Contra Costa Clean Water Program · Phil Hoffmeister (Chair) /Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of...

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

March 17, 2010 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA

Conference Room “A”

Please note the following special schedule: 1:00 p.m. – Closed Session 1:30 p.m. – Open Session

City of Antioch : Phil Hoffmeister (Chair) /Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of Brentwood : Jagtar Dhaliwal / Jeff Cowling City of Clayton : Laura Hoffmeister / David Woltering City of Concord : Jeff Roubal / Alex Pascual / Libbey Bell Town of Danville : Christine McCann / Michael Stella City of El Cerrito : Garth Schultz / Melanie Mintz City of Hercules : Erwin Blancaflor / Jose Pacheco City of Lafayette : Donna Feehan / Ron Lefler City of Martinez : Alex Stroup / Khalil Yowakim / Tim Tucker Town of Moraga : Jill Mercurio / Frank Kennedy City of Oakley : Frank Kennedy / Jason Vogan City of Orinda : Cathy Terentieff / Janice Carey City of Pinole : Nancy Voisey / Dean Allison City of Pittsburg : Jolan Longway/ Laura Wright City of Pleasant Hill : Rod Wui (Vice-Chair) / Steve Wallace City of Richmond : Lynne Scarpa / Jenny Oorbeck City of San Pablo : Karineh Samkian/ Adelѐ Ho City of San Ramon : Steven Spedowfski / Robin Bartlett City of Walnut Creek : Rinta Perkins / Steve Waymire Contra Costa County (CCC) : Rich Lierly / David Swartz CCC Flood Control & Water Conservation District

: Greg Connaughton / Mitch Avalon

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR NOW!!!

April 21, 2010

1:30 p.m. 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA

Conference Room “A”

2

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Management Committee Meeting Agenda

March 17, 2010

AGENDA

Public Comments: Any member of the general public may address the Management Committee on a subject within their jurisdiction and not listed on the agenda. Remarks should not exceed three (3) minutes.

1:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 30 min. 1:30 PM – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING: Presentations:

A. Urban Creeks Council (Phil Stevens) 15 min. Consent Calendar:

05 min.

(All matters listed under the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Management Committee or a member of the public prior to the time the Management Committee votes on the motion to adopt.)

A. February 11, 2010 Development Committee Meeting Minutes (Dan Cloak –

Program Consultant, Tom Dalziel)

B. February 17, 2010 Management Committee Meeting Minutes (Donald P. Freitas)

C. February 23, 2010 Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes (Jamison Crosby)

D. February 24, 2010 Public Information/Participation Committee Meeting Minutes (O’Rorke – Program Consultant, Donald P. Freitas)

E. February 25, 2010 Municipal Operations Committee Meeting Minutes (Elisa Wilfong)

F. March 2, 2010 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes (Michelle McCauley)

3

Actions:

A. APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s Recommended Fiscal Year 2010/11 Program Budget for a Cost Not to Exceed $3,188,034 (Donald P. Freitas)

10 min.

B. APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s Recommended Staffing for the Current Organizational Structure, and Recommendation to Call for an Immediate Examination for the Program Manager’s Position (Donald P. Freitas)

20 min.

C. APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s Recommendation to Appoint the Assistant Program Manager as the Interim Program Manager Effective March 31, 2010 (Donald P. Freitas)

20 min.

D. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Program to Negotiate and Execute Contracts for the Following Firms:

1. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with Brown & Caldwell Consultants for Technical Support Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $140,000 (Jamison Crosby);

2. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting for C.3 Technical Support Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $100,000 (Tom Dalziel);

3. April 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 with Freitas & Associates for Program Management Support Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $60,000 (Tom Dalziel);

4. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with O’Rorke Consulting for Public Education Outreach & Marketing Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $325,500 (Donald P. Freitas);

5. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with Kids for the Bay for a Cost Not to Exceed $32,000 (Donald P. Freitas);

6. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with Kathy Kramer Consulting for the Native Gardens Tour for a Cost Not to Exceed $10,000 (Donald P. Freitas);

7. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with Matt Bolender for a Cost Not to Exceed $56,000 (Donald P. Freitas); and,

8. Fiscal Year 2010/11 with the Department of Conservation and Development for Volunteer Creek Monitoring for a Cost Not to Exceed $65,000 (Jamison Crosby)

30 min.

4

E. APPROVE the Municipal Operations Committee’s Recommended Model Enforcement Response Plan Pending Legal Review (Elisa Wilfong)

10 min.

F. APPROVE the Municipal Operations Committee’s Recommended Trash Hot Spot Selection, Assessment and Reporting Guidance/Process (Elisa Wilfong)

10 min.

G. APPROVE the Monitoring Committee’s Recommendation to Execute a Contract with Scott Cressey for Spring 2010 Bioassessment Sampling for a Cost not to Exceed $10,000 (Jamison Crosby)

10 min.

Staff Reports:

A. Program Agreement Update (Donald P. Freitas)

10 min.

B. Program Funding Update (Donald P. Freitas) 10 min. Subcommittee Reports: A. Development Committee (David Swartz/Tom Dalziel)

10 min.

B. Public Information/Participation Committee (Steven Spedowfski/ Michelle McCauley)

10 min.

C. Monitoring Committee (Lynne Scarpa/Jamison Crosby)

10 min.

D. Municipal Operations/Trash Committee (Rinta Perkins/Elisa Wilfong) 10 min. Regional Board Staff Comments/Reports:

10 min.

A. San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Selina Louie)

B. Central Valley RWQCB (Kim Schwab) Information Items: None. 00min. Old/New Business:

Adjournment: 200 minutes (4:50 p.m.) DPF/TD:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Agenda\09 10\Draft MC Agenda Mar 10.doc

5

UPCOMING EVENTS and/or DEADLINES

See list of dates & locations For more information visit: www.cfcc.ca.gov

2010 California Financing Coordinating Committee (CFCC) Funding Fairs, Presentations: 9:00 a.m. to noon; Breakout Sessions: Noon to 3:00 p.m. • Apr. 14th – Redding, Redding/Shasta Public Library – Community Room, 1100

Parkview Ave., Redding, CA 96001 • May 6th – Sacramento, Cal/EPA Headquarters – Coastal Hearing Room, 1001 St.,

Sacramento, CA 95814

April 11 – 14, 2010 2010 International Low Impact Development (LID) Conference: Redefining Water in the City, April 11-14, 2010, Westin San Francisco Airport Hotel, San Francisco, CA. Advance registration deadline is March 25, 2010. For more information or to register online, visit: http://content.asce.org/conferences/lid10/index.html.

April 17, 2010 John Muir Earth Birthday – Earth Day Celebration, 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., John Muir National Historic Site, Martinez, CA. For more information or to register as an exhibitor, please contact Steve Pardieck at [email protected] or (925) 930-7726.

May 13 – 16, 2010: May 13 – Course 101 May 14 – Course 201 May 15 – Course 301 May 16 – Course 401

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’ San Francisco Green Roof Boot Camp – The following courses are being offered: Design 101 (2nd Ed.); Green Roof Design and Installation 201; Green Roof Waterproofing and Drainage 301; and, Green Roof Plants and Growing Media 401. For more information or to register, visit –http://greenroofs.org/index.php/eduprogram/upcomingcourses

November 1 – 3, 2010 SAVE THE DATE! CASQA 2010 Conference, Westin Mission Hills.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED NEXT MONTH

April 6, 2010

1st Tuesday

Administrative Committee (AC) Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – Noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

April 8, 2010 2nd Thursday

Development Committee (DC) Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – Noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “G”

April 21, 2010

3rd Wednesday

Management Committee (MC) Meeting, 1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

April 22, 2010

4th Thursday

Municipal Operations Committee (MOC) Meeting, 10:00 a.m. – Noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

April 27, 2010

4th Tuesday

Monitoring Committee (MonCom) Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

April 28, 2010

4th Wednesday

Public Information / Participation (PIP) Committee Meeting, 10:00 a.m. – Noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

SCHEDULE FOR MONTHLY BASMAA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

1st Wednesday

Monitoring Committee, 9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.**

1st Thursday

Development Committee, 1:30 – 4:00 p.m.**

http://www.cfcc.ca.gov/�

http://content.asce.org/conferences/lid10/index.html�

mailto:[email protected]�

http://greenroofs.org/index.php/eduprogram/upcomingcourses�

6

3rd Thursday

Trash/Municipal Operations Committee, 1:00 – 4:00 p.m.**

4th Wednesday

Public Information/Participation Committee, 1:30 – 4:00 p.m.**

**Please note the time and location for the BASMAA Subcommittee meetings are subject to change.

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Presentation Item A – Urban Creeks Council Recommendation: Receive presentation. Background: The Program’s Monitoring Committee entertained the question of whether to provide funding for Streamside Management Program for Landowners (SMPL) at its February meeting; and, voted not to fund the program for FY 2010/11. Program Staff apprised Mr. Phil Stevens, Executive Director of Urban Creeks Council (UCC), of the committee’s recommendation and he requested the opportunity to address the Management Committee directly on this matter. Therefore, we are accommodating his request by placing this item on your agenda. UCC is seeking financial support for their SMPL program for FY 2010/11. The Program has provided financial support for this program since Fiscal Year 2001/02. Funding in FY 2010/11 would allow them to continue outreach activities to private landowners and potentially satisfy Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requirements such as C.7.f – Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. JC:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Pres Item A Mar 10.doc

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

Management Committee Meeting February 17, 2010 Minutes

Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch (Chairperson) Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Jack Dhaliwal City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord Jeff Roubal Town of Danville Chris McCann City of El Cerrito Garth Schultz City of Hercules Erwin Blancaflor City of Lafayette Donna Feehan City of Martinez Alex Stroup Town of Moraga Frank Kennedy City of Oakley Frank Kennedy City of Orinda Paul Lang City of Pinole Nancy Voisey

Dean Ellison

City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway City of Pleasant Hill (Vice-chairperson) Rod Wui City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa City of San Pablo Adele Ho City of San Ramon Steven Spedowfski City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins Contra Costa County Rich Lierly Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Greg Connaughton

OTHERS/GUESTS: I. Introductions: Hoffmeister began the meeting at 1:30 pm with self-

introductions. Hoffmeister allowed time for Garth Schultz (City of El Cerrito) to speak about the need to keep the meeting moving and “on subject.”

II. Presentations:

2

A. Fiscal Year 2010/11 Group Program Budget Review – Donald Freitas emphasized the budget is still in “draft” form and needs further refinement. A final draft shall be prepared for the Administrative Committee to review at their March 2, 2010 meeting allowing them to have input on the final draft to be presented to the Management Committee at their March 17, 2010 meeting.

Freitas reminded co-permitees they are all at their maximum Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) rate and should be in the process of obtaining City/Town Council resolutions approving their ERU for FY 2010/11. The Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Flood Control District) needs the resolutions by the April 21, 2010 Management Committee meeting.

Freitas stated he expected to maintain or reduce the FY 2010/11 Stormwater Utility Assessments (SUAs) charged to municipalities by drawing down the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) reserves accumulated over past years; and, the remaining balance of $922,817 in encumbrances carried over from MRP implementation activities budgeted for FY 2008/09. These reserves were intended to smooth out anticipated budget spiking due primarily to monitoring requirements in the latter part of the new MRP.

Freitas then began reviewing the FY 2010/11 draft budget by stating all Program employees were at their top salary step and no “Cost of Living Adjustments” (COLAs) were expected. Some employees increased their annual pay by selling back vacation accruals. He explained charges for employee benefits decreased from 77% to 76% and Administrative Overhead charges remained at 51%. Some co-permittees expressed concern the overhead charges were high and a request was made for a detailed explanation of this charge. Freitas stated the Program is afforded the lowest overhead charge of all the departments in Public Works.

In response to a request, Freitas explained the ramifications of his retirement on March 31, 2010. Freitas stated $30,000 continued to be set aside for updating the Program Manager’s position (i.e., job specification, salary, etc.). Freitas stated the position had expanded considerably over the past nineteen (19) years and needs to be re-evaluated. Freitas stated it typically takes six (6) to nine (9) months to fill a position. Hiring for his position would need to be approved by the Contra Costa County (County) Public Works Department, the County Administrator’s Office, County Human Resources Department and the Board of Supervisors. If Tom Dalziel is selected for the position, County rules dictate he would receive at least a five percent (5%) salary increase. If an outsider was selected he/she would be placed anywhere from the first step to the third step of the salary range

3

depending on qualifications.

Freitas reviewed the budget paying particular attention to the following items:

• 5.A. – This was for Brown and Caldwell’s technical support for the Program. Funding increased to $140,000 due to increased work to implement the MRP.

• 5.B. – SMPL – A discussion ensued regarding the advantages and disadvantages of contracting with the Urban Creeks Council (UCC) to implement the SMPL program.

Garth Schultz moved/Frank Kennedy seconded /To ask the Monitoring Committee to make a recommendation to the Management Committee for the March 17, 2010 meeting about contracting with UCC. The motion passed with Nays from the cities of Pleasant Hill, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and San Ramon.

• 5.C. – Bay Friendly Landscaping – The $10,000 budgeted in FY 2009/10 would not be spent because the workshop has been canceled. This same item was budgeted for $15,000 under 7.H.3. for FY 2010/11.

Rinta Perkins explained the workshop had been delayed because they couldn’t raise enough funds among other participants to reach the $25,000 cost to finance the workshop.

• 5.D. – Freitas and Associates – Dalziel spoke about the need for additional support following Freitas’ retirement. It would take 6-9 months to fill his position, and a lot of work still needs to be done on the MRP, Program Agreement, the Central Valley MRP and the PIP Committee. He also stated staff would lose Elisa Wilfong in June for a six-month maternity leave. Dalziel stressed the workload is radically increasing with decreasing staff support. He needs help and believes contracting with Freitas would provide enormous support to the Program.

Co-permittees asked the budget to be revised to reflect the cost savings of Freitas’ retirement and also to distribute three (3) months of the $60,000 estimated for his potential fifteen (15) month consultant contract across the last three (3) months of FY 2009/10.

• Brown and Caldwell was working on MRP compliance budget

4

projections for the next five (5) fiscal years.

• The PIP Committee was meeting on February 24th to make recommendations on the FY 2010/11 budget. The BASMAA PIP Committee is still unclear about how much of a regional versus local approach programs should take and how to implement a regional campaign. Freitas stated the Management Committee would need to establish a policy on how much to invest in a regional, local, or hybrid advertising campaign.

• Some co-permittees expressed concern that receiving the final draft budget on the Thursday prior to the Wednesday, March 17th Management Committee meeting did not allow enough time for a thorough evaluation and consultation(s) with municipal staff to receive direction. Freitas responded a more complete draft version would be presented at the March 2, 2010 Administrative Committee meeting and interested parties were invited to attend. The Management Committee also had the option of delaying the approval of the budget to the April 21, 2010 meeting, although that would negatively impact the Flood Control District’s ability to process approval of Fiscal Year 2010/11 Stormwater Utility Assessments. Freitas emphasized the budget presented was a conservative “worst case scenario” and could decline as more information becomes available.

• The Monitoring Committee received a proposal from the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) regarding options for funding the Volunteer Monitoring Program. The proposal would be reviewed and budget recommendations made at the February 23, 2010 Monitoring Committee meeting.

• Freitas read aloud an excerpt from the April 2009 Management Committee minutes in which he spoke of the potential encumbrance of $922,817 and how the Public Manager’s Association (PMA) robustly endorsed the encumbrance of these funds to be used to smooth out expected budget spikes in complying with the MRP. Freitas stated he was operating with the expectation that the balance of those funds should be encumbered. No one opposed this direction.

B. Critical Path MRP Requirements – Dalziel reviewed this item stressing that only the cities of Oakley, Pittsburg, Richmond and the County had pump stations that needed to be inventoried by March 1, 2010. Dalziel quickly reviewed other pending MRP deadlines. Freitas stated Mr. Tom Mumley, Assistant Executive Officer for the San

5

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) does not want FY 2009/10 Annual Report submittals to be in the previous format. BASMAA is working to develop a new Annual Report format and expects to make it available by the April 1, 2010 deadline. Freitas stated revisions would most likely be made after this deadline. BASMAA is also working to define “hot spot” criteria that could be uniformly applicable. Co-permittees expressed frustration with an inability to quantify trash loading. Another source of frustration is a potential conflict with the Department of Fish and Game over access to creeks. Dalziel distributed a spreadsheet which documented C.7.c, C.7.e, C.7.f, and C.7.h compliance efforts by the Program and BASMAA on behalf of the municipalities. Co-permittees should review it when writing their Annual Report. Dalziel spoke about HMP flow control monitoring requirements and again asked cities if they had any potential projects in the early design stage that could be built by October 1, 2012 for possible testing. Discussion ensued. Dalziel also mentioned two (2) Green Street projects must be completed by each countywide Stormwater Program by 2014. The City of Richmond responded they may have a project coming up that could be considered. Dalziel stated $6 million in grants were available under “Transportation for Livable Communities” (TLC) for Green Streets. It was stated funds under TLC were very hard to obtain because they are biased toward urban communities.

III. Consent Calendar:

A. January 14, 2010 Development Committee Meeting Minutes

B. January 20, 2010 Management Committee Meeting Minutes

C. January 26, 2010 Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes

D. January 27, 2010 Public Information/Participation Committee Meeting Minutes

E. January 28, 2010 Municipal Operations Committee Meeting Minutes

6

F. February 2, 2010 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes

G. February 10, 2010 Special Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes Laura Hoffmeister moved/Jeff Roubal seconded/To APPROVE the Consent Items as submitted. Passed unanimously.

IV. Actions:

A. APPROVE the Development Committee’s Draft Comment Letter and its

Submittal to US EPA on Proposed National Rulemaking for Stormwater Discharges - Dalziel reminded co-permittees the National Research Council (NRC) was commissioned to evaluate the EPA’s stormwater program in 2006. In October 2008 the NRC released its findings recommending the EPA strengthen the nation’s stormwater program. On January 10, 2010 Dalziel and Dan Cloak attended a listening session during which comments were solicited. Dalziel asked co-permittees to approve the Development Committee’s draft comment letter and its submittal to US EPA on Proposed National Rulemaking for Stormwater Discharges. Jeff Roubal moved/Garth Schultz seconded/To APPROVE the Development Committee’s draft comment letter and its submittal to US EPA on Proposed National Rulemaking for Stormwater Discharges. Passed unanimously.

B. APPROVE Public Information/Participation (PIP) Committee’s Recommendation to Contract with O’Rorke, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 – Freitas stated the PIP Committee recommended O’Rorke be retained and asked the Management Committee to approve the Public Information/Participation Committee’s Recommendation to Contract with O’Rorke, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Frank Kennedy moved/Rinta Perkins seconded/To APPROVE the Public Information/Participation Committee’s recommendation to contract with O’Rorke, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Passed unanimously.

C. APPROVE Development Committee’s Recommendation to Contract with Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 – Dalziel stated Cloak had been a consultant to the Program since 2004. He recommended and asked co-permittees to approve the Development Committee’s recommendation to contract with Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting for Fiscal Year 2010/2011.

7

Frank Kennedy moved/Jolan Longway seconded/To APPROVE the Development Committee’s recommendation to contract with Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Passed unanimously.

V. Staff Reports:

A. Program Agreement Update – Freitas thanked Dalziel and Greg

Connaughton for comments submitted in preparation of the revised draft Program Agreement. Freitas noted he had received additional comments and encouraged others with comments to email them to him at the earliest opportunity. He stated co-permittees should plan for a June date for their City Councils to approve the final Program Agreement.

Staff was directed to research whether the Cost Payment Agreement was subject to possible revisions.

Freitas clarified if the Prop. 218 ballot measure passed it would provide additional funding to the Program, not replace the existing funding mechanism.

B. Proposition 218 Request for Proposals Update – Freitas said the February 18, 2010 meeting was canceled and would be rescheduled March.

C. CCEAC Status Report - Phil Hoffmeister stated he received correspondence from Dean Allison representing CCEAC at the beginning of the meeting.

D. Inspection Agreement Update – Wilfong stated she was still waiting for documents from the cities of Richmond and San Ramon. Wilfong has not yet been able to set up a meeting with representatives of the Cities of Martinez, Richmond or Hercules to discuss their inspection needs.

E. ABAG Trash Grant Update – Elisa indicated she would provide an update on this item and keep the Committee apprised of any new developments.

VI. BASMAA/Program Subcommittee Reports: Freitas asked co-permittees to review the detailed BASMAA reports provided by staff and contact the appropriate staff member if any questions needed to be addressed.

A. BASMAA/Program Development Committee Reports

B. BASMAA/Program Public Information/Participation Committee Reports

C. BASMAA/Program Monitoring Committee Reports

D. BASMAA/Program Municipal Operations/Trash Committee Reports

8

VI. Regional Board Staff Comments/Reports:

San Francisco Bay RWQCB – Selina Louie – not in attendance

Central Valley RWQCB – Kim Schwab – not in attendance

VII. Information Items: None.

VIII. Old/New Business: Allison asked for guidance on how to mount a successful

campaign to enact a plastic bag ban. He was concerned because every successful campaign he had heard about performed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A co-permittee recommended he go to www.Greencitiescalifornia.org for support. Freitas responded a successful campaign would require an EIR and for that reason it would be best to mount a countywide or region-wide campaign to share the cost and throw more weight against potential lawsuits. He felt such a campaign might be viable in the next year or so. Tom Dalziel reminded co-permittees the Program supported CPSC with $2,500 a year to help support these efforts and mount legislation to make manufacturers responsible for the disposal of their own products.

IX. Adjournment:

Hoffmeister adjourned the meeting at 4:20 pm. DPF:mm:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Minutes&Attendance\09 10\MC Minutes Feb 10.doc

http://www.greencitiescalifornia.org/�

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Monitoring Committee

February 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes

Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Concord Libbey Bell Contra Costa County - Vice Chairperson Nancy Stein City of Richmond - Chairperson Lynne Scarpa City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins Non-Voting Members City of San Pablo Karineh Samkian City of Pittsburg Alfredo Hurtado Others: Abby Fateman Program Staff: Jamison Crosby Michelle McCauley I. Introductory Remarks and Announcements: At 9:35 a.m. Lynne Scarpa began the

meeting with self-introductions. She then introduced Abby Fateman of the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), and asked for any announcements. Jamison Crosby announced she would be attending a February 24, 2010 BACWA meeting from 9am to noon. The subject of the meeting would be sanitary districts’ ability to accept stormwater as required by the MRP requirement C.12.f.

II. Report on Meeting with Dept. of Conservation and Development (DCD) re: Spring 2010 Sampling: Fateman stated Michelle Luebke, the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, would be unable to work in the field for at least eight to ten (8 to 10) more weeks because of a foot injury. Luebke can do coordination between the volunteer monitors and professional field staff but the Program will need to hire a consultant to conduct the field monitoring. DCDs charges will be reduced proportionately since Luebke won’t be in the field and that will offset the cost of the

2

consultant. Fateman reviewed a proposal for funding of the Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program for FY 2010/11 that included a menu of options, ranging from the basic requirements (GPS creek surveys, BMI collection and analysis) at $64,500 to $104,650 with add-ons like trash assessments and pollutants screening. One co-permittee noted the BASMAA Municipal Operations Committee (MOC) is talking about conducting training for trash assessments to be consistent across all permittees. Co-permittees agreed the volunteer monitors should not do trash assessments, but wanted to wait for guidance from BASMAA MOC before they take any action. Fateman noted the creeks groups do clean-ups early (often in conjunction with Earth Day in April) and Michelle Luebke can help coordinate municipal requests. Fateman cannot attend the March Management Committee meeting but will be at the March 2, 2010 Administrative Committee meeting to present and respond to questions. One co-permittee expressed a desire to have Luebke attend the Monitoring Committee meetings as part of her routine responsibilities. Co-permittees agreed to recommend to the Management Committee that DCD be funded at the minimal level of $64,500 for FY 2010/11, with the stipulation any grant funds received should be shared equally among DCD and the Program. Crosby will notify Fateman of any changes/the Management Committee’s decision.

III. Consideration of Proposals for Spring Sampling From Consultants and DCD: Crosby

reviewed three (3) consultant informal proposals with co-permittees. Crosby pointed out one potential consultant, Tom King, was well qualified and was already contracted with DCD. His $5,000 proposal for four (4) days of sampling could potentially be expedited since he is already contracted with DCD and all that would be required is an amendment to his current contract. Scott Cressey’s proposal of $10,000 for eight (8) days carried with it the security of previous experience and good performance. Another proposal from a SWAMP member was not seriously considered because it didn’t seem to be thoroughly thought out. Co-permittees wrestled with a choice between King and Cressey, weighing the pros and cons of the proposals and co-permittees’ knowledge of each candidate’s work. Ultimately co-permittees agreed on Cressey in a four (4) yay to one (1) nay vote, with the caveat that the Program get Cressey’s contract online for April, 1 2010.

IV. Urban Creeks Council (UCC) – Funding for FY 2010/11: After much discussion

about the valuable work done, the administrative shortcomings of UCC, and the

3

irritant that all municipalities are funding UCC through the Program primarily for the use of a few cities, co-permittees agreed to recommend to the Management Committee that UCC not be funded in FY 2010/11. Co-permittees urged cities to contract with UCC on their own for services.

V. 2nd Draft CCMAP Report of 2009 Data: Crosby teleconferenced in Armand Ruby.

Ruby briefly reviewed some new photographs he inserted into the CCMAP report and asked for input from co-permittees. Co-permittees were concerned that some of the photos detracted from the professionalism of the effort and directed Ruby to replace the photo on pg. ii and edit the caption on 2.3/pg. 7 to more accurately reflect the pictured activity. The photo on pg. ii could be moved to the conclusions section. Crosby and Ruby are in the process of standardizing site names and codes. Ruby commented he appreciated Jeff Roubal’s comments and questions. Ruby stated a question that should be asked at this point is “After ten (10) years of data what do we now know?” He asked co-permittees to consider if the answer to that question can be answered in the Executive Summary. Sections 1, 2 and 5 need additional analysis to fully answer that question. Ruby will address sections 1 and 2 in the conclusion. It was recommended pg. 35 include a response to Rinta Perkins’ and Jeff Roubal’s comments. Final comments are due to Ruby by March 2, 2010.

VI. Program Updates: Due to the late hour Crosby urged co-permittees to read the

BASMAA Monitoring Committee’s Draft Meeting Summary from Feb. 3, 2010 on their own time.

VII. Summary of Action and Agenda Items for Next Meeting: VIII. Adjournment: Scarpa adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.

Next Monitoring Committee Meeting: March 23, 2010

Conference Room “B” 255 Glacier Drive

Martinez, CA 94553

G:\GrpData\NPDES\WAM\Minutes-Attendance\05-06\WAM Min Template.doc MM

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PIP MEETING SUMMARY

ATTENDEES Members: Steven Spedowfski, Chairman, City of San Ramon

Laura Wright, Vice-Chair, City of Pittsburg Julie Haas-Wajdowicz, City of Antioch Greg Connaughton, Flood Control District Dan Jordan, Contra Costa County Lynne Scarpa, City of Richmond Nancy Voisey, City of Pinole Garth Schultz, City of El Cerrito

Staff: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager Michelle McCauley, Administrative Analyst Consultant: O’Rorke, Inc. – Tracy Keough, Emiko Hashisaki, Joanna Lovett

MEETING DATE: February 24, 2010

NOTES BY: Tracy Keough

SUBJECT: PIP Meeting # 7

I. Introductions. Meeting commenced at 10:05 AM.

II. O’Rorke Update. Tracy Keough presented Committee members with a brief

update on campaign activities and distributed an update on traffic to the CCCleanwater.org website. Keough then presented promo item samples and pricing for 2010. The Committee discussed at length the benefits to all the presented items.

To expend the available $20,000.00, the Committee agreed to order $3,000.00 worth of Shammy’s, preferably in a darker blue than the sample, 2,000 Chico Bags, 5,000 seed packets with either Lupines or California Poppies, and as many T-shirts as possible with the remaining funds.

III. PIP Budget. Donald P. Freitas presented Committee members with the recommended PIP Budget for the 2010 / 2011 fiscal year. Freitas outlined the various possibilities for dispensing these funds. Since the Advertising Campaign is the big ticket item, Freitas sought guidance from the committee on whether to participate in a regional campaign with BASMAA, fund a countywide campaign only, or invest in a hybrid combination of the two.

Fretias noted the Regional Advertising Campaign was an expensive program but it could work in tandem with local advertising. BASMAA PIP is not yet at the point where firm direction was in place and Freitas expected it would take some time before BASMAA was able to assume a larger role. Other stormwater programs indicated they wanted a hybrid plan. Freitas reminded co-permittees $323,258 was encumbered in FY 2009/10 to use for educational outreach for the Prop. 218 campaign. $58,258 was already included (and unspent) in the FY 2009/10 PIP Budget. Freitas was moving the other $250,000 from its current place in the Program Budget to PIP.

Nancy Voisey stated that the City of Pinole would prefer that the program cease all advertising efforts in favor of press releases only. Laura Wright would prefer that the Committee continue to fund a countywide campaign. Julie Haas-Wajdowicz made a motion to approve the staff-recommended budget Dan Jordan seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

IV. Committee Roundtable. Garth Shultz asked how the Program was utilizing Social Media. Keough noted that Social Media is successfully being used to reach County residents via placed advertising, and that outside of paid media, this peer-to-peer medium works best when members interact with one another as designed.

V. Confirm Action Items. O’Rorke will deliver a revised promotional item budget with final quotes and images for Committee approval. O’Rorke will also move forward with the Homeowner Letter.

VI. Next Steps. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 PM.

Next Meeting:

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010 10:00 – 12:00PM

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Municipal Operations Committee (MOC)

February 25, 2010 Minutes

Attendance:

MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch Roger Clarke City of Brentwood Laurie Monte City of Concord Libbey Bell County Watershed Program Charmaine Bernard

Alex Anaya Tony Medina

City of El Cerrito Garth Schultz (Chair) Bill Driscoll

City of Hercules Glen Moniz City of Lafayette David Terhune City of Pinole Patrick Bowie City of Pittsburg

Hilario Mata Walter Pease

City of San Pablo John Medlock City of San Ramon

Steven Spedowfski Patrick Gutierrez

City of Walnut Creek

Rich Payne (Vice-chair) Rinta Perkins

NON-VOTING

City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister Town of Danville Chris McCann City of Martinez Alex Stroup Town of Moraga John Sherbert City of Oakley AJ Kennedy City of Orinda Paul Lang City of Pleasant Hill Rod Wui City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa

PROGRAM STAFF Elisa Wilfong Michelle McCauley

2

I. Introductions/Announcements – Garth Schultz began the meeting at 10:00 a.m. with

self-introductions.

II. Approve the January 28, 2010 MOC Minutes – Steve Spedowfski moved / Glen Moniz seconded / To Approve the MOC December 15, 2009 minutes as submitted. Passed unanimously.

III. BASMAA Committee Update – Wilfong provided a brief overview of the second

Trash/Municipal Operations Subcommittee meeting during February 2010. BASMAA is still finalizing the regional tasks for provisions C.2, C.4, C.5, C.9, C.10, and C.15 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Chris Sommers was appointed the Chair of the Trash portion of the BASMAA Subcommittee and no Chair has been appointed to the Municipal Operations portion of the Subcommittee (recently Wilfong has been nominated and has accepted the position of Chair of the Municipal Operations portion of the Subcommittee). Regional tasks determined for the Subcommittee have been the calculation of trash baseline loads, stormwater pump stations data collection form(s), and enhancement of the BASMAA Surface Cleaner Recognition program. All other aspects of the MRP assigned to the Subcommittee have been determined to be on a “sharing” venue only. Wilfong will take the lead in guiding and organizing the submittal for the trash hot spot requirements for Contra Costa County (County). The Subcommittee also discussed submittal of annual forms to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) by April 1, 2010. The Subcommittee will draft annual forms for their appointed MRP provisions to the BASMAA Board during March. A special meeting is scheduled in March to discuss this item further and draft forms to submit to the Board.

IV. C.10 Trash Provision Agenda: a. Discussion of Hot Spot Selection and Assessment – Wilfong stated EOA, Inc.

had taken the lead in writing the guideline protocols. EOA has volunteered to provide guidance for the submission of Hot Spots lists to the Regional Board by July 1, 2010, as required in the MRP. Wilfong wants everyone to use the draft guidelines provided to achieve a uniform and reliable outcome. Wilfong stated Program staff would submit the Hot Spots list to the Regional Board on behalf of cities. Wilfong will be providing submittal and field forms to the Management Committee for review at their March 17, 2010 meeting.

One co-permittee suggested the Program provide field training on the guidelines. Wilfong responded she would do that if cities felt it was beneficial. Some co-permittees felt accurate assessments could be made by following the guidelines and the Quick Guide to Trash Hot Spot MRP 2010 Requirements handout. Another co-permittee suggested using the California Coastal Clean-up form. Wilfong responded she is working on a form to use to document the Hot Spots and will distribute it as soon as it is complete.

3

Another co-permittee suggested State sponsored (ARRA) workers could be hired by the municipalities to conduct assessments. Another co-permittee responded his city tried that and found most of them didn’t have a driver license. All agreed participants needed to have a valid driver license. Co-permittees agreed they would review the final work products provided to achieve Hot Spot documentation and determine if they wanted field training. A discussion ensued, questions were asked and answered.

• Hot Spots have nothing to do with baselines or load levels; • Change the name of the transects so the first letter represents the location

where the photo was taken and the second letter represents the location/direction of the photo;

• Wilfong will email a list of the standard letter identifiers used by the Program for the cities for the next annual report;

• The identifier should be placed at the beginning of the name of each photo; and,

• Fish & Game has approved municipal personnel entering creeks on a year-round basis if heave machinery is not utilized.

Wilfong will make the requested changes to the document and send it out with the city identifiers. Co-permittees were to review the Trash Memo and provide comments by Friday, March 5, 2010.

Wilfong will provide New Zealand Mudsnail protocols to prevent their spread at

the next MOC meeting, as well as ask Jamison Crosby to present the subject. The Flood Control District is issuing permits to cities to enter the Flood Control

channels to conduct Hot Spot assessments. City representatives should contact Charmaine Bernard.

b. ABAG Trash Grant Update – Wilfong stated the Vendor List is not ready to mail

to cities yet. A vendor fair will be held in April, one (1) day in Oakland, one (1) day in San Jose. An ABAG/Municipalities meeting without the vendors will be held at the conclusion of each fair day.

V. C.2 Municipal Operations Provisions Agenda – Wilfong emailed the final inventory

list of cities containing pump stations (only four). Wilfong asked co-permittees to review it and provide any missing data. It was noted pump stations that pump water within their MS4s are exempt from dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring. In response to a previous question, Wilfong indicated Selina Louie with the Regional Board rendered the opinion that enclosed/plumbed Corporation Yards are exempt from Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). Wilfong is waiting for written confirmation from Tom Mumley, Assistant Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

4

VI. C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls and C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and

Elimination Agenda: a. Second Draft Model Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) – The ERP is due to be

completed by April, 1, 2010. The draft supplied to cities includes revisions made by the MOC and Development Committee. Wilfong will submit the draft to County Counsel for review and advised co-permittees to do likewise. Any comments from co-permittees need to be provided to Wilfong by Friday, March 5, 2010. It will be on the March 17, 2010 Management Committee Agenda for approval. It doesn’t need to be submitted to the Regional Board, but does need to be current and “on-hand” in the event of a request. One co-permittee asked Wilfong to add a “10 days” box to the right side of the diagram. Also, Wilfong was asked to add “threat to human health” and appropriate directional arrows within the diagram. Also, change “Stormwater Manager” to representative (pg. 8) and add a section to include other “districts” (pg. 4).

b. Legal Authority Training – Wilfong responded to last month’s discussion of police

training/PC 382 – Arrest, search and seizure, to train municipal folks to meet requirements to issue citations. Martinez Adult Education provides the class and has agreed to provide a private class without the firearms portion of the training for $110. Classes would be M/T/W from 6:15 to 10:15 plus one weekend. The next class begins June 20, 2010. Someone commented some city ordinances allow the City Manager to designate a person to issue citations. Sacramento County offers a class in August that could be secured with a 20 attendee minimum. Wilfong will reach out and see if 20 folks are interested in attending. Wilfong will add a Staff Item to the Management Committee Agenda for this subject.

VII. C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control Agenda – Wilfong provided a brief comment

regarding the Model IPM Policy stating the policy has been sent to County Counsel for review. The policy is pending legal review to distribute to the Management Committee.

VIII. Old/New Business - None

IX. Adjournment - Schultz adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. The next MOC meeting

will be March 25, 2010. MM/EW/DPF:kh G:\NPDES\MOC\Minutes\MOC Min Template.doc

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

Administrative Committee March 2, 2010 Meeting Minutes

Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT

City of Antioch (Chairperson) Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Jack Dhaliwal City of Concord Libbey Bell Contra Costa County David Swartz City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway City of Pleasant Hill (Vice-chairperson) Rod Wui City of Richmond Jenny Oorbeck

Non-Voting Members

Town of Danville Chris McCann

City of San Ramon Steven Spedowfski Flood Control District Greg Connaughton

Mitch Avalon

Others City of Pinole Dean Allison Department of Conservation & Development Abby Fateman Program Staff Donald P. Freitas Tom Dalziel Michelle McCauley Jamison Crosby I. Introductory Remarks – Phil Hoffmeister began the meeting at 10:05 am.

II. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD)

Fiscal Year 2010/11 Proposed Services – Donald Freitas introduced Abby Fateman of the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development (CCCDCD). Fateman distributed and reviewed a proposal for services by the CCCDCD for

2

Fiscal Year 2010/11 for a cost ranging between $65,500-$104,650. Proposed core activities totaling $65,500 included analysis of BMI samples collected in spring 2010, ten (10) bioassessments, GPS creek surveys, outreach to volunteer creek groups, and maintaining and staffing a monitoring resource center. Add-on services included additional required monitoring contained in the MRP. Questions were asked and answered. Crosby stated the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation is to fund the proposed core activities for a cost not to exceed $65,000.

III. FY 2010/2011 Group Program Budget Review – Freitas began with a summary review of the budget compared to the previous year’s budget. This included a review of the administrative/personnel budget, general services and supplies budget, association fees, budget and expenditures for legal services, general technical support, reserves for funding alternatives, and MRP compliance expenditures and reserves. Freitas concluded this summary review by emphasizing the Program’s current reserves as projected to be expended would be depleted at the conclusion of FY 2011/12. Freitas noted MRP compliance expenditures were expected to peak in Fiscal Year 2012/13. In response to requests for MRP compliance cost projections, Freitas indicated staff would have those five (5) year projections available at the March 17, 2010 Management Committee meeting. Freitas then conducted a detailed review of the various Program encumbrances and reserves. Following questions and answers, Freitas then reviewed changes made to the proposed Fiscal Year 2010/11 Group Program budget in response to previous input provided by the Administrative Committee and Management Committee. Questions were asked and answered. Dalziel then presented a proposal to include incentive grant funds to financially support any municipality willing to undertake either a pilot green street project or a HMP flow monitoring project which is to be completed by December 1, 2014. Administrative Committee members supported this proposal and directed staff to provide $10,000 incentive grant monies for each successful project/study for a cost not to exceed $70,000. Current reserves would be used to fund these incentive grants.

IV. CCEAC’s February 17, 2010 Letter: Freitas referred Administrative Committee members to the February 17, 2010 City/County Engineering Advisory Committee (CCEAC) letter provided with the Administrative Committee agenda packet. Dean Allison thanked Donald for all his efforts in responding to the CCEAC concerns regarding the budget process and information. He indicated the budget details provided and reviewed at the meeting went a long way in responding to the CCEAC’s concerns. He indicated the 5-year permit compliance document showing projected expenditures over the permit term would be very helpful in determining what to do the projected unexpended

3

funds from Fiscal Year 2009/10.

V. Review/Discuss Program Staffing for Current Organizational Structure – Freitas reviewed the Program’s current Program structure and advocated maintaining the existing structure following his retirement on March 31, 2010. Freitas also recommended Dalziel be appointed interim Program Manager effective March 31, 2010. He further recommended the Management Committee issue a letter to the County to immediately move forward with the exam to fill the Program Manager position. Freitas indicated if Dalziel was selected as Manager, his position would then need to be filled. Not only would Jamison Crosby and Elisa Wilfong be eligible to apply for the position, but so would other County employees who hold similar positions or have similar experiences, in addition to external applicants. Questions arose as to the process for filling the Program Manager’s position. Freitas explained an open examination for the position could take 6-9 months, whereas a promotional examination process could take less time. Steve Spedowfski advocated for a shorter process. Committee members agreed to recommend maintaining the current organization structure and to call for an immediate examination of the Program Manager’s position. Hoffmeister called for a Closed Session meeting from 1:00 to 1:30 pm before the Management Committee meeting on March 17, 2010 to further discuss the examination process. The Committee requested Freitas be available during the closed session, if needed. Hoffmeister also requested “Action Item B” on the draft March 17, 2010 Management Committee be changed to reflect this is the Administrative Committee’s recommendation.

VI. Review/Discuss Program Manager’s Retirement and Succession Planning – Freitas stated that if the County allows him contract with the Program as proposed, then he will provide program management and special project support during the interim period it takes to permanently replace the Program Manager position. He would continue to provide support and training, as needed, to the new Program Manager to affect a smooth transition. Freitas recommended the Program write a letter to the County requesting an exception to policy that generally discourages the rehiring of retired employees. The exception would be to hiring Freitas for a 15-month period to assist the Program with its transition to a new Program Manager. Dalziel indicated the Program will be short-staffed as a result of the Program Manager’s retirement on March 31st and the planned six-month maternity leave of a Watershed Management Planning Specialist (i.e., Elisa Wilfong) in May. Dalziel advocated for the Program to contract with Freitas to assist the Program during this period. Freitas would provide support for approximately 6 hours a

4

week through June 30, 2011. He would be tasked to continue his work on the funding alternatives project, ongoing permit negotiations with the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Program Agreement, and public education/participation. Dalziel indicated it might also be necessary during the transition to temporarily reassign Program staff to cover other Program elements. Further discussions regarding succession planning would continue next month.

VII. Program Agreement: Freitas called for a special Administrative Committee meeting to continue work on updating the Program Agreement. All agreed to meet on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM.

VIII. Stormwater Funding Update – Frietas reported the Proposition 218 Ad Hoc Advisory Committee was scheduled to meet on March 9, 2010, from 2:00 to 4:00 pm.

IX. Municipal Regional Permit Implementation Update: A. FY 2009/2010 Annual Report Format/Forms – Dalziel stated Tom Mumley

has been very clear he does not want any Annual Reports (AR) submitted on the old form(s). The BASMAA subcommittees are working on the new AR forms. They will be completed by April 1, 2010 and provided to municipalities and Regional Board staff for review and comment. It is hoped the forms will be finalized by the end of April 2010.

B. Trash Hot Spot Selection, Assessment and Reporting – Dalziel reminded

co-permitees Hot Spot documentation must be submitted to the Water Board by July 1, 2010. The Program is preparing guidance for selecting, cleaning and assessing, and reporting on Hot Spots. Program staff is proposing to collective and submit all reporting to the Water Board on behalf of municipalities.

C. March 18, 2010 Construction-site Stormwater Quality Workshop – Dalziel

stated the Construction-Site Stormwater Quality Workshop was set for March 18, 2010 and would be held at the Walnut Creek Civic Arts and Education Center. The workshop targets developers, contractors, and municipal field inspectors. The focus of the workshop is on the new State General Construction Permit and the Municipal Regional Permit.

X. Approve Draft March 17, 2010 Management Committee Agenda –

Freitas reviewed the agenda and made the following changes: • Add Closed Session from 1:00 to 1:30 pm • Change Action Item “B” to read “APPROVE the Administrative

Committee’s Recommended Staffing for the Current Organization Structure, and Recommendation to Call for an Immediate Examination

5

for the Program Manager’s Position.

The Administrative Committee approved the agenda with changes by consensus.

XI. Old/New Business – None

XII. Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Next Administrative Committee Meeting:

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:30 a.m. to Noon

Conference Room “A” 255 Glacier Drive

Martinez, CA 94553

G:\NPDES\Admin Committee\Minutes&Attend\09 10\AC Minutes Mar 10.doc MM/DPF:kh

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item A – APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s

Recommended Fiscal Year 2010/11 Program Budget for a Cost Not to Exceed $3,188,034

Recommendation: Consider approval of the proposed Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2010/11 for a cost not to exceed $3,188,034; and, determine several policy issues involving encumbering unexpended funds and a proposal to provide financial incentives to local municipalities for participating in the green streets and HMP activities. Background: One cannot read a newspaper, listen to a radio newscast or see a television report on the current financial situation in California without coming to the conclusion local government has been and will continue to be the most severely impacted level of government. Furloughs, lay-offs, service cuts, budget cuts and personnel freezes have all become standard measures used to combat this financial meltdown. The mantra to local government is simply to “do more with less.” With this backdrop, the Program has once again tried to either maintain or reduce its budget which is very difficult since the approval of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) on December 01, 2009 mandated more requirements for local government to implement or to find itself out of compliance. Being out of compliance could create an even larger burden on local government due to penalties that can be assessed. A detailed presentation will be made at your Management Committee meeting, but I want to highlight various sections of the budget and then present several policy issues you will need to resolve.

2

HIGHLIGHTS: 1. Administrative/Personnel Budget is stable

• All employees are at their top salary steps – no merit increases or “cost of living adjustments (COLAs)” are provided.

• The benefit calculation has been reduced from 77% to 76% of salaries. • Overhead remains at 51% of salaries and benefits. • $30,000 has been earmarked for a salary adjustment/reclassification of the

Program Manager’s position. • The Program Manager’s salary has been calculated as a 75% funded

position for FY 2010/11 for a savings of $81,599 (salary - $30,704; benefits - $23,335; and, Administrative Overhead - $27,560).

2. General Services & Supplies • Minor increase

3. Association Fees

• Minor increase 4. Legal Services

• Increased MRP legal fund by $100,000 (FY 2009/10). No additional funds are to be added henceforth.

• Increased County Counsel budget due to increased workload. 5. General Technical Support Services

• Minor increase. • SMPL Program has not been funded. • Bay-Friendly Landscaping training moved to next fiscal year. • A consulting services contract has been added for your consideration to hire

the retiring Program Manager for a fifteen month period (April 01, 2010 to June 30, 2011).

6. Funding Alternatives

• Increased reserve by $200,000; and, increased anticipated expenditures to $300,000 for FY 2010/11.

• The Proposition 218 Election Budget may be short by $500,000. 7. MRP Compliance

• $922,817 was encumbered from last year to FY 2009/10. Anticipated expenditures total $418,000. The difference is $504,817. This remaining reserve will most likely be depleted in FY 2011/12.

• An encumbrance of $250,000 was transferred from the PIP Budget to the Proposition 218 Reserve for FY 2010/11 to provide a more thorough

3

accounting of these funds. A difference of $182,500 was reduced from the Approved FY 2009/10 PIP Budget to the Proposed FY 2010/11 PIP Budget.

8. The difference between the Approved FY 2009/10 Program Budget to the

Projected FY 2009/10 expenditures is a reduction of $1,173,914. This decrease is primarily attributable to a reduction of MRP Compliance Activities.

The Approved FY 2009/10 Program Budget anticipated revenue of

$3,232,412 coming from Stormwater Utility Assessments (Richmond and Brentwood use other funding to pay for their expenditures). The recommended FY 2010/11 Program Budget would use $2,250,079 from Stormwater Utility Assessments. This would be a reduction of $982,335.

The use of reserves has dramatically increased from $249,250 this fiscal

year to $712,237 in FY 2010/11. This trend can only continue for the next twelve to eighteen months after June 30, 2011 with existing reserves. It is then anticipated most reserves will be completely deleted requiring co-permittees to use other sources of revenue such as the municipalities’ general fund to finance activities.

ISSUES:

1. Will the Program contract with the retiring Program Manager for technical support services for the next fifteen months?

2. A proposal has been recommended that would provide up to $10,000

per project to a municipality that “volunteers” to participate in the green streets and/or HMP activities.

The funding which totals $70,000 is taken from MRP reserves. The proposed budget has included this funding, but the Management Committee needs to make a determination if it wishes to approve this suggestion.

3. Shall the Management Committee encumber $982,335 in unexpended

Stormwater Utility Assessments from FY 2009/10 to FY 2010/11 to balance future Program Budgets and avoid the “peaks and valleys” of matching revenue and expenditures?

4. Shall the Urban Creeks Council’s SMPL program be funded for $25,000

next fiscal year?

4

Staff needs direction on these aforementioned items before the Management Committee approves the FY 2010/11 Program Budget because they will impact the overall budget. Once the Management Committee takes final action on the Budget, then staff will bring measures to you next month to implement the FY 2010/11 Program Budget. Fiscal Impact: A cost not to exceed $3,188,034 for fiscal year 2010/11. Attachment(s): Previously distributed to Management Committee members. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item A Mar 10.doc

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM’S

RECOMMENDED

2010/11 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET

Management Committee March 17, 2010

FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 PROGRAM BUDGET

Table of Contents

Proposed FY 2010/11 Budget…………………………...…

A. Budget Reconciliation B. Personnel Detail C. Public Information/Participation Detail D. Group Costs Methodology & Allocations

Section One

Reserves Summaries……………….……..……….……….

A. Summary of Reserves 1. Previously encumbered BRMS/MRP Reserves 2. 2008/09 encumbered MRP Reserves 3. Prop. 218 Reserves 4. Legal Fund Reserves 5. C.3 Reserves 6. Miscellaneous Reserves 7. PIP Reserves 8. Investment Revenue

Section Two

Administrative Overhead Summary of Charges………. Section Three

Program Organizational Chart……………………………. Section Four

Major Job Categories by Percentages……………….….. Section Five

Consultant List……………………………………….….…... Section Six

Request for Qualifications List & History……….…….... Section Seven

SUA Historical Summaries…………………………….…... Section Eight

SECTION ONE

PROPOSED FY 2010/11 BUDGET

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAMDRAFT FY 2010/11 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET1

G:\NPDES\BUDGETS\10 11\Budget pack\\Draft Budget FY 10 11.5\ 3/12/2010 4:20 PM - 1 -

Line DESCRIPTION ACTUAL APPROVED ACTUAL PROJECTED MRP RES. PRIOR DRAFT UTILITY MRP ENCUMB- Item 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 ENCUMBR. 2010/11 ASSESS. RES. RANCES

BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET7612 1 ADMINISTRATIVE/PERSONNEL2

Stormwater Pollution Control Program Manager (D. P. Freitas) $ 112,715 112,715$ 61,408$ 122,816$ 84,536$ 84,536$

Assistant Program Manager (T. Dalziel) $ 99,264 99,298$ $ 49,452 98,904$ $ 99,298 99,298$

Watershed Management Planning Specialist (E. Wilfong) $ 75,662 74,789$ $ 37,395 74,790$ $ 74,789 74,789$

Watershed Management Planning Specialist (J. Crosby) $ 73,305 74,789$ 37,395$ 74,790$ 74,789$ 74,789$

Admin. Analyst (M. McCauley) $ 56,247 55,185$ $ 28,654 55,185$ $ 55,185 55,185$

Clerk - Senior Level (.7) (K. Hardeman) $ 31,640 31,792$ $ 15,529 31,058$ $ 31,792 31,792$

Salaries Subtotal 448,833$ 448,569$ 229,833$ 457,543$ 420,390$ 420,390$

Benefits3 $ 371,797 345,398$ 173,364$ 346,306$ 319,497$ 319,497$

Administrative Overhead (accounting, travel, etc.)4 $ 418,649 $ 404,923 $ 214,259 $ 409,006 $ 377,342 $ 377,342

I. Salary adjustments (Program Manager) 30,000$ $ - 30,000$ $ 30,000 30,000$

ADMINISTRATIVE /PERSONNEL SECTION TOTAL 1,239,279$ 1,228,890$ 617,456$ 1,242,855$ -$ -$ 1,147,229$ 1,147,229$ -$ -$

GENERAL SERVICES & SUPPLIES

Document reproductions (copier,etc.) $ 10,522 6,000$ $ 3,930 6,000$ $ 6,000 6,000$

Office supplies (subscriptions, phone etc.) $ 6,047 1,000$ $ 2,176 3,000$ $ 3,000 3,000$

Postage $ 164 250$ $ 71 250$ $ 250 250$

GENERAL SERVICES & SUPPLIES SECTION TOTAL

16,733$ 7,250$ 6,177$ 9,250$ -$ -$ 9,250$ 9,250$ -$ -$

FY 2010/11 REVENUE SOURCES

C.

A.

D.

C.

B.

A.

E.

7605

2

G.

H.

7605

F.

7612

B.




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


ASSOCIATION FEES

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) $ 51,778 53,000$ $ 52,792 52,792$ $ 55,000 55,000$

B. $ 13,750 13,750$ $ 13,750 13,750$ $ 14,000 14,000$

7611C. California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) $ 2,500 2,500$ $ 2,500 2,500$ $ 2,500 2,500$

ASSOCIATION FEES SECTION TOTAL 68,028$ 69,250$ 69,042$ 69,042$ -$ -$ 71,500$ 71,500$ -$ -$

4 LEGAL SERVICES

A. Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) 100,000$ 8,036$ 100,000$ 100,000$

7606 B. General Support (County Counsel) $ 8,420 5,000$ 10,950$ 15,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

LEGAL SERVICES SECTION TOTAL 8,420$ 105,000$ 18,986$ 115,000$ 100,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$

5 GENERAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

7616 A.General (i.e. Program representation, committees support, MRP implementation, public/private requests for information, etc.)

$ 105,207 124,000$ $ 21,494 124,000$ $ 140,000 140,000$

7657 B. SMPL $ 30,018 25,000$ $ 7,239 25,000$ $ 25,000

7636 C. Bay Friendly Landscaping - See C.9.4 $ 16,250 10,250$ $ 250 250$ $ 250

D. Freitas and Associates (4/1/10 - 6/30/11) $ - -$ $ - 15,000$ $ - $ 45,000 45,000$

GENERAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES SECTION TOTAL 151,475$ 159,250$ 28,983$ 164,250$ 25,250$ -$ 185,000$ 185,000$ -$ -$

7611

3

7611

A.

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA)




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

7658 A. Proposition 218 election 100,000$ $ 100,000 100,000$

B. Surveys 50,000$ $ - $ 50,000 50,000$

7606 C. Legal/technical support 50,000$ $ - 50,000$ $ 250,000 200,000$ 50,000$

FUNDING ALTERNATIVES SECTION TOTAL -$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ 200,000$ -$ 100,000$

7 MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT (MRP) COMPLIANCE

7661 A. C.2 Municipal Operations

1. C.2.e.ii - Conduct Rural Public Works Construction and Maintenance Training $ 10,000 25,000$ 100$ 100$ 15,000$ 15,000$

2. C.2.b - Contribute funding for updating BASMAA's Mobile Surface Cleaner Program $ 20,000 10,000$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

3. C.2.h - Develop model BMPs for "Rural Public Works Construction & Maintenance" BMPs $ 25,000 -$ -$

C.2 Municipal Operations Subtotal 55,000$ 35,000$ 100$ 100$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$

6




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


B. C.3 New Development and Redevelopment

7645 1. C.3 consultant (Dan Cloak) 91,050$ 100,000$ 46,333$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$

7653 2. IMP sizing tool update (Brown & Caldwell) 54,968$ -$ -$ -$ -$

7648 3. HMP monitoring 3,586$ 100,000$ -$ -$ 100,000$ 100,000$

4. HMP monitoring grant incentives 50,000$ 50,000$

5. Green street grant incentives 20,000$ 13,987$ 6,013$

7650 6. C.3 training & materials 5,478$ 15,657$ 710$ 710$ -$ 14,947$ 14,947$ 14,947$

7653 7. Plant Selection Guide (WRA) 9,883$ -$ -$ -$ -$

C.3 New Development and Redevelopment Subtotal 164,965$ 215,657$ 47,043$ 100,710$ 100,000$ 14,947$ 284,947$ -$ 213,987$ 70,960$

7614 C. C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls

1. C.4.a - Legal authority review (also includes C.5.a & C.6.a) $ 30,000 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$

2. C.4.c - Prepare model "Enforcement Response Plan" template (also funds C.5.b and C.6.b) $ 20,000 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ -$

3. C.4.d - Annual staff training (also funds C.5.g and C.15 training) $ 10,000 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$

C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls Subtotal 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ -$ 40,000$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


7662 D. C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

1. C.5.a - Legal authority review (See C.4.a) -$ -$ -$ -$

2. C.5.b - Prepare model "Enforcement Response Plan" template (See C.4.c) -$ -$ -$ -$

3. C.5.g - Annual inspector training (See C.4.d) 7,110$ 10,000$ 22$ 22$

C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Subtotal 7,110$ 10,000$ 22$ 22$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

7628 E. C.6 Construction Site Control

1. C.6.a - Legal authority review (See C.4.a) -$ -$ -$ -$

2. C.6.b - Create model "Enforcement Response Plan" template (See C.4.c) -$ -$ -$

3. C.6.c - Develop minimum required BMPs (See C.2.h) -$ -$ -$

4. C.6.f - Annual staff training 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ $10,000

C.6 Construction Site Control Subtotal 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


7617 F. C.7 Public Information / Participation (C.7) 5

1. PEIO Implementation Activities (C.7) $ 96,048 91,000$ $ 42,440 71,000$ $ - $ - $ 61,000 61,000$

2. Public Outreach/Citizen Involvement Events (C.7.e and C.7.g) $ - 2,000$ -$ -$ 2,000$ 2,000$

Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts (C.7.f) $ 39,018 9,000$ $ 9,000 9,000$ $ 9,000 9,000$

Advertising Campaigns (C.7.b and C.7.e) $ 280,000 658,000$ $ 404,000 654,000$ $ 310,500 310,500$

5. Education Outreach Activities (C.7.h) $ 103,000 128,000$ $ 48,000 48,000$ $ 73,000 73,000$

6.

MRP Outreach Activities (C.5.c.ii, C.5.d.ii.(1).c, C.8.f.iii. C.9.h.i, C.9.h.iii, C.9.h.v, C.11.a.i, C.13.a.ii (3) C.13.d.ii (2), C.15.b.iv, C.15.b.v.(1).d, C.15.b.vi (1))

58,258$ 58,258$ $ 58,258 58,258$

C.7 Public Information and Outreach Subtotal 518,066$ 946,258$ 503,440$ 840,258$ -$ 513,758$ 455,500$ -$ 58,258$

G. C.8 Water Quality Monitoring

7611 1. C.8.b - San Francisco Estuary receiving water monitoring (Regional Monitoring Program-RMP) $ 134,023 140,000$ 136,589$ 136,589$ 140,000$ 140,000$

2. C.8.c - Status monitoring/rotating watersheds $ 248,641 248,641$ 50,000$ 50,000$

3. C.8.e - Long-term trends and POC monitoring $ 257,864 257,864$ 150,000$ 150,000$

4. C.8.d.i - Monitoring projects - stressor identification -$

5. C.8.d.ii - Monitoring projects - BMP effectiveness identification -$ -$

3.

4.




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


6. C.8.d.iii - Monitoring projects - geomorphic project -$ -$

7616 7. C.8.f - Citizen monitoring and participation 65,000$ 8,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$

8. C.8.g - Reporting $ 25,200 25,200$ -$ 25,000$ 25,000$

9. C.8.h - Monitoring protocols and data quality 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

C.8 Water Quality Monitoring Subtotal 665,728$ 741,705$ 144,589$ 150,589$ 14,000$ -$ 435,000$ 140,000$ 295,000$ -$

7636 H. C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control

1. C.9.a - Develop/Adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy or ordinance $ 50,000 50,000$ 10,000$

2. C.9.b - Implement IPM policy or ordinance -$ -$

7661 3. C.9.c - Training of municipal employees $ 9,000 9,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$

7636 4. C.9.c - Bay-Friendly Landscape Activities 15,250$ 15,250$

5. C.9.d - Require contractors to implement IPM -$ -$

6. C.9.e - Track and participate in relevant regulatory processes $ 5,000 5,000$ -$

7. C.9.f - Interface with county agricultural commissioners -$ -$

8. C.9.g - Annually evaluate implementation of source control actions relating to pesticides $ 50,000 50,000$ -$

9. C.9.h - Public outreach $ 5,000 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control Subtotal 119,000$ 119,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ 30,250$ -$ 30,250$ -$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


I. C.10 Trash Reduction

1. C.10.a - Implement pilot enhanced trash control -$ -$

2. C.10.b - Implementation and assessment $ 5,000 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

3. C.10.c Long-term plan for trash impact abatement -$ -$

4. C.10.d - Reporting -$ -$

C.10 Trash Reduction Subtotal 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ -$

J. C.11 Mercury Controls

1. C.11.a - Mercury collection and recycling implemented throughout the region -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

2. C.11.b - Monitor methylmercury (See C.8.e) -$ -$

3. C.11.c - Pilot projects to investigate and abate mercury sources -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

4. C.11.d - Pilot projects to evaluate and enhance municipal sediment removal -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

5. C.11.e - Conduct pilot projects to evaluate on-site stormwater treatment via retrofit -$

6. C.11.f - Diversion of dry weather and first flush flows -$ 10,000$ 10,000$

7. C.11.g - Monitor stormwater mercury pollutant loads and loads reduced -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

8. C.11.h - Fate and transport study of mercury in urban runoff $ 8,333 8,333$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


9. C.11.i - Development of a risk reduction program $ 25,000 25,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

10. C.11.j - Allocation Scheme with CalTrans -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

C.11 Mercury Controls Subtotal 33,333$ 33,333$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45,000$ -$ 45,000$ -$

K. C.12 PCB Controls

1.

C.12.a - Implement project throughout region to incorporate PCBs and PCB containing equipment identification into existing industrial inspections (combined with C.13.d)

$ 12,500 12,500$ -$ 2,500$ 2,500$

2.

C.12.b - Conduct pilot projects to evaluate managing PCB-containing materials and wastes during building demolition and renovation (e.g. window replacement) activities

$ 16,667 16,667$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

3. C.12.c - Pilot projects to investigate and abate on-land PCB sources -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

4. C.12.d - Conduct pilot projects to evaluate and enhance municipal sediment removal -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

5. C.12.e - Conduct pilot projects to evaluate on-site stormwater treatment via retrofit -$

6. C.12.f - Diversion of dry weather and first flush flows to POTWs -$ 10,000$ 10,000$

7. C.12.g - Monitor stormwater PCB pollutant loads and loads reduced -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

8. C.12.h - Fate and transport study of PCBs in urban runoff $ 8,333 8,333$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


9. C.12.i - Development of a risk reduction program (See C.11.i) -$ 5,000$ 5,000$

C.12 PCB Controls Subtotal 37,500$ 37,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 42,500$ -$ 42,500$ -$

L. C.13 Copper Controls

1.

C.13.a - Develop an ordinance to manage waste generated from cleaning and treating of copper architectural features, including copper roofs, during construction and post-construction

5,000$ 5,000$ -$

2. C.13.b - Manage discharges from pools, spas, and fountains that contain copper-based chemicals 5,000$ 5,000$ -$

3. C.13.c - Vehicle brake pads 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ 2,000$ 2,000$

4. C.13.d - Industrial sources 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 2,500$ 2,500$

5. C.13.e - Studies to reduce copper pollutant impact uncertainties 8,333$ 8,333$ -$

C.13 Copper Controls Subtotal 48,333$ 48,333$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,500$ -$ 4,500$ -$

M. C.14 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE), Legacy Pesticides and Selenium

1. C.14.a - Control program for PBDEs, legacy pesticides and selenium $ 25,000 25,000$ -$ 16,000$ 16,000$

C.14 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE), Legacy Pesticides and Selenium Subtotal 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,000$ -$ 16,000$




BUDGET (12/31/09) (06/30/10) (06/30/10) BUDGET


N. C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges

1. C.15.a & b - Staff Training (See C.4.d) -$ -$

C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges Subtotal -$ -$

MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT (MRP) COMPLIANCE SECTION TOTAL 1,749,035$ 2,286,786$ 695,194$ 1,161,679$ 124,000$ 14,947$ 1,436,955$ 595,500$ 712,237$ 129,218$

SECTIONS TOTAL (1 – 7) $ 3,232,970 $ 4,056,426 $ 1,535,838 $ 2,912,076 $ 249,250 $ 14,947 $ 3,159,934 $ 2,218,479 $ 712,237 $ 229,218

CONTINGENCY 7 -$ 40,564$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31,599$ 31,599$ -$ -$

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 8 & 9 $ 3,232,971 $ 4,096,990 $ 1,535,839 $ 2,912,076 $ 249,250 $ 14,947 $ 3,191,534 $ 2,250,079 $ 712,237 $ 229,218

10 INTEREST INCOME (9,210)$ (14,000)$ -$ (3,000)$ $ - $ - $ (3,500) -$ -$ -$

11 TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET $ 3,223,761 $ 4,082,990 $ 1,535,839 $ 2,909,076 $ 249,250 $ 14,947 $ 3,188,034 $ 2,250,079 $ 712,237 $ 229,218

1 Each item of the budget is derived from a regulatory or Management Committee directive. 10,000$ 418,000$ 2 See Page 13 for Personnel details. 239,250$ 294,237$ 3 Benefit percentages are 76% of salaries in FY 2010/11. 249,250$ 712,237$

6 See Pages 18-25 for Program Reserves/Encumbrances.7 Contingency is 1% of total budget. 8 Any unexpended funds not encumbered shall be returned to participating municipalities.

8

4 Administrative Overhead is salaries and benefits multiplied by 51% for FY 2010/11. 5 See Pages 14 to 16 for FY 2010/2011 activity details.

PROGRAM BUDGET RECONCILIATIONFISCAL YEAR 2009/10 WITH ADJUSTMENTS

- 12 -

ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 2009/10 BUDGET:

BEGINNING BUDGET: 4,076,385$

1. Item 3.C - not included in FY 09/10 budget detail 2,500$ California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC)

2. Item B.4 - changed from $16,617 to $15,657 (960)$ C.3 Training & materials

3. Item G.9 - not included in FY 09/10 budget detail 5,000$ Monitoring protocols and data quality

SUBTOTAL CHANGES: 6,540$

CHANGE IN CONTINGENCY 65$

FINAL APPROVED BUDGET: 4,082,990$

G:\GrpData\NPDES\BUDGETS\05 06\Draft Budget FY 10 11.5\Personnel - 13 -

1. STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL MANAGER 4. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING SPECIALIST

Donald P. Freitas – Step Five (75% Funded position) Elisa Wilfong – Step Five Management Differential – 5 % of salary 6,232$ x 12 = 74,789$ (To June 30, 2011) $ 8,946 x 9 = $ 80,511 (To June 30, 2011) $ 447 x 9 = $ 4,026 (To June 30, 2011)

Total $ 84,536 Total $ 74,789

2. ASSISTANT PROGRAM MANAGER 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Tom Dalziel – Step Five Management Differential - 5 % of salary Michelle McCauley - Step Five $ 7,881 x 12 = $ 94,569 (To June 30, 2011) $4,599 x 12 = $ 55,185 (To June 30, 2011) $ 394 x 12 = $ 4,728 (To June 30, 2011)

Total $ 99,298 Total $ 55,185

3. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING SPECIALIST 6. CLERK SENIOR LEVEL- (28/40 POSITION)

Jamison Crosby - Step Five Kristen Hardeman – Step Seven 6,232$ x 12 = 74,789$ (To June 30, 2011) $ 2,649 x 12 = $ 31,792 (To June 30, 2011)

Total $ 74,789 Total 31,792$

Salary Total 420,390$ Salary Adjust 30,000 (Manager's Reclassification)

Personnel Total 450,390$

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM FY 2010/11

PERSONNEL DETAIL

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAMPUBLIC INFORMATION / PARTICIPATION (PIP)

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 BUDGET

G:\NPDES\BUDGETS\10 11\Budget pack\Draft Budget FY 10 11.5 3/12/2010 -14-

APPROVED PROJECTED PROPOSEDACTIVITIES 2009/10 2009/10 2010/11

BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET

PEIO ENCUMBERED FUNDS 1

A. PEIO Encumbered Funds (323,258)$ (58,258)$ (58,258)$

USED OIL BLOCK GRANT

A. Estimated UOBG Funds (not included in totals) 95,000$ 72,184$ 75,000$

PEIO IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES (C.7)

A. Five year PEIO Implementation Strategy * 25,000$ 5,000$ $ 0

B. 800 Telephone Number Service Costs (C.7.d.i., ii., and iii.) 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

C. Promotion Items * (C.7.e.i. and iii.) 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$

D. Printing * (C.7.e.i. and iii.) 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

E. Consultant Services * 35,000$ 35,000$ 30,000$

SUB-TOTAL 91,000$ 71,000$ 61,000$

ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS

A. BASMAA's Regional Advertising Campaign (RAC) (C.7.b.i.) 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$

B. Community Awareness Program (To be moved to Prop 218 Budget) 250,000$ $ 0 $ 0

C. Annual Advertising Campaign * (C.7.b.i.)

1. Media Placement * (e.g. newspaper, radio, billboards, etc.) 305,000$ 295,000$ 200,000$





BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2. Pre and Post Surveys * (C.7.b.ii.(2) 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$

3. Focus Groups * $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

4. Media Evaluation Report * (C.7.b.iii.) 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

5. Website Development & Maintenance * (C.7.d.i. and ii.) 5,000$ 1,000$ 2,500$

6. Media Relations * (C.7.c.i., ii. and iii.) 15,000$ 15,000$ 5,000$

7. New Homeowner Direct Mail Outreach (C.7)* 0 10,000$ 20,000$

SUB-TOTAL 658,000$ 404,000$ 310,500$

PUBLIC OUTREACH / CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT EVENTS

A. Community Event Sponsorships (C.7.e.i. and iii.) 2,000$ 0 2,000$

SUB-TOTAL 2,000$ $ 0 2,000$

WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

A. Green Business Program (C.7.f.i., ii. and iii.) 9,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$

SUB-TOTAL 9,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$

EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

A. Newspapers in Education (NIE) Program (C.7.h.i., ii. and iii.) 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

B. "Kids in Creeks/Marshes/Gardens…" Program 2 15,000$ $ 0 $ 0





BUDGET BUDGET BUDGETC. Teacher Action Grants 3 40,000$ $ 0 $ 0

D. Mr. Funnelhead Student Awards Program (C.7.h.i. and iii.) 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

E. "Bringing Back the Natives" Program (C.7.f.i. and iii.) 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

F. "Kids for the Bay" Program 4 (C.7.h.i. and iii.) 32,000$ 32,000$ 32,000$

G. School Curriculum Development and Implementation (C.7.h.i. and iii.) 25,000$ $ 0 25,000$

SUB-TOTAL 128,000$ 48,000$ 73,000$

MRP OUTREACH ACTIVITIES (Various Permit Sections)

A. MRP Outreach Activities * 58,258$ 58,258$ 58,258$

SUB-TOTAL 58,258$ 58,258$ 58,258$

TOTAL FY 2009/10 PROGRAM PEIO BUDGET 5 623,000$ 532,000$ 455,500$ 1 Management Committee approved encumbering PEIO funds from FY 2008/09 to FY 2009/10 on April 15, 2009.2 Program provides fifty percent (50%) funding for one two-day workshop and three one-day workshops if co-permittees provide the other 50% funding. A total of six co-permittees contributing $2,500 each would be required.

4 Program provides fifty percent (50%) funding for a school Watershed Action Program (16 teachers/480 students) if co-permittees provide the other 50% funding. A total of eight co-permittees contributing $4,000 each would be required.5 UOBG Funds not included in total.

3 Teacher Action Grant funds can only be disbursed if at least one two-day workshop is provided; and, teacher has previously attended "Kids in"…Workshop.

G:\NPDES\BUDGETS\10 11\Budget pack\Draft Budget FY 10 11.5 - 17 -

City/County/State January 1, 2008 January 1, 2009 (1) Percent Prorata % of Budget (3)

Change Program (2) AllocationCONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1,051,674 1,060,435 0.83% 2,250,079$ ANTIOCH 100,361 100,957 0.59% 9.52% 214,215$ BRENTWOOD 50,614 51,908 2.56% 4.89% 110,141$ CLAYTON 10,784 10,864 0.74% 1.02% 23,052$ CONCORD 123,776 124,599 0.66% 11.75% 264,380$ DANVILLE 42,629 43,043 0.97% 4.06% 91,331$ EL CERRITO 23,320 23,440 0.51% 2.21% 49,736$ HERCULES 24,324 24,480 0.64% 2.31% 51,943$ LAFAYETTE 23,962 24,087 0.52% 2.27% 51,109$ MARTINEZ 36,144 36,348 0.56% 3.43% 77,125$ MORAGA 16,138 16,204 0.41% 1.53% 34,382$ OAKLEY 33,210 34,468 3.79% 3.25% 73,136$ ORINDA 17,542 17,669 0.72% 1.67% 37,491$ PINOLE 19,193 19,383 0.99% 1.83% 41,128$ PITTSBURG 63,652 63,771 0.19% 6.01% 135,312$ PLEASANT HILL 33,377 33,547 0.51% 3.16% 71,182$ RICHMOND 103,577 104,513 0.90% 9.86% 221,760$ SAN PABLO 31,190 31,808 1.98% 3.00% 67,492$ SAN RAMON 59,002 63,176 7.07% 5.96% 134,050$ WALNUT CREEK 65,306 65,860 0.85% 6.21% 139,745$ UNINCORP. COUNTY 173,573 170,310 -1.88% 16.06% 361,371$

100.00% 2,250,079$

1. Population estimate based on State of California Department of Finance (E-4) City/County projections- January 1, 2009. Figures are updated in May of each year.2. Percentages based on prorata of population.3. Budget Allocation amount is Utility Assessment amount which includes Contingency and Interest Income.

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAMGROUP COSTS METHODOLOGY & ALLOCATION

FOR THE 2010/11 FISCAL YEAR

RESERVES SUMMARIES

SECTION TWO

PROGRAM ENCUMBRANCESRECONCILIATION SUMMARIES

FY 2010/11

- 18 -

Summary of Reserves / Encumbrances:

1. MRP Reserves 158,095$ (As of July 1, 2011)

2. MRP Reserves 504,817$ (As of July 1, 2011)

3. Proposition 218 Election & Public Outreach Funds 1,250,000$ (As of July 1, 2011)

4. MRP Legal / Administrative Fund (As of July 1, 2010) 291,964$

5. C.3 Activities Encumbrances 44,947$ (As of July 1, 2010)

6. Miscellaneous Reserves $ 0(As of July 1, 2010)

7. Public Information/Participation 58,258$ (As of July 1, 2010)

8. Investment Revenue 105,561$

Total: 2,413,642$


FY 2010/11

- 19 -

Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Reserves:

These funds were collected annually as BASMAA Regional Monitoring Strategy Funds in prior years.

Revenue:

Balance as of July 1, 2007 1,208,946$

Expeditures:FY 2007/08 Orthodigital Photography 100,000$

Subtotal: 100,000$

Balance as of July 1, 2008 1,108,946$

FY 2008/09 MRP Legal Fund (Transferred) 200,000$ FY 2008/09 Urban Creek Council (SMPL) 30,018$ FY 2008/09 MRP Volunteer Monitoring (C.8.g.) 65,000$ FY 2008/09 MRP New Development and 94,636$

Redevelopment (C.3)Subtotal: 389,654$

Balance as of July 1, 2009 719,292$

FY 2009/10 MRP Legal Fund (Transferred) 100,000$ FY 2009/10 Urban Creek Council (SMPL) - Projected 25,000$ FY 2009/10 Bay Friendly Landscape Membership 250$ FY 2009/10 MRP Volunteer Monitoring (C.8.g.) - Projected 41,250$ FY 2009/10 MRP New Development and 100,000$ Redevelopment (C.3) - Projected

. Subtotal: 266,500$

Projected Balance as of July 1, 2010 452,082$

FY 2010/11 Bay Friendly Landscape Funding - Projected 15,000$ FY 2010/11 MRP Volunteer Monitoring (C.8.g.) - Projected 65,000$ FY 2009/10 MRP New Development and 200,000$ Redevelopment (C.3) - ProjectedGreen Streets Grant Incentives - Projected 13,987$

Subtotal: 293,987$



FY 2010/11

- 20 -

Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Reserves:

These funds were encumbered as unexpended budgeted MRP items in FY 2008/09.

Revenue:

Balance as of July 1, 2010 922,817$

C.2 Municipal Operations (20,000)$ C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls (40,000)$ C.8 Water Quality Monitoring (230,000)$ C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control (15,000)$ C.10 Trash Reduction (5,000)$ C.11 Mercury Controls (45,000)$ C.12 PCB Controls (42,500)$ C.13 Copper Controls (4,500)$ C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium (16,000)$

Total: (418,000)$



FY 2010/11

- 21 -

PROPOSITION 218 ELECTION:

FY 2005/06 (Approved) 200,000$ FY 2006/07 (Approved) 300,000$ FY 2007/08 (Approved) 300,000$ FY 2008/09 (Approved) 200,000$ FY 2009/10 (Approved) 100,000$

FY 2010/11 (Proposed) 200,000$ Balance: 1,300,000$

EXPENDITURES:

FY 2009/10 (Projected*) 50,000$ FY 2010/11 (Proposed) 250,000$

Balance: 300,000$

Projected Balance as of July 1, 2011 1,000,000$

Public Outreach Funds:

FY 2008/09 (Encumbered from PIP Budget) 250,000$ 250,000$

Total Combined Projected Budgets as of July 1, 2011 $1,250,000

* Any funds not expended shall be encumbered to FY 2010/11


FY 2010/11

- 22 -

Municipal Regional Permit (MRP):Legal / Administrative Fund

Funding was received from the MRP Reserve.

Revenue:

FY 2008/09 (Approved / Transferred) 200,000$ FY 2009/10 (Approved / Transferred) 100,000$

Total: 300,000$

Expenditures:

FY 2009/10 (Morrison & Foerster Legal services for the 8,036$ "Petition for Review")

Total: 8,036$



FY 2010/11

- 23 -

C.3 Activities Encumbrances:New Development and Redevelopment

C.3 Legal:

Prior Carryover (Approved) 30,000$ Total: 30,000$

C.3 IMP Sizing Tool:

FY 2008/09 (Approved) 15,000 FY 2009/10 (Expended) (15,000)

Total: $ 0

C.3 Training and Materials:

Prior Carryover (Approved) 15,657$ FY 2009/10 Expenses (710)$

Balance: 14,947$

C.3 Plant Selection Guide:

FY 2008/09 (Approved) 10,000$ FY 2008/09 Expenses (9,883)$ Returned to Source (117)$

Balance: $ 0

Projected Balance as of July 1, 2010 $44,947


FY 2010/11

- 24 -

Miscellaneous Reserves:

Countywide Inspection ProgramPrior carryover (Approved) 25,000$ HMP Monitoring Grant Incentives (25,000)$

$ 0

Watershed Management ActivitesPrior carryover (Approved) 25,000$ HMP Monitoring Grant Incentives (25,000)$

$ 0

Countywide Creek InventoryPrior carrover (Approved) 6,013$ Green Streets Grant Incentives (6,013)$

$ 0

Total: $ 0


FY 2010/11

- 25 -

Public Information / Participation

MRP Outreach Activities (Approved) 58,258$ Total: 58,258$

Projected Balance as of July 1, 2010 $58,258


FY 2010/11

- 26 -

Investment Revenue

FY 2005/06 (Actual) 63,145.41$

FY2006/07 (Actual) 24,173.85$

FY 2007/08 (Actual) 2,531.94$

FY 2008/09 (Actual) 9,209.53$

FY 2009/10 (Projected) 3,000.00$

FY 2010/11 (Projected) 3,500.00$

105,560.73$

Projected Balance as of July 1, 2010 105,560.73$

SECTION THREE

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD-SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Explanation of Standard Hourly Rate Schedule Page 1

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Explanation of Standard Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rates I. Total Average Annual Employee Work Hours Labor rates are determined by taking an actual salary per month and dividing it by the average number of hours per employee worked. For Public Works, the following calculation was made for all our employees for fiscal year 2007/2008. Total Working Hours in Prior Fiscal Year 2006-2007 2,000.00 Less: Vacations [268 employees receive 40260 hrs.] (150.22) Sick Leave 70% [17977.6 hrs ÷ 268] (67.08) Military Leave [330 hrs ÷ 268 Employees] (1.23) State Worker’s Compensation [7616 ÷ 268] (28.42) MOU time(CE exams, doctor follow ups) [572.6 ÷ 268] (2.14) Service Award Hours [160 hrs÷ 268] (0.60) Admin Leave (6730 hrs ÷ 268] (25.11) SDO Management [1016 hrs ÷ 268] (3.79) Comp Time-Reg, 9/80 Comp, Holiday Comp 2713.8 hrs ÷ 268 (10.13) Floating Holiday [5271.9 hrs ÷ 268] (19.67) Jury Duty [596 hrs ÷ 268] ( 2.22) State Disability Insurance (SDI) [15 hrs ÷ 268] (0.06) VDT Hours [9.2 hrs ÷ 268] (0.03) Misc PTO [17 hrs ÷ 268] (0.06) Work Leave Hours [4046.2 hrs ÷ 268] (15.10) Total Average Billable Employee Works Hours in FY 06-07 1,674.14 II. Annual Cost The next step performed in determining our hourly charge rate is calculating the County cost for each employee at each salary step. A sample of this calculation for three (3) monthly salaries of $4,232, $6,232 and $9,393 is shown below:

1 Monthly Salary

2

Annual Salary

3

Retire

4

Med Insur.

5

Work Comp.

6

Unemploy Insur.

7

FICA

Annual Cost

$4,232

$50,784

$24,376

$11,340

$2,661

$157

$3,885

$ 93,203

6,232 74,784 35,896 11,340 3,919 232 5,721 131,892 9,393 112,716 54,104 11,340 5,906 349 8,170 192,585

Explanation of Columns: 1. Monthly salary - actual salary paid to employee. (Includes base salary + differentials & allowances) 2. Annual salary - monthly salary times 12. 3. Retirement – 48% used in this sample varies year to year (averages the three retirement tiers,

includes OPEB and Retiree Health Care.) 4. Medical ins. - average of $11,340 is used. (Average between the various health plans) 5. Worker's Comp – 5.24% is used varies year to year. 6. Unemployment Insurance – .31% is used in this sample varies year to year. 7. FICA - 7.65% is used in this sample. FICA annual salary cap limit was $106,800.


III. County Labor Cost plus Fringe Benefits The next step is to take the annual County cost and divide it by the average number of work hours in the year per employee. This calculation gives us the hourly cost per employee for each salary step. For the three salaries used above, the calculation results in the following:

TITLE

MONTHLY SALARY

TOTAL ANNUAL COUNTY COST

AVE. ANNUAL WORK HOURS

PUBLIC WORKS HOURLY RATE

Sample I

$4,232

$ 93,203

1,674

$ 55.68

Sample II

6,232

131,892

1,674

78.79

Sample III

9,393

192,585

1,674

115.04

IV. Overhead Rate Overhead is added to all County Public Works labor costs no matter what the type of charge. The overhead rate percentage has three components: Divisional overhead, Departmental overhead and Outside overhead. A. The Divisional overhead rate from which each employee receives direct or

indirect benefits is comprised of Administration, Clerical support, Training and various divisional operating expenses. It is calculated by dividing the overhead expenses by the direct labor base.

1. Divisional Administration includes supervision by division heads and senior

staff. 2. Divisional Clerical includes assigned and casual clerical staff. 3. Training according to each divisional training plan includes personal

growth, computer and technical training. 4. Divisional Operating Expenses include, but are not limited to, building

occupancy costs base on square footage each division occupies, accounting services as requested, books, outside services and supplies, computer operations based on the number of computers in each division, office equipment maintenance, telephone & communications, and the cost of County vehicles used for support.

B. Departmental overhead is composed of:

1. Administration of the Department by the Director, Deputies and Administrative service staff dealing with personnel issues and the Public Works budget.

2. Departmental Services and Supplies 3. Departmental Operating Expenses such as building occupancy costs (for

meeting rooms, bathrooms, hallways and common areas), Departmental


Accounting (for personnel, payroll, purchasing and management reporting) as requested.

4. Departmental Mandatory Training C. Outside Overhead: Costs not included in the Divisional and Public Works

Departmental overhead percentages are those from other departments such as Human Resources and County Administrator, who assists the Public Works Director and staff. These are costs from the County wide cost allocation plan. They are determined by dividing the cost allocation plan cost for Public Works by our direct labor base and are currently 6 percent. This 6 percent is added to charges to special districts and outside jurisdictions. (Note: not added to CCTA invoices.)

D. Since all divisions will bear the same departmental and outside overhead rate,

the total overhead percentage for any given division of Public Works will vary according to the costs incurred or allocated to each division. Rates among divisions may vary widely since some, like Engineering Services, are tasked to maintain the Land Development Records; others, like the Materials and Testing Lab have a specialized building with proportionately large building occupancy costs and yet most have no such large overhead burdens. Divisional rates for FY2007/2008 range from 22% to 90%, and the Departmental Rate is 22% as of 1/1/2006. For Work Orders involving Special Districts or Outside Agencies a 6% is added to the amounts in our examples. (See Section "C” above).

V. Standard Hourly Charge Rate

A. The overhead applied to the rates in the above example would result in a standard hourly charge rate:

Title

PWD Hourly

$Rate

Overhead %Rate

Overhead

$Rate

PWD Hourly

$Rate

Hourly Rate

Incl O/H Sample I

$55.68

67%

$37.31

$55.68

$92.99

Sample II

78.79

58%

45.70

78.79

124.49

Sample III

115.04

77%

88.58

115.04

203.62

Note: The overhead applied to all Land Development Tasks (sometimes referred to as the MSI Rate) is the divisional overhead rate for Engineering Services Division (which is responsible for all Land Development functions and the Land Development records) plus 17%. g:acctng\names\wanda\accounting for PW\Rate Development\Hourly Rate FY20072008.doc

SECTION FOUR

PROGRAM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Consultants:

C.3.Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting

PIPO'Rorke, Inc.Kathy Kramer ConsultingKids For the BayMatt Bolender-Used Oil Block Grant -(UBOG)Newspaper in Education (NIE)Green Business

MONTIORINGBrown and CaldwellDept. of Conservation andDevelopment (Vol. Monit. Coord.)Urban Creeks Council (SMPL)

INSPECTIONCentral Contra Costa Sanitary Dist.East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictDelta Diablo Sanitation District

MUNIBay-Friendly LanscapingConsumer Product StewardshipCouncil

Donald P. FreitasProgram Manager

Contra Costa Clean Water ProgramManagement Committee

City/Town CouncilsCounty of Contra Costa

Contra Costa County Flood Control &Water Conservation District

Contra Costa Clean WaterProgram Structure

FY 2009/10

Michelle McCauleyAdminstrative

Analyst

Kristen HardemanProgram Secretary

(Senior Clerk)

Jamison CrosbyWatershed Management

Planning Specialist

Elisa WilfongWatershed Management

Planning Specialist

G://GrpData/NPDES/Org Charts\CCCWP Program Structure 09/10Last Updated: Feb 24, 2010

Attachment "A"

AdministrativeSupport Staff

Tom DalzielAssistant Program Manager

(Senior Watershed MgmtPlanning Specialist)

SECTION FIVE

MAJOR JOB CATEGORIES BY PERCENTAGES

Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager - Major Job Categories by Percentages

• Program Support Staff 15%

Management Committee Administrative Committee Public Education & Industrial Outreach Committee

• Supervision of Program staff 5% Assistant Program Manager Program Staff & Consultants

• Personnel 5% Reviews Vacations Timesheets Salary Review

• Budgets 20% Annual budget development & tracking Coordination with accounting Oversight of all contracts, consulting services agreements, purchase orders, etc. Stormwater Utility Fee (SWUF) process

• Program Representation 10% Chair of BASMAA’s Executive Committee San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances Steering

Committee

California Stormwater Quality Association National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies

• Program Spokesperson 2% Radio, Television, Print Media Regional Boards City/Town Councils Board of Supervisors Mayors’ Conference Workshops (e.g., Contra Costa County Watershed Forum)

• Presentations 3% Public Managers’ Association (PMA) East Bay Municipal Engineers Association City/County Engineering Advisory Committee City/County Attorneys’ Association Contra Costa Council Home Builders Association (HBA) Mayors’ Conference Public Education and Community Outreach Events

• Program Liaison to County & Flood Control District 5% Personnel & Human Services Contracts Board Orders Office & Equipment Accounting

• Permit Reissuance (Municipal Regional Permit) 25% Liaison to Regional Boards Point of contact Coordination of municipalities Plan development Implementation

• Program Funding 5% Coordination with Flood Control District Liaison to Associations and Organizations Legislative Coordinator TOTAL 100%

Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager -- Major Job Categories by Percentages

• Program Staff Support 10% Development Committee Management Committee Administrative Committee

• Supervision of Program Staff 20% Watershed Management Planning Specialists Administrative Analyst Program Secretary

• Program Representation & Administration 15% Primary Point of Contact Budgetary Support to Program Manager Program Spokesperson (in Manager’s absence) BASMAA’s Executive Board (in Manager’s absence) Permit Reissuance Support to Program Manager BASMAA’s Development Committee California Stormwater Quality Association National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies

• New Development & Construction Controls 35% Project Manager for Program C.3 Implementation Activities

Development Committee Guidebook & Appendices Presentations Training & Outreach C3 Assistance to Municipalities and Applicants Data Management & Reporting Contract Administration

o Dan Cloak Construction Activities

Training & Outreach o Construction Site Inspector Training o Outreach & Training for Building Inspectors o Public Education and Information Materials

• Research & Policy Analysis 15% Regulatory Programs and Legislation

Stormwater Advisory Task Force State General Construction Permit Program & BMP Effectiveness Strategy Development Municipal Regional Permit Stream & Wetland Protection Policies

• Annual Report 5% Coordination & Oversight of Preparation Process Format Submittals to Regional Boards Volume I Editor Group Program Analysis & Reporting

Program Management New Development & Construction Controls State & Regional Activities

TOTAL 100%

Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist - Major Job Categories by Percentages

• Program Representation in State/Regional Activities 30%

California Stormwater Quality Association Urban Pesticide Committee BASMAA’s Monitoring Committee and Regional Monitoring Coalition Bay Area Macroinvertebrate Information Network (BAMBI) Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances Regional Monitoring Program’s Sources, Pathways, and Loadings Workgroup

• Program Staff Support 10% Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee

• Research & Policy Analysis 30% Regulatory Programs & Legislation

Implementation of Municipal Regional Permit TMDL’s Stream and Wetland Protection Policy State and Regional Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)

• Monitoring Plan 20% Contra Costa Monitoring & Assessment Plan (CCMAP)

Geographic Information System (GIS) development & coordination Information management system development and oversight Bioassessments Volunteer training, coordination and oversight Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator – oversight and direction Creeks Inventory Case studies development (PCB et. al.)

Participation in Watershed Groups Marsh, Kirker, Pinole, San Pablo, Alhambra, Alameda, etc.

Regional Monitoring Coordination/Participation Contra Costa Watershed Forum Streamside Management Program for Private Property Owners (SMPPL) BASMAA Regional Monitoring Collaboration BASMAA Monitoring Committee

Special Studies and Projects (e.g. Pool Spa Discharge Implementation) Contracting Oversight Coordination

• Annual Report 10% Group Program Analysis & Reporting

Monitoring & Special Studies Watershed Management Activities TOTAL 100%

Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist - Major Job Categories by Percentages

• Program Staff Support 50% Municipal Operations Committee (MOC) BASMAA Municipal Operations/Trash Committee

• Commercial/Industrial Inspection Program 10% Contracts & Coordination

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District East Bay Municipal Utility District Delta Diablo Sanitation District Individual Municipal Inspection Programs

Training & Outreach Green Business Program Data Management & Analysis

• Illicit Discharge Control Activities 4% Coordination and Oversight Training and Outreach Incident Reports Data Management & Analysis

• Annual Report 15% Municipal Annual Report Review and Analysis Group Analysis and Reporting

Municipal Maintenance Activities Inspection Program Illicit Discharge Control Activities Pesticide Reduction Activities Trash Load Reduction Activities

Annual Report Preparation • Research & Policy Analysis 10%

Regulatory Programs & Legislation State General Industrial Permit Interpretation Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Interpretation

• Municipal Maintenance Activities 10% Training & Outreach Illegal Dumping Disposal Outreach IPM Certification / BMPs

Outreach for Pesticide Applicators • Research Grant Opportunities 1%

Develop Proposals for Cleanwater Outreach/Projects TOTAL 100%

Michelle McCauley, Administrative Analyst - Major Job Categories by Percentages

• Administrative support to line staff 15% • Coordinate Annual Report Process 5%

Supplies Timelines Conversion of hard copies to electronic copies

• Board Orders 5% Track and oversee preparation Coordination with clerical staff Coordination with county staff

• Purchasing and Contracts 20% Execute and Monitor

Purchase Orders and Warrant Requests Format and Obtain Approval of Consultant Contracts

• Budgets 10% Coordinate preparation of Program’s annual budget Monitor Program budgets Liaison to County Accounting

• Staff Support 15% Prepare all committee meeting agendas and minutes Track co-permittees’ participation

• Program’s Web Presence 15% Coordinate development of Program’s Website Maintain Program’s Website Maintain Facebook page

• Coordinate PEIO activities 5% Community events PEIO material production and distribution Requests for materials Tracking and reporting Inventory

• Program contact to public 5% • Workshops 5%

Logistics Development and distribution of flyers Registration Transportation Facility and setup Attendance Refreshments Evaluations

TOTAL 100%

Kristen Hardeman, Senior Clerk (28/40) - Major Job Categories by Percentages • Program Staff Administrative Support 20%

Attend meetings as necessary Process miscellaneous requests Implement special projects Schedule meetings and conference rooms; handle meeting logistics

• Committee Agenda Packets 20% Coordinate monthly packet preparation

Typing Copying Distribution Special requests

• Word-processing & Dictaphone Transcription 15% Program Manager Assistant Program Manager; and, (2) Watershed Management Planning

Specialists

Administrative Analyst • Committee Rosters & Program Data Lists 10%

6 Committees (Program & BASMAA Subcommittees) Maintain / distribute Program roster to staff and co-permittees Create and distribute e-mail lists for each committee Maintain sign-in sheets for committees Maintain Program contacts Maintain database for RFPs / RFQs and outreach mailings

• Program files 10% Maintain / organize existing filing system Create new files

• 1 800 No Dumping Line Attendant 10% Answer incoming calls / respond to voicemail messages Field illegal dumping calls Refer to appropriate agency for follow-up Maintain log of illegal dumping calls (i.e., “Hotline Spreadsheet”) Respond to general inquiries from public

o Proper disposal / recycling of used oil, HHW, etc. o Prepare and distribute requested educational or promotional

items to residents

• Calendars 5% Update and maintain monthly calendars

• PEIO Material 5% Respond to requests for materials from 21 Co-permittees and general

public

Handle PEIO fulfillment Prepare and mail PEIO materials to residents as requested Process PEIO requests submitted to Program website

Track distribution of materials Maintain inventory Responsible for checking out Program diorama (i.e., watershed model)

and charity car wash kit

• Miscellaneous Office Duties and Responsibilities: 5% Process Timesheets and Travel Demands for staff Maintain office equipment / supplies Mail distribution Provide back-up support to Administrative Analyst TOTAL 100%

G:\NPDES\BUDGETS\10 11\Staff Job Percentages 09 10.doc

SECTION SIX

CONSULTANT LIST

FY 2009/10 CONSULTANT LIST

2/12/2009 1

CONTRACTOR CONTACT/EMAIL PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTRACT

AMOUNT TERM C.3 Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting, Inc. PO Box 2415 El Cerrito, CA 94530-5415

Dan Cloak [email protected]

C.3 Implementation, Technical Support

$100,000 07/01/09 – 06/30/10

SUBTOTAL $100,000

PUBLIC EDUCATION & INDUSTRIAL OUTREACH O’Rorke 55 Hawthorne St., Suite 430 San Francisco, CA 94105

Tracy Keough (415) 543-1426

PEIO Outreach Services $473,000 07/01/09 – 06/30/10

Kathy Kramer Consulting 1718 Hillcrest Road San Pablo, CA 94806 (510) 236-9558

Kathy Kramer [email protected]

Natives Garden Tour $10,000 07/01/09– 06/30/10

Kids for the Bay 1771 Alcatraz Ave. Berkeley, Ca 94703 (510) 985-1602

Mandi Billenge [email protected]

Teacher/Student workshops for fourth grade students to adopt their local watershed

$32,000 07/01/09 – 06/30/10

Green Business Program Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division 4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 646-2286

Robin Bedel-Waite [email protected]

Support County Green Business Program

$9,000 07/01/09- 06/30/10







2/12/2009 2


AMOUNT TERM Newspapers in Education PO Box 5515 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Shirley Benzler [email protected]

Support stormwater curriculum in newspapers at schools

$3,000 07/01/09- 06/30/10

SUBTOTAL $527,000 USED OIL BLOCK GRANT Matt Bolender (& Actors) 968 Rolling Woods Way Concord, CA 94521 (925) 518-5410

Matt Bolender [email protected]

Used Oil Block Grant Program Cycle #14

07/01/09 – 06/30/10

SUBTOTAL

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT & MONITORING Brown and Caldwell 210 North Civic Drive, Ste. 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925) 210-2515

Mike Flake / Khalil Abusaba [email protected]

Technical and Project Management Support

120,000 07/01/09– 06/30/10

Urban Creeks Council 1250 Addison St., Suite 204 Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 540-6669

Mike Vukman [email protected]

Streamside Management Program for Private Landowners

$25,000 07/01/09 – 06/30/10

Dept. of Conservation & Development 651 Pine Street, North Wing. 4th Flr. Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 335-1315

Michelle Luebke [email protected]

Citizen’s Watershed Monitoring Program

$65,000 07/01/09 – 06/30/10







2/12/2009 3


AMOUNT TERM SUBTOTAL $210,000

INSPECTION Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/East Bay Municipal Utility District/Delta Diablo Sanitation District (925) 229-7380

Tim Potter [email protected]

Municipal Inspections $360,939 includes RIC

In perpetuity

SUBTOTAL $360,939

TOTAL $1,197,939 G:\NPDES\BUDGETS\10 11\Contractor Summary 08 09.doc


SECTION SEVEN

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS LIST & HISTORY

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM HISTORY OF CONTRACTORS/RFQs/MEMBERSHIPS THROUGH FY 09/10

2/12/2009 1

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History C.3 Dan Cloak C.3 Technical Support $240,000 11/01/03-06/30/05 $111,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $111,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $110,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $100,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $100,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 PWA C.3/HMP Development $399,000 June 2004 08/02/04-12/31/05 Extension 01/01/06-12/31/06 Extension/Increase/Scope $81,000 01/01/07-06/30/07 Extension 07/01/07-03/30/08 WRA, Inc. C.3/HMP Technical Support $10,000 09/01/08-03/31/09 Brown & Caldwell C.3/HMP Technical Support $54,968 07/01/08-06/30/09 $120,000 09/01/08-06/30/09 $120,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 PEIO / PIP ASTONE/Panagraph PEIO Services $275,000 August 2000 10/01/00-06/30/01 $300,000 07/01/01-06/30/02 $280,000 07/01/02-06/30/03 $280,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $275,000 June 2004 07/01/04-06/30/05 $278,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $476,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $479,500 07/01/07-06/30/08 O’Rorke Inc. PEIO Services $588,000 July 2008 10/15/08-06/30/09 $473,000 07/01/09-06/30/10


2/12/2009 2

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History AOI/The Watershed

Project Teacher Action Grants/“Kids in” … Workshops

$55,000 07/01/02-06/30/03

$55,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $55,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 $55,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $55,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $55,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $55,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 Kids for the Bay Teacher/Student Workshops $20,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 $32,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $32,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $32,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $32,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $32,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Kathy Kramer

Consulting Bring Back the Natives Garden Tour $15,000 07/01/04-06/30/05

$15,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $10,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $10,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $10,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $10,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Green Business Support Green Business

Organization $9,000 07/01/02-06/30-03

$9,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $9,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 $9,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $9,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $9,000 07/01/07-06/30/08


2/12/2009 3

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History Green Business Support Green Business

Organization $9,000 07/01/08-06/30/09

$9,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Contra Costa Times Newspapers in Education (NIE) $4,000 07/01/02-06/30/03 $4,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $4,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 $3,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $3,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $3,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $3,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $3,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Matt Bolender Used Oil Block Grant $25,000 June 1994 07/01/94-06/30/95 $25,000 07/01/95-06/30/96 $45,000 07/01/96-06/30/97 $45,000 07/01/97-06/30/98 $45,000 07/01/98-06/30/99 $45,000 07/01/99-06/30/00 $45,000 07/01/00-06/30/01 $50,000 07/01/01-06/30/02 $56,000 07/01/02-06/30/03 $56,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $56,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 $56,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $56,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $56,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $56,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $56,000 07/01/09-06/30/10


2/12/2009 4

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History MUNI / MOC Cmte Applied Marine

Sciences Street Sweeping Analysis $50,000 07/01/06-12/31/06

Bay Friendly

Landscaping IPM Workshops $16,250 07/01/08-06/30/09

$250 07/01/09-06/30/10 Illicit Discharge / MOC Cmte

Consumer Product Stewardship Council

$2,500 07/01/08-06/30/09

$2,500 07/01/09-06/30/10 WAM / MON Cmte EOA, Inc Watershed Monitoring & Tech.

Support $40,000 10/01/02-06/30/03

$90,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $141,500 07/01/04-06/30/05 $147,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $75,500 07/01/06-06/30/07 Extension 07/01/07-12/31/07 Brown & Caldwell Watershed Monitoring & Tech.

Support $50,000 July 2007 09/01/07-06/30/08

$120,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $120,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Scott Cressey Watershed Monitoring $25,000 04/01/01-01/31/02 $75,000 03/12/02-01/31/03 $75,000 04/01/03-03/31/04 $65,000 04/01/04-03/31/05 $58,000 04/01/05-03/31/06 $49,000 04/25/06-03/31/07


2/12/2009 5

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History

Dept. of Conservation & Development

Volunteer Citizens Monitoring-Grant Work continuation

$55,000 07/01/06-06/30/07

$74,750 07/01/07-06/30/08 $65,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $65,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 Urban Creeks

Council SMPL Program $25,000 07/01/01-06/30/02

$25,000 07/01/02-06/30/03 $25,000 07/01/03-06/30/04 $25,000 07/01/04-06/30/05 Amend/Incr.-Danville creeks consults $33,000 07/01/05-06/30/06 $25,000 07/01/06-06/30/07 $25,000 07/01/07-06/30/08 $25,000 07/01/08-06/30/09 $25,000 07/01/09-06/30/10 City of Pittsburg

(JEPA) Golf Course Study $200,000 06/18/01-12/31/03

Extension 12/31/03-12/31/06 Inspections / MOC Cmte

Central San, et al Inspection Services (Billed to Cities) 06/17/97-06/30/98

Contract -2 yr $405,018 07/01/98-06/30/00 Extension-2 yr $493,380 07/01/00-06/30/02 Extension-1 yr $258,030 07/01/02-06/30/03 Contract –2 yr $550,620 07/01/03-06/30/05 Extension-2yr $564,550 07/01/05-06/30/07 Extension-2 yr $580,930 07/01/07-06/30/09 Inspection Agreement amended in

perpetuity $360,939 Includes RIC 10/06/09 to cancel


2/12/2009 6

Contractor Description Contr. Amt. RFQ History Contract History Admin SCI Consulting Prop 218 Analysis/Survey $40,428 April 2006 05/02/06-11/30/06

SECTION EIGHT

SUA HISTORICAL SUMMARY

Date: March 17, 2010

To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item B – APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s

Recommended Staffing for the Current Organizational Structure, and Recommendation to Call for an Immediate Examination for the Program Manager’s Position

Recommendation: Approve the Administrative Committee’s recommended staffing for the current organization structure; and, request an immediate examination for the Program Manager’s position. Background: The Contra Costa Clean Water Program is comprised of six (6) permanent positions (see Action Item “A” Organizational Chart). The 2011/12 Fiscal Year Program Budget assumes all positions will be permanently filled. This assumption needs to be affirmed or amended by the Management Committee since it impacts the Program’s budget, its operations and the delineation of MRP implementation activities to be conducted either by the Program or co-permittees. The second policy consideration for the Management Committee is backfilling the Program Manager’s position which will become vacant on March 31, 2010 due to the retirement of the incumbent. The normal length of time to fill such a position is between six to nine (6 – 9) months. The FY 2010/11 Budget envisions the new manager being appointed in late summer. The budget reflects this possibility by only providing nine (9) months of funding for this position in FY 2010/11. Prior to an examination being announced, the job specification needs to be revised, a salary survey needs to be conducted and a determination needs to be made if the examination will open, promotional or open/promotional. Fiscal Impact: To be determined.

Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item B Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010

To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item C – APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s

Recommendation to Appoint the Assistant Program Manager as the Interim Program Manager Effective March 31, 2010

Recommendation: Appoint Mr. Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager (Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist) effective March 31, 2010 as the Interim Contra Costa Clean Water Program Manager. Background: Due to the pending retirement of the incumbent Program Manager, the Administrative Committee is recommending Mr. Tom Dalziel be appointed as the Program’s Interim Manager. He meets or exceeds all current minimum qualifications for the position. Mr. Dalziel would assume all duties and responsibilities of Manager until a permanent selection has been made. The estimated time of the interim appointment is between six to nine (6 – 9) months. According to the Personnel Management Regulations for Contra Costa County, when an employee is required to work in a higher classification then he is to be compensated for the increase of duties and responsibilities. The increase in pay will begin on the 21st calendar day of the new assignment. His current salary will increase by five percent (5%). Fiscal Impact: Approximately $10,000 Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item C Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Program Staff Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item D – APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Program to Allocate

Funding and Negotiate and Execute Contracts Recommendation: Program staff is requesting authorization to allocate funding; and, negotiate and execute contracts for specific services/activities consistent with the adopted Fiscal Year 2010/11 Group Program Budget. Background: Under Action Item “A”, the Management Committee will be considering approval of the Administrative Committee’s recommended Fiscal Year 2010/11 Group Program Budget. The recommended budget, if adopted, will provide funds for implementation of a variety of Program services/activities designed to comply with the mandates contained in the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Program staff is requesting authorization to allocate specified funds; and, negotiate and execute contracts with the following firms: 1. Brown & Caldwell Consultants for General Technical Support Services for a Cost

Not to Exceed $140,000 (Budget Line Item 5.A.);

2. Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting for C.3 Technical Support Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $100,000 (Budget Line Item 7.B.1.);

3. Freitas & Associates for Program Management Support Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $60,000 (Budget Line Item 5.D.);

4. O’Rorke Consulting for Public Education Outreach & Marketing Services for a Cost Not to Exceed $345,500 (Budget Line Item 7.F.1., 7.F.4, and 7.F.6);

5. “Kids for the Bay” for a Cost Not to Exceed $32,000 (Budget Line Item 7.F.5.);

6. Kathy Kramer Consulting for the Native Gardens Tour for a Cost Not to Exceed $10,000 (Budget Line Item 7.F.5.);

7. Matt Bolender for Use Oil Recycling Program for a Cost Not to Exceed $56,000 (Used Oil Block Grant – Not a Budget Line Item); and,

8. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development for Volunteer Creek Monitoring for a Cost Not to Exceed $65,000 (Budget Line Item 7.G.7.)

Fiscal Impact: With the exception of item #7 above, the above requested allocations are for funds provided in the Fiscal Year 2010/11 Group Program Budget. Funding for item #7 is provided by the Used Oil Block Grant. Attachment(s): None. TD:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item D Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item E – APPROVE the Municipal Operations Committee’s

Recommended Model Enforcement Response Plan Pending Legal Review

Recommendation: Approve the Municipal Operations Committee’s (MOC) recommended Model Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) pending legal review. Background: Provision C.4, C.5, and C.6 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) require an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) as a reference document for consistent actions, timely response, and effective compliance with commercial/industrial inspections, construction inspections, and illicit discharge investigations in the field. The due date for adoption and implementation of the ERP by co-permittees is April 1, 2010. San Francisco Bay Regional Quality Control Board (Regional Board) staff has granted the option of merging the ERP requirement in C.3, C.4, and C.5 into one ERP document. Program staff has drafted such a document to provide to the co-permittees as a model ERP. The Municipal Operations Committee (MOC) and the Development Committee have reviewed the model ERP. Both committees have provided comments and feedback to Program staff. Program staff has incorporated all comments into the model ERP and has sent the model to County Counsel for legal review. Program staff has not received an update from County Counsel regarding their review of the model ERP. Considering the pending due date for the ERP, Program staff’s recommendation is to accept the MOC’s recommended model ERP as a working draft at the March meeting to ensure enough time for co-permittees to conduct their own legal review and adopt the document as a “living document” to be revised as necessary once the County Counsel’s legal review is complete.

Program staff will provide an updated ERP in April after the legal review has been completed. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. Model Enforcement Response Plan EW:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item E Mar 10.doc

Contra Costa Clean Water Program

Model Enforcement Response Plan

2010

Prepared for:

Contra Costa Clean Water Program Management Committee

Prepared by:

Program Staff Contra Costa Clean Water Program

255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553

(925) 313-2360

Contra Costa Clean Water Program – Model Enforcement Response Plan

i

Table of Contents

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

1.1. Municipal Code .................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Compliance with Best Management Practices ........................................................ 2

1.3. Legal Authority .................................................................................................. 2

SECTION 2. RESPONSE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ............................................ 7

2.1. Levels of Enforcement ........................................................................................ 7

2.2. Fines ................................................................................................................10

2.3. Recordkeeping ..................................................................................................10

Table 1: ......................................................................................................................11

Flowchart of Tiered Enforcement Response ....................................................................11

Appendix A: ................................................................................................................11

database of enforcement actions and incidents ..............................................................12


ii

List of Tables

Table 1 Flowchart of Tiered Enforcement Response

List of Appendixes

Appendix A Database of Enforcement Actions and Incidents


iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BMP Best Management Practice CCCSD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program CCWD Contra Costa Water District DDSD Delta Diablo Sanitation District EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERP Enforcement Response Plan MRP Municipal Regional Permit NOI Notice of Intent NOV Notice of Violation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board WN Warning Notice


iv

Definitions

Cease and Desist

Order A cease and desist (also called C & D) is an order or request to halt an activity, or else face legal action. The recipient of the cease-and-desist may be an individual or an organization

Construction Site Any project, including projects requiring coverage under the

General Construction Permit, that involves soil disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, paving, disturbances to ground such as stockpiling, and excavation. Construction sites are all sites with disturbed or graded land area not protected by vegetation, or pavement, that are subject to a building or grading permit

Erosion The diminishing or wearing away of land due to wind, or water.

Often the eroded debris (silt or sediment) becomes a pollutant via stormwater runoff. Erosion occurs naturally, but can be intensified by land disturbing and grading activities such as farming, development, road building, and timber harvesting

General Permits Waste Discharge Requirements or NPDES Permits containing

requirements that are applicable to a class or category of dischargers. The State of California has general stormwater permits for construction sites that disturb soil of 1 acre or more; industrial facilities; `Phase II smaller municipalities (including nontraditional Small MS4s, which are governmental facilities, such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes); and small linear underground/overhead projects disturbing at least 1 acre, but less than 5 acres (including trenching and staging areas)

Grading The cutting and/or filling of the land surface to a slope or elevation Illicit Discharge Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer (storm drain)

system (MS4) that is prohibited under local, state, or federal statutes, ordinances, codes, or regulations. The term illicit discharge includes all non-stormwater discharges not composed


v

entirely of stormwater and discharges that are identified under Section A. (Discharge Prohibitions) of this Permit. The term illicit discharge does not include discharges that are regulated by an NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the MS4) or authorized by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) A national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing,

terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the CWA

Notice of Intent (NOI) The application form by which dischargers seek coverage under

General Permits, unless the General Permit requires otherwise Stop Work

Order Used for construction site control; an inspector issues a Stop Work Order when construction work creates an active non-point source or non-stormwater pollutant discharge that violates the local stormwater ordinance, and is identified during an inspection and is not abated. The contractor will be in violation of the building permit if work is continued before the stormwater issue is addressed.

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan used for facilities or sites

documenting their site-specific stormwater pollution prevention BMPs and any other stormwater regulation requirements issued by State General Permits if said permit is required.


1

Section 1. Introduction

The purpose of this Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) is to provide standard

enforcement response protocol for illicit discharges and potential illicit discharges into

the storm drain system. This ERP is a guidance document to outline consistent

enforcement actions by the [insert municipality] that will reactively control illicit

discharges and proactively eliminate potential illicit discharges to insure compliance with

all state and local stormwater related pollution prevention laws. This ERP applies to

private businesses, property owners or tenants, construction sites, and contracted

mobile companies providing services to public and privately owned businesses and land.

This ERP also satisfies the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for an ERP document in

Provision C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls, Provision C.5 Illicit Discharge

Detection and Elimination, and Provision C.6 Construction Site Control.

1.1. MUNICIPAL CODE

This ERP document utilizes the [insert municipality] municipal code [insert municipal code] for stormwater regulation. In the event that stormwater regulatory

law (NPDES permits or other) are more stringent in regards to enforcement action

against illicit discharges or potential illicit discharges, the more stringent enforcement

law will be abided by [insert municipality]. Any discharge that would result in or

contribute to a violation of the [insert municipality] NPDES permit or municipal code

either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is prohibited.

Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person causing or

responsible for the discharge, and such person shall defend, indemnify and hold

harmless the [insert municipality] in any administrative or judicial enforcement

action relating to such discharge.


2

1.2. COMPLIANCE WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Where best management practice (BMP) guidelines or requirements have been adopted

by the Federal Government, California State, MRP or NPDES permits, or the [insert

municipality], for any activity, operation or facility which may cause or contribute to

unlawful discharges, every person undertaking such activity or operation or owning or

operating such facility shall comply with such guideline or requirement. Such guidelines

include the California State General Industrial permit and the California State General

Construction permit.

1.3. LEGAL AUTHORITY

The [insert municipality] has the legal authority to prohibit and control illicit

discharges and escalate stricter enforcement to achieve expedient compliance with

stormwater law and regulation. The [insert municipality] has the legal authority to

inspect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm drain system and illicit connections

to the waters of the state including:

• Illicit connections to the waters of the state;

• Privately owned septic systems;

• Spills;

• Illegal dumping and disposal of materials other than stormwater to the storm

drain;

• Discharges of wash water from exterior surfaces and pavement, equipment and

facilities;


3

• Discharges of runoff from material storage areas, including containing chemicals,

fuels, vehicle related fluids, and other potentially polluting or hazardous

materials;

• Discharges of pool, spa or fountain water (including backwash water) containing

chlorine, biocides, or other chemicals;

• Ongoing, large-volume landscape irrigation runoff to the storm drain system;

• Discharges of sediment, pet waste, vegetation clippings, or other landscape or

construction-related wastes; and

• Discharges of food-related wastes (e.g., grease, fish processing, and restaurant

kitchen mat and trash bin wash water, etc.).

Illicit Discharges the [insert municipality] is not required to inspect or take

enforcement action against local entities with their own NPDES permit and regulatory

compliance program not including publicly owned systems by the [insert

municipality]. These local entities and their regulatory bodies include:

• Sanitary/Sanitation Agencies:

o [Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) (regulated by the

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board)

o Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD) (Central Valley Regional

Water Quality Control Board)

o Mountain View Sanitary District (regulated by the San Francisco

Regional Water Quality Control Board)

o East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) (regulated by the San

Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board)


4

o West County Wastewater District (regulated by the San Francisco


o Stege Sanitary District (regulated by the San Francisco Regional


o Iron House Sanitation District (Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board)

o Rodeo Sanitary District (regulated by the San Francisco Regional


o Dublin/San Ramon Services District (regulated by the San


o Discovery Bay Community Services District (Central Valley


o Byron Sanitation District (Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board)

o Crockett Community Services District (regulated by the San

Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board)]

• Potable Water Agencies:

o [EBMUD (regulated by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality

Control Board)

o Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) (regulated by the San



5

o Discovery Bay Community Services District (Central Valley


o Diablo Water District (Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board)

o Dublin/San Ramon Services District (regulated by the San


o Stege Sanitary District (regulated by the San Francisco Regional

Water Quality Control Board)]

• School Districts:

o [Insert School Districts]

• Fire Departments:

o [Insert Fire Departments]

In addition, the [insert municipality] is not required to enforce NPDES BMPs or

compliance requirements on Notice of Intent (NOI) industrial facilities and NOI

construction sites regulated by the California State General Industrial Permit and the

California State General Construction Permit. All conditions of these State General

Permits are regulated by the appropriate Water Board region and are not the

responsibility of the [insert municipality]. The [insert municipality] is responsible

for enforcing their own municipal code on NOI facilities, inspecting and checking

construction and industrial NOIs for the presence of a SWPPP, checking for monitoring

data to insure no polluted discharges have left the site/facility that would impact the

[insert municipality] stormwater system, and notifying the appropriate Water Board

region if a site/facility is not filed under a General Permit that is required to be filed.


6

The following unpolluted discharges are exempt from prohibition of non-stormwater

discharges in the [insert municipality] NPDES MRP effective December 1, 2009:

• Flows from riparian habitats or wetlands;

• Diverted stream flows;

• Flows from natural springs;

• Rising ground waters;

• Uncontaminated and unpolluted groundwater infiltration;

• Single family homes’ pumped groundwater, foundation drains, and water from

crawl space pumps and footing drains;

• Pumped groundwater from drinking water aquifers; and

• NPDES permitted discharges (individual or general permits).

The non-stormwater discharges listed above are exempted unless they are identified by

the [insert municipality] or the Executive Officer of the [insert municipality]

appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board as sources of pollutants to receiving

waters.


7

Section 2. Response and Enforcement Actions

Section 2 includes response and enforcement actions and timeframes for correction of

illicit discharge activities for various types and degrees of violations. This ERP provides

guidelines on when to employ the range of regulatory responses from warnings,

citations, cleanup and cost recovery, to administrative or criminal penalties. For further

information on individual programs, BMPs, and compliance with specific requirements in

the MRP provisions for illicit discharges, commercial/industrial inspections, and

construction inspection programs, please refer to the [insert municipality] individual

plans/documents/records for each program.

2.1. LEVELS OF ENFORCEMENT

There are a variety of enforcement tools available to address stormwater violations

during inspections and surveillance of illicit discharges within the jurisdiction of [insert municipality]. The [insert municipality] can use but is not limited to the

enforcement options listed in this ERP. The enforcement options listed in this ERP

include a Warning Notice (WN), Notice of Violation (NOV), Administration Citation, Stop

Work Orders, Cease and Desist Orders, and referrals to other agencies. This ERP

provides guidance for the minimum procedures of compliance enforcement. Generally,

these enforcement procedures are applied in escalating steps or a tiered response,

although [insert municipality] may skip steps, as appropriate in egregious cases.

Table 1 provides a flowchart of the tiered response of enforcement actions.

The minimum tiered response to stormwater violations are as follows:

Level I: Warning Notice/Education

Pollutant exposure, evidence of a historical pollutant discharge, or a stated business

practice that has a potential to pollute the storm drain system will result in issuance of a

WN with education in the form of verbal and material outreach. The inspector will log


8

the incident and issue a written WN to the discharger or representative of the

facility/site. The inspector and the facility/site representative will discuss the WN,

appropriate BMPs, and establish a schedule to eliminate the problem. Education will be

used to communicate a general understanding by the discharger or representative of

the facility/site of the stormwater program, its regulations, and its purpose. The

inspector may conduct one of more follow-up inspections to ensure abatement of

discharges within a 10 day period and may schedule the facility or site for a routine

inspection and/or require a respond from the discharger to confirm corrective actions

have been implemented during a 30 day period. If compliance is not achieved through

education and a WN, the enforcement procedure will escalate to Level II.

Level II: Notice of Violation

An active non-stormwater pollutant discharge that violates the local stormwater

ordinance, and is identified during an inspection will result in issuance of a Notice of

Violation (NOV). The inspector and facility/site representative will discuss the violation

and potential solutions to correct the violation. A written notice will be issued and a

remediation schedule will be approved by the inspector who will follow-up to ensure

that the discharge has been terminated. The inspector may also recommend

implementation of appropriate BMPs. Businesses/sites that fail to comply with Level I

enforcement procedures will also receive an NOV and be subject to timely corrective

action and follow-up inspection. At this stage the [insert municipality] or authorized

representative may also employ Cease and Desist Orders, Stop Work Orders, Orders to

Clean and Abate, Notices to Clean or any other similar notification outlined in the

stormwater ordinance that identifies an illicit discharge and requires correction or

abatement but does not assess fines.

All violations will be corrected before the next rain event but no longer than 10 business

days after the violations are discovered. If more than 10 business days are required for

compliance, a rationale shall be recorded in the electronic database or equivalent

tabular system. Immediate correction can be temporary and short-term if a long-term,

permanent correction will involve significant resources and construction time.


9

Level III: Formal Enforcement (Administrative Penalties, Cost Recovery)

A gross violation of the local stormwater ordinance that cannot be resolved through the

WN or NOV enforcement actions will initiate formal enforcement of the stormwater

ordinance. Formal enforcement actions will result in penalties being assessed in the

form of citations, agency cost-recovery, and/or formal negotiated settlement. Such

actions will be coordinated by the [insert municipality] Stormwater Representative.

Gross violations include a pattern of non-compliance after issuance of a NOV with

repeat violations, failure to adequately address previous violations or notices, and/or

directly discharging hazardous materials in the storm drain system. The [insert municipality] Stormwater Representative has the discretion to include any serious

violation(s) as warranting this level of enforcement so long as there is documentation

and/or evidence available to support this action.

All violations will be corrected before the next rain event but no longer than 10 business

days after the violations are discovered. If more than 10 business days are required for

compliance, a rationale shall be recorded in the electronic database or equivalent

tabular system. Immediate correction can be temporary and short-term if a long-term,

permanent correction will involve significant resources and construction time.

Level IV: Legal Action and/or Referral to State and Federal Agencies

Inadequate measures taken by facility manager(s) to satisfy Level III enforcement

violations will result in the Stormwater Manager referring the case to its city attorney or

County District attorney. If a serious stormwater violation that poses an imminent

threat to human health and the environment is identified during an inspection, the

[insert municipality] may refer the violation to qualified emergency response

personnel, the District Attorney, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),

the California Department of Fish and Game and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.


10

2.2. FINES

The violation of the [insert municipality] Erosion Control or Stormwater Pollution

Control Ordinances constitutes a misdemeanor. The violator may be charged and

prosecuted for an infraction or a misdemeanor or be issued an Administrative Citation

per [insert ordinance number].

A conviction of an infraction of this Code shall be punishable by:

[insert dollar amount] for the first violation

[insert dollar amount] for the second violation within one year

[insert dollar amount] for each additional violation in one year

Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the [insert municipality] is punishable

by a fine of not more than that allowed for an infraction pursuant to Government Code

Section 36900. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36901 and 36903, the penalty

for any person found guilty of a misdemeanor shall be a fine not to exceed one

thousand ($1000) dollars and/or imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed six (6)

months. [insert ordinance number]

2.3. RECORDKEEPING

The [insert municipality] will maintain a record/database of all enforcement actions,

follow-up actions, and facilities/sites inspected for illicit discharges related to business

inspection, construction inspection, and illicit discharge programs.

The [insert municipality] will include all tracking and case follow-up information in

the database listed in Provisions C.4, C.5, and C.6 of the MRP. The database of

enforcement actions and incidents will be included as an appendix to this ERP

document.


11

TABLE 1:

FLOWCHART OF TIERED ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE Routine

Inspection/ Investigation

Minor Violation

Level II Enforcement

Immediate Abate

Discharge Within 10

Days. Respond Within 30

Days

Resolve A Permanent Resolution Within 30

Days

Reinspect

Case Closed or Priority

Inspection for Businesses

Major Violation with Threat to Human Health

Potential to Violate Major Violation

Level I EnforcementLevel III

Enforcement

Level IV Enforcement

Case Closed or Routine Inspection

Schedule for Businesses

Resolve Condition Within 10 Days

Immediate Abate Discharge Within 10

Days. Respond Within 30 Days

Level IV Enforcement

Follow-up Report and Inspection Within 30 Days

Resolve A Permanent

Resolution Within 30 Days

Reinspect

Corrected?

No

Corrected?

No

Corrected?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No


12

APPENDIX A:

DATABASE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND

INCIDENTS

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item F – APPROVE the Municipal Operations Committee’s

Recommended Trash Hot Spot Selection, Cleanup and Assessment, and Reporting Guidance

Recommendation: Approve the Municipal Operations Committee’s (MOC) recommended trash hot spot selection process; cleanup and assessment; and, reporting guidance. Background: Provision C.10.b of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requires selection and cleanup of trash hot spots. Each Permittee is required to select 100 yards of creek or 200 yards of shoreline for their delegated number of hot spots (totaling at least one trash hot spot per 30,000 population, or one per 100 acres of retail/wholesale commercial land area, whichever is greater) and provide an initial assessment for each hot spot (cleanup, photo documentation, and identifying the volume of trash removed and the dominant trash types found during cleanup). The trash hot spot selection, cleanup, and assessment submittal due date to the Water Board is July 1, 2010. The MOC has directed Program staff to provide guidance documents for all trash hot spot activities and to organize the trash hot spot submittal due to the Water Board on July 1, 2010. Guidance documents provide a consistent methodology for all co-permittees to follow to complete the trash hot spot requirement in the MRP. The MOC and Program staff have created field forms for data collection during trash hot spot cleanups, photo documentation protocol, and submittal guidelines for all co-permittees to use (please see attachments to this staff report for forms and guidance).

The guiding document is the Trash Hot Spot Section Guidance Memo, which serves as an outline for co-permittees to conduct their hot spot work in the field and submit it to Program staff. Attachments A, B, and C to the Trash Hot Spot Section Guidance Memo are guidance materials summarizing all trash hot spot requirements, a data collection form, and protocol for photo documentation. The MOC reviewed these documents and have provided comments to Program staff to incorporate. Program staff is recommending the Management Committee approve the guidance materials as instructions for conducting trash hot spot activities in the field; and, the schedule in the Trash Hot Spot Section Guidance Memo to complete the trash hot spot submittal to the Water Board. Program staff will facilitate the completion of the hot spot submittal to the Water Board by July 1, 2010. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): Attachments: 1. Trash Hot Spot Section Guidance Memo 2. Attachment A: Quick Guide to Trash Hot Spots MRP 2010 Requirements 3. Attachment B: Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form 4. Attachment C: Protocol for Conducting Photograph Documentation at Selected

Trash Hot Spots EW:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item F Mar 10.doc

of 6

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 17, 2010 TO: Management Committee

FROM: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program RE: Trash Hot Spot Selection, Cleanup and Assessment, and Reporting

Guidance Introduction and Purpose Permit Provision C.10.b of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requires each co-permittee to select a minimum number of trash hots spots in creeks and/or shorelines that will be the focus of required annual trash assessment and cleanup. A trash hot spot is defined to be 100 yards of creek length or 200 yards of shoreline length. The list of selected trash hot spots for annual assesment and cleanup is due to the Water Board by July 1, 2010. To comply with this permit provision, the Program intends to submit a single report to the Water Board on behalf of all co-permittees. The purpose of this memorandum is to assist co-permittees in selecting their trash hot spots, assessing and cleaning hot spots, and preparing the July 1, 2010 submittal to the Water Board. This guidance includes: 1) a step-by-step process for selecting and assessing trash hot spots; 2) a list of considerations when selecting trash hot spots; 3) required information needed for Program staff to develop the submittal to the Water Board; and 4) a schedule for completion. Step #1: Select Minimum Number of Trash Hot Spots and Submit to the Program

A. Review the Program’s “Quick Guide To Trash Hot Spots MRP 2010 Requirements” (Attachment A)

The Program’s quick guide includes all MRP requirements for hot spots including how many are required to select and assess for each co-permittee and what is required in the intial assessment of each hot spot that is due by July 1, 2010.

of 6

B. Apply Considerations When Selecting Final Trash Hot Spots

Program staff has developed the following considerations (primary and secondary) that you may choose to take into account during your selection of your trash hot spots. These considerations were originally taken from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) and were developed based on the need to adequately assess and clean hot spots to “no visual impact” on an annual basis. Additional considerations regarding what to do if your municipality has many hot spots located within very close proximity to each other (e.g., ¼ mile); or if no hot spots were identified in creeks within your jurisdictional boundaries are also provided. Primary Considerations 1) Site Assess – Selected hot spots should have year-long access and be

located in areas that are easily reached by cleanup crews (i.e., municipal staff or volunteers). Creek hot spots which have high water flows during the time/season of cleanup; are located at the base of steep embankments or fenced with no gate or other access points; or have other potential site access issues should not be considered.

2) Public Safety – The phyiscal safety and well being of cleanup crews is of upmost importance. Selected hot spots should be in areas deemed safe and acceptable to the type of crew you intend on using for cleanups. Do not consider sites with any of the following characteristics; unsafe conditions which may cause injury and/or death, deep or fast-flowing water during the time/season of cleanup, presence of toxic substances or biowaste (e.g., fecal material, blood), or possible threats/hostility from individiuals, animals, or livestock.

3) Public vs. Private Property – To ensure adequate access to a site, it is suggested that selected hot spots be publically-owned unless legal agreements are in place with private property owners guaranteeing site access for cleanup events.

Secondary Considerations 4) Previous Cleanups/Assessments – Hot spots which have undergone previous

trash cleanups and/or assessments; or have been adopted and maintained as Adopt-a-creek sites may be good candidates due to demonstrated interest in keeping the adopted site or area to the level of “no visual impact”.

5) Identified by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – Hot spots identified by NGOs are possible candidates since both the co-permittee and NGOs have a mutual interest in improving trash hot spot conditions. In addition, NGOs may have the ability to secure resources and/or attract large numbers of volunteers to assist/promote clean up events at specific sites.

of 6

6) 303(d) Listed Waterbody – Co-permittees may chose to prioritize sites/hot

spots within creeks identified by the Water Board as impaired for trash on the 303(d) list.

7) Magnitude of Trash at Site – Hot spots that have extremely large volumes of trash and have chronic problems should be considered high priority sites, unless safety and access are issues. Sites with low levels of trash or only have trash sporadically should be considered a lower priority.

8) Larger Hot Spots – Some trash hot spots are larger than the minimum length required in the MRP (i.e., 100 yards for creeks and 200 yards for shorelines). In theses cases, we recommend that co-permittees do one of the following when selecting a large hot spot: a. Select the entire length of the trash-impacted site as one hot spot, even

though it is greater than the required minimum length; or b. Select the entire length as one trash hot spot, but only assess/clean the

minimum length required (Note: it is recommended that the “trashiest” section of the hot spot be cleaned/assessed annually); or

c. Depending on the length of the site, separate into multiple hot spots by stacking the hot spots end-on-end (i.e., daisy chaining).

9) Linkage to MS4s – Co-permittees may choose to consider creek sites that are impacted by MS4 contributions as high priority. However, this is not required by the MRP. Co-permittees may choose to select sites that are not impacted by MS4s due to many of the considerations described above.

10) Linkage to MS4 Trash Management Actions (e.g., Full Capture Devices) – For those sites that are believed to be impacted by MS4s, co-permittees may also choose to consider whether upstream drainage areas are locations where full-capture treatment devices may be implemented in the future. This may allow co-permittees to detect changes in levels of trash at hot spots due to full capture treatment device implementation.

11) Visibility – Hot spots which are highly visible to the public may be considered high priority due to the high degree of public access. Although less visible sites may be considered lower priority, co-permittees should also remember that many of the trash hot spots identified by NGOs were located in less visible reaches of creeks.

C. Submit Trash Hot Spots List to Program staff

After you have applied the considerations discussed above (or additional considerations of your own), Program staff request that you select the minimum number of trash hot spots required by the MRP (see Attachment A) which will be the focus of your required annual trash assesments and cleanups. Once the minimum number of trash hot spots are selected, Program staff requests that each Co-permittee:

of 6

1) Submit your trash hot spots list by electronic mail to Elisa Wilfong

([email protected]) no later than Friday April 2, 2010. Program staff will email an excel spreadsheet for co-permittees on March 18, 2010 to list their hot spot locations, which will include all requested information under and ‘site information’ heading on the Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form (See Attachment B).

2) Provide the Site ID#, latitude and longitude, watershed, waterbody, ownership, and jurisdiction(s) of each trash hot spot (all site information requested on the Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form (See Attachment B). This descriptor will ensure that future assessments and cleanups are conducted at the same location.

Once you submit your hot spots you are highly encouraged to start assessments and cleanups immediately. The goal is to complete the initial assessment(s) by May 14, 2010. Step #2: Conduct Trash Hot Spot Assessments and Cleanups In accordance with Permit Provision C.10.b.iii, trash hot spots selected are required to be assessed and cleaned (i.e., trash collected and properly disposed of) to “no visual impact.” As part of the trash assessment and cleanup process, co-permittees are required to quantify the volume of material removed from each hot spot cleanup; and identify the dominant types of trash (e.g., glass, plastics, paper) removed and their sources to the extent possible. In addition, co-permittees are required to document trash condition before and after the cleanup of the entire hot spot using photo documentation with a minimum of one photograph per 50 feet of hot spot length. To assist co-permittees with collecting all required assessment and cleanup data, Program staff created a form entitled Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form (See Attachment B). Future expectations regarding data collection during hot spot assessments and cleanups; and information regarding the submittal of data collection form and photographs to Program staff is provided below.

A. Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form and Photo Documentation Protocol When Conducting Assessments and Cleanups

When conducting assessments and cleanups at sites identified as trash hot spots, Program staff requires that Co-permittees:

1) Use the form Program staff will provide entitled Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data

Collection Form (Attachment B) when conducting all assessments and cleanups of trash hot spots within their jurisdictions. A list of definitions, which describe each data point is on the back of the form. As requested, please document geographic coordinates (i.e., longitude and latitude) at the


of 6

downstream end of the trash hot spot (preferably in decimal degrees to at least four decimal places) with a GPS receiver (datum setting of the unit preferable in NAD83/WGS84).

2) Use the document entitled Protocol for Conducting Photograph Documentation at Selected Trash Hot Spots (Attachment C). This protocol describes how to establish and identify each photo location within a trash hot spot; how to conduct photograph documentation of trash conditions before and after cleanup of the entire hot spot; and how to label photographs for submittal to Program staff.

B. Submit Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Forms and Photographs to

Program Staff 1) Once initial assessments/cleanups are completed, Co-permittees should

submit completed paper copies (by mail) or scanned pdf versions (by electronic mail) of the Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection Form for each selected trash hot spot to Elisa Wilfong ([email protected]) at the address below no later than Friday May 14, 2010; and

2) Place minimum number of photographs for each selected hot spot on compact discs and mail to Elisa Wilfong at the address below no later than Friday May 14, 2010.

You are highly encouraged to submit all requested information (i.e., data collection forms and photographs) to Elisa Wilfong prior to the May 14 deadline. Once we receive your data collection forms and photographs, we will review your sumittal to determine if any additional information or photographs are needed. Program staff will develop a Draft Final Report for the Program’s Management Committee for review and approval at the June 2010 meeting. The Final Report will be submitted to the Water Board no later than July 1, 2010. A schedule for completing all tasks and the Final Report is outlined on the next page. Submittal Contact Person and Address: Elisa Wilfong, Program Staff Contra Costa Clean Water Program 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 313-2164 [email protected]



of 6

Schedule for Completion of Trash Hot Spots Final Report Activity Completion Date Management Committee approves trash hot spot Selection Guidance and Photo Documentation Protocol March 17, 2010 Co-permittees submit Trash Hot Spot List (excel Spreadsheet) to Program staff No later than April 2,

2010 Program staff follow-up with Co-permittees to discuss Trash hot spot list submittals (as necessary) Prior to May 14, 2010 Co-permittees conduct cleanup and assessments at Trash hot spots No later than May 14,

2010 Co-permittees submit all forms and trash hot spot Assessment data to Program staff No later than May 14,

2010 Program staff submit Final Report to the Management Committee for review and approval June 16, 2010 Final Trash Hot Spots Report submitted to Water Board by July 1, 2010 EW\TD:kh G:\NPDES\FORMS\Memorandum.doc

Attachment A

Page 1 of 2

Quick Guide to Trash Hot Spot MRP 2010 Requirements

MRP Requirements Due July 1, 2010:

1. Submit Trash Hot Spot Locations to Water Board by July 1, 2010 • Each hot spot shall be 100 yards of creek length or 200 yards of shoreline

length. Number of Hot Spots Required: Antioch 4 Brentwood 2 Clayton 1 Concord 8 Contra Costa County Unincorporated Region 2 3

Contra Costa County Unincorporated Region 5 2

Contra Costa County Flood Control District 6

Danville 1 El Cerrito 1 Hercules 1 Lafayette 1 Martinez 1 Moraga 1 Oakley 1 Orinda 1 Pinole 1 Pittsburg 4 Pleasant Hill 2 Richmond 3 San Pablo 1 San Ramon 2 Walnut Creek 3

Attachment A

Page 2 of 2

2. Include Initial Assessment of Each Hot Spot: • Cleanup of all hot spots • Photo Documentation (trash condition before and after cleanup of entire

hot pot, one photo per 50 feet) • Volume of material removed from hot spot cleanup • Identify the dominant types of trash (e.g., glass, plastics, paper) removed

and sources to the extent possible

Attachment B

G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item F Attach 3 Page 1 of 4

Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Data Collection FormI. Site Information Name of Recorder:

Cleanup Date:

Site ID#Lat: Long: Watershed:

Ownership: Jurisdiction(s): Waterbody:

1. Describe trash type (Provide % of total trash by volume):*List of potential trash items on back

Item: Percentage: Item: Percentage:Plastic bags Construction debris*

Convenience/Fast Food items* Toxic substances*Bottles (plastic or glass) Large items*

Aluminum cans Miscellaneous items*Styrofoam (pieces or pellets) Fabric and cloth*

Other plastic products* Yard waste (incl. trees)Paper and cardboard* Leaf litter piles

Cigarette butts Glass piecesSpray paint cans Golf or tennis ballsMetal products* Other*

Biohazards* Other*

2. Potential trash pathways/sources (Check all that apply):

Trash accumulation Homeless encampments OtherLitter Outfall UnknownIllegal dumping Multiple

3. Identify adjacent land uses to trash area (Check all that apply):

Residential (Single-family) Industrial Other DevelopedResidential (High-density) Public/InstitutionalCommercial Mixed-use

I. Site Information

II. Trash Information

Attachment B


Volume of Trash Removed During Cleanup:

OR Cubic Yards:Total # of bags:

Photo# Before Cleanup Photograph ID Photo# After Cleanup Photograph ID

Notes:

III. Trash Removal

Size of trash bag (in gallons):

IV. Photo Documentation

Attachment B


Data Points Definitions

Site ID#activities within databases or other tabular formats.

Latitude The geographic coordinate north or south of the equator. Latitude should be taken at thedownstream end of the trash hot spot (preferably in decimal degrees to at least four decimal places)with a GPS receiver. Record the datum setting of the unit preferably in NAD83/ WGS84.

Longitude The geographic coordinate east or west of the prime meridian (0 degrees longitude). Longitudeshould be taken at the downstream end of the trash hot spot (preferably in decimal degrees to atleast four decimal places) with a GPS receiver. Record the datum setting of the unit preferably inNAD83/ WGS84.

WatershedWaterbody The waterbody (i.e., creek, river or other waterway) where the trash hot spot is located.Ownership The owner of the land where the trash hot spot is located. Possible answers are public, private,

or unknown.Jurisdiction(s) The jurisdiction(s) responsible for trash hot spot assessment and cleanup. Multiple jurisdictions may

exist for certain water bodies.

1. Potential Trash ItemsConvenience/Fast Food Items Waste packaging, (i.e., plastic or paper) from convenience foods (e.g., potato chips, snack foods,

candy bars, gum, etc.) and other wastes (e.g., bags, napkins, etc.) generated from fast foodestablishments or carry out restaurants.

Other Plastic Products Plastic Bottle Caps, Plastic Cup Lid/Straw, Plastic Pipe Segments, Plastic Six-Pack Rings, PlasticWrappers, Soft Plastic Pieces, Hard Plastic Pieces, Fishing Line, Tarp

Paper and Cardboard Cups, Boxes, Newspapers, Magazines, Mail, Flyers and all other products made of paper orcardboard.

Metal Products Aluminum Foil, Aluminum or Steel Cans, Bottle Caps, Metal Pipe Segments, Auto Parts, Wire (barb,chicken wire etc.), Metal Objects

Biohazards Human Waste/Diapers, Pet Waste, Syringes or Pipettes, Dead AnimalsConstruction Debris Concrete (not placed), Rebar, Bricks, Wood DebrisToxic Substances Chemical Containers, Oil/Surfactant on Water, Lighters, Small Batteries, Vehicle BatteriesLarge Items Appliances, Furniture, Garbage Bags of Trash, Tires, Shopping CartsMiscellaneous Items Synthetic Rubber, Foam Rubber, Balloons, Ceramic Pots/Shards, Hose PiecesFabric and Cloth Synthetic Fabric, Natural Fabric (cotton, wool)Other All other materials or products not on the above list.

Potential Data Points with Definitions

I. Site InformationThe unique identification number assigned to the site consisting of Municipal Initials/Identification (ex. ‘WCR’ for the City of Walnut Creek) and Site ID (ex. 01). The site ID# will be used to track trash hot spot

The watershed where the trash hot spot is located. Go to http://cocowaterweb.org/resources/ccwf-publications/watershed-atlas for more information.

II. Trash Information

Attachment B


2. Potential Trash Pathways/SourcesTrash Accumulation Litter/trash observed to be accumulating in creeks below the high water line. Litter/trash is may be

worn and aged in appearance; consist of light-weight, persistent and buoyant trash items (e.g., plasticbags, plastic bottles); and observed caught in surrounding vegetation, tree branches and rocks.

Litter Improperly disposed/discarded wastes or other items observed in creek channels and/or creekbanks. Commonly referred to as "trash". Litter/trash appears relatively "new" in appearance.Litter/trash is usually located in areas accessible to the public.

Illegal Dumping Illegal dumping or discarding of larger quantities/sizes of litter/trash directly into a waterway or inclose proximity to a creek. Garbage bags of trash or other unwanted items, appliances, furniture,tires, shopping carts and other large items are usually observed at illegal dump sites.

Homeless Encampments Areas where homeless individuals live or congregate.Outfall The point where the storm drain system discharges (i.e., usually from a pipe) into a receiving water or

channel.Multiple The contribution of more than one trash pathway/source listed above. List all potential

pathways/sources.Other All other potential sources not described above.Unknown Trash source can not be determined or are known.3. Adjacent Land Uses to Trash AreasAdjacent Land Uses to Trash Areas Residential (Single-family), Residential (High-density), Commercial, Industrial, Public/Institutional,

Mixed-use, Other Developed

Volume of Trash Removed During CleanupSize of Trash Bag (in gallons) Size of trash bag (in gallons) used to remove trash during cleanup.Total Bags Total number of bags of trash removed during cleanup.Cubic Yards Estimated cubic yards of trash removed during cleanup.

Photo # The number assigned to a photograph taken during the trash cleanup process. The photo numberwill also be associated with a before or after photograph ID.

Before Cleanup Photograph ID Photographs are taken to indicate trash hot spot conditions before a trash assessment is conducted.Refer to the photograph file labeling instructions provided within the Program's PhotographDocumentation Protocol.

After Cleanup Photograph ID Photographs are taken to indicate trash hot spot conditions after a trash assessment is conducted.Refer to the photograph file labeling instructions provided within the Program's PhotographDocumentation Protocol.

Notes Comments or other notes regarding photo documentation.

IV. Photo Documentation

III. Trash Removal

Attachment C

Page 1 of 4

Protocol for Conducting Photograph Documentation at Selected Trash Hot Spots

Trash hot spots consist of a 300-foot length of creek or 600-foot length of shoreline. Where possible, the upstream and/or downstream ends of the creek trash hot spots and the ends of shoreline hot spots should be located at easily identified landmarks (e.g., bridge crossings, outfalls, etc.) to ensure that future assessments and cleanups are conducted at the same location.

Note: When conducting photographic documentation of trash hot spots, the following steps should be performed.

1) For creek hot spots: establish the position of seven (7) transect locations (labeled A-G, from downstream to upstream direction) by measuring every 50 feet along the bank from the previous transect (see Figure 1). Note: Transect A is always at the downstream end of the hot spot.

For shoreline hot spots: establish the position of thirteen (13) transect locations (labeled A-M) by measuring every 50 feet along the bank from the previous transect (see Figure 2). Note: Transect A will always be the first position with the water to the right as you look towards Transect B.

2) Identify each transect location with easily removable markers (e.g., surveyor’s flags).

3) Take a minimum of one digital photograph facing upstream at each transect along a creek hot spot. A minimum of 12 photographs (one photo per 50 feet) should be taken for each creek hot spot. A total of 6 photographs are required to be taken before cleanup and 6 are required to be taken after cleanup.

Take a minimum of 24 photographs (one photo per 50 feet) at each transect along the shoreline hot spot. A total of 12 photographs are required to be taken before cleanup and 12 are required to be taken after cleanup.

4) Take digital photographs of the creek from mid-channel or as close to mid-channel as possible (e.g., wadeable water areas) for creek hot spots. Take

Attachment C

Page 2 of 4

digital photographs for shoreline hot spots at each transect at the waterline with the water to your right, looking towards the next transect (e.g., from transect A towards transect B). Each photograph should depict the transect area. Optional photographs of each bank may also be taken at each transect to further document trash conditions, especially for sites where the majority of trash is deposited along creek margins associated with dense vegetation. The orientation of each photograph should be documented using the following categories: mid-channel (mid), left bank (left) and right bank (right) for creek hot spots. Note: Bank position (left or right) is identified by facing upstream. For shoreline photographs no orientation documentation is needed. All photographs should be taken at the waterline.

5) Prior to submitting digital photograph files to Program staff, label all photograph files with the following information: a) Municipal Initials/Identification (ex. ‘WCR’ for the City of Walnut Creek) and Site ID; b) date; c) transect position (AB-FG for creeks and AB-LM for shorelines); d) transect position; and e) before (1) or after (2) cleanup. Example photograph file labels before and after hot spot cleanups are provided below:

WCR01_040110_AB_mid_1 Date Site ID Transect Position (AB) Transect Orientation Before (Walnut Creek Site 1) (Mid-channel) Cleanup

WCR03_040610_CD_right_2 Date Site ID Transect Position (CD) Transect Orientation After (Walnut Creek Site 3) (Right Bank) Cleanup

Before Cleanup

After Cleanup

Attachment C

Page 3 of 4

Figure 1: Example Transect Locations Along a Creek Hot Spot

F

E D

C

B

A

G

FLOW

Approx. 50’

Attachment C

Page 4 of 4

Figure 2: Example Transect Locations Along a Shoreline Hot Spot

F

E

D

C

B

A

G

WATER

Approx. 50’

H

I

K J

L

M

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item G – APPROVE the Monitoring Committee’s

Recommendation to Execute a Contract with Scott Cressey for Spring 2010 Bioassessment Sampling for a Cost Not to Exceed $10,000

Recommendation: Approve contracting with Scott Cressey for bioassessment sampling. Background: The Program contracted with Scott Cressey from 2001 to 2006 to conduct professional field collection of bioassessment samples. Starting in 2007, the Program contracted with the Contra Costa Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program to perform this sampling. Unfortunately, Michelle Luebke, the Watershed Monitoring Coordinator, was injured and will not be able to lead volunteers in spring to collect the bioassessment samples. Program Staff solicited proposals from several professionals to perform the spring 2010 field sampling; and, the Monitoring Committee entertained those proposals at their February meeting. The Monitoring Committee selected Scott Cressey and pending Management Committee’s approval, Program staff will execute a contract with him to provide this year’s bioassessment sampling. In order to save money and utilize volunteers, Scott Cressey will use volunteers to serve as his “assistants” in the field during collection events. Michelle Luebke will provide logistical support in the form of volunteer recruitment, scheduling and coordination as well as assisting with training and obtaining permission from property owners to enter them properly. The net fiscal impact to the Program will be a savings. This is due to the fact the Program’s financial commitment to the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) for FY 2009/10 has been reduced by

approximately $51,000 because the Monitoring Coordinator has not been able to perform many of the anticipated duties due to her injuries; and, the scope of services has been reduced to not include trash assessments. Fiscal Impact: $10,000 Attachment(s): None. JC:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Act Item G Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report A – Program Agreement Update Recommendation: Receive status report on the revised Program Agreement. Background: The current Program Agreement expires on June 30, 2010. This Program Agreement has served the Program well over the past seven (7) years but now needs to be extended and updated with some minor revisions primarily due to changes in the Program’s new committee structure. The Administrative Committee has been assigned this task. The Administrative Committee received a second draft Program Agreement at their March 2, 2010 meeting. The Administrative Committee is scheduled to review and finalize the draft agreement at a special meeting scheduled for March 23, 2010. It is anticipated the draft agreement will then be provided to a subcommittee of the City/County Attorneys Association. This subcommittee will review and finalize the Program Agreement, and coordinate its approval by all municipal attorneys. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Staff Rpt A Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report B – Program Funding Update Recommendation: Receive status report regarding enhanced Program funding. Background: Program staff met with the Proposition 218 Oversight Committee on March 9, 2010 which constituted its “kick-off” meeting. Staff provided a review of the proposed budget should a Prop. 218 election be held, a list of issues to be addressed currently or in the future; and, a proposed timeline to hire a consultant to provide technical support to the Program. The Committee is focused on developing and distributing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for technical support services for the Program. The Committee will be meeting on March 16th and 22nd to finalize this document for distribution. Staff will provide a more thorough oral report at your meeting on March 17, 2010. Fiscal Impact: To be determined. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Staff Rpt B Mar 10.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: David Swartz, Contra Costa County Watershed Program By: Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Subcommittee Report A – BASMAA Development Committee Recommendation: Receive report. Background: Please find attached the summary from the February 4, 2010 BASMAA Development Committee meeting. The BASMAA Development Committee last met on Thursday, March 4, 2010. The BASMAA Development Committee is still in the preliminary stages of scoping regional MRP tasks for the following high-priority items: • LID Treatment Reduction Credits for Special Projects (Provision C.3.e.ii.) • Green Street Pilot Projects (Provision C.3.b.iii.) • Model Biotreatment Soil Media Specifications (Provision C.3.c.i.(vi)) • Green Roof Specifications (C.3.b.i.(vii)) • LID Infeasibility Criteria and Procedures for Regulated Projects (C.3.b.i.(iv)) • MRP Annual Reporting Format for Provisions C.3. and C.6 for Fiscal Years

2009/10 and 2010/11 (C.3, C.6., and C.16) The Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s (Program’s) Development Committee met on Thursday, March 11, 2010. They were focused on the following Provision C.3 and C.6 related compliance topics: • Preparation of a 5th Edition Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to: incorporate new

mandates in the MRP; consolidate and incorporate changes made since the 4th Edition was published in October 2008; and, make additional changes as part of the continuous improvement process.

• Review of a Second Draft Model Enforcement Response Plan to serve as a reference document for construction site inspectors to take consistent actions to achieve timely and effective compliance from all public and private construction site owners/operators. This draft Enforcement Response Plan also provides enforcement response protocols for commercial/industrial business inspections and illicit discharges.

• Preparations for the March 18, 2010 Construction Site Stormwater Quality Workshop, including review of a draft Construction Site Inspection Report prepared for the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.

Meeting summaries for the March 4, 2010 BASMAA Development Committee meeting and the Program’s March 11, 2010 Development Committee meeting were not available in time for distribution with this staff report. These meeting summaries will be distributed with the April 21, 2010 Management Committee agenda packet. Questions regarding any of the above activities will be answered at the March 17, 2010 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. February 4, 2010 BASMAA Draft Development Committee Meeting Summary. TD:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Subcommittee Rpt A - DC.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Steven Spedowfski, City of San Ramon By: Michelle McCauley, Administrative Analyst Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Subcommittee Report B – BASMAA Public Information/ Participation

Committee Recommendation: Receive information. Background: Last month the Management Committee was apprised of the reorganization of BASMAA sub-committees. They have been re-established to review and make recommendations to the BASMAA Board of Directors for activities which will be done on a regional basis. February 24, 2010 Agenda items include:

• The Regional Advertising Campaign – O’Rorke was being contracted for $15,000 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2009/10 to provide three (3) media pitches (car washing, litter and pesticides) (C.7.c). On March 5, 2010 a Request for Proposal (RFP) was to be released to solicit qualified applicants to prepare a five (5) year Regional Outreach Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2010/11 and beyond. The budget for the project was between $30,000 and $40,000 dollars.

• Regional PIP MRP Requirements – Municipalities provided current program website links providing municipal contacts (C.7.d).

• MRP Annual Report Format – Co-permittees should agree on a format for their requirements. Brosseau will mock up a template based on the well received MRP Section C.6 Annual Report draft proposal. It should be available in early March.

Fiscal Impact: Paid by BASMAA’s Regional Advertising Campaign Fund. Attachment(s): The February 24, 2010 BASMAA PI/P Committee Meeting Summary will be provided when available. MM:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Feb 10\BASMAA Rpt B - PIP.doc

Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Lynne Scarpa, City of Richmond By: Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Subcommittee Report C – BASMAA Monitoring Committee Recommendation: Receive update. Background: The BASMAA Monitoring/POCs Committee met on February 3rd. Program staff and Lynne Scarpa were in attendance. The purview of the committee is MRP provisions C.8, C.11, C.12, C.13 and C.14. The attached minutes summarize the discussion. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. February 3, 2010 Draft BASMAA Monitoring/POCs Committee Meeting

Summary. JC:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Subcommittee Rpt C - MonCom.doc

DRAFT Meeting Summary Monitoring / POCs Committee

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association

February 3, 2010

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda (Geoff Brosseau)

BAMBI – The 9th annual Bay Area Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Information Network (BAMBI) Meeting is February 16 (Chris Sommers).

2. Scoping of BASMAA regional MRP tasks, projects, programs (Committee members)

The Committee continued the work from the previous month of focusing on scoping tasks determined in BASMAA Board of Directors meetings to be related to MRP provisions of a regional scale and therefore the purview of the Development Committee. Committee members reviewed scopes related to the following provisions:

C.11/12.f Assess Feasibility of Diversion of Stormwater to POTWs, including BACWA

Feasibility of Stormwater Diversion White Paper (Jamison Crosby / Khalil Abu-Saba) – These twin provisions require permittees to evaluate the reduced loads from diversion of dry weather and first flush stormwater flows to sanitary sewers. The provisions include a September deadline to report pump station selection criteria, pilot study time schedules, and proposed method for distributing load reductions to participating wastewater and stormwater agencies. Committee members focused most of their discussion on the criteria and process for selecting the pilot locations (5 primary and 5 alternate), making the following points regarding the proposed scope:

• Locations – Although it was suggested that potential locations are pretty well

known, which would allow the effort to start from a more advanced position, Committee members recognized and preferred an approach that focused on developing a process for selection, and focusing the scope on this too.

• Criteria, considerations, and outstanding issues – Committee members

suggested possible criteria, including: areas with higher pollutant loads; opportunity to significantly increase knowledge base, proximity of sanitary sewers, willingness of wastewater agency to take flows, POTW-specific criteria (limit exceedances, plant upsets), cost-effectiveness (grants, planned retrofits). It was also suggested that successful case studies should be reviewed for common success criteria and lack of fatal flaws. Regional Water Board staff suggested that pilots may likely be low risk with benefits to wastewater agencies.

Action: Khalil Abu-Saba will revise the scope for review at March 3 meeting,

and planned submittal for approval at March BASMAA Board of Directors meeting. Changes include: eliminaton of design, addition of order of magnitude costs, more phasing, and multiple pollutant analysis (not just mercury and PCBs)

DRAFT

BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Comm. 2 February 3, 2010

C.11/12.h Study of Mercury/PCBs in Urban Runoff (Arleen Feng) – Committee members

agreed last month that this provision is being addressed via stormwater agencies participation and the work being done in the RMP on special Strategies. Today, Committee members generally agreed with the conceptual scope of work prepared by Committee Chair Arleen Feng. It was noted that the permittees may want to report on more than the list of ongoing or potential RMP efforts for the mercury and PCBs strategies listed in the scope. It was also noted that the potential expenditure for FY 09-10 of reporting on current/planned RMP projects would more likely be an early FY 10-11 expenditure. Committee members recognized that there was no time pressure to again discuss this provision at the March 3 meeting.

Action: Committee Chair Feng will revise the conceptual scope of work as

necessary.

C.13.c Vehicle Brake Pads (Geoff Brosseau) – Committee members recognized last month that this provision is addressed by SB 346, which has passed the State Senate and is being considered for re-submission to the Assembly later this year, pending sufficient funding is provided from affected MS4s to do so. Today, Committee members generally agreed with the conceptual scope of work prepared by Executive Director Geoff Brosseau. Committee members recognized that there was no time pressure to again discuss this provision at the March 3 meeting.

C.13.e Studies to Reduce Copper Pollutant Impact Uncertainties (Arleen Feng) –

Committee members agreed last month that this provision is being addressed via stormwater agencies participation and work that could be done in the RMP. Today, Committee members generally agreed with the conceptual scope of work prepared by Committee Chair Arleen Feng. It was noted that the RMP Exposure Effects work group will hear a scope of work at their March 11 meeting regarding the possible impacts of copper on the olfactory system of salmonids. Committee members recognized that there was no time pressure to again discuss this provision at the March 3 meeting.

C.14.a Control Program for PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides, and Selenium (Arleen Feng) –

Committee members agreed last month that this provision is partially addressed via stormwater agencies participation in the Clean Estuary Partnership and via C.8.e monitoring, and is being partially addressed via stormwater agencies participation and work that is being done in the RMP. The one sub-provision not being addressed is the identification of control measures or management practices by 2013 Annual Report. Today, Committee members asked some clarifying questions of Regional Water Board staff regarding listings and TMDLs for these pollutants of concern but overall, they generally agreed with the conceptual scope of work prepared by Committee Chair Arleen Feng. Committee members recognized that there was no time pressure to again discuss this provision at the March 3 meeting.

3. Updates on other regional MRP tasks, projects, programs (Committee members)

Committee members received updates related to the following provisions:

San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund grant project: Clean Watersheds for a Clean Bay (Geoff Brosseau / Jon Konnan) – The grant project addresses the following MRP provisions:

DRAFT


C.11/12.c Pilot projects–Identify On-land Locations with Elevated PCBs/Mercury for Abatement (Grant task 3)

C.11/12.d Pilot projects–Enhance Sediment Removal and Management Practices (Grant task 4)

C.11/12.e Pilot projects–Evaluate On-site Stormwater Treatment Retrofit (Grant task 5) C.11/12.i Develop Regional Risk Reduction Program (Grant task 6)

Committee members received a brief status update on this recently awarded grant project. BASMAA has been busy with pre-award grant administration between BASMAA and EPA, including filling out forms and preparing to provide other information to EPA so that the grant can be formally awarded. BASMAA is interested in kicking off the project ASAP with meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee and the project management team (representatives from four largest areawide programs) and partners work group (representatives from project partners). Executive Director Brosseau and Project Manager Jon Konnan are discussing the TAC with Tom Mumley and Lester McKee soon.

Action: Project Manager Konnan will set up a management team meeting for early

March, in anticipation of an April project start date.

C.11/12.g Development of Loads Reduced Methodology (Chris Sommers) – Chris Sommers reported that he is working on a scope of work, and noted that this provision has some relationship to provision C.11.j Develop Allocation Sharing Scheme with Caltrans.

Action: Chris Sommers will complete a draft scope of work for review at

the March 3 meeting.

C.11/12.a/13.d Incorporate ID of PCBs and PCBs-containing Equipment into Industrial Inspections (Chris Sommers) – Chris Sommers reported that a scope of work is in development, that is likely to include a literature review, guidance in the form of a PowerPoint training presentation, and model inspection forms and responses.

Action: Chris Sommers will ensure that a scope, budget, and

schedule are developed for review at the March 3 meeting.

C.12.b Pilot projects-Evaluate Managing PCB-containing Building Demolition / Renovation Materials / Wastes (see attachment) (Jon Konnan / Arleen Feng) – Committee members recognized last month that this provision is being addressed via SFEP’s PCBs in Caulk project (information sheet provided to committee). Today, Jon Konnan reported that that project’s coordinating calls are restarting on February 5 after a funding hiatus. Two of the main tasks are to sample buildings for PCBs and test BMPs. Sampling buildings for PCBS has turned out to present several significant challenges, which in combination with the funding freeze has resulted in very slow progress on the project. Committee members discussed options for identifying buildings to sample, including using municipal buildings only, working through window replacement contractors, using OSHA training exercises, working through municipal programs like blight abatement and weatherization.

Action: Jon Konnan and Arleen Feng will report back the results of the project

restart call to Executive Director Brosseau for next steps.

DRAFT


Action: Executive Director Brosseau will discuss and coordinate with SFEP, projects that they are managing that have MRP compliance consequences.

C.8.e Pollutants of Concern and Long-Term Trends Monitoring (Chris Sommers) –

Committee members recognized last month there are some pending deadlines later this year (June, July, October 2010) for deliverable plans related to this provision (e.g., Monitoring Plan, SAP, QAPP, contracting language, reporting formats and guidance, information management system plan), and for establishing four monitoring stations by October 2010 and four more by October 2012. Today, Chris Sommers shared and briefed the Committee on more of a RMC work plan than a project scope of work. The work plan would cover all of C.8 Water Quality Monitoring, except for a few permittee level provisions, like C.8.d Monitoring Projects (Stressor/Source Identification, BMP Effectiveness Investigation, Geomorphic project).

Action: Committee members to send comments on draft work plan outline to

Chris Sommers by week of February 15.

Committee members also used a table of preliminary RMC tasks to discuss a couple of the time-critical tasks in more detail (tasks needing to be completed to allow FY 10-11 sampling).

• C.8.e Pollutants of Concern and Long-Term Trends Monitoring: Regional

Sampling / Experimental Design – This project will be informed by two SFEI projects: 1) Methodology evaluation on Guadalupe River / Zone 4, Line A, and 2) Watershed ranking process. Information is needed from both of these projects by April 1. The internal to BASMAA soft deadline for completion of the design is early summer.

• C.8.c Creek Status Monitoring: Field Standard Operating Procedures –

Committee members discussed options for completing this work, including how best to use SFEI’s experience.

Action: Committee Chair Feng, Chris Sommers, and Jon Konnan will

develop a conceptual scope of work, with the plan of incorporating SFEI’s experience through populating field manuals and forms with their information (versus requesting SFEI to develop the outlines and formats).

Action: Chris Sommers will add table columns indicating geographic scale

(regional, area-wide program, local) and forms of collaboration (e.g., information sharing, guidance, conducting, reporting).

4. MRP Reporting (Arleen Feng)

The Committee had a brief discussion of this item, noting that there is not a lot to report for FY 09-10 and the deliverable for the POCs are pretty clear.

Action: Committee Chair Feng and Executive Director Brosseau will develop a draft

format.

Next Monitoring / POCs Committee Meeting is March 3, 2010

DRAFT


Meetings Attended

Representing Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Alameda Co. CWP Arleen Feng X X X

2 Contra Costa CWP Jamison Crosby X X X

3 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen P X

4 Marin Co. STOPPP Terri Fashing P

5 Howard Bunce P

6 SM Co. WPPP Jon Konnan X X X

7 SC Valley URPPP Chris Sommers X X X

8 Napa Co. SPPP Jack Betourne P P

9 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau X X X

10 City of Oakland Lesley Estes X X

11 City of Pacifica Elizabeth Claycomb

P P

12 City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa X X X

13 City of San Jose Eric Dunlavey X X X

14 James Downing P

15 City of Daly City Cynthia Royer X X

16 SCVWD Brett Calhoun X X

17 Brown & Caldwell Khalil Abu-Saba X X

18 Regional Water Board Richard Looker X

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

X = In-person; P = by phone

DRAFT


Date: March 17, 2010 To: Management Committee From: Rinta Perkins, City of Walnut Creek By: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Subcommittee Report D – BASMAA Trash/Municipal Operations

Committee Recommendation: Receive report. Background: The BASMAA Trash/Municipal Operations Committee conducted their February monthly meeting and continued to designate regional tasks for Provision C.2, C.4, C.5, C.9, C.10, and C.15. The attached minutes provide a detailed account of the Trash/Municipal Operations Committee’s second meeting of the year. Please note Elisa Wilfong, Program staff, is Chairperson for the rest of this fiscal year for the Municipal Operations portion of the Committee. Mr. Chris Sommers of EOA, Inc. is the Chairperson for the Trash portion of the Committee. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. February 18, 2010 BASMAA Draft Trash/Municipal Operations Committee

Meeting Summary. EW:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\09 10\Mar 10\Subcommittee Rpt D - MOC.doc

DRAFT Meeting Summary Trash / Municipal Operations Committee

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association

February 18, 2010

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda (Geoff Brosseau) 2. Approval – January 21, 2010 meeting summary (Geoff Brosseau)

Committee members approved the meeting summary as drafted. 3. Selection of Committee Chair (Geoff Brosseau)

• Municipal Operations – The Committee agreed to continue to scope out just how large the municipal operations portion of the combined Committee will be before deciding whether it deserves a separate Committee and Chair.

• Trash - Chris Sommers was selected as Trash Committee Chair.

Municipal Operations 4. Scoping of BASMAA regional MRP tasks, projects, programs (Committee members)

The Committee continued the work from the previous month of focusing on scoping tasks determined in BASMAA Board of Directors meetings to be related to MRP provisions of a regional scale and therefore the purview of the Committee. Committee members received updates, and in some cases, reviewed scopes related to the following provisions:

C.2 Municipal Operations Existing BASMAA Surface Cleaner Recognition program enhancement (Geoff Brosseau)

C.2.b. Sidewalk/Plaza Maintenance and Pavement Washing C.2.c. ii.(2) Graffiti Removal C.5.d. Control of Mobile Sources

The Committee reviewed a partial draft conceptual scope of work. The Committee agreed that the first two provisions, C.2.b and C.2.c.ii.(2) were both addressed by the existing BASMAA program; and that enhancing the existing program to cover C.5.d to cover transportation-related cleaning and carpet cleaning was important enough to spend some significant resources doing so. Committee members noted regarding the need for an enforcement strategy that the basic strategy should be complaint-based, and they agreed that a regional web-based database to share information about enforcement actions was desirable.

Action: Geoff Brosseau will continue developing the scope to expand the existing

BASMAA program.

C.2.d. Stormwater Pump Stations – Data collection form (4) storm-related inspections (start fall 2010) – Committee members agreed last month that BASMAA could help with information sharing and developing a common form and procedures for this task. Committee members should be gathering information from their agencies re: details of current inspections and compare these details against provision requirements. Cynthia Royer has volunteered to start to develop a form for data collection.

DRAFT 2

BASMAA Trash / Municipal Operations Comm. February 18, 2010

C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls C.4.d. Staff Training Committee members generally agreed that over time training may become more regionalized (e.g., a regional training curriculum that is conducted locally) and that other provisions with training requirements may go through a similar development. Committee members generally agreed to revisit this idea for FY 01-11.

C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control C.9.a/b. Adopt / Implement an IPM Policy / Ordinance C.9.c. Train Municipal Employees C.9.d. Require Contractors to Implement IPM

Committee members were made aware of existing resources that may help local agencies comply with these provisions, including: • Public Agencies IPM Exchange • EcoWise / Bay Friendly / Green Gardner / Green Pro • University of Minnesota online course: IPM for Facility Managers and Supervisors • UC Cooperative Extension "Ant Alliance"

Committee members agreed that BASMAA should play an information-sharing role for these provisions.

Action: Geoff Brosseau will send out information on the existing resources.

C.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination C.5.e. Collection System Screening Committee members generally agreed that BASMAA’s role was information sharing; that manuals such as those from the Center for Watershed Protection should used as guidance only; and that it may make sense to conduct screening in concert with trash assessments. Committee members agreed to share information through review of FY 09-10 reports.

C.15. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges C.15.a. Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges (Exempted Discharges): i. Discharge Type

C.15.b. Conditionally Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges: iii. Discharge Types –

Planned; (1) Planned Discharges; (c) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

C.15.b. Conditionally Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges: iii. Discharge Types – Unplanned; (2) Unplanned Discharges; (d) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Committee members generally agreed that BASMAA’s role was information sharing, and discussed their understanding and challenges of the turbidity monitoring requirements for planned discharges.

DRAFT 3


5. MRP Reporting: Municipal Ops – review (Committee members) The Committee received and briefly reviewed Excel spreadsheets on C.2, C.4, and C.5 that lay out the basic information about reporting for each sub-provision (sub-provision name and #, characterization of tracking / reporting requirement, type (e.g., number, text, table) and description of reporting field, and submittal schedules). These spreadsheets are source material for developing the reporting format due to the Regional Water Board by April 1. The Committee agreed it needed to hold a special meeting dedicated to determining the reporting format.

Action: Chris Sommers will provide the C.15 Excel spreadsheet.

Action: Committee members should send comments on the Excel spreadsheets to

Laura Pettegrew by March 8.

Action: The Committee will meet in mid-March to go through annual reporting on C.2, C.2, C.4, C.5, and C.15.

Trash 6. Scoping of BASMAA regional MRP tasks, projects, programs (Committee members)

The Committee continued the work from the previous month of focusing on scoping tasks determined in BASMAA Board of Directors meetings to be related to MRP provisions of a regional scale and therefore the purview of the Trash Committee. Committee members received updates and materials related to the following provisions:

C.10.b.iii Hot spot assessment (effectively due 7/1/10)

Committee members received and briefly discussed a draft “Protocol for Conducting Documentation at Selected Trash Hot Spots” (SCVURPPP). Committee members generally agreed that it would be good to be consistent in assessments across the region, and using one protocol would promote that consistency.

Action: The draft will be provided to the Committee. Committee members should

send comments on the draft to Chris Sommers.

C.10.b.ii Hot spot selection (due 7/1/10) Committee members received and discussed a memo “Trash Hot Spot Selection Guidance” (SCVURPPP). Committee members generally agreed that it would be good to be substantially consistent in hot spot selection across the region, and agreed to work from the SCVURPPP guidance. Committee members discussed some of the details of the selection considerations and noted some will be more or less applicable, depending on the candidate site. SCVURPPP is also working on a fact sheet template (similar to the profile sheet discussed in the first Committee meeting) along with a field form.

Action: The memo will be provided to the Committee.

Action: Chris Sommers will share the fact sheet template and field form as soon as

they can be made available (probably after March 8).

DRAFT 4


C.10.a.ii Baseline trash loading estimate (due 2/1/12) Committee members were informed that SCVURPPP is starting to conceptualize a methodology based on results of a San Jose / Sunnyvale study of full capture devices. Action: The BASMAA Trash / Municipal Operations Committee will agendize for their

March 18 meeting, a presentation and discussion of the study results. The Committee was also apprised of the following from the BASMAA Board of Directors (January 28, 2010 Board of Directors minutes excerpt): • Baseline trash methodology proposal – In its December 2009 meeting AEO Mumley

informed the Directors that Regional Water Board Vice-Chair Terry Young was interested in helping cities by finding funding to develop baseline methodology and baseline for trash. Directors noted then that they would be interested in such funding as long as the work was conducted through BASMAA and its member agencies (BASMAA is a non-profit). This month, Executive Director Brosseau was invited by Vice-Chair Young to receive more information on the Vice-Chair’s proposal, which he did yesterday. Executive Director Brosseau conferred with Chair Donald Freitas before the meeting. Vice-Chair Young explained that she was both moved by the municipalities’ MRP testimony regarding lack of funding and has an interest in performance metrics. She is proposing: 1) A collaborative effort be started comprising BASMAA and its members and the

Regional Water Board to develop a baseline trash loading methodology. She saw it as potentially beneficial for an environmental NGO (e.g., Save the Bay) to be involved but not critical.

2) Funding be provided via the Regional Water Board to help with the effort. She is seeking funding now.

3) The effort be designed as an opt-in for permittees.

She also proposed the following conceptual process for developing the methodology: 1) Convene group; Develop shared conceptual model of litter / trash sources,

pathways, and loadings 2) Populate model with data 3) Ground truth and refine conceptual model 4) Apply model

Vice-Chair Young made it clear that this was just a proposal, that the decision to pursue it was completely up to the permittees, and she would willingly accept their decisions.

Action: Given the above, the BASMAA Trash / Municipal Operations Committee will

agendize for their March 18 meeting, a presentation and discussion of the SCVURPPP conceptual model, and invite Vice-Chair Young to participate.

Action: Future Committee agenda will include updates from the SFEP ARRA project – Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project.

DRAFT 5


7. MRP Reporting: Trash – review (Committee members) Although the reporting requirements for C.10 for FY 09-10 are minimal relative to other provisions, as with all the other provisions and Committees, the Committee recognized that it needs to develop a reporting format for those requirements that do need to be reported on in September (see C.10.d Reporting). Committee members generally agreed that the collection of the required information would be permittee-by-permittee, but also agreed that simple guidance from the Committee would again promote the regional consistency the member agencies are seeking across most MRP provisions. Action: Jon Konnan will provide some draft simple guidance on C.10 reporting at the mid-

March meeting on annual reporting of C.2, C.4, C.5, and C.15.

Next Trash / Municipal Operations Committee Meeting is Thursday, March 18, 2010

DRAFT

BASMAA Trash / Municipal Operations Comm. 6 February 18, 2010

Meetings Attended

Representing Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Contra Costa CWP Elisa Wilfong X X

2 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen P

3 Marin Co. STOPPP Terri Fashing P

4 SM Co. WPPP Matt Fabry X

5 Jon Konnan X

6 SC Valley URPPP Lori Pettegrew X X

7 John Fusco X

8 Chris Sommers X

9 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau X X

10 City of Daly City Cynthia Royer X X

11 City of San Ramon Steven Spedowfski

X X

12 City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins X X

13 City of San Jose Elaine Marshall X

14 Mary Morse X

15 Jordan Ciprian X

16 City of Sunnyvale Kristy Hyland-McCumby

X

17 City of Palo Alto Phil Bobel X

18 SCVWD Kate Slama P

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

January meeting - Attendance affected by weather and conference line logistical problems X = In-person; P = by phone

Contra Costa Clean Water Program · Phil Hoffmeister (Chair) /Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of...

Documents

Transcript of Contra Costa Clean Water Program · Phil Hoffmeister (Chair) /Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of...