer’s report for project.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
OCWD’s extraction well EW-1 was installed in 2008 to capture elevated concentrations
of VOCs in the northeast North Basin VOC plume area (Figure 1). VOCs in that area
are migrating into the Principal Aquifer (Figure 2).
Because the contamination continues to spread and impact the Principal Aquifer, posing
a threat to downgradient production wells, staff recommends proceeding with the
operation of EW-1 with sanitary sewer discharge as soon as practical. As part of a legal
settlement, the OCWD received payment from Aerojet with the promise that EW-1
would be completed and pumped to capture contaminants originating from Aerojet’s
upgradient location.
The proposed project would involve operating EW-1 at approximately 1,000 gallons per
minute (gpm), initially to the sewer and subsequently to Fullerton’s potable supply
distribution system. Staff evaluated several alternatives for discharge of the treated
groundwater, including the following:
1. Use of the water by a local manufacturer;
2. Discharge to the sewer, with recycling of the water through GWRS;
3. Recharge the water in OCWD’s La Jolla Recharge Basin; and
4. Discharge of the water to the City of Fullerton’s potable-water distribution system.
Option 1 was eliminated after a local manufacturer that had considered accepting the
treated water for industrial use (i.e., non-potable) ultimately decided against doing so.
City of Fullerton staff has indicated that they are amenable to accepting the treated
groundwater after following the State’s 97-005 process for use of impaired water
sources. Based on the estimated costs and desire to maximize local beneficial use of
the extracted groundwater, staff believes delivery of treated potable-quality water to
Fullerton’s distribution system is the most viable long-term option for well EW-1.
Discharge to the sewer would occur temporarily (estimated 1 to 1-1/2 years) while the
components of the potable use system are designed, constructed and permitted.
Prior to seeking Board approval of the proposed project, Staff requests authorization to:
1) retain AECOM to provide engineering design services to modify the existing well
EW-1 design to include a connection to the sanitary sewer [AECOM prepared the
original NBGPP pipeline and treatment plant and well equipping design plans and the
same staff will work on the EW-1 sewer tie-in plans]; 2) prepare CEQA documents
evaluating environmental issues associated with the proposed project; and 3) prepare a
Geologist’s/Engineer’s Report. Staff anticipates returning to the Board in March or April
2016 with recommendations regarding the proposed project.
Preliminary cost estimates for the alternatives are summarized as follows:
a
b
c
Treated Water
Discharge Alternative
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Sewer Discharge and
GWRS recycling
Recharge at La Jolla
Basin
Discharge to Fullerton
Distribution System
with Temporary Sewer
Discharge
$1,800,000
$2,150,000a
Capital + 20 years
O&M at 3%
Inflation
$61,040,000 a
$10,830,000
$1,260,000b
$45,710,000 b
$9,430,000
$2,150,000a/$1,400,000c
$48,880,000
(assuming
discharge to OCSD
for one year)
Includes OCSD discharge fees (approximately $1,000/ac-ft).
Does not include value of lost opportunity to recharge Santa Ana River water.
Excludes OCWD discharge fees after potable delivery begins.
Staff is applying for a Proposition 1 grant for this project, and has already submitted a
pre-application (the initial step in the State Water Resources Control Board’s grant
application process). Staff has also met with State Water Resources Control Board Staff
to discuss North Basin groundwater contamination and specifically the EW-1 project.
Proposition 1 grants can only be applied to capital costs, not O&M. Also, Proposition 1
grants have a minimum 50 percent matching requirement.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS
9/4/13, R13-9-112, Reject all bids for NBGPP Pipeline Construction Contract No.
NBGPP-2013-1 and put NBGPP on hold.
6/20/12, R12-6-75 Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Orange County
Water District Certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #2010041053), and Approving the Revised Geologist's/Engineer’s
Report, Revised Budget, and Modifications to the North Basin Groundwater Protection
Project.
Figure 1. 2013 Composite VOC Plume Map in Vicinity of EW-1
AECOM
3995 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, California 90810
www.aecom.com
562.420-2933 Tel
562.420-2915 Fax
December 2, 2015
Chris Olsen
Director of Engineering
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject:
Design of Tie-in of Well EW-1 – North Basin Groundwater Protection
Project
Dear Mr. Olsen:
AECOM is pleased to submit this proposal to Orange County Water District (OCWD) for design
of the tie-in of Well EW-1 that is part of the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project
(NBGPP). It was originally planned that water from Well EW-1 would be discharged to pipelines
designed by AECOM and treated by the NBGPP treatment plant also designed by AECOM.
The scope of work described in this proposal is to modify the design so that water produced by
EW-1 will be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Staff who previously prepared the design of the
treatment plant will participate in modifications of this design.
Our understanding is that the pipe that will be tied into sewer line from the well will be less than
100 feet in length and it is anticipated that the flow from the well will be approximately 1,000
gpm. The scope will include modification of the existing piping, electrical, and instrumentation
design to accomplish this task. In support of this effort, the following is a summary of our
anticipated scope of work:
Task 1 – Kickoff Meeting and Project Definition
AECOM will conduct a kickoff meeting with OCWD to discuss the details of the scope of work,
schedule of deliverables, and budget to accomplish the required tasks. AECOM will also
conduct an internal kickoff meeting with our staff brief internal kick-off meeting to review these
same elements and establish resources and assignments to individuals who will perform each
task.
Task 2 – Utility Research
AECOM will conduct research to determine locations of existing and future utilities in and
around Well EW-1. Research of utilities will include sewer, water, electrical, fiber optic, and
storm drain. The information gathered will be used so that utility locations can be placed on the
design drawings so that pipelines and electrical lines can be placed to avoid conflicts with these
structures.
Task 3 – 90% Design
The 90% design will be based on modifications of the existing pipeline and wellhead drawings
previously prepared by AECOM. The 90% design will include design of piping from the
wellhead to the sewer line, sewer tie-in details, electrical power, and instrumentation. It is
anticipated that the following drawings will be generated:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cover sheet
Mechanical / civil legend
Civil site plan
Civil details
Electrical / instrumentation legend
Electrical instrumentation site plan
The 90% review will include a set of specifications that will be developed based on
specifications previously submitted for both the pipeline and treatment plant. The 90% design
will be provided to OCWD as a deliverable for review and comment.
Task 4 – 100% Design
Comments received from review of the 90% design will be incorporated into a 100% design,
which will be considered the final deliverable and will be used as part of the bid package for
bidding construction. The drawings and specifications will be provided in electronic form and as
hard copies, if needed.
Task 5 – Meetings
This task will cover two meetings that will be conducted during preparation of the design.
Meetings that are anticipated will include:
x
x
Meeting with Orange County Sanitation District (OCWD) to determine sewer tie-in and
wastewater discharge requirements.
90% design review meeting.
Each meeting will include preparation of an agenda prior to the meeting and submittal of
minutes at the conclusion of each meeting.
Task 6 – Construction Bid Support
The design drawings and specifications that are to be submitted by AECOM will become part of
a bid package (prepared by OCWD) that will be used to solicit construction bids by OCWD.
AECOM will provide support during the bid process, which will include attendance at the
jobwalk, response to bidders questions, and an evaluation of bids received.
Task 7 – RFIs and Submittals
AECOM will review submittals / shop drawings provided by the construction contractor to verify
conformance with construction specifications. It will be a requirement that submittals be
approved before equipment and materials can be ordered. AECOM will also review Requests
for Information (RFIs) submittal by the Contractor and will respond in a timely manner so as not
to hinder construction progress. For costing purposes, it is assumed that no more than 10
submittals and 10 RFIs will be reviewed.
Task 8 – Redline Drawings
A:COM
Field changes that are made by the contractor will be provided to AECOM as “redline” markups. AECOM will prepare CAD record drawings at the completion of field work based on field
mark-ups prepared by the Contractor.
Task 9 – Project Management
This task will include management of the scope, schedule, and budget. AECOM will track
expenditures against budgets and will keep OCWD informed of the status on a regular basis.
Eric Lang will serve as the project manager to ensure that the proper resources are scheduled
and available to handle the project.
Schedule
The following timeline is anticipated for completion of the project:
x
x
x
Utility research: 4 weeks after notice to proceed.
90% design: 4 weeks.
100% design: 3 weeks after receiving review comments.
Assumptions:
x Costing is based on one round of review comments for both the drawings and
specifications of final documents.
Attached is a detailed breakdown of the fee estimate. Once we have received a notice to
proceed, we will begin scheduling and starting work.
Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
AECOM
Eric Lang, PE
Project Manager
562 213-4152
[email protected]
Cc: Jeff Berk
Mark Riley
Attachment
Jeff Berk, PE
Principal-in-Charge
714 567-2664
[email protected]
TABLE 1 - COST ESTIMATE
Design of Tie-In of Well EW-1
Hourly
Hours
Rate
$215.00
$180.00
$180.00
$170.00
$150.00
$140.00
$130.00
$120.00
$100.00
$90.00
$90.00
$80.00
$75.00
Category
Unit
Category
5%
50
0.575 /mile
1,500.00 /month
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
Task 9
Kick-off
90% design
100% Design
Meetings
Construction bidding support
RFIs and submittals
Redline drawings
Project management
Cost
$
6 $
6 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12 $
Units
Hours
1,080
1,080
2,160
Cost
Cost
$
4 $
12 $
$
$
$
$
48 $
$
$
$
$
$
64 $
Units
Hours
720
2,160
5,760
8,640
Cost
Cost
$
4 $
16 $
$
$
48 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
2 $
70 $
Units
Hours
720
2,880
6,720
150
10,470
Cost
Cost
$
4 $
8 $
$
$
24 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
2 $
38 $
Units
Hours
720
1,440
3,360
150
5,670
Cost
Cost
$
8 $
8 $
$
$
$
$
8 $
$
$
$
$
4 $
28 $
Units
Hours
1,440
1,440
960
300
4,140
Cost
Cost
$
8 $
12 $
$
$
$
$
8 $
$
$
$
$
$
28 $
Units
Hours
1,440
2,160
960
4,560
Cost
Cost
$
6 $
10 $
$
$
$
$
8 $
$
$
$
$
$
24 $
Units
Hours
1,080
1,800
960
3,840
Cost
Cost
$
1 $
1 $
$
$
6 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8 $
Units
Hours
180
180
840
-
Not Used
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8 $
8 $
1,200
Cost
Totals
16 $
Units
Hours
640
600
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,240
Cost
Not Used
0 $
Units
Hours
-
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Cost
Not Used
0 $
Units
Hours
-
Cost
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0 $
Units
Hours
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
288 $
Units
46
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4 $
200 $
$
200
115
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4 $
$
$
200
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4 $
$
$
200
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
120 $
$
69
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
80 $
$
46
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
ODC SUBTOTAL
$
46
$
315
$
200
$
200
$
69
$
46
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
SUBTASK SUBTOTAL
$
2,206
$
8,955
$
10,670
$
5,870
$
4,209
$
4,606
$
3,840
$
1,200
$
1,240
$
-
$
-
$
-
Markup
Repro/Graphics/Misc
Automobile mileage
Field vehicle
Cost
0
41
73
0
0
78
0
72
0
0
0
8
16
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
80 $
$
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
$
$
$
Task 2
Utility Research and
coordination
Hours
Officer/Principal
Senior Project Manager
Principal Engineer / Architect
Project Manager
Construction Manager
Project Engineer
Associate Professional II
Associate Professional I
Staff Professional
Sr. Tech
Drafter/GIS Operator
Technician/Tech. Support
Clerical/Admin
LABOR SUBTOTAL
Rate
Task 1
$
7,380
13,140
10,920
8,640
640
1,200
41,920
Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
480
0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
600
276
-
-
$
876
$
42,796
N
w
()•
s
0
0.5
1
Miles
Sewer Discharge and
GWRS recycling
Recharge at La Jolla
Basin
Discharge to Fullerton
Distribution System
with Temporary Sewer
Discharge
•
.
••
•
I
$10.8
$1.3
$45.7
$9.4
$2.2/$1.4
$48.9
(assuming
discharge to OCSD
for one year)
6
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: Lo Tan
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Program/ Line Item No. N/A
Subject: PROPOSITION 1 WATER RECYCLING GRANT FOR LA PALMA
RECHARGE BASIN PROJECT
SUMMARY
Staff applied for a Proposition 1 Water Recycling Grant for the La Palma Recharge
Basin Project in April 2015. Staff could not specify a defined amount in the grant
application since the Proposition 1 funding guidelines were not finalized at that time.
Staff has been informed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Division of Financial Assistance that the La Palma Recharge Basin Project will receive a
Proposition 1 Water Recycling Grant in the amount of approximately $2.39 million
dollars. The exact amount of Proposition 1 grant award will be included in the funding
contract agreement. The total project budget excluding the land purchase is $8.5
million.
RECOMMENDATION
Informational
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Staff was recently notified by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Division of Financial Assistance that the La Palma Recharge Basin Project will receive a
Proposition 1 Grant under Chapter 9 Water Recycling program. The preliminary amount
of the Proposition 1 Water Recycling Grant is estimated to be approximately $2.39
million dollars.
In addition to Proposition 1 Grant, the La Palma Recharge Basin project is primarily
funded by a low-interest rate Clean Water SRF Loan through the SWRCB Division of
Financial Assistance. Per discussions with the SWRCB staff about the District’s
financial assistance application, this project qualifies for the special SRF Loan program
of 1% interest rate (fixed rate) for a 30-year repayment period. The special SRF Loan
program is only available for qualified projects for a limited time (through December 31,
2015).
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) – N/A
7
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Program/Line Item No.: N/A
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: G. Woodside
Subject:
UPDATE ON DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR
INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN ORANGE
COUNTY
SUMMARY
OCWD is pursuing two options related to the District’s participation in the Integrated
Regional Water Management (IRWM) program. Currently, the IRWM program for the
Santa Ana River Watershed is managed by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
(SAWPA). Two alternative approaches being considered include forming an IRWM
region in Orange County and working with SAWPA and SAWPA member agencies to
refine the OWOW IRWM funding process. The following is a description of efforts
conducted by staff to explore alternatives for Orange County.
Attachment(s):
 Presentation
 County of Orange and OCWD presentations at Newport Bay Watershed
Executive Committee, December 2, 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Informational
BACKGROUND
Proposition 841 authorized $5.3 billion to fund water, parks, and natural resources
projects. $1 billion of the funds were allocated for Integrated Regional Water
Management (IRWM) programs for 12 designated hydrologic regions of the state,
referred to as “Funding Areas” (see Figure 1). The OCWD service area is within the
Santa Ana Funding Area. Proposition 12 authorized additional funding for IRWM
programs, including $63 million for the Santa Ana Funding Area for “Regional Water
Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness.”
1
The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2006
2
Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
1
Figure 1: IRWM Funding Areas
Santa Ana Funding Area
San Diego Funding Area
The Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning Act3 created a process
(Regional Acceptance Process) for regions to be formed within the designated Funding
Areas. Within each of the Funding Areas, any group of stakeholders could organize and
apply to the Department of Water Resources to be designated as a “Region” through
this process. Once formed, a Region would prepare a plan and compete for funding
within the Funding Area. Forty-eight regions have been approved within the 12 Funding
Areas in the state. The regions formed within Southern California are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: IRWM Regions in Southern California
3
CWC Sec. 10530 et seq., passed in 2008
2
In the Santa Ana Funding Area, SAWPA organized stakeholders, received approval
from DWR to be the designated Region, managed the preparation of the One Water
One Watershed (OWOW) Plan, and distributed the Proposition 84 IRWM funds in the
watershed. Therefore, in the Santa Ana Funding Area there is only one Region.
In the San Diego Funding Area three Regions were formed. One of the three regions is
the South Orange County Region. The three Regions developed a management
structure and negotiated a set split of grant funds for each region based on percentage
of land area and population.
Figure 3: Funding Areas/Regions that include Orange County
SANTA ANA FUNDING
AREA
SAN DIEGO FUNDING AREA
1. Santa Margarita Region
2. South Orange County
Region
3. San Diego Region
As explained above, Orange County is in two Funding Areas. The north and central
parts of the county are in the Santa Ana Funding Area. The southern part of the county
is within the San Diego Funding Area.
These three areas, shown in Figure 4, are referred to by the County of Orange as the
North Orange County Watershed Management Area, the Central Orange County
Watershed Management Area, and the South Orange County Watershed Management
Area. The Central and South areas have executive and management committees that
meet on a regular basis to collaborate on water resource issues in their areas.
3
Figure 4: Watershed Management Areas in Orange County
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
OCWD and County of Orange staff members met with the Department of Water
Resources to discuss the possibility of working toward a separate Orange County
region within the Santa Ana Funding Area, which would include the North and Central
Orange County Watershed Management Areas. DWR staff indicated that such a
proposal would be allowed under the existing guidelines. Stakeholders could propose a
new region and DWR would accept an application and would consider the
appropriateness of granting the new region designation.
OCWD staff members were invited to discuss alternative approaches at the regularly
scheduled meetings of the South Orange County Watershed Management Area
Executive Committee and the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee, the latter
of which administers the Central WMA programs. The Newport Bay Watershed
Executive Committee agreed to create a subcommittee to continue discussions of
alternative approaches. The committee chair, Peer Swan, suggested that the
subcommittee invite representatives from OCWD and OCSD to join in these
discussions.
OCWD staff and other stakeholders have also been discussing and evaluating options
to work with SAWPA on alternatives to the current process. This alternative would be to
4
work with the other four SAWPA member agencies and other interested parties to
develop and implement changes to the current OWOW IRWM funding process. This
could include proposals to change the region’s governance process, alter the manner in
which projects are evaluated and funded, and/or re-evaluate the type of projects eligible
for funding.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) - None
5
2
D
San Francisco Bay Area
3D
Central Coast
4D
Los Angeles
5D
Santa Ana Sub-Region
6D
San Diego Sub-Region
7D
Sacramento River
8D
San Joaquin River
9D
Tulare/ Kern
10 D
North/South Lahontan
D
12 D
Colorado River Basin
11
Mountai n Counties
10
-----~--------_(I _C-__ ii: =.=
=====--§:=-=-------.,a~
.-·-__
_
1:
1
----i.---- -----____
_CIII_
...._ _
-o--·-·
---_
~~e-----.
,
.
,
__
.
.
.
___
====----=:===..
.
-
1::1 ..-
--
-~-
"" -
- "--
~-- a .-,,--...
""
_ """___
o ....- -
E:let'I _ _ _ _
-
g ..,. _
__ _
....-.---.._•og -.,., _
_
e1....
..... - -
Proposition 1 – Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
Newport Bay Executive Committee
December 2, 2015
Presentation by County of Orange Staff
Key Components
 7.12 B Total Funding
 Dispersed from FY 15/16 to FY 19/20
 Requires 50% match for non Disadvantaged Communities  Eligible Applicants





Public Agencies
Non‐profits
Recognized Federal Indian Tribes
Public Utilities
Mutual Water Companies
Total Funding $7.12B
Funding Breakdown and Schedule
NOTE: All fund allocations outside of published guidelines/budgets for FY 2015‐16 are estimations and thus subject to change. Funding Roll‐Out
February 2016
Public meetings to September 2015
receive comments on Department of Water Resources (DWR) holds draft guideline, RFP and PSP requirements to be public workshop on potential schedule & held in Northern, Central and Southern California
guidelines
2015
December 2015
Anticipated public release of draft guidelines for Planning Grant, Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Involvement RFP, and DAC Project PSP
Summer/Fall 2017*
Draft Non‐DAC Implementation Grant (Round 1) guidelines expected for public review Summer/Fall 2019*
Draft Implementation Grant (Round 2) guidelines expected for public review Fall 2017/Winter 2018*
2020
DWR to issue final grant Fall 2019/Winter 2020**
DWR to issue final grant application documents and DWR to issue final grant application documents, commence Implementation application documents and Grant solicitation
commence Planning commence Implementation Grant and DAC Grant solicitation
Involvement solicitations
March 2016
*Funding ear‐marked for FY 2017‐18; dates approximate based upon current Stormwater Grant schedule
**Funding ear‐marked for FY 2019‐2020; dates approximate based upon current Stormwater Grant schedule
NOTE: All schedules subject to change. DWR is considering one combined Non‐DAC Implementation Grant solicitation; this would likely result in a 2018 grant solicitation
Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Structure
• Started with Proposition 50 in 2004
• Local organizations form Regional Water Management Groups • Create Plan
• Compete for grants within assigned Funding Areas
• 38 Regions recognized by DWR
• Multiple Plans may be recognized in each of the funding areas (79744(a))
Funding Area
Legislative
Allocation
North Coast
$26,500,000
San Francisco
Bay Area
$65,000,000
Central Coast
$43,000,000
Los Angeles
$98,000,000
Santa Ana
$63,000,000
San Diego
$52,500,000
Sacramento
River
$37,000,000
San Joaquin
River
$31,000,000
Tulare/Kern
$34,000,000
North/South
Lahontan
$24,500,000
Colorado River
$22,500,000
Mountain
Counties
$13,000,000
TOTAL
$510,000,000
Santa Ana & San Diego Regions
Santa Ana Funding Area: 1 Region
San Diego Funding Area: 3 Regions
San Diego Funding Area
 Includes South Orange County Watershed Management Area
 3 Regions negotiated a MOU to split grant funds allocated to Funding Area based on % of population & land area
Santa Ana Funding Area
 One region managed by Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA)
• Includes:
• North OC Watershed Management Area
• Central OC Watershed Management Area
• Project selection & funding amount Integrated Regional Watershed Management
Santa Ana Funding Area Allocation
 Integrated Regional Water Management
 Santa Ana Funding Area: $63 million
 3.7 million for state administration (overall) – reduces total available funding for region to $58,590,000
 12.6 million for disadvantaged communities (pop. <20,000)
 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION: $45,990,000
For additional information contact:
Marilyn Thoms
Manager, Watershed Management Division
[email protected]
714 955‐0610
www.ocwatersheds.com
SINC1 1933
Integrated Regional Water
Management for Orange County:
Alternative Approaches
Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee
December 2, 2015
Marsha Westropp, OCWD
Exploring Future Options
SINC1 1933
• OCWD exploring 2 options for future
participation in IRWM program
• Work with local stakeholders to consider
forming Integrated Regional Water
Management Region for Orange County
• Work with SAWPA to refine OWOW project
selection process for funding
• Why now? Proposition 1 forthcoming
Existing Challenges
SINC1 1933
• Santa Ana River Watershed area is large
and diverse
• Decision-making centered on small
number of participants
• Heavily weighted toward SAWPA
• Local priorities not reflected in decisionmaking processes
Record of Collaboration in OC
SINC1 1933
Orange County has history of collaboration:
• Newport Bay Executive Committee
• South OC Watershed Management Area
• Water Use Efficiency programs countywide
• OCWD & Orange County Sanitation District
collaboration on Groundwater Replenishment
System
• OC Stormwater Program
Benefits of OC IRWM Region
SINC1 1933
• Focus on priorities in Orange County:
•
•
•
•
Upper Newport Bay, Bolsa Chica Reserve
Beach water quality
Stormwater management
Water conservation
• Build upon existing collaboration & Watershed
Management Areas in Orange County
• Utilize experience of South Watershed
Management Area as framework for building
similar program
Advantages of OC IRWM Region
SINC1 1933
• Regional planning will outlast grant
funding
• Planning will be more sustainable with
Orange County Integrated Regional
Watershed Management
• Plans prepared for 3 Watershed
Management Areas, need updating
• Management structure for 2 of 3
• County of Orange provides support to
maintain collaboration over long-term
IRWM Plans in OC
Next Steps
SINC1 1933
• Seek input/support from Orange County
stakeholders
• Create proposed framework for developing
Region Management Working Group
• Develop proposal and submit to Department
of Water Resources
• Continue working with SAWPA and water
agencies in Funding Area to refine OWOW
process
SINC1 1933
QUESTIONS?
Marsha Westropp

Agenda - Orange County Water District

Transcription

Similar documents

the PRINTABLE FLYER.

Thank you very much for your shopping on us, if you need any other

holiday recep - Orange County Business Council

Recipe Glühwein

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

11722A Operating Manual

HP 3310A User Manual

HP 4195A Network/Spectrum Analyzer Service Manual