BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 28, 2017 9:00 AM
CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 41972 GARSTIN DRIVE Service, Quality, Community BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA 92315 WWW.BBLDWP.COM
BOARD MEMBERS Don Smith, Chair Bob Tarras, Vice-Chair Craig Hjorth, Treasurer Alan Lee, Commissioner Kris Saukel, Commissioner OPEN SESSION CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC FORUM The public may address the Board by completing a speaker card. All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body only. There is a three minute maximum time limit when addressing the Board. Please note that California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any item not appearing on the agenda. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 Approve Minutes of a Special Board Meeting Dated January 24, 2017 1.2 Resolution No. 2017-XX for 2015 and 2016 Salary Schedules 1.3 Resolution No. 2017-XX for DWP Policy #2017-XX Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 2. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS 1.1 2.1 Check Register 1/01/2017-1/31/2017 Board to review and consider authenticating the check register for January 2017. 2.2 Financial Analysis – December 31, 2016 Board to review the YTD financial analysis. 2.3 Draft Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 Board to review and consider approving the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Annual Report. 2.4 Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX for USBR Grant Funding Application for Infrastructure Improvements Board to review and consider adopting Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX supporting the USBR Grant applications staff submitted for the Sawmill Well. 2.5 Amgen Tour of California Partnership and Support Opportunities Board to review and consider authorizing staff to sponsor the Amgen Tour at $2,500, which will give DWP an opportunity to have a Water Conservation booth and international advertising for the Big Bear Valley 2.6 Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids for a Vehicle Replacement Purchase Board to review and consider deferring the replacement of a trailer mounted air compressor for one year and instead authorize staff to purchase a replacement truck for a 1995 model year vehicle. 2.7 TRT Committee Report Board to review the report from the November Technical Review Team committee report. 1 of 316 Regular Meeting Agenda February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 2
2.8 Management Reports 2.9 Board Member Reports ADJOURNMENT I herby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 24th day of February, 2017.
Jack Roberts, Secretary to the Board of Commissioners DWP Board of Commissioners
The City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power strives to make all of its public meetings accessible to everyone. If you need any special assistance or disability-related accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, please contact the Board Secretary at (909) 866-5050. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the DWP to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
We are an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 of 316 Item 1.1
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS January 24, 2017
OPEN SESSION A Special Meeting of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power Board of Water and Power Commissioners was called to order at 3:30 PM on January 24, 2017 by Vice Chair Tarras at 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, California 92315 with one Board Member participating via telephone from 1610 Ford St., Redlands, CA 92373, another Board Member participating via telephone from 7130 Shoreline Dr., #1113, San Diego, CA 92122, and another Board Member participating via telephone from 1539 Tigertail Ct., Palmdale, CA 93551.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Don Smith, Chair (via telephone) N/A Bob Tarras, Vice Chair Craig Hjorth, Treasurer Alan Lee, Commissioner (via telephone) Kristin Saukel, Commissioner (via telephone)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Craig Hjorth, Treasurer
PUBLIC FORUM Nikki Peterson informed the Board she is resigning from DWP to pursue a career in teaching. Ms. Peterson thanked the Board for the opportunity to work at DWP. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 Approve Minutes of a Regular Board Meeting Dated November 22, 2016 1.2 Approve Minutes of a Special Board Meeting Dated January 10, 2017 1.3 Adopt Resolution No. DWP 2017-04 for USBR Grant Funding Applications for Infrastructure Improvements Board reviewed and considered approving Resolution No. DWP 2017-04 in support of 2017 USBR WaterSMART grant applications for capital improvements. 1.4 Adopt Proposed Budget Schedule FY2017/18 Board reviewed and considered approving the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 budget schedule and appointing the Board Treasurer to oversee the budget with staff.
Motion made by Chair Smith, seconded by Treasurer Hjorth and carried 5-0 to approve the Consent Calendar items with correcting the 1/10/2017 minutes to reflect it was a Special Board Meeting and adopting Resolution No. DWP 2017-04 Supporting USBR Grant Funding Applications. AYES: Hjorth, Lee, Saukel, Smith, Tarras NOES: - ABSTAIN: -
2. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
2.1 Check Registers 11/01/2016-11/30/2016 and 12/01/2016-12/31/2016 Board reviewed and considered authenticating the check register for November 2016 and December 2016.
3 of 316 Item 1.1 Minutes of a Special Board Meeting January 24, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Motion made by Treasurer Hjorth, seconded by Chair Smith and carried 5-0 to authenticate the check register for November 2016 and December 2016. AYES: Hjorth, Lee, Saukel, Smith, Tarras NOES: - ABSTAIN: -
2.2 Benefits Committee Board considered establishing an ad-hoc committee to assist staff with employee medical and supplemental benefits. Vice Chair Smith directed staff to establish the ad-hoc Benefits Committee and appointed Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Saukel to the Committee. 2.3 Claim Against DWP: Global Conductor Construction Board reviewed and considered the claim by Global Conductor Construction.
Motion made by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Lee and carried 5-0 to deny Global Conductor Construction’s claim. AYES: Hjorth, Lee, Saukel, Smith, Tarras NOES: - ABSTAIN: -
2.4 Formation of the Bear Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency Board reviewed and considered authorizing the General Manager to expend funds for legal counsel to assist in developing a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Big Bear Valley.
Motion made by Treasurer Hjorth, seconded by Commissioner Lee and carried 5-0 to authorize the DWP General Manager to expend funds not to exceed $15,000 to establish the Bear Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency. AYES: Hjorth, Lee, Saukel, Smith, Tarras NOES: - ABSTAIN: -
ADJOURNMENT No additional business came before the Board. At 4:04 PM Vice Chair Tarras adjourned the meeting.
Jack P. Roberts, Board Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
Approved at meeting dated:
4 of 316
Item 1.2 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Jack Roberts, Human Resources
Resolution No. 2017-XX for 2015 and 2016 Salary Schedules RE:
Background
The DWP employee salary schedules for 2015 and 2016 were not adopted by the Board via resolution. As a housekeeping measure, we suggest the board approve the salary schedules via resolution to prevent future questions with regard to the Board’s intent.
Financial Impact
None.
Recommendation
Please review and adopt Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX, adopting the 2015 and 2016 salary schedules for DWP employees (excluding the GM).
5 of 316 Item 1.2 RESOLUTION NO. DWP 2017-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING RATIFICATION OF THE 2015 AND 2016 SALARY SCHEDULES FOR DWP EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake was incorporated on November 28, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake did adopt its Charter in 1982; and
WHEREAS, the electors of the City did in 1985 adopt an amendment to that Charter which created the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (DWP); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the Board) is empowered by the Charter Amendment to adopt wages, benefits, and policies for the DWP employees’ conditions of employment;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power does hereby establish the compensation for DWP employees, effective January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2016 in accordance with the pay scales previously approved by the Board attached as exhibit “A” and exhibit “B.”
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of February, 2017.
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
______V. Don Smith, Chairman DWP Board of Commissioners ATTEST:
______Jack Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
6 of 316 Item 1.2
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
I, Jack Roberts, Secretary to the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of said Board is five; that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. DWP 2017- XX, was duly passed and adopted by said Board and attested to by the Secretary of said Board, all at a Regular Meeting, held on the28th day of February, 2017, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
______Jack Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
SEAL
7 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2015 Step 1 2 3 4 5 ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR Hourly $33.19 $34.85 $36.59 $38.42 $40.34 Monthly $5,752.93 $6,040.67 $6,342.27 $6,659.47 $6,992.27 Annually $69,035.20 $72,488.00 $76,107.20 $79,913.60 $83,907.20
ACCOUNTING/BILLING ASSISTANT Hourly $20.95 $22.00 $23.10 $24.26 $25.47 Monthly $3,631.33 $3,813.33 $4,004.00 $4,205.07 $4,414.80 Annually $43,576.00 $45,760.00 $48,048.00 $50,460.80 $52,977.60
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER Hourly $48.09 $50.49 $53.01 $55.66 $58.44 Monthly $8,335.60 $8,751.60 $9,188.40 $9,647.73 $10,129.60 Annually $100,027.20 $105,019.20 $110,260.80 $115,772.80 $121,555.20
CONTRACTS AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGER Hourly $39.60 $41.58 $43.66 $45.84 $48.13 Monthly $6,864.00 $7,207.20 $7,567.73 $7,945.60 $8,342.53 Annually $82,368.00 $86,486.40 $90,812.80 $95,347.20 $100,110.40
CUSTOMER FIELD SERVICE SUPERVISOR Hourly $30.98 $32.53 $34.16 $35.87 $37.66 Monthly $5,369.87 $5,638.53 $5,921.07 $6,217.47 $6,527.73 Annually $64,438.40 $67,662.40 $71,052.80 $74,609.60 $78,332.80
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE I Hourly $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 Monthly $2,927.60 $3,073.20 $3,227.47 $3,388.67 $3,558.53 Annually $35,131.20 $36,878.40 $38,729.60 $40,664.00 $42,702.40
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE II Hourly $18.97 $19.92 $20.92 $21.97 $23.07 Monthly $3,288.13 $3,452.80 $3,626.13 $3,808.13 $3,998.80 Annually $39,457.60 $41,433.60 $43,513.60 $45,697.60 $47,985.60
SENIOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE Hourly $20.95 $22.00 $23.10 $24.26 $25.47 Monthly $3,631.33 $3,813.33 $4,004.00 $4,205.07 $4,414.80 Annually $43,576.00 $45,760.00 $48,048.00 $50,460.80 $52,977.60
CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR Hourly $29.48 $30.95 $32.50 $34.13 $35.84 Monthly $5,109.87 $5,364.67 $5,633.33 $5,915.87 $6,212.27 Annually $61,318.40 $64,376.00 $67,600.00 $70,990.40 $74,547.20
8 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2015 Step 1 2 3 4 5 HR GENERALIST | MGMT. ASST. | SECRETARY TO BOARD Hourly $33.19 $34.85 $36.59 $38.42 $40.34 monthly $5,752.93 $6,040.67 $6,342.27 $6,659.47 $6,992.27 annually $69,035.20 $72,488.00 $76,107.20 $79,913.60 $83,907.20
METER TECHNICIAN I Hourly $18.91 $19.86 $20.85 $21.89 $22.98 Monthly $3,277.73 $3,442.40 $3,614.00 $3,794.27 $3,983.20 Annually $39,332.80 $41,308.80 $43,368.00 $45,531.20 $47,798.40
METER TECHNICIAN II Hourly $21.03 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 Monthly $3,645.20 $3,827.20 $4,017.87 $4,218.93 $4,430.40 Annually $43,742.40 $45,926.40 $48,214.40 $50,627.20 $53,164.80
PUBLIC INFORMATION | WATER CONSERVATION SPECIALIST Hourly $28.23 $29.64 $31.12 $32.68 $34.31 Monthly $4,893.20 $5,137.60 $5,394.13 $5,664.53 $5,947.07 Annually $58,718.40 $61,651.20 $64,729.60 $67,974.40 $71,364.80
PUMP TECHNICIAN I Hourly $19.90 $20.90 $21.95 $23.05 $24.20 Monthly $3,449.33 $3,622.67 $3,804.67 $3,995.33 $4,194.67 Annually $41,392.00 $43,472.00 $45,656.00 $47,944.00 $50,336.00
PUMP TECHNICIAN II Hourly $22.12 $23.23 $24.39 $25.61 $26.89 Monthly $3,834.13 $4,026.53 $4,227.60 $4,439.07 $4,660.93 Annually $46,009.60 $48,318.40 $50,731.20 $53,268.80 $55,931.20
PURCHASER | INSPECTOR I Hourly $23.21 $24.37 $25.59 $26.87 $28.21 Monthly $4,023.07 $4,224.13 $4,435.60 $4,657.47 $4,889.73 Annually $48,276.80 $50,689.60 $53,227.20 $55,889.60 $58,676.80
PURCHASER | INSPECTOR II Hourly $25.78 $27.07 $28.42 $29.84 $31.33 Monthly $4,468.53 $4,692.13 $4,926.13 $5,172.27 $5,430.53 Annually $53,622.40 $56,305.60 $59,113.60 $62,067.20 $65,166.40
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION SUPERVISOR Hourly $32.60 $34.23 $35.94 $37.74 $39.63 Monthly $5,650.67 $5,933.20 $6,229.60 $6,541.60 $6,869.20 Annually $67,808.00 $71,198.40 $74,755.20 $78,499.20 $82,430.40
9 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2015 Step 1 2 3 4 5 SENIOR UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST Hourly $24.37 $25.59 $26.87 $28.21 $29.62 Monthly $4,224.13 $4,435.60 $4,657.47 $4,889.73 $5,134.13 Annually $50,689.60 $53,227.20 $55,889.60 $58,676.80 $61,609.60
UTILITY TECHNICIAN I Hourly $19.42 $20.39 $21.41 $22.48 $23.60 Monthly $3,366.13 $3,534.27 $3,711.07 $3,896.53 $4,090.67 Annually $40,393.60 $42,411.20 $44,532.80 $46,758.40 $49,088.00
UTILITY TECHNICIAN II Hourly $21.56 $22.64 $23.77 $24.96 $26.21 Monthly $3,737.07 $3,924.27 $4,120.13 $4,326.40 $4,543.07 Annually $44,844.80 $47,091.20 $49,441.60 $51,916.80 $54,516.80
UTILITY TECHNICIAN | EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I Hourly $21.56 $22.64 $23.77 $24.96 $26.21 Monthly $3,737.07 $3,924.27 $4,120.13 $4,326.40 $4,543.07 Annually $44,844.80 $47,091.20 $49,441.60 $51,916.80 $54,516.80
UTILITY TECHNICIAN | EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II Hourly $23.97 $25.17 $26.43 $27.75 $29.14 Monthly $4,154.80 $4,362.80 $4,581.20 $4,810.00 $5,050.93 Annually $49,857.60 $52,353.60 $54,974.40 $57,720.00 $60,611.20
WATER OPERATIONS ASSISTANT Hourly $23.21 $24.37 $25.59 $26.87 $28.21 Monthly $4,023.07 $4,224.13 $4,435.60 $4,657.47 $4,889.73 Annually $48,276.80 $50,689.60 $53,227.20 $55,889.60 $58,676.80
WATER PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR Hourly $34.31 $36.03 $37.83 $39.72 $41.71 Monthly $5,947.07 $6,245.20 $6,557.20 $6,884.80 $7,229.73 Annually $71,364.80 $74,942.40 $78,686.40 $82,617.60 $86,756.80
WATER SUPERINTENDENT Hourly $40.09 $42.09 $44.19 $46.40 $48.72 Monthly $6,948.93 $7,295.60 $7,659.60 $8,042.67 $8,444.80 Annually $83,387.20 $87,547.20 $91,915.20 $96,512.00 $101,337.60
10 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2016 Step 1 2 3 4 5 ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR Hourly $33.85 $35.55 $37.32 $39.19 $41.15 Monthly $5,867.33 $6,162.00 $6,468.80 $6,792.93 $7,132.67 Annually $70,408.00 $73,944.00 $77,625.60 $81,515.20 $85,592.00
ACCOUNTING/BILLING ASSISTANT Hourly $21.37 $22.44 $23.56 $24.75 $25.98 Monthly $3,704.13 $3,889.60 $4,083.73 $4,290.00 $4,503.20 Annually $44,449.60 $46,675.20 $49,004.80 $51,480.00 $54,038.40
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER Hourly $49.05 $51.50 $54.07 $56.77 $59.61 Monthly $8,502.00 $8,926.67 $9,372.13 $9,840.13 $10,332.40 Annually $102,024.00 $107,120.00 $112,465.60 $118,081.60 $123,988.80
CUSTOMER FIELD SERVICE SUPERVISOR Hourly $31.60 $33.18 $34.84 $36.59 $38.41 Monthly $5,477.33 $5,751.20 $6,038.93 $6,342.27 $6,657.73 Annually $65,728.00 $69,014.40 $72,467.20 $76,107.20 $79,892.80
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE I Hourly $17.23 $18.08 $18.99 $19.94 $20.94 Monthly $2,986.53 $3,133.87 $3,291.60 $3,456.27 $3,629.60 Annually $35,838.40 $37,606.40 $39,499.20 $41,475.20 $43,555.20
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE II Hourly $19.35 $20.32 $21.34 $22.41 $23.53 Monthly $3,354.00 $3,522.13 $3,698.93 $3,884.40 $4,078.53 Annually $40,248.00 $42,265.60 $44,387.20 $46,612.80 $48,942.40
SENIOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE Hourly $21.37 $22.44 $23.56 $24.75 $25.98 Monthly $3,704.13 $3,889.60 $4,083.73 $4,290.00 $4,503.20 Annually $44,449.60 $46,675.20 $49,004.80 $51,480.00 $54,038.40
CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR Hourly $30.07 $31.57 $33.15 $34.81 $36.56 Monthly $5,212.13 $5,472.13 $5,746.00 $6,033.73 $6,337.07 Annually $62,545.60 $65,665.60 $68,952.00 $72,404.80 $76,044.80
HR GENERALIST | MGMT. ASST. | SECRETARY TO BOARD Hourly $33.85 $35.55 $37.32 $39.19 $41.15 monthly $5,867.33 $6,162.00 $6,468.80 $6,792.93 $7,132.67 annually $70,408.00 $73,944.00 $77,625.60 $81,515.20 $85,592.00
11 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2016 Step 1 2 3 4 5
METER TECHNICIAN I Hourly $19.29 $20.26 $21.27 $22.33 $23.44 Monthly $3,343.60 $3,511.73 $3,686.80 $3,870.53 $4,062.93 Annually $40,123.20 $42,140.80 $44,241.60 $46,446.40 $48,755.20
METER TECHNICIAN II Hourly $21.45 $22.52 $23.64 $24.83 $26.07 Monthly $3,718.00 $3,903.47 $4,097.60 $4,303.87 $4,518.80 Annually $44,616.00 $46,841.60 $49,171.20 $51,646.40 $54,225.60
PUBLIC INFORMATION | WATER CONSERVATION SPECIALIST Hourly $28.79 $30.23 $31.74 $33.33 $35.00 Monthly $4,990.27 $5,239.87 $5,501.60 $5,777.20 $6,066.67 Annually $59,883.20 $62,878.40 $66,019.20 $69,326.40 $72,800.00
PUMP TECHNICIAN I Hourly $20.30 $21.32 $22.39 $23.51 $24.68 Monthly $3,518.67 $3,695.47 $3,880.93 $4,075.07 $4,277.87 Annually $42,224.00 $44,345.60 $46,571.20 $48,900.80 $51,334.40
PUMP TECHNICIAN II Hourly $22.56 $23.69 $24.88 $26.12 $27.43 Monthly $3,910.40 $4,106.27 $4,312.53 $4,527.47 $4,754.53 Annually $46,924.80 $49,275.20 $51,750.40 $54,329.60 $57,054.40
PURCHASER | INSPECTOR I Hourly $23.67 $24.86 $26.10 $27.41 $28.77 Monthly $4,102.80 $4,309.07 $4,524.00 $4,751.07 $4,986.80 Annually $49,233.60 $51,708.80 $54,288.00 $57,012.80 $59,841.60
PURCHASER | INSPECTOR II Hourly $26.30 $27.61 $28.99 $30.44 $31.96 Monthly $4,558.67 $4,785.73 $5,024.93 $5,276.27 $5,539.73 Annually $54,704.00 $57,428.80 $60,299.20 $63,315.20 $66,476.80
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION SUPERVISOR Hourly $33.25 $34.91 $36.66 $38.49 $40.42 Monthly $5,763.33 $6,051.07 $6,354.40 $6,671.60 $7,006.13 Annually $69,160.00 $72,612.80 $76,252.80 $80,059.20 $84,073.60
12 of 316 Item 1.2
DWP SALARY SCHEDULE - 2016 Step 1 2 3 4 5 SENIOR UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST Hourly $24.86 $26.10 $27.41 $28.77 $30.21 Monthly $4,309.07 $4,524.00 $4,751.07 $4,986.80 $5,236.40 Annually $51,708.80 $54,288.00 $57,012.80 $59,841.60 $62,836.80
UTILITY TECHNICIAN I Hourly $19.81 $20.80 $21.84 $22.93 $24.07 Monthly $3,433.73 $3,605.33 $3,785.60 $3,974.53 $4,172.13 Annually $41,204.80 $43,264.00 $45,427.20 $47,694.40 $50,065.60
UTILITY TECHNICIAN II Hourly $21.99 $23.09 $24.25 $25.46 $26.73 Monthly $3,811.60 $4,002.27 $4,203.33 $4,413.07 $4,633.20 Annually $45,739.20 $48,027.20 $50,440.00 $52,956.80 $55,598.40
UTILITY TECHNICIAN | EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I Hourly $21.99 $23.09 $24.25 $25.46 $26.73 Monthly $3,811.60 $4,002.27 $4,203.33 $4,413.07 $4,633.20 Annually $45,739.20 $48,027.20 $50,440.00 $52,956.80 $55,598.40
UTILITY TECHNICIAN | EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II Hourly $24.45 $25.67 $26.96 $28.31 $29.72 Monthly $4,238.00 $4,449.47 $4,673.07 $4,907.07 $5,151.47 Annually $50,856.00 $53,393.60 $56,076.80 $58,884.80 $61,817.60
WATER OPERATIONS ASSISTANT Hourly $23.67 $24.86 $26.10 $27.41 $28.77 Monthly $4,102.80 $4,309.07 $4,524.00 $4,751.07 $4,986.80 Annually $49,233.60 $51,708.80 $54,288.00 $57,012.80 $59,841.60
WATER PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR Hourly $35.00 $36.75 $38.59 $40.51 $42.54 Monthly $6,066.67 $6,370.00 $6,688.93 $7,021.73 $7,373.60 Annually $72,800.00 $76,440.00 $80,267.20 $84,260.80 $88,483.20
WATER SUPERINTENDENT Hourly $40.89 $42.93 $45.07 $47.33 $49.69 Monthly $7,087.60 $7,441.20 $7,812.13 $8,203.87 $8,612.93 Annually $85,051.20 $89,294.40 $93,745.60 $98,446.40 $103,355.20
13 of 316 Item 1.3 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Jack Roberts, Human Resources
Resolution No. 2017-XX for DWP Policy #2017-XX Drug-free and RE: Alcohol-free Workplace
Background
On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64 to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Per advice from legal counsel, we reviewed the current City of Big Bear Lake policy (attachment A), and drafted a letter to DWP employees (attachment B) informing them that an employee testing positive for marijuana use would be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Since that letter, we have drafted a new DWP policy for a Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace for the Board to review and consider adopting.
Financial Impact
None.
Recommendation
Please review and adopt Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX, adopting DWP Policy #2017-XX, Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace.
14 of 316 Item 1.3 RESOLUTION NO. DWP 2017-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING POLICY #2017-XX, DRUG-FREE AND ALCOHOL-FREE WORKPLACE
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake was incorporated on November 28, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake did adopt its Charter in 1982; and
WHEREAS, the electors of the City did in 1985 adopt an amendment to that Charter which created the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (DWP); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the Board) is empowered by the Charter Amendment to adopt wages, benefits, and policies for the DWP employees’ conditions of employment;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power hereby adopts the Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy effective February 28, 2017, attached hereto as Policy #2017-XX (Exhibit A);
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of February, 2017.
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
V. Don Smith, Chairman DWP Board of Commissioners ATTEST:
Jack Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
15 of 316 Item 1.3 Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
I, Jack Roberts, Secretary to the Board of Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of said Board is five; that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX, was duly passed and adopted by the said Board and attested to by the Secretary of said Board, all at a Regular Meeting of said Board, held on the 28th day of February, 2017, and that the same was sopassed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
Jack Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
SEAL
16 of 316 Item 1.3
City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power POLICY Policy #2017-XX Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Date Established: Resolution 2017-XX adopted February 28, 2017 Date Last Amended: City of Big Bear Lake Policy dated August 27, 2001
Table of Contents SECTION A. DEFINITIONS ...... 3 SECTION B. DWP OPERATIONS ...... 3 1. ZERO TOLERANCE ...... 3 2. PROHIBITIONS ...... 4 a. Report to Work Under the Influence ...... 4 b. Use While On Duty ...... 4 c. Under the Influence While On Duty ...... 4 d. Under the Influence of Prescribed or Over-the-Counter While on Duty ...... 4 e. Purchasing ...... 4 f. Transport ...... 4 g. Manufacture, Grow, or Sell...... 4 h. General Manager Discretion ...... 4 3. MARIJUANA ...... 5 SECTION C. PROCEDURE ...... 5 1. POSSESSING, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTING, OR PURCHASING ...... 5 a. Possessing ...... 5 b. Manufacturing ...... 5 c. Distributing ...... 5 d. Purchasing ...... 6 2. UNDER THE INFLUENCE ...... 6 3. ARRESTED, CHARGED, OR CONVICTED ...... 6 4. PRE-EMPLOYMENT ...... 7
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 1 of 7
17 of 316 Item 1.3
SECTION D. DISCIPLINARY ACTION ...... 7
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 2 of 7
18 of 316 Item 1.3
DRUG-FREE AND ALCOHOL-FREE WORKPLACE POLICY
The following provisions apply to all DWP employees.
SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
Alcohol – Any alcoholic beverage as defined in California Business and Professional Code Sections 23003 and 23004.
Compulsory Leave – If, in the opinion of the General Manager, employees are unable to perform the duties of their position for physical or psychological reasons, an examination may be required by a physician or other competent authority designated by the General Manager. If the examination report shows the employee to be in an unfit condition to perform the duties required of the position, the General Manager shall have the right to compel such employee to take sufficient leave of absence with or without pay, to be temporarily assigned to another position without reduction in compensation, and/or follow a prescribed treatment regimen until medically qualified to return to unrestricted duty. At the employee’s expense, the employee may request a second opinion by a competent medical authority of the employee’s choice. Drug – Per the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938: (1) A substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) A substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.
On-Duty (or Regular Duty) – Conducting work on behalf of the DWP at any time for exempt employees and in a pay status for hourly employees. Break periods and lunches are not considered On-Duty.
Standby Duty – A rotating assignment to provide after-hours service to the DWP’s customers or provide non-routine service to the DWP’s water systems.
SECTION B. DWP OPERATIONS
1. ZERO TOLERANCE DWP promotes a safe and healthy work environment that is conducive to the efficient performance of public service. The possession or use of alcohol or illegal drugs or controlled substances that impair an employee’s judgment or the ability to perform while On-Duty is never acceptable behavior and is thereby strictly prohibited. Likewise, the DWP has zero tolerance for intoxication at any level while On-Duty, even if possession or use occurred elsewhere.
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 3 of 7
19 of 316 Item 1.3
2. PROHIBITIONS Employees shall not do any of the following in connection in employment at the DWP: a. Report to Work Under the Influence Report to work under the influence of alcohol, marijuana,1 illegal drugs, controlled substances, misused prescription drugs, or prescription drugs whose proper use renders the employee unfit for duty.
b. Use While On Duty Use alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, controlled substances, misused prescription drugs, or prescription drugs whose proper use renders the employee unfit for duty while on duty. c. Under the Influence While On Duty Be under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, controlled substances, misused prescription drugs, or prescription drugs whose proper use renders the employee unfit for duty while on Standby Duty.
d. Under the Influence of Prescribed or Over-the-Counter While on Duty Be under the influence of legal or legally prescribed or over the counter drugs that impair an employee’s ability to perform work and/or operate equipment while on Standby Duty or during Regular Duty. e. Purchasing Employees shall not purchase or use alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, or controlled substances – whether lawfully purchased and/or used or not –in a DWP vehicle or on DWP property. f. Transport Employees will not transport alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, or controlled substances in DWP vehicles. g. Manufacture, Grow, or Sell Employees will not manufacture, grow, or sell alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, or controlled substances on DWP property or in DWP vehicles. h. General Manager Discretion The General Manager may grant specific exceptions for specific events.
1 The prohibition of marijuana applies regardless of whether the marijuana was obtained and used under the advisement of a medical provider (so-called “medical marijuana”). All references to “marijuana” or “controlled substances” within this Policy shall be defined to include medical and recreational marijuana.
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 4 of 7
20 of 316 Item 1.3
3. MARIJUANA California has enacted laws decriminalizing marijuana for medical use. Recently, California also passed Proposition 64, which allows adults aged 21 years or older to possess and use a modest amount of marijuana for recreational purposes in their own homes. Importantly, these laws do not make it acceptable to possess or be under the influence of marijuana while at work. The DWP still maintains “zero tolerance” for marijuana in the workplace. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Any employee testing positive for marijuana usage, regardless of the intoxication level, will be subject to termination of employment.
SECTION C. PROCEDURE
1. POSSESSING, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTING, OR PURCHASING a. Possessing
An employee believed to be possessing alcohol, illegal drugs, or controlled substances shall be prevented from further work by a Supervisor, Human Resources, or General Manager. The employee will be required to vacate the worksite immediately by an authorized DWP representative or law enforcement official. The General Manager may grant exceptions to this portion of the policy for legal substances at his or her discretion. An employee believed to be possession of alcohol, illegal drugs or controlled substances while On-Duty or Off-Duty on DWP property or in a DWP vehicle will be subject to severe disciplinary action, up to and including termination. b. Manufacturing
An employee believed to be in the act of manufacturing or growing of alcohol or illegal drugs or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On-Duty shall be prevented from further work by a Supervisor, Human Resources, or General Manager. The employee will be required to vacate the worksite immediately by an authorized DWP representative or law enforcement official. An employee believed to be in the act of manufacturing or growing of alcohol, illegal drugs, or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On- Duty or Off-Duty on DWP property or in a DWP vehicle will be subject to severe disciplinary action, up to and including termination. c. Distributing
An employee believed to be selling/distributing or growing of alcohol, illegal drugs, or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On-Duty shall be prevented from further work by a Supervisor, Human Resources, or General Manager. The employee will be required to vacate the worksite immediately by an authorized DWP representative or law enforcement official. An employee believed to be selling/distributing or growing of alcohol,
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 5 of 7
21 of 316 Item 1.3
illegal drugs, or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On-Duty or Off-Duty on DWP property or in a DWP vehicle will be subject to severe disciplinary action, up to and including termination. d. Purchasing
An employee believed to be purchasing or growing of alcohol, illegal drugs, or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On-Duty shall be prevented from further work by a Supervisor, Human Resources, or General Manager. The employee will be required to vacate the worksite immediately by an authorized DWP representative or law enforcement official. An employee believed to be purchasing or growing of alcohol, illegal drugs, or controlled substances (including but not limited to marijuana) while On-Duty or Off- Duty on DWP property or in a DWP vehicle will be subject to severe disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
2. UNDER THE INFLUENCE If there is a reasonable suspicion by a Supervisor that an employee is under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs, controlled substances, or any substance that would render the employee unfit for duty, the employee may be required to submit to a drug and/or alcohol tests. The tests may consist of compulsory production and submission of breath, urine, or blood by law enforcement officials, DWP designated medical provider or testing agency, or DWP Human Resources. The Supervisor who has the reasonable suspicion will document, in writing, the facts leading him or her to such a conclusion.
Prior to the administration of the drug and/or alcohol tests, the Supervisor or Human Resources will provide a consent form to the employee being tested, which the employee will be required to sign. The consent form provides for the release of test results to the DWP. Refusal to sign the consent form would be considered insubordination, resulting in disciplinary action up to and including termination. An employee who refuses to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing or refuses to sign the release form will be placed on Compulsory Leave without pay until the DWP has been provided a fitness for duty determination by a medical provider.
3. ARRESTED, CHARGED, OR CONVICTED Any employee who is arrested for a drug or alcohol related crime occurring while On-Duty shall report that arrest to the employee’s Supervisor within 24 hours of being arrested. Any employee who is charged with a drug or alcohol related crime occurring while On-Duty shall report that charge to the employee’s Supervisor within 24 hours of being charged. Any employee who is convicted of a drug or alcohol related crime, regardless of location, whereby the conviction limits the employee’s ability to perform his or her normally assigned duties, shall notify his or her Supervisor within 72 hours of the conviction or prior to performing any affected duty, whichever occurs first.
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 6 of 7
22 of 316 Item 1.3
4. PRE-EMPLOYMENT Applicants for employment in a safety sensitive position who have been given a conditional offer of employment shall be required to submit to a drug and alcohols tests as part of the pre- employment physical exam. If medical documentation is not provided to explain a positive result for a specific prescribed medication, then the DWP will rescind the offer of employment. A positive test for marijuana usage shall be grounds for rescinding an offer of employment, regardless of whether the use was pursuant to a medical marijuana card.
SECTION D. DISCIPLINARY ACTION The DWP will take disciplinary action, up to and including termination, for any employee behavior that violates this policy. The DWP has zero tolerance for behavior that violates this Policy and its prohibitions as set forth in Section 2. Violation of this Policy will result in discipline, most likely termination of employment.
Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace Policy Page 7 of 7
23 of 316 Item 1.3
24 of 316 Item 1.3
25 of 316 Item 1.3
26 of 316 Item 1.3
27 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009024 01/05/2017 $ 3,500.00 US Postal Service $ 3,500.00 20-90-6320 Postage Charges Postage- Permit #192 Distributions Total: $ 3,500.00 009025 01/05/2017 $ 105.00 County Recorder San Bernardino
$ 105.00 20-90-6335 Bank Charges and Misc Fees Lien Release Fees Distributions Total: $ 105.00 009026 01/05/2017 $ 247.84 Special Districts Dept San Bernardino County $ 247.84 20-50-5550 Utilities - Gas 11/1/16-12/31/16 Seminole Swr Distributions Total: $ 247.84 009027 01/05/2017 $ 5,969.00 Accent Computer Solutions $ 589.00 20-98-6420 Professional Services - 1/17 PMG Mgmt, Cloud Based St Data/Internet $ 4,125.00 20-98-6420 Professional Services - Jan 2017- IT Management Data/Internet $ 1,255.00 20-90-6315 Computer Equip And Software Crystal Rep. Upgrade & License Distributions Total: $ 5,969.00 009028 01/05/2017 $ 1,386.67 All American Asphalt $ 1,500.00 20-00-2031 Deposits Payable - Developer Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Svc $ (113.33) 19-00-6705 Bad Debt Expense Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Distributions Total: $ 1,386.67 009029 01/05/2017 $ 89.40 Louis & Sandra Amendola
$ 89.40 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 462 Ashwood Overpayment Distributions Total: $ 89.40 009030 01/05/2017 $ 3,223.91 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY $ 3,223.91 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities Jan Ee Insurance
28 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number Distributions Total: $ 3,223.91 009031 01/05/2017 $ 14.74 APPLE Administrator $ 14.74 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PPE 12/23/16 Contributions Distributions Total: $ 14.74 009032 01/05/2017 $ 47,088.02 Aqua-Metric Sales Company
$ 140.41 20-95-6256 Maintenance - Meters 2-2" Test Port Assembly $ 46,947.60 22-55-9270 Capital Outlay - Meters 270-Sen011, 216- Sen001 $ 0.01 22-55-9270 Capital Outlay - Meters 270-Sen011, 216- Sen001 Distributions Total: $ 47,088.02 009033 01/05/2017 $ 1,284.43 Arizona Pipeline Co. $ 1,500.00 20-00-2031 Deposits Payable - Developer Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Svc $ (215.57) 19-00-6705 Bad Debt Expense Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Distributions Total: $ 1,284.43 009034 01/05/2017 $ 13.47 Arrowhead Investments, LLC.
$ 13.47 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 850 Orange Overpayment Distributions Total: $ 13.47 009035 01/05/2017 $ 680.34 Barco Products Company
$ 680.34 20-00-2023 Accrued Accounts Payable - Inv 20-HYD088 Hydrant Markers
Distributions Total: $ 680.34 009036 01/05/2017 $ 270.46 Kelle Barrette $ 9.59 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Breakroom Supplies $ 260.87 20-98-6926 Education / Training Notary Commission Renewal Distributions Total: $ 270.46 009037 01/05/2017 $ 1,115.08 Butchers Blocks & Building Mat
$ 6.47 20-59-6180 Small Tools 100 Pk 7" Wht Cable Tie $ 20.69 20-50-6235 Maintenance - Pressure Valves 4-BRS Bushing $ 14.01 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells Nipple, Bushing, Red Brs.
29 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number $ 17.27 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells 6" Pro Wire Stripper $ 18.35 20-59-6180 Small Tools Med Torx Key Set $ 48.50 20-59-6180 Small Tools 4-Female Conn., 4-Hose Nipple, $ 7.62 20-59-6180 Small Tools Elec. Tape, Eye Bolt, Misc. Bo $ 43.18 20-59-6180 Small Tools 28" Bypass Lopper $ 163.59 20-59-6180 Small Tools 2-Flexogen Hose, Hose Washer $ 32.38 20-59-6180 Small Tools Water Pressure Regulator $ 8.72 20-59-6180 Small Tools 3- Proof Coil Chain 5/16" $ 149.01 20-59-6180 Small Tools 2-Hose Red River, 1-Brass Conn $ 12.96 20-59-6180 Small Tools Chain Link Terminal Post 8x6 $ 17.92 20-50-6232 Maintenance - Pump Equip Spiral Bulb,20-Misc Nuts,Bolts $ 18.14 20-50-6232 Maintenance - Pump Equip 10-1" Bristle Brush, 10-2" Bri $ 29.10 20-55-6250 Maintenance - Mains And Svcs 2-Gal Nipple, 2-Gal Coupling $ 3.23 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells 2pk CHR Magnet Clip $ 113.25 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Oil Cap Kit, Mechanic Labor Fe $ 159.80 20-59-6180 Small Tools Framing Hammer, Stk Cedar Dry $ 50.18 20-59-6180 Small Tools Flashlight, Lith Batt, 5Gal Bu $ 53.99 20-59-6180 Small Tools 4x75 Farm/Ranch Hose $ 4.30 20-59-6180 Small Tools 2- Filter Pin 20x20 $ 16.72 20-59-6180 Small Tools Thrdlcker 6ML, Scripto Lighter $ 72.33 20-59-6180 Small Tools 2-Cont. Trash Bag, Elec Tape $ 13.99 20-59-6180 Small Tools Carp. Crayon Holder, 4-Blue Cr $ 19.38 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells 6-2pk CHR Magnet Clip Distributions Total: $ 1,115.08 009038 01/05/2017 $ 5,895.35 Bear Valley Electric $ 3,027.44 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Div #6 Well Div/North Shore Dr $ 79.49 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric North End of A Lane $ 325.17 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Arrastre Creek Pump Station $ 133.62 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Well Monte Vista Dr $ 76.02 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Onyx Way $ 41.20 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Skyview Well Deadman Lk $ 1,019.30 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Seminole Well
30 of 316
Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number $ 358.78 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Cline Miller Pl Reservoir $ 691.75 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Cherokee Well $ 38.47 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Division Booseter Meter $ 50.32 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Coontank N/Pineyridge $ 53.79 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 39218 1/2 Cedar Dell Distributions Total: $ 5,895.35 009039 01/05/2017 $ 1,364.61 Robert L. Smith $ 1,364.61 20-50-6245 Maintenance - Telemetry Rep. Transducer/Added Isolator Distributions Total: $ 1,364.61 009040 01/05/2017 $ 10,500.00 California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank $ 10,500.00 21-85-6400 Professional Services Orig Fee BBL CLEEN 17-002 Distributions Total: $ 10,500.00 009041 01/05/2017 $ 329.27 Canon Financial Services, Inc.
$ 329.27 20-90-6370 Rent/Lease Expense Dec.2016 Billing Copier/Printe Distributions Total: $ 329.27 009042 01/05/2017 $ 388.08 Cintas $ 388.08 20-59-6130 Safety Supplies First Aid Supplies Distributions Total: $ 388.08 009043 01/05/2017 $ 114.73 Sharon Clasen $ 114.73 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 1715 Angels Camp Overpayment Distributions Total: $ 114.73 009044 01/05/2017 $ 2,221.50 Clinical Laboratory $ 2,221.50 20-50-6400 Professional Services Nov 2016 Testing Distributions Total: $ 2,221.50 009045 01/05/2017 $ 31.57 DIY Home Center $ 31.57 20-59-6180 Small Tools 14.1oz Propane, Self Light Kit Distributions Total: $ 31.57
31 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009046 01/05/2017 $ 90.00 David Emig $ 45.00 20-59-6920 Telephone Nov. 2016 Cell Phone Reimburse $ 45.00 20-59-6920 Telephone Dec. 2016 Cell Phone Reimburse Distributions Total: $ 90.00 009047 01/05/2017 $ 60.49 Frontier $ 60.49 20-98-6920 Telephone 12/25/16-1/24/17 Services Distributions Total: $ 60.49 009048 01/05/2017 $ 423.02 Gregg Cornwell $ 423.02 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance 06P02-Replace Wtr Pump, Fan Cl Distributions Total: $ 423.02 009049 01/05/2017 $ 2,500.00 Totalfunds by Hasler $ 2,500.00 20-98-6320 Postage Charges Postage Acct#7900011002560756 Distributions Total: $ 2,500.00 009050 01/05/2017 $ 19,995.23 Health Net $ 3,966.93 20-50-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A $ 2,500.12 20-59-6084 Health and Wellness Benefit 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A $ 5,346.23 20-90-6084 Health and Wellness Benefi 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A $ 5,719.89 20-95-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A $ 1,829.10 20-98-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A $ 632.96 20-55-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits 1/17 HMO/PPO Premium BBU06A Distributions Total: $ 19,995.23 009051 01/05/2017 $ 255.31 Inland Water Works Supply Co.
$ 255.31 20-55-6250 Maintenance - Mains And Svcs 24-CAN004 Galvanized Top Sec Distributions Total: $ 255.31 009052 01/05/2017 $ 6,137.59 Kaiser Permanente $ 730.84 20-51-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Feb. 2017 Ins. Premium $ 3,146.02 20-55-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Feb. 2017 Ins. Premium $ 1,334.10 20-90-6084 Health and Wellness Benefi Feb. 2017 Ins. Premium $ 1,719.10 20-95-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Feb. 2017 Ins. Premium $ (792.47) 20-55-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Feb. 2017 Ins. Premium Distributions Total: $ 6,137.59
32 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009053 01/05/2017 $ 703.80 KBHR-FM $ 386.40 20-51-6910 Advertising Dec. 2016 Advertising $ 317.40 20-51-6910 Advertising Dec. 2016 Advertising Distributions Total: $ 703.80 009054 01/05/2017 $ 45.00 Danielle McGee $ 45.00 20-98-6920 Telephone Nov. 2016 Cell Phone Reimb. Distributions Total: $ 45.00 009055 01/05/2017 $ 435.86 Mission Linen & Uniform Service
$ 220.70 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services $ 215.16 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services Distributions Total: $ 435.86 009056 01/05/2017 $ 45.00 Kevin Moran $ 45.00 20-59-6920 Telephone Dec.2016 Cell Phone Reimburse Distributions Total: $ 45.00 009057 01/05/2017 $ 57.17 Neopost USA $ 57.17 20-90-6230 Maintenance - Equipment 1/16/17-4/17/17 Ltr Opener Distributions Total: $ 57.17 009058 01/05/2017 $ 885.60 OneSource Distributors, LLC. $ 885.60 20-95-6256 Maintenance - Meters 200-Barrel Lock w/Cap Distributions Total: $ 885.60 009059 01/05/2017 $ 1,186.67 Porter's Firewood $ 1,500.00 20-00-2031 Deposits Payable - Developer Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Svc $ (313.33) 19-00-6705 Bad Debt Expense Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Distributions Total: $ 1,186.67 009060 01/05/2017 $ 1,075.22 Ricoh Americas Corp. $ 405.22 20-98-6258 Maintenance-Hardware/Software 12/9/16-1/8/17 Cop. Lease/Main
$ 670.00 20-98-6375 Rents And Leases - Equipment 12/9/16-1/8/17 Cop. Lease/Main Distributions Total: $ 1,075.22
33 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009061 01/05/2017 $ 38,650.02 SB COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION $ 38,650.02 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PPE 12/23/16 Emp. Pensions Distributions Total: $ 38,650.02 009062 01/05/2017 $ 336.02 San Bernardino Publ Empl Assoc
$ 336.02 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PPE 12/23/16 Union Dues Distributions Total: $ 336.02 009063 01/05/2017 $ 834.07 South Coast AQMD $ 709.72 20-59-6366 Licenses & Permits ICE F2331 & G35600 Var. Loc. $ 124.35 20-59-6366 Licenses & Permits Flat Fee FY Emiss. Various Loc Distributions Total: $ 834.07 009064 01/05/2017 $ 1,097.21 STL Landscape, Inc $ 1,500.00 20-00-2031 Deposits Payable - Developer Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Svc $ (402.79) 19-00-6705 Bad Debt Expense Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit Distributions Total: $ 1,097.21 009065 01/05/2017 $ 819.10 Stock's Automotive Inc.
$ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check- 04P01 $ 69.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-95P02 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-06P02 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-04E01 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-05P02 $ 101.91 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-06P03 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check-07E01 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check- 01P02 $ 59.75 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Check- 01P05 $ 229.19 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Smog Ck, Replace Spk Plg 96P01 Distributions Total: $ 819.10
34 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009066 01/05/2017 $ 168.00 Staples Credit $ 258.50 20-98-6114 Office Supplies Office Supplies $ (97.24) 20-98-6114 Office Supplies Office Supplies $ 6.74 20-98-6114 Office Supplies Office Supplies Distributions Total: $ 168.00 009067 01/05/2017 $ 1,125.60 TRANSACTION WAREHOUSE, INC. $ 1,125.60 20-90-6335 Bank Charges and Misc Fees Dec. 2016 Web Pmt Trans Fee
Distributions Total: $ 1,125.60 009068 01/05/2017 $ 89.40 William & Hortencia Upchurch $ 1.49 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 510 Kern Av Overpayment $ 87.91 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 510 Kern Av Distributions Total: $ 89.40 009069 01/05/2017 $ 2,452.13 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems $ 149.00 20-50-6245 Maintenance - Telemetry Log Me In for W15 $ 314.95 20-98-6420 Professional Services - Intermedia Billing Email Data/Internet $ 15.93 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Supplies for Holiday Party $ 6.48 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Supplies for Holiday Party $ 14.00 20-98-6258 Maintenance-Hardware/Software Software Annual Maint/Sup Rnew
$ 495.00 20-90-6315 Computer Equip And Software Train 2 Off. Emp.& New Licens $ 160.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Service Award for General Mgr $ 100.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 240.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 150.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 120.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 170.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 149.00 20-98-6926 Education / Training Micr. Excel Pivot Table Train. $ 120.00 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Gift Certif. for Holiday Party $ 14.04 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Holiday Party Items
35 of 316
Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number $ 113.87 20-98-6926 Education / Training Micr. Excel Pivot Table Train. $ 119.86 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense HR Equipment Purchase Distributions Total: $ 2,452.13 009070 01/05/2017 $ 153.38 Western Water Works $ 153.38 20-55-6250 Maintenance - Mains And Svcs CL115 Full Circle Repair Clamp Distributions Total: $ 153.38 009071 01/05/2017 $ 1,535.52 WW Grainger Inc $ 74.32 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense 3-Multifold Sheets White Pk 16 $ 493.26 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Ducting Hose 25Ft. $ 493.26 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance Ducting Hose 25Ft. $ 364.45 20-59-6180 Small Tools 5-Cord Reel 30Ft. $ 23.59 20-59-6130 Safety Supplies Analog Clock, Gloves Cold Prot $ 41.41 20-59-6180 Small Tools Analog Clock, Gloves Cold Prot $ 45.23 20-98-6220 Maint-Buildings And Grounds 12-Air Filter Distributions Total: $ 1,535.52 009072 01/09/2017 $ 392.89 Mission Linen & Uniform Service
$ 48.47 20-59-6339 Laundry Unform Services $ (35.64) 20-59-6339 Laundry Unform Services $ 189.79 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services $ 190.27 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services Distributions Total: $ 392.89 009073 01/19/2017 $ 105.00 County Recorder San Bernardino
$ 105.00 20-90-6335 Bank Charges and Misc Fees Lien Release Fees Distributions Total: $ 105.00 009074 01/19/2017 $ 2,414.58 Vehicle Svcs Dept San Bernardino County $ 2,414.58 20-59-6362 Fuel Dec. 2016 Fuel Distributions Total: $ 2,414.58
36 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009075 01/19/2017 $ 950.25 All Protection Alarm $ 145.16 20-98-6330 Contractual Services Feb 2017 Monitoring Serv. $ 805.09 20-98-6330 Contractual Services Feb 2016 Answering Serv. Distributions Total: $ 950.25 009076 01/19/2017 $ 595.00 American Building Janitorial, Inc.
$ 595.00 20-98-6220 Maint-Buildings And Grounds January Janitorial Services Distributions Total: $ 595.00 009077 01/19/2017 $ 5,113.08 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY $ 3,223.91 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities Feb 2017 Ee Insurance $ 1,889.17 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PP 12/15/16 Flex Premium Distributions Total: $ 5,113.08 009078 01/19/2017 $ 159.82 APPLE Administrator
$ 159.82 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PPE 1/6/17 Contributions Distributions Total: $ 159.82 009079 01/19/2017 $ 37.70 Big Bear Disposal, Inc. $ 37.70 20-50-6370 Rent/Lease Expense Jan 2017 Toilet Rental Distributions Total: $ 37.70 009080 01/19/2017 $ 3,000.34 Best Best & Krieger LLP $ 3,000.34 20-98-6485 Professional Services - Legal Matter #17434.00001 Distributions Total: $ 3,000.34 009081 01/19/2017 $ 95.00 Big Bear Lake Urgent Care $ 95.00 20-59-6336 Medical Exams DOT/DMV Physical W28 Distributions Total: $ 95.00 009082 01/19/2017 $ 28,778.51 Bear Valley Electric $ 17.46 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Cedar Lake Reservoir $ 1,091.47 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 43511 Well Bow Canyon Rd $ 772.46 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric East End of Oak Road $ 108.90 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Ironwood Boosters A&B $ 124.45 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 1560 1/2 Wolf Rd
37 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP
Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number $ 39.44 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Well Pennsylvania Ave $ 726.39 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric La Crescenta Dr Well $ 1,436.34 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 43270 1/2 Sheephorn Rd $ 373.10 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Goldmine Boosters-Brmtn $ 1,140.50 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Oak Well/Jeffries $ 1,711.68 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Sand Canyon Well $ 80.24 20-98-6326 Utilities - Electric 41972 Garstin Dr $ 158.60 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 200 S/Oak Conklin Rd $ 1,197.18 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 839 Knickerbocker Rd $ 4,015.89 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 561 Well Maple Ln $ 7,159.89 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 468 Magnolia (Well) $ 424.61 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 10th Ln W/End #5 $ 2,109.92 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Barton Ln Pump S/W Pine $ 13.79 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 39266 North Shore Dr $ 441.30 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Lakewood #7 $ 1,213.84 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Magnolia Ln Booster N/W Sun $ 17.51 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 10th Ln- #27 Well $ 91.63 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Magnolia Ln & Sunset Ln $ 111.66 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 10th Ln North $ 143.08 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Division #5 $ 66.68 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Division #4 $ 567.37 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Lake Plant Well #5 Behind CVS $ 694.74 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Division #2 $ 290.38 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Booster Santa Barbara Ave $ 190.76 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Lakewood #6 Well $ 1,040.83 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric North Shore Dr Well #7 $ 1,191.57 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric Division #8 $ 14.85 20-50-5560 Utilities - Electric 370 Canvasback Distributions Total: $ 28,778.51
38 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009083 01/19/2017 $ 1,163.72 Charter Communications $ 85.45 20-98-6330 Contractual Services 1/16-2/15/17 Cable TV $ 60.00 20-98-6330 Contractual Services 1/16-2/15/17 Int,Firewall, Voi $ 1,018.27 20-98-6920 Telephone 1/16-2/15/17 Int,Firewall, Voi Distributions Total: $ 1,163.72 009084 01/19/2017 $ 106.68 E.H. WACHS $ 106.68 20-59-6360 Automotive Expense Selector Switch Distributions Total: $ 106.68 009085 01/19/2017 $ 10.76 Diana Eichenlaub $ 10.76 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense Bowls Distributions Total: $ 10.76 009086 01/19/2017 $ 45.70 Frontier $ 45.70 20-50-6920 Telephone Jan 2017 Services Distributions Total: $ 45.70 009087 01/19/2017 $ 52.00 Fullerton Radiology Medical Group, Inc. $ 52.00 20-59-6336 Medical Exams X-ray Exam for Temp Employee Distributions Total: $ 52.00 009088 01/19/2017 $ 4,284.36 GIS Benefits $ 477.43 20-50-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 28.06 20-51-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 428.50 20-55-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 355.21 20-59-6084 Health and Wellness Benefit Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 1,010.25 20-90-6084 Health and Wellness Benefi Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 907.79 20-95-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 442.91 20-98-6084 Health and Wellness Benefits Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 109.37 20-00-1115 Accounts Receivable -Other Jan 2017 GIS Benefits $ 524.84 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities Jan 2017 GIS Benefits Distributions Total: $ 4,284.36 009089 01/19/2017 $ 318.58 Gregg Cornwell $ 318.58 20-59-6286 Vehicle Maintenance 05 F-250 Fuel Rail Sensor Distributions Total: $ 318.58
39 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009090 01/19/2017 $ 832.50 Big Bear Grizzly $ 247.50 20-51-6910 Advertising Advertising $ 45.00 20-51-6910 Advertising Advertising $ 540.00 20-51-6910 Advertising Advertising Distributions Total: $ 832.50 009091 01/19/2017 $ 421.46 HD Supply Waterworks, LTD. $ 421.46 20-00-2023 Accrued Accounts Payable - Inv 24-ADP004 Meter Adapt.
Distributions Total: $ 421.46 009092 01/19/2017 $ 615.31 KeepItSafe Inc. $ 615.31 20-98-6420 Professional Services - Dec 2016 Live Vault/Data Backu Data/Internet Distributions Total: $ 615.31 009093 01/19/2017 $ 45.00 Reginald Lamson $ 45.00 20-98-6920 Telephone Dec 2016 Cell Phone Reimbursem Distributions Total: $ 45.00 009094 01/19/2017 $ 23.68 Dolores Lemay $ 23.68 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending 490 Spruce/Sglf Overpayment Distributions Total: $ 23.68 009095 01/19/2017 $ 775.00 Ludecke's Electrical Service, Inc.
$ 175.00 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells Troubleshoot Magnolia Well Pum $ 600.00 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells Troubleshoot Well Divsion #7 Distributions Total: $ 775.00 009096 01/19/2017 $ 416.99 Mission Linen & Uniform Service
$ 202.30 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services $ 214.69 20-59-6339 Laundry Uniform Services Distributions Total: $ 416.99 009097 01/19/2017 $ 187.81 MOONRIDGE FUEL $ 187.81 20-59-6362 Fuel Dec. 2016 Fuel Distributions Total: $ 187.81
40 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009098 01/19/2017 $ 150.99 Kevin Moran $ 150.99 20-59-6082 Direct Benefits Boot Reimbursement Distributions Total: $ 150.99 009099 01/19/2017 $ 16.03 NAPA Auto Parts $ 16.03 20-59-6360 Automotive Expense 2-Lamp Refl 01P05 Distributions Total: $ 16.03 009100 01/19/2017 $ 3,148.05 Mailfinance, Inc. dba Neopost Leasing $ 3,148.05 20-90-6370 Rent/Lease Expense 10/28/16-1/17/17 Postage Mtr L Distributions Total: $ 3,148.05 009101 01/19/2017 $ 188.09 Nick's Auto Center, Inc. $ 188.09 20-59-6362 Fuel Fuel Distributions Total: $ 188.09 009102 01/19/2017 $ 9.95 OJs Donut House $ 9.95 20-98-6930 Special Dept Expense 1 Dozen Donuts Distributions Total: $ 9.95 009103 01/19/2017 $ 54.16 Priority Neopost $ (215.00) 19-00-1115 Other receivables Credit for Bulk Mail Permit Fee $ 269.16 20-98-6114 Office Supplies IM 4 Hi-Capacity Ink Cartridge Distributions Total: $ 54.16 009104 01/19/2017 $ 48.88 Sam Enterprises $ 9.50 20-50-5175 Chemicals/Filter Material Demerge $ 39.38 20-59-6180 Small Tools Fuel Charge Distributions Total: $ 48.88 009105 01/19/2017 $ 40,779.60 SB COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION $ 40,779.60 20-00-2045 Payroll Liabilities PPE 1/6/17 Emp. Pensions Distributions Total: $ 40,779.60 009106 01/19/2017 $ 7.06 Kris Trainor $ 7.06 19-00-2222 Op Refunds Pending Overpayment-41456 Big Bear Bl. Distributions Total: $ 7.06
41 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009107 01/19/2017 $ 105.00 Underground Service Alert of Southern California $ 105.00 20-98-6330 Contractual Services 70 New Ticket Charges Distributions Total: $ 105.00 009108 01/19/2017 $ 499.52 USA Blue Book $ 2.93 20-50-6240 Maintenance - Wells 8-SOS003 Hour Meters $ 496.59 20-00-2010 Accounts Payable 8-SOS003 Hour Meters Distributions Total: $ 499.52 009109 01/19/2017 $ 502.39 Verizon Wireless $ 38.01 20-98-6920 Telephone 1/03-2/02/17 Services $ 152.04 20-50-6920 Telephone 1/03-2/02/17 Services $ 212.44 20-59-6920 Telephone 1/03-2/02/17 Services $ 76.02 20-95-6920 Telephone 1/03-2/02/17 Services $ 23.88 20-51-6920 Telephone 1/03-2/02/17 Services Distributions Total: $ 502.39 009110 01/19/2017 $ 223.93 Walgreens Company $ 127.96 20-98-6336 Medical Exams Flu Shots for Employees $ 95.97 20-59-6336 Medical Exams Flu Shots for Employees Distributions Total: $ 223.93 009111 01/19/2017 $ 336.00 Water Systems Consulting, Inc. $ 336.00 22-55-9020 Cap Outlay - Engineering Mains 12/1/16-1/3/17 Const.Phase Sup
Distributions Total: $ 336.00 009112 01/19/2017 $ 295.21 WW Grainger Inc $ 74.81 20-59-6180 Small Tools Tubing, clear, 1/16, IR Therm $ 220.40 20-50-6275 Maintenance - Water Treatment Tubing, clear, 1/16, IR Therm
Distributions Total: $ 295.21 009113 01/19/2017 $ 154.00 County of San Bernardino $ 154.00 20-98-6114 Office Supplies 28-Printing Services Calendars Distributions Total: $ 154.00
42 of 316 Item 2.1
Big Bear Lake DWP Check Register with Applied Document GL Distributions From 1/1/2017 to 1/31/2017
Check Check Date Payment Vendor Name Distribution GL Account GL Account Name Transaction Description Number Amount Amount Number 009114 01/19/2017 $ 1,064.92 Robert L. Smith $ 1,064.92 20-50-6245 Maintenance - Telemetry Seminole Well Comm. Failure Distributions Total: $ 1,064.92 10267163 01/03/2017 $ 157.30 Paylocity Payroll 5 $ 157.30 20-98-6405 Prof Svcs - Personnel & Safety PPE12/23/16 Payroll Processing Distributions Total: $ 157.30 10271047 01/17/2017 $ 502.16 Paylocity Payroll 4 $ 502.16 20-98-6405 Prof Svcs - Personnel & Safety PPE 1/6/2017 Payroll Processin Distributions Total: $ 502.16 10274632 01/31/2017 $ 319.30 Paylocity Payroll 1 $ 319.30 20-98-6405 Prof Svcs - Personnel & Safety PPE 1/20/17 Payroll Processing Distributions Total: $ 319.30 Total $ 266,494.14 $ 266,494.14
43 of 316 Item 2.2 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager PREPARED BY: Danielle D. McGee, Administrative Manager RE: Financial Analysis – December 31, 2016
Year to Date Results Revenues Revenue Fund Operating revenues for the six months ended December 31, 2016 were $6,021,999 exceeding expectations by $162,623 (3%). Usage revenues were better than expected by $130,344 (13%) which is likely due to the drier than normal summer. Service Charges exceeded expectations by $21,778 (0%). Administrative fees were less than expected, under budget by $4,090 (6%). Meter installation fees exceeded expectations by $5,589 (25%). Capacity charges were $38,755 (15%) better than expected. The projected fee for additional plumbing fixtures was greater than the actual fee that was adopted by $43 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU); however this pricing variance was offset by more EDUs connecting than expected. Income from investments exceeded projections by $1,428 (18%) due to improvements in rates earned on investments held at the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The budget assumed earnings of 0.33% but rates have improved to 0.68% as of December 31, 2016. Other income exceeded expectations by $16,145 (111%). Grant-sharing funds were received from the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency in the amount of $9,375 to offset some of the DWP’s contribution to the Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project Facilities Report; the balance of this variance was primarily Lehman Brothers Settlement proceeds of $5,875. Operating revenues were $256,769 (4%) greater than the six months ended December 31, 2015, primarily due to increases in consumption, the scheduled rate increase for service charges, and increases in capacity charges. Usage fees increased $158,361 due to an increase in billed consumption of 38,913 units and the scheduled rate increase of 2%. Service charges increased $110,881 (3%) due to the scheduled rate increase, and new connections. Administrative fees decreased $7,155 (10%) which is consistent with recent trends. Meter installation fees decreased $4,305 (13%). Capacity charges increased over the prior year by $50,096 (20%) because 5.52 more EDU’s were added to the system in the current year than the prior year. Standby fees decreased $71,156 (70%) as a result of a delay in receiving an installment from the City. This installment was received in February 2017. Income from investments increased $362 (4%) due to improvements in interest rates earned from LAIF investments. Other income increased $19,686 (180%) as a result of the cell tower site lease with Verizon which contributed $9,000 to this increase. The grant sharing revenue noted above contributed $9,375 to the increase. Debt Service Fund Revenue in the Debt Service Fund for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $43,185, exceeding expectations by $11,035 (34%). This is primarily due to improvements in interest earned
44 of 316 Item 2.2 Financial Data – December 31, 2016 February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6 on LAIF investments. Compared with the prior year, income in the Debt Service Fund decreased $3,684 (8%), which is related to a contractual reduction in payments received from Lake Arrowhead CSD for the Rimforest Water System. Rehabilitation and Growth-Related Improvements Funds In July 2016, the DWP was awarded two grants from the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). While applications were in progress for these grants during FY 2015/16 the grants were not awarded until July 2016 and accordingly no revenue was budgeted for these awards. In the first six months of FY 2016/17 the DWP received $295,507 from these grants. This is expected to be a permanent budget variance. Revenues increased over the prior year by the same amount because no funding programs were in place for the prior year. Expenditures Fixed Asset Fund Expenditures for plant and equipment for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $175,319, less than expected by $148,513 (46%). The budget anticipated purchase and delivery of two new service vehicles, and the completion of the IT network overhaul in the first quarter. The IT project is nearly complete, with the final stage being completion of the stacking of network switches. We budgeted $10,000 for third party costs to transfer accounting databases to the new server. This provision will not be required and is therefore a permanent difference that will either be reallocated to other needs or returned to reserves. The vehicles that were budgeted have been ordered and we are awaiting delivery. Compared with the prior year, spending for this fund increased $16,080 (10%). Current year spending includes some of the costs associated with IT upgrades and costs for the new vacuum trailer, whereas in 2015 costs incurred pertained to improvements made to the field staff offices and the purchase of three trucks. Operations and Maintenance Fund For the six months ended December 31, 2016, gross O&M spending was $2,995,248, under budget by $340,213 (10%). O&M spending increased $47,865 (2%), compared to the prior year. See detailed departmental analysis below. Debt Service Fund For the six months ended December 31, 2016, Debt Service expenditures were $802,117, over budget by $5,045 (1%). In FY 2016/17, the DWP eliminated prepaid accounting and went to cash basis accounting for trustee fees due to the immaterial amount of the fees. Debt Service expenditures decreased $63,234 (7%) from the prior year, primarily due to decreases in interest expense as principal payments are made. The IBank Loan was not closed until January 2017, and no draws have been made against this financing to date. Rehabilitation and Growth-Related Improvements Funds Capital expenditures for rehabilitation and growth-related improvements through December 31, 2016 totaled $1,510,054, under budget by $541,307 (26%). Approximately $425,000 of this variance relates to the Big Bear Blvd Pipeline which was budgeted to be completed by the end of October. Spending for rehabilitation of wells and boosters was less than expected by $67,350, however, spending for meters outpaced expectations by $53,950. Engineering for the Sawmill well was deferred to focus on the Big Bear Blvd Pipeline; this resulted in a favorable timing difference of $39,600. Environmental work for the Division Solar Plant Project was less than expected by $13,025. Operations and Maintenance – Department Spending Analysis Production
45 of 316 Item 2.2 Financial Data – December 31, 2016 February 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6
Production spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016, totaled $659,002, under budget by $111,524 (14%). Electricity costs were under budget $62,361 (17%). With the addition of the Angels Camp Reservoir and the Klamath Booster Station, staff has been working to utilize pumping facilities in more efficient ways, which has contributed to the reduced power costs. Maintenance and materials spending was less than expected creating a favorable variance of $50,139. Personnel costs were over budget $8,290 primarily due to more overtime hours being required to accommodate after-hours calls and also due to overtime premium adjustments due to I.R.S. regulations. This is expected to create a permanent difference for this fiscal year. Spending for mobile devices and workstations was under budget $4,877 which is expected to be a timing difference. Compared to the prior year, spending for this department decreased $599 (0%). Conservation Conservation spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016, totaled $106,900, under budget by $4,794 (4%). Advertising spending was less than expected by $4,066. Printing costs were also under budget by $2,827. These variances were offset in part by cost overruns for Demand Offset ($1,916) and Maintenance of Hardware and Software ($1,285). Spending for this department compared to the prior year decreased $7,523 (7%). Personnel expenses decreased $2,698 due to the use of accrued leave earned in the prior year. Computers replaced in the prior year totaled $2,296 and these are expected to last three to four years. Advertising costs decreased $2,747. Transmission and Distribution (T&D) T&D spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $363,990, under budget by $28,831 (7%). The budget planned for the implementation of the mobile workforce application and the purchase of mobile devices for this department ($6,160). Implementation is still pending for the application therefore the devices have not yet been ordered. Personnel expenses were $4,692 less than expected due to use of leave earned in prior years and delays in filling a temporary position for summer work. T&D is over budget on overtime as of December by $1,525; however this is expected to be a timing difference. Purchases of material for T&D maintenance projects were less than expected by $8,050. Spending for basic materials spending was less than expected by $8,946. T&D costs increased $18,713 (5%) compared to the prior year. Personnel costs increased $24,400. Contributing factors to this increase include: 1) an unpaid leave of absence that extended from the 2nd quarter of FY 2015/16 through the 3rd quarter of FY 2015/16, 2) more overtime hours being required to accommodate increased main leaks and service line repairs, and 3) overtime premium adjustments due to I.R.S. regulations. This increase was offset in part by decreased spending for maintenance materials of $5,967. Customer Field Service Customer Field Service spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $349,545, over budget by $23,811 (7%). Personnel costs exceeded expectations by $24,480 as a result of greater than expected overtime and increases in healthcare costs for the population in this department. Spending for temporary labor was also greater than expected. This will be a timing difference that is controllable through recruiting plan adjustments for the spring hiring process. Compared with the prior year, spending for this department has increased $45,511 (15%). Personnel costs increased $36,655 due to promotions, step increases, cost of living changes, retention of temporary staff later in the season, and increases in health care costs for this department. Spending for meter maintenance was $7,600 greater in the current year than the prior year a portion of which relates to radio read base station maintenance.
46 of 316 Item 2.2 Financial Data – December 31, 2016 February 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6
Property Tax Property Taxes are typically due in the second and fourth fiscal quarter of each year. Since we have annexed the DWP’s parcels in the County the DWP’s parcels have been removed from the property tax rolls. Water Operations Water Operations spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $348,881, under budget by $140,351 (29%). Accidents and Damages are less than expected by $44,941. We anticipated the City’s pavement impact invoice in this quarter but we have not yet received that bill which accounts for most of this variance. Licensing fees have a favorable variance of $33,125. Licensing agencies are inconsistent in when they bill for these licenses and permits. Vehicle maintenance costs were $14,772 less than expected and fuel costs were less than expected by $12,923. Implementation fees of $21,600 for the Sedaru Software have been paid; however, since the services have not yet been rendered these costs which were budgeted at $27,000 have been deferred as prepaid expenses. Compared with the prior year, spending for this department has increased $22,685 (7%). The annual licensing costs for Sedaru increased spending $41,040. Updates to the atlas maps are not recorded as operating expenses and totaled $5,500. Personnel costs decreased $11,707 (5.3%) as a result of eliminating a position in the department effective July 7, 2015. Costs for vehicle maintenance and automotive needs decreased $14,220. Customer Accounts Customer Accounts spending for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $475,171, under budget by $26,130 (5%). Personnel costs are under budget by $12,043 due to a leave of absence and lower than expected heath care costs. Bad debt expense was less than expected by $13,748. Software maintenance costs were more than expected by $1,553. This will be a permanent difference because the department dispensed with accounting for prepaid expenses that are immaterial. Compared with the prior year, expenses for this department increased $8,886 (2%). Personnel costs decreased $6,368 as a result of a retirement of a CSR II at step 5 in fourth quarter of FY 15/16 and the resignation of a CSR II at step 2. These positions were filled by CSR I’s at step 1 who are both under the tier 2 retirement rules. Bad debt expense decreased $8,426 compared to the prior year. One reason for this decrease was a change in policy implemented by the major credit bureaus that required a longer waiting period before past due accounts could be reported to them. We were required to delay submission of accounts to collections for a portion of the first quarter until the policy was subsequently reversed. Software maintenance fees for the utility billing software increased $9,040. This is a timing difference because the fees were paid in the 3rd quarter in the prior fiscal year versus the 2nd quarter in this fiscal year. Bank fees increased $5,309 as more customers elect to pay through the DWP’s online portal. Equipment lease costs increased $6,129 because the DWP implemented new intelligent mailing components and software. Web payments now account for nearly 20% of the monthly dollar volume of water billings. Spending for new computers increased $3,887 for planned replacements of workstations. Administration Administration department costs for the six months ended December 31, 2016 totaled $691,759 under budget by $52,395 (7%). Maintenance of building and grounds was less than planned by $28,100 due to a delay in replacing the carpet in the front office. This is expected to be a timing difference. Education spending and the associated travel costs were under budget in total by $17,302. The budget provided $14,500 for leadership development and team building that has not been completed. The remainder of this variance is deferred spending for various educational resources. Some of this
47 of 316 Item 2.2 Financial Data – December 31, 2016 February 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6
variance will be a timing difference. Memberships were under budget $2,913, software maintenance fees and IT support costs were under budget $2,764 and $5,660, respectively. Board expense allowances were under utilized by $2,025 at the mid-year point. Bank fees were less than expected by $1,975, which will likely be a timing difference. Legal fees were also less than expected by $1,716. Personnel costs exceeded expectations $9,301 due to the accumulation of paid leave that was not offset by use of leave allowances. There was also an unexpected increase in property insurance costs of $4,119 which will be a permanent difference. Compared to the prior year, spending for this department decreased $13,720 (2%). Insurance costs decreased $26,525 as a result of the inter-agency agreement to allocate CJPIA costs more equitably. Professional fees decreased $24,205 because one-time costs associated with the annexation of DWP parcels to the City were incurred in the prior year. In the prior year a reserve for office equipment was accounted for in this department totaling $8,746 at the mid- year point. Those costs are now being accounted for in the fixed asset fund and totaled $1,000 at the mid-year point. Audit fees decreased $5,107, however; this is expected to balance out as the year progresses. Postage costs decreased $2,528 but this is also expected to balance out as the year progresses. The previous IT support provider was not submitting bills in a timely manner and did not provide the level of support we are currently receiving. This resulted in an increase in IT costs at the mid-year point of $18,400. We expect a reduction in this difference by year-end. Personnel costs increased $15,795 (4.9%). There was a vacancy in Human Resources for a portion of the first quarter of FY 2015/16, which accounts for approximately $9,000 of this increase in FY 2016/17. The balance is attributable to cost of living adjustments. Legal fees increased $8,850 for various reasons. Software maintenance fees increased $6,496 over the prior year due to a timing difference in payment of maintenance invoices. Electricity costs increased $4,571 due to problems with the solar power system that occurred during the summer months and have since been addressed. Accounts Receivable Accounts Receivable balance as of December 31, 2016 was $1,673,001, which includes $809,791 in unbilled accrued water service charges plus the outstanding accounts receivable from billings of $848,699, and employee computer loans of $7,231. Accounts with balances due in less than 30 days totaled $537,523 compared with $477,432 in the prior year. The increase in current balances is consistent with the increase in consumption revenues. Past due balances decreased $9,902 compared to September 30, 2015. Balances subject to property liens totaled $194,487.
Account # Description Balance 12/31/15 12/31/16 19-00-1111 Accrued Receivables – UB $ 818,867 $ 809,791 19-00-1110 Accounts Receivable – UB 712,253 760,006 19-00-1115 Other Receivables – UB 84,279 88,693 Utility Billing Subtotal 1,615,399 1,658,490 20-00-1115 Other Receivables 405 7,280 20-00-1150 Employee Computer Loans 7,505 7,231 Accounts Receivable: $ 1,623,309 $ 1,673,001
Cash and Investments Total cash and investments as of December 31, 2016 was $11,714,868, of which $6,286,092 is restricted for debt service and debt reserves, and $2,629,792 has been committed by the Board to a variety of reserves, including but not limited to, capital improvement reserves and operations and maintenance reserves. Unrestricted cash as of December 31, 2016 totaled $2,798,984. Compared to
48 of 316 Item 2.2 Financial Data – December 31, 2016 February 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6 the prior year total cash and investments increased $36,053. Currently, $4,677,682 of the general fund is invested at LAIF.
49 of 316 Item 2.2
Year to Date Operating Revenues $7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000 Year to Date O&M Expenditures Before Allocations $4,000,000 $0 $3,500,000
$3,000,000 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget $2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget
50 of 316 Item 2.2
Total Monthly Operating Revenues Service Charge Revenues
$1,200,000 $800,000
$700,000 $1,000,000 $600,000 $800,000 $500,000
$600,000 $400,000
$300,000 $400,000 $200,000
$200,000 $100,000
$- $- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget
Units Billed Usage Revenues 120,000 $350,000
100,000 $300,000 $250,000 80,000 $200,000 C 60,000 $150,000 C $100,000 F 40,000 $50,000 20,000 $- 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fy 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget
51 of 316 Item 2.2
Capacity Charge Revenues EDUs Added $225,000 24.00 $175,000 21.00 18.00 $125,000 15.00 12.00 $75,000 9.00 $25,000 6.00 3.00 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -$25,000 - Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget
Monthly Cash Receipts Accounts Receivable Balance $1,400,000 $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $600,000 $800,000 $400,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $- $- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
52 of 316 Item 2.2
Year-to-Date Monthly Operations and Maintenance Spending by Cost Operations and Maintenance by Department Center $4,000,000 $1,000,000 Administration $900,000 $3,500,000 Administration Customer Accounts $800,000 $3,000,000 Customer Accounts $700,000 Water Operations $2,500,000 Water Operations $600,000 Customer Field Service $2,000,000 Property Tax $500,000
Transmission & Customer Field Service Distribution $1,500,000 $400,000
Transmission & Conservation/Public $300,000 $1,000,000 Distribution Information Conservation/Public $200,000 Production $500,000 Information Production $100,000 FY 16/17 Budget $- FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 $0 Budget Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
53 of 316 Item 2.2
Grant and Bond Proceeds by Month $2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$-
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures by Month Before Allocations $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $-
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 Budget
54 of 316 Item 2.2
Non-revenue Water % 12-month Moving Average
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17
Non-Revenue Water Million Gallons 12-month Moving Average 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 - Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17
55 of 316 Item 2.2
# Connections Served # New Accounts Created 15,621 18,000 250 16,000 14,000 200 12,000 10,000 150 8,000 100 6,000 4,000 50 2,000 - -
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
# Bills Generated Customer Service Call Statistics 10,000 6,000
8,000 5,000
4,000 6,000 3,000
4,000 # Calls 2,000 2,000 1,000 - -
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
56 of 316 Item 2.2
Customer Contact by Type Year-to-Date Through 12/31/16
3.2% 2.5% 3.3% 3.4% 21.0%
Payment Status 4.8% Leak New Account 7.0% Conservation Online Bill Pay Address Maintenance Account Status
10.8% 17.1% Backflow Other Bill Question Collections
12.8% 14.1%
57 of 316 Item 2.2
Department of Water & Power CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE Statement of Change in Net Assets By Fund - Unaudited Actual Budget Budget (-) = Unfav Actual Change from (-) = Unfav 12/31/16 12/31/16 Variance 12/31/15 Prior Year Revenue Fund (19) YEAR-TO-DATE Revenues Usage Fees $ 1,168,223 $ 1,037,880 $ 130,344 13% $ 1,009,862 $ 158,361 16% Service Charge 4,387,628 4,365,850 21,778 0% 4,276,747 110,881 3% Administative Fees 67,855 71,945 (4,090) -6% 75,010 (7,155) -10% Meter Installation Fees 28,089 22,500 5,589 25% 32,394 (4,305) -13% Capacity Charges 299,589 260,834 38,755 15% 249,493 50,096 20% Standby Fees 30,558 77,884 (47,325) -61% 101,714 (71,156) -70% Income from Investments 9,411 7,983 1,428 18% 9,050 362 4% Other Income 30,645 14,500 16,145 111% 10,959 19,686 180% Operating Revenue $ 6,021,999 $ 5,859,375 $ 162,623 3% $ 5,765,229 $ 256,769 4%
Fixed Asset Fund (10) YEAR-TO-DATE Grants and Subventions $ - $ - $ - N/A $ 55,437 $ (55,437) -100%
Asset Purchases $ 132,537 $ 281,049 $ 148,512 53% $ 111,873 $ (20,664) -18% Provision for Asset Replacement 42,782 42,782 0 0% 49,706 6,924 14% Loss (Gain) on disposal of assets - - - N/A (2,340) (2,340) 100% Net Expenditures 175,319 323,831 148,513 46% 159,239 (16,080) -10% Increase / (Decrease in Net Assets) $ (175,319) $ (323,831) $ (148,513) 46% $ (103,802) $ (71,517) 69%
Operations & Maintenance Fund (20) YEAR-TO-DATE Expenditures Production $ 659,002 $ 770,525 $ 111,524 14% $ 658,403 $ (599) 0% Conservation/Public Information 106,900 111,695 4,794 4% 114,423 7,523 7% Transmission & Distribution 363,990 392,820 28,831 7% 345,277 (18,713) -5% Customer Field Service 349,545 325,734 (23,811) -7% 304,034 (45,511) -15% Property Tax - - - N/A 27,287 27,287 100% Water Operations 348,881 489,231 140,351 29% 326,195 (22,685) -7% Customer Accounts 475,171 501,301 26,130 5% 466,285 (8,886) -2% Administration 691,759 744,155 52,395 7% 705,480 13,720 2% Total Expenditures 2,995,248 3,335,461 340,213 10% 2,947,384 (47,865) -2% Capitalized Labor and Overhead - - - N/A - - N/A Net Expenditures and Reserve Provisions $ (2,995,248) $ (3,335,461) $ 340,213 10% $ (2,947,384) $ (47,865) -2%
Debt Service Fund (21) YEAR-TO-DATE Income from Investments/Rimforest Sale $ 43,185 $ 32,150 $ 11,035 34% $ 46,869 $ (3,684) -8% Expenditures Principal Payments $ 112,000 $ 112,000 $ - 0% $ 109,000 $ (3,000) -3% Interest Expense 647,743 647,743 (0) 0% 718,124 70,381 10% Amortization and Other Expenses 42,374 37,329 (5,045) -14% 38,227 (4,147) -11% Total Expenditures 802,117 797,072 (5,045) -1% 865,351 63,234 7% Net Fund Activity $ (758,933) $ (764,922) $ 5,990 1% $ (818,482) $ 59,550 7%
System Rehabilitation Fund (22) YEAR-TO-DATE Loan Proceeds $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - $ - N/A Grants 295,507 - 295,507 N/A - 295,507 N/A Gross Proceeds $ 295,507 $ - $ 295,507 N/A $ - $ 295,507 N/A Expenditures Production $ 138,954 $ 259,022 $ 120,068 46% $ 245,441 $ 106,487 43% Transmission and Distribution 1,365,780 1,767,376 401,596 23% 580,773 (785,007) -135% Administration - - - N/A - - N/A Total Expenditures and Reserve Provisions 1,504,734 2,026,399 521,665 26% 826,214 (678,521) -82% Net Fund Activity $ (1,209,228) $ (2,026,399) $ 817,171 40% $ (826,214) $ (383,014) -46%
Growth-Related Improvements Fund (23) YEAR-TO-DATE Expenditures Production $ 5,320 $ 10,256 $ 4,936 48% $ 13,770 $ 8,450 61% Transmission and Distribution - 14,707 14,707 100% - - N/A Administration - - - N/A - - N/A Total Expenditures 5,320 24,963 19,642 79% 13,770 8,450 61% Net Fund Activity $ (5,320) $ (24,963) $ 19,642 79% $ (13,770) $ 8,450 61% Net Fund Activity All Funds $ 877,951 $ (616,201) $ 1,494,152 242% $ 1,055,578 $ (177,627) -17%
58 of 316 Item 2.2
Big Bear Lake - Department of Water and Power STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Unaudited Assets: 6/30/16 12/31/16 Change Current: Cash and investments $ 5,653,160 $ 5,428,776 $ (224,384) Receivables: Accounts 1,626,220 1,673,001 46,781 Accrued interest 12,037 14,600 2,563 refund 7,433 (7,433) Due from other governments 265,357 64,357 (201,000) Prepaid Expenses 35,472 48,185 12,713 Inventory 371,925 371,925 0 Restricted Cash with fiscal agent 5,093,032 6,286,092 1,193,060 Total Current Assets $ 13,064,636 $ 13,886,936 $ 822,300 Noncurrent: Non-current Receivables $ 274,473 $ 240,766 $ (33,707) Capital assets – not being depreciated 2,192,344 2,192,344 - Capital assets – net of accumulated depreciation 41,997,157 41,997,157 - Total Noncurrent Assets $ 44,463,974 $ 44,430,267 $ (33,707)
Deferred Outflows of Resources Loss on refunding $ 888,331 $ 814,304 $ (74,027) Deferred pension-related items 2,290,068 2,290,068 - Total Deferred Outflows 3,178,399 3,104,372 (74,027)
Total Assets and Deferred $ 60,707,009 $ 61,421,575 $ 714,566
Liabilities and Net Assets: Liabilities: Current: Accounts payable $ 358,790 $ 171,195 $ (187,595) Accrued Liabilities 324,750 254,627 (70,123) Accrued interest 324,225 323,516 (709) Deposits payable 15,430 19,300 3,870 Due to other governments - - - Compensated absences 253,545 256,998 3,453 Current portion of long-term debt 2,590,000 2,590,000 - Total Current Liabilities $ 3,866,740 $ 3,615,635 $ (251,105) Noncurrent:
Net Pension Liability $ 4,923,167 $ 4,923,167 $ - Accrued Claims and Judgments 24,610 24,610 - Bonds, notes, and capital leases 25,746,373 25,592,674 (153,699) Total noncurrent Liabilities $ 30,694,150 $ 30,540,451 $ (153,699)
Total Liabilities $ 34,560,890 $ 34,156,087 $ (404,803)
Deferred Inflows: Deferred pension-related items $ 1,452,014 $ 1,452,014 $ - Total Deferred Inflows $ 1,452,014 $ 1,452,014 -
Net Assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 16,741,459 $ 16,006,827 $ (734,632) Restricted for debt service 5,093,032 6,286,092 1,193,060 Unrestricted 2,859,614 3,520,555 660,941 Total Net Assets $ 24,694,105 $ 25,813,474 $ 1,119,369
Total Liabilities and Net $ 60,707,009 $ 61,421,575 $ 714,566
59 of 316 Item 2.2
Big Bear Lake - Department of Water and Power STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - UNAUDITED
YTD 12/31/2016 Cash Balance at Beginning of Period $ 10,746,193
Net Fund Activity 877,951 Less:
Cash received from Lake Arrowhead CSD that is shown as income on the fund activity statement but is reflected in change in receivables on the statement of net assets (33,707) Proceeds from debt issuance included in income for fund accounting purposes - Plus: Provisions for Asset Replacement not requiring cash 163,128 Debt Payments included as expenses for fund accounting purposes 109,000 Changes in Net Assets Adjusted $ 1,116,371
Cash (used for) provided by operations: Non-cash activity (Increase) decrease in Receivables 192,793 Increase (decrease) in Payables (187,595) (Increase) decrease in Prepaid Expenses (12,714) (Increase) decrease in Inventory - Increase (decrease) in Compensated Absences 3,453 Increase (decrease) in Other Current Liabilities (66,962) Add back Amortization/Depreciation Expense 32,329
Add back non-cash activity $ (38,696)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities: Proceeds from Debt Issuance - Principal payments (109,000) Cash flows from Capital and Financing Activities $ (109,000)
Net Change in Cash 968,676
Cash Balance at the End of the Period $ 11,714,868
Restricted For Debt Service $ 6,286,092
Operating Cash and Reserves $ 5,428,777
Assigned to Various Reserves 2,629,792
Cash Available for Operations and Investment in Capital $ 2,798,984
60 of 316 Item 2.3 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community
DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Danielle D. McGee, Administrative Manager
RE: Draft Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016
Background
Staff is pleased to present, for the Board’s consideration, a draft version of the proposed DWP Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2016.
Recommendation
Please, review and comment. Consider adoption.
This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer 61 of 316 Item 2.3
City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Annual Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016
DRAFT
Department of Water and Power, City of Big Bear Lake An equal opportunity employer and provider 41972 Garstin Drive, P.O. Box 1929, Big Bear Lake CA 92315 • 909/866-5050 • Fax 909/866-3184 www.bbldwp.com
62 of 316 Item 2.3 DEPARTMENT OF WATER
Service, Quality, Community Message to the Customers of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power and the General Public from the Chairman of the Board and General Manager
During Fiscal Year 2015/16 the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) and staff of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (the “DWP”) pursued grants and loans for on-going improvements to the water system infrastructure, including the Big Bear Blvd. Pipeline Replacement Project and the Meter Replacement Program. As a result of Governor Brown’s declaration of a drought state of emergency, the DWP increased its public outreach and focused on interagency coordination and compliance issues. WaterSMART Grants In January 2016, the DWP submitted four grant applications to the United States Bureau of Reclamation under its WaterSMART funding program. In July 2016, the DWP was awarded two $300,000 grants; one for the meter replacement program and one for the Big Bear Blvd Pipeline Replacement Project. Proposition 1 Funding In July 2016, the DWP submitted an application with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank for State Revolving Funds available to water providers as a result of Proposition 1, approved by voters in November 2014. The DWP’s application was approved for $1,050,000 to partially fund construction of the Big Bear Blvd. Project. Annexation In the summer of 2015, the DWP completed a process to annex its parcels in the County areas into the City of Big Bear Lake. This process required coordination with the City, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the County Assessor’s Office, and the County Surveyor. The success of this process eliminates over $110,000 per year in tax assessments paid by the DWP’s ratepayers Drought State of Emergency Under the Governor’s declaration of a drought state of emergency, the DWP was required to reduce water production by 13% compared to calendarDRAFT year 2013. The DWP increased its outreach efforts and successfully met the State’s target, while working with State agencies to ensure a better understanding of the level of management of the Bear Valley aquifers. Meter Replacement Program In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP continued its meter replacement program which will replace outdated and inaccurate meters with new technology. The new meters will improve operational efficiency and support water conservation efforts with earlier leak-detection capabilities than standard meters. As of June 30, 2016, approximately 6,613 meters were converted to the new radio-read system. Sincerely, /s/DRAFT /s/DRAFT V. Don Smith Reginald A. Lamson Chair - DWP Board of Commissioners General Manager - DWP
i
63 of 316 Item 2.3
DWP Office – 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, California
DRAFT
ii
64 of 316 Item 2.3
City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Annual Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 Table of Contents Mission ...... 1 Vision ...... 1 About the DWP ...... 2 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Progress Report ...... 3 Annexation ...... 3 Technical Review Team ...... 3 Water Production Summary ...... 4 Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project ...... 5 Customer Accounts Summary ...... 5 Meter Replacement Program ...... 6 Construction Projects ...... 6 Summary Major Infrastructure Projects Completed Fiscal Year 2015/16 ...... 6 Funding for Infrastructure Replacement ...... 7 Conservation ...... 7 Staffing ...... 10 Management Discussion and Analysis ...... 11 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Objectives ...... 11 Revenues ...... 11 Expenses ...... 12 Non-operating Revenues and Expenses ...... 14 Capital Expenditures ...... 14 Debt ...... 15 Cash and Cash Equivalents ...... 16 DRAFT Financial Statements ...... 17 Fund Activity Statements - Unaudited ...... 24 Tables and Graphs ...... 34
iii
65 of 316 Item 2.3
City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Annual Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016
Mission
The mission of the DWP is to cost effectively deliver quality water to meet the needs of our current and future customers.
Vision
Provide excellent service to our customers, Continue water conservation, Plan for and secure additional and diverse water supplies, Increase operating efficiency, Challenge and motivate employees and improve morale, Continue infrastructure improvements, Encourage City and interagency communication and cooperation and, Assure that revenuesDRAFT are adequate to meet needs.
1
66 of 316 Item 2.3
About the DWP
The DWP provides water service to over 15,500 connections in and around the Bear Valley (the “Valley”). The Bear Valley is a resort community, located in the San Bernardino Mountains, providing year-round activities, including skiing, fishing, hiking, biking, camping, boating and more. One of the more unique characteristics of the area is the ratio of full-time residents to second homeowners; nearly 70% of the homes in the Valley are unoccupied except during peak periods, in July and December. Serving four separate water systems in the City of Big Bear Lake, the unincorporated areas of Moonridge, Sugarloaf, Erwin Lake, Fawnskin, and Lake William since 1989, the DWP remains focused on ensuring the safety of these communities by providing a reliable source of water for domestic use, commercial use, and fire suppression. Five water systems, (including the Rimforest System which is now operated by Lake Arrowhead Community Services District) were acquired by the City of Big Bear Lake in 1989 through condemnation proceedings against Southern California Water Company (“SCWC”). Before the condemnation, water shortages were common and there was a moratorium on new construction. The DWP has focused its resources on rehabilitating the systems. Although over $60 million in improvements have been made, the systems are still in need of significant investments to ensure safety and effectiveness. The water supply for the DWP’s customers comes strictly from groundwater sources. The DWP currently operates 28 active groundwater wells and 17 active slant wells that supply the various water systems in the service area. The average capacity of these wells is 145 gallons per minute (gpm) which is reflective of the relatively low-producing aquifers and fractured bedrock conditions of the local geology. The total capacity of these wells is 4,228 gpm.
DRAFT
Big Bear Valley, California
2
67 of 316 Item 2.3
Fiscal Year 2015/16 Progress Report Annexation In 2014, the DWP began the process of annexing to the City all the parcels outside of the City limits that housed water system assets of the DWP. The DWP and it ratepayers have been paying property taxes on parcels in the unincorporated areas for over 25 years. Annexation was determined the best method to relieve the ratepayers of this burden. The process included transferring title from the City of Big Bear Lake to the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power. Next, parcel maps were created of each area and a plan for services was developed as required by the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commissioner (LAFCO). The DWP demonstrated that there was no negative environmental impact, and applied for re- organization through LAFCO. Contracts for road services were negotiated with County Service Area 70. In July 2015, all the necessary documents were completed and filed with LAFCO. LAFCO conducted a public hearing on October 21, 2015, and a certificate of completion was issued on November 23, 2015 to finalize the annexation. The end result of this effort is the elimination of over $110,000 in property taxes annually. Technical Review Team The Technical Review Team (the “TRT”) is charged with reviewing groundwater data semi- annually to determine the best strategies for ensuring short-term and long-term water resources are available to meet the needs of the communities served. The TRT met in November 2015 and April 2016 to evaluate ground water levels. The TRT determined that ground water levels are remaining stable; however, on April 1, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15 mandating state-wide water conservation measures and implementing new water production reporting requirements.
Annual Rainfall at Big Bear Dam July 1 - June 30 90 80 77.12
70 132-year Average 36.3" 60 DRAFT52.35 50 38.27 43.88 40 35.29 Inches perInches Year 28.66 28.35 30 24.62 20.86 18.24 20.11 20 11.66 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
3
68 of 316 Item 2.3
Water Production Summary Total water production for Fiscal Year 2015/16 was 694.42 million gallons (2,131 acre-feet). This is a decrease of 19.7 million gallons, (60 acre-feet) 2.8%, compared to the prior year. Approximately, 68 million gallons (209 acre-feet) were transferred to the Big Bear Lake/Moonridge system from the Sugarloaf/Erwin Lake system. Slant well production decreased 11.6% in the Big Bear Lake/Moonridge system in Fiscal Year 2015/16, compared with the prior year. The Big Bear Lake/Moonridge system received approximately 22% of its water from gravity-fed sources in Fiscal Year 2015/16, compared with 23% in the prior year. Slant well production in Fawnskin increased 1.3% from the prior year. The Fawnskin system received approximately 54% of its water from gravity-fed sources in Fiscal Year 2015/16 compared with 45% in the prior year. (See Table 5 on page 41). Non-Revenue Water Non-revenue water is the difference between the total water that is Non-revenue Water produced by the DWP’s wells and Acre Feet the water that is sold to customers. 3,000 16.0% 2,500 14.0% The difference results primarily 12.0% from leaks in main lines, and use of 2,000 10.0% water for Fire Department needs. 1,500 8.0% For the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1,000 6.0% 4.0% 2016, the DWP’s non-revenue 500 2.0% water was 14.0%, up from 8.8% in 0 0.0% Fiscal Year 2014/15. In Fiscal Year 2015/16 water main leaks increased from one in the prior year to six. Production Metered Consumption Non-revenue Water % Service line leaks increased from 15 to 40. The five-year average of non-revenue water is currently 11.2%.
Adjustments to non-revenue water to determine unaccounted for water (in acre feet) 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total Production 2,290 2,471 2,274 2,204 2,131 Consumption Billed 2,032 2,171 2,044 2,010 1,833 Non-revenue Water % DRAFT11.3% 12.1% 10.1% 8.8% 14.0% Adjustments to Non-revenue Water Lost through leaks 3.69 0.47 1.89 1.10 2.67 Lost through bleeders 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.62 Fire Department use NA 0.31 NA NA 0.11 DWP/Public Works/construction water 4.33 1.56 1.72 1.11 0.72 Lost through well flushing - - 1.10 0.90 1.01 Lost through Seminole Treatment plant - 0.07 - 0.05 0.71 Production net of estimated lost water 2,281 2,468 2,269 2,200 2,124 Net Unaccounted for Water % 10.9% 12.0% 9.9% 8.6% 13.7%
4
69 of 316 Item 2.3
Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project In early 2015, the DWP began working with other agencies in the Bear Valley to evaluate options for retention and use of re-cycled water. Currently, approximately 2,200 acre feet per year of effluent is treated by the Big Bear Area Wastewater Agency (BBARWA) and then sent down the mountain to irrigate alfalfa fields. The DWP teamed with BBARWA, the Big Bear City Community Services District (a retail water provider), and the Big Bear Municipal Water District (lake management and wholesale water) to brainstorm various uses for recycled water. Some of the proposed uses included: irrigation for schools and parks, a trout farm to stock Big Bear Lake, water supply to maintain the endangered unarmored three spine stickleback fish, watershed to maintain water levels in Big Bear Lake, and potentially creating a wetlands treatment facility near Baldwin Lake. With BBARWA as lead agency, consultants were engaged to create the proposed facilities and feasibility plan. The study, which was partly funded by grants, eventually determined that the cost per acre foot of water would not make the recycled water affordable under the current regulatory requirements for treatment. Customer Accounts Summary In Fiscal Year 2015/16, a total of 1,581 new accounts, or 132 per month on average, were established through change of service and new connections. New connections for the fiscal year totaled 43. At the end of Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP was serving water to 15,591 connections. In Fiscal year 2014/15, the DWP transferred 300 connections in the Rimforest Water System to Lake Arrowhead Community Services District.
Connection Activity 17,000 16,500 12 19 33 16,000 41 43 15,500 15,000 14,500 14,000 13,500 Total ConnectionsTotal 13,000 12,500 12,000 DRAFT
New Connections
5
70 of 316 Item 2.3
Collections Past due balances as of June 30, 2016, totaled $226,466, compared with $234,206 as of June 30, 2015, a decrease of 3.3%. The DWP places liens on properties when past due balances exceed $200. As of June 30, 2016, 107 properties were subject to DWP liens compared with 146 accounts in the prior year. Balances subject to liens totaled $186,010 as of June 30, 2016, compared with $204,611 in the prior year, a decrease of 9%. Balances subject to liens are usually collected by the DWP upon close of escrow when the property is sold, or earlier if the customer pays the balance. Historically, approximately 97% of accounts subject to liens are collected through escrow upon transfer of ownership.
Meter Replacement Program Meters by Type The DWP continued its comprehensive 18,000 meter replacement program throughout 16,000 Fiscal Year 2015/16. Active Radio-read 14,000 meters as of June 30, 2016 totaled 6,613. 12,000 10,000 This is an increase of 3,328 units over the 8,000 prior year. On average, staff is installing 6,000 330 units per month by taking advantage 4,000 of good weather conditions. The program 2,000 0 was ahead of schedule by 2,400 units as of June 30, 2016. Standard Meters Radio-Read Meters Construction Projects In 2015/16, the DWP completed the remaining projects funded by the USDA 2013 loan and grant. These projects include: the Arrastre Creek Well and Klamath Booster Station which were completed in July 2015. The meter replacement program was also a primary focus for the DWP. Using in-house labor, field crews continued upgrading meter boxes and installing new meters and adaptors. The meter replacement program was initially expected to take six years to complete, however crews have taken advantage of good weather and installations have exceeded expectations. A number of well plant pumping units were replaced in 2015/16 under planned upgrades and also resulting from unexpected failures.
Summary Major Infrastructure Projects Completed Fiscal Year 2015/16 TransmissionDRAFT and Distribution Projects Completed – FY 2015/16†
Total Capital Units/Linear Project Location Investment † Feet Meter and Box Replacement Program 3,328 $ 1,025,536 Klamath Booster Station and Transmission Line 815,427 Bear Mountain Slant Well Transmission Line 112,283 Goldmine Booster Upgrade 11,333 Total Transmission and Distribution Improvements $ 1,964,579
†Includes costs incurred in previous fiscal years
6
71 of 316 Item 2.3
Source of Supply Projects Completed – FY 2015/16† Total Capital Project Location Project Description Investment Lake William Arrastre Creek Well $ 1,521,117 Big Bear Lake Replace Middle School Well pump 47,650 Big Bear Lake Replace Division Well # 7 pump 30,990 Big Bear Lake Replace Division Well # 5 pump 24,145 Big Bear Lake Install Division Well # 2 transducer 5,827 Moonridge Replace La Crescenta Well pump 75,427 Moonridge Replace Sheephorn Well pump 49,168 Moonridge Replace McAllister Well pump 22,675 Install Variable Frequency Drive Moonridge – Bow Canyon Well 18,932 Total Source of Supply Improvements $ 1,795,931
†Includes costs incurred in previous fiscal years Funding for Infrastructure Replacement The DWP exhausted its third round of funding from the United States Department of Agriculture – Rural Development (USDA) in Fiscal Year 2014/15. Due to changes in eligibility criteria, the USDA was not a probable funding source for the DWP’s near-term projects. In January 2016, the DWP filed four grant applications with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) under its WaterSMART initiative. The applications requested funding of $300,000 and $1,000,000 for both the Meter Replacement Program and the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project. In July 2016, the Bureau finalized $300,000 in matching grant funds for the Meter Replacement Program and another $300,000 was awarded for the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project. In April 2016, the DWP began pursuing loan funding from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank for State Revolving Funds to fund construction costs for the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project. The final application for $1,050,000 in loan funding was submitted in July 2016 and final documents are nearing completion for this issuance which bears interest at 2.7% per year and matures in 30 years.
Conservation Investments in Conservation Rebate Programs The DWP’s DRAFT$60,000 Conservation/Public $50,000 Information Department $40,000 encourages water efficiency through an extensive public $30,000 outreach program including $20,000 print collateral, newspaper and $10,000 radio advertisements, social $- media and special events. The DWP’s conservation outreach combined with state and local $ Turf Rebates $ Toilet Rebates regulations has decreased water demand and increased customer compliance.
7
72 of 316 Item 2.3
At the core of the Conservation Department are two incentive programs: toilet rebates and turf buy-backs. In FY 2015/16 a total 37,225 square feet of turf were removed and 201 high-flow toilets were replaced with ultra low-flow toilets. Since its inception, nearly 403,000 square feet of turf have been removed through the DWP’s Conservation Trends incentive program. Audits 250 and rebates are on an 200 upward trend since hitting 150 historic lows in FY 2011/12. The average 100 number of total audits 50 (indoor and outdoor) has 0 increased by nearly 80% from 2010-2012 to 2013- 2015, from an average 109 per year to 195 per year. # Turf Rebates Outdoor Audits Toilets Replaced Indoor Audits The total number of annual toilet rebates has more than doubled for the same period, increasing from an average 61 to 127. Increasingly integral to the mission of water conservation is water loss control. As part of that effort, and with the momentum of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure program, Conservation has worked closely with office and Meter Department staff to develop and implement comprehensive leak response procedures. As more radio read meters are installed, leak detection abilities increase, as does the ability to identify irregular irrigation and usage patterns. With that ability, comes a greater responsibility to contact and follow up with customers to ensure that sources of potential water loss are addressed. State Mandated Conservation Efforts On May 18, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Resolution No. 2015-0032 was approved and went into effect. The Resolution placed each urban water supplier into one of nine tiers which were assigned a conservation standard, ranging between 4% and 36%. At that time the DWP was placed in DRAFTthe 16% conservation tier and was charged with enforcing additional regulations applicable to commercial, industrial and institutional properties. In response to this mandate, the DWP launched the DWP’s “Biggest Loser” competition between the City, local Parks, and Schools. On November 13, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-36-15 (EO B-36-15) calling for an extension of urban water use restrictions until October 31, 2016. Just before the February 2016 reporting deadline the SWRCB adopted an extended and revised regulation that considered certain factors, such as evapotranspiration rates, and the DWP was downgraded to the 13% reduction tier. Never-the-less the DWP continued its endeavor to meet state standards through myriad methods, including Landscaping and Hospitality Industry Open Houses to educate business and home owners alike. From June 2015 through February 2016, the DWP managed to achieve a 10.64% reduction in water use based on the state regulations.
8
73 of 316 Item 2.3
On May 9, 2016, Governor Brown issued a new Executive Order (B-37-16) that required the SWRCB to adjust the existing regulations in recognition of the differing water supply conditions across the state, what became known as the “stress test” approach. The stress test approach allows the DWP to effectively reduce its required conservation rate to zero. More importantly, Order B-37-16 also tasked the SWRCB to work with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop a permanent framework by January 2017 with: “water use targets customized to the unique conditions of each water agency, [that] shall generate more statewide water conservation than existing requirements, and shall be based on strengthened standards for: a. Indoor residential per capita water use; b. Outdoor irrigation, in a manner that incorporates landscape area, local climate, and new satellite imagery data; c. Commercial, industrial, and institutional water use; and d. Water lost through leaks.” Order B-37-16 also stipulated that the DWR and SWRCB permanently prohibit certain wasteful practices, direct actions to minimize water system leaks, strengthen requirements for urban Water Shortage Contingency Plans and permanently require urban water suppliers to issue a monthly report on their water usage, amount of conservation achieved, and any enforcement efforts. On October 9, 2015 Senate Bill No. 555 was signed into law. Senate Bill 555 (SB555) developed a systematic method to track, measure, audit, report, and ultimately reduce water loss. SB555 requires that urban retail water suppliers submit a completed and validated annual water loss audit report as prescribed by rules adopted by the DWR. SB555 also requires these audited reports be posted on the DWP’s website and requires the SWRCB to adopt rules requiring urban retail water suppliers to meet performance standards for the volume of water losses. To create and validate these reports, staff from each water supplier must undergo training through the Water Loss Technical Assistant Program (TAP). The DWP has created a “Water Loss TAP” team consisting of the Customer Service Supervisor, Production Supervisor, and Conservation/Public Information Specialist, who will serve as the primary points of contact. Lastly, FY 2015/16 marked the five year anniversary during which the DWP was required to create an updated Urban WaterDRAFT Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP serves as a link between land use and water supply planning. It provides an analysis of the available water supply during normal and dry-year scenarios, compared to current and future projected water demand. The Conservation Department and other key DWP staff were tasked to work in conjunction with a consultant to complete and submit the plan for review. The DWP will reference the document extensively in the future as we continue to strive for water-use efficiency and data-based decision making. The Urban Water Management Plan is a required document for most grant and loan funding opportunities.
9
74 of 316 Item 2.3
Staffing The DWP’s staffing fluctuates throughout the year as temporary employees are hired each summer when weather conditions are favorable. Average headcount for Fiscal Year 2015/16 was 32.73 full-time equivalent employees compared with 33.31 in the prior year.
DWP Staffing 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 -
Regular Full-time Staff Temporary & Part-time Staff
DRAFT
10
75 of 316 Item 2.3
Management Discussion and Analysis Fiscal Year 2015/16 Objectives For Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP’s primary objectives were continuing the DWP’s comprehensive meter replacement program, pursuing additional funding for on-going infrastructure improvements through grants and loans, and improving operational efficiencies. Revenues Total operating revenues for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 were $11,205,073, compared with $11,601,562 for the prior year.
Total Operating Revenues ($000s) $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $-
Increase Revenue Source FY 2015/16 FY 2014/15 (Decrease) % Change Revenue From Rates $10,187,375 $10,333,041 $ (145,666) (1.4%) Revenue from New 669,381 900,154 (230,773) (25.6%) Connections Revenue from 167,416 172,101 (4,685) (2.7%) Standby Assessments DRAFT Administrative Fees 139,170 148,340 (9,170) (6.2%) Other Income 41,731 47,926 (6,195) (12.9%) Totals $11,205,073 $11,601,562 $ (396,489) (3.4%)
Revenue from Rates Revenue from rates includes periodic service charges and Percentage of Revenue from water usage fees for water consumed by customers. Revenue Rates by Customer Class from rates totaled $10,187,375 in Fiscal Year 2015/16, Residential 83.6% compared with $10,333,041 in the prior year. Revenue from Commercial 16.4% rates decreased 1.4% year over year, which was primarily due Total 100.0% to decreased water consumption as a result of greater
11
76 of 316 Item 2.3
awareness of state-wide drought conditions and secondarily to the transfer of the Rimforest Water System to Lake Arrowhead Community Services District in October 2014. Revenue from New Connections Revenue from Capacity Charges and Meter Installation Fees in Fiscal Year 2015/16 totaled $669,381, compared with $900,154 in the prior year. The decrease of $230,773 is due to the addition of a new phase of development at The Club in the Village in Fiscal Year 2014/15, which added 22.95 equivalent dwelling units in the prior year. Revenue from Standby Assessments The DWP assesses a “standby fee” or readiness-to-serve charge on vacant parcels within its service area that could be served by the DWP’s water mains. As parcels are developed and connect to the water system the tax levy is removed from the tax rolls. In Fiscal Year 2015/16, standby assessment revenues totaled $167,416 compared with $172,101 in the prior year. The decrease in fees is consistent with the rate of new connections to the water system. As new construction increases, standby fees will decrease. Administrative Fees Administrative fees are charges to customer accounts for additional services rendered to specific customers. Administrative Fees totaled $139,170 as of June 30, 2016, compared with $148,340 in FY 2014/15. The decrease in administrative fees of $9,170 reflects greater compliance with the DWP’s policies and payment due dates. Other Income Other income is miscellaneous income received throughout the year. In Fiscal Year 2015/16 miscellaneous income was primarily distributions from the settlement agreement with Lehman Brothers pursuant to its bankruptcy. These totaled $30,405 of the $41,731 in other income in Fiscal Year 2015/16. The DWP also received rental income of $6,000 from Verizon for co- location of a cell tower at a DWP well site Expenses Total operating expenses for Fiscal Year 2015/16 were $6,940,990, compared with $6,664,513 in the prior year.
DRAFTTotal Operating Expenses ($000s) $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $-
12
77 of 316 Item 2.3
Increase Operating Expenses FY 2015/16 FY 2014/15 (Decrease) % Change Operations and $ 5,234,719 $ 5,127,197 $ 107,522 2.1% Maintenance Expenses Depreciation Expense 1,706,271 1,537,316 168,955 11.0% Totals $ 6,940,990 $ 6,664,513 $ 276,477 4.1%
Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance expenses increased $107,522. Pension expense, which is allocated to each functional area, increased $221,389 compared to the prior year. Please see the discussion below related to pension accounting and reporting. Excluding the effects of pension expense, operations and maintenance costs decreased $113,867 (2.2%) compared to the prior year. Reorganization within the Water Operations Department resulting in savings of $120,716 in personnel costs (excluding the effects of pension expense). Property tax expense decreased $54,828 as a result of gaining tax-exempt status on some DWP-owned parcels through annexation to the City of Big Bear Lake. The DWP incurred costs of $37,775 related to the Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project Facilities Plan. The costs for this facilities plan were shared by the four agencies involved and there is grant funding pending for a partial reimbursement to the DWP. Costs for trench maintenance and paving repairs increased $19,108 over the prior year. Pension Accounting In Fiscal Year 2014/15 the DWP implemented Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 68 – Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions (GASB 68). The DWP is a member of the San Bernardino County Employees Pension Association’s Cost-Sharing Multiple- Employer Defined Pension Plan. The measurement date established for the DWP’s pension reporting was established as June 30, 2014 and the first year for financial reporting date was June 30, 2015. Fiscal Year 2015/16 is the second year of reporting for pensions and total pension expense for Fiscal Year 2015/16 was $807,605. Total Pension Expense for Fiscal Year 2014/15 was $586,216. Pension expense is recorded in each functional department under Operations and Maintenance and not as a separate line item. The increase of $221,389 in pension expense is primarily due to clarification received from GASB on the treatment of contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee. The DWP’s pension liability increased $328,150 as of June 30, 2016, year over year, fromDRAFT $4,595,017 to $4,923,167. For more information on pension accounting and reporting please refer to the footnotes to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Big Bear Lake for the years ended June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016, available at www.citybigbearlake.com.
Depreciation and Amortization Depreciation and amortization expense increased as a substantial number of new capital assets were placed in service at the end of Fiscal Year 2014/15 and the beginning of Fiscal Year 2015/16. Many of those assets replaced older, fully depreciated assets however some are new assets: Angels Camp Reservoir, Klamath Booster and Arrastre Creek Well.
13
78 of 316 Item 2.3
Non-operating Revenues and Expenses Intergovernmental In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP realized $200,689 in grant income from the United States Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART program. This revenue was from two grants awarded in July 2016 for the Meter Replacement Program and the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline replacement Project. In the prior year the DWP received $1,000,000 from the United State Department of Agriculture – Rural Development grant for the Arrastre Creek Well, and $157,153 from the United State Department of Energy grant for the solar power facilities added to the DWP’s office building. The Department of Energy grant was awarded to the City of Big Bear Lake. The City had excess funds from the grant and made those funds available to the DWP to facilitate the solar project. Interest Income and Expense Interest revenue is earned on investment of operating funds, debt reserves and debt service account balances. In Fiscal Year 2015/16 interest income totaled $41,097, compared with $22,011 in the prior year. There has been an improvement in returns earned from the Local Agency Investment Fund as the economy has gradually improved. Interest expense incurred under the DWP’s various debt issuances totaled $1,465,736 in Fiscal Year 2015/16 compared with $1,598,146 in the prior year. The decrease in this expense is associated with principal reductions associated with sinking fund payments made and also because the California Department of Water Resources Loan was paid in full in October 2014. Gain (Loss) on Disposal of Capital Assets In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP incurred losses of $139,202 as result of the retiring customer meters that were not yet fully depreciated and replacing well pumps that failed before being fully depreciated. Capital Expenditures Capital expenditures for Fiscal Year 2015/16 totaled $1,983,769, compared with $3,827,258 in the prior year. Capital equipment purchases and facilities improvements totaled $132,426 compared with $636,684 in the prior year. The Solar Power project at the DWP’s office building was completed in the prior year and costs were approximately $315,000. Current year spending was limited to the planned replacement of several vehicles and improvements to the field office. Major infrastructure projects inDRAFT Fiscal Year 2015/16 were primarily related to the Meter Replacement Program, engineering related to the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project, and replacement of a number of well pumps that failed. In Fiscal Year 2014/15 infrastructure projects were more significant and included the Arrastre Creek Well Pumping Plant, the Angels Camp Reservoir and the Klamath Booster Station, in addition to the Meter Replacement Program. Capital spending may vary greatly depending upon funding sources available in a given year. In the prior year the DWP was still drawing on grants and loans from the USDA.
14
79 of 316 Item 2.3
Capital Assets (Net of Accumulated Depreciation) ($000s) $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $-
Debt The DWP currently has four outstanding debt issuances: the 1996 Revenue Refunding Bonds, the 2010 USDA Bond, the 2012 USDA Bond, and the 2013 USDA Bond The principal balance of the 1996 Bonds as of June 30, 2016 was $16,735,000. The 1996 Bond obligation matures in April 2022. The principal balance of the 2010 USDA Bond as of June 30, 2016 was $3,326,000. The 2010 USDA Bond will be paid in full in 2049. The principal balance of the 2012 USDA Bond as of June 30, 2016 was $4,708,000. The 2012 USDA Bond will be paid in full in 2052. The principal balance of the 2013 USDA Bond as of June 30, 2016 was $3,067,000. The 2013 USDA Bond will be paid in full in 2053.
Outstanding Debt by Issuance ($000s) $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 DRAFT $-
1996 Bonds CA DWR Loan 2010 Bond 2012 Bond 2013 Bond
Debt Service 2015/16 2014/15 Principal Payments $ 2,449,000 $ 2,793,900 Interest Payments (cash basis) 1,560,148 1,436,247 Total Bond Payments $ 4,009,148 $ 4,230,147
15
80 of 316 Item 2.3
Cash and Cash Equivalents Unrestricted cash and cash equivalent balances as of June 30, 2016 were $5,653,160 compared with $5,541,014 as of June 30, 2015.
Cash and Investments (unrestricted) ($000s) $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $-
DRAFT
16
81 of 316 Item 2.3
Financial Statements
THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS DERIVED FROM AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ENTERPRISE FUND WATER UTILITY. THESE STATEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 AND JUNE 30, 2016, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE WWW.CITYBIGBEARLAKE.COM UNDER CITY DEPARTMENTS – “FINANCE >> COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS ARCHIVE”, OR UPON REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, P.O. BOX 10000, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315, 909-866-5831.
DRAFT
17
82 of 316 Item 2.3 CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Business-Type Activities Enterprise Fund Water Utility June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Assets: Current Assets: Cash and investments $ 5,653,160 $ 5,541,014 Receivables: Accounts 1,626,220 1,685,742 Accrued interest 12,037 6,019 Cumulative deposit refund 7,433 - Prepaid Costs 35,472 35,489 Due from other governments 265,357 69,126 Inventories 371,925 297,095 Restricted: Cash with fiscal agent 5,093,032 5,075,136 Total Current Assets 13,064,636 12,709,621
Noncurrent Assets: Notes Receivable 274,473 332,257 Capital assets – not being depreciated 2,192,344 4,288,996 Capital assets – net of accumulated depreciation 41,997,157 39,713,125 Total Noncurrent Assets 44,463,974 44,334,378 Total Assets 57,528,610 57,043,999 Deferred Outflows of Resources: Deferred pension related items 2,290,068 2,694,838 Deferred loss on refunding 888,331 1,036,386 Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 3,178,399 3,731,224 Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources DRAFT$ 60,707,009 $ 60,775,223
18
83 of 316 Item 2.3 CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION CONTINUED Business-Type Activities Enterprise Fund Water Utility June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015
Liabilities and Net Position: Liabilities: Current Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 358,790 $ 252,127 Accrued liabilities 324,750 301,496 Accrued interest 324,225 359,405 Deposits payable 15,430 4,360 Due to other governments - 40,000 Accrued compensated absences 253,545 287,731 Bonds, notes, and capital leases 2,590,000 2,449,000 Total Current Liabilities 3,866,740 3,694,119 Noncurrent Liabilities: Accrued claims and judgments 24,610 45,770 Net pension liability 4,923,167 4,595,016 Bonds, notes, and capital leases 25,746,373 28,419,770 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 30,694,150 33,060,556
Total Liabilities 34,560,890 36,754,675
Deferred Inflows of Resources: Deferred pension inflows of resources 1,452,014 2,282,811 Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 1,452,014 2,282,811 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources 36,012,904 39,037,486
Net Position: DRAFT Net investment in capital assets 16,741,459 14,169,737 Restricted for debt service 5,093,032 5,075,136 Unrestricted 2,859,614 2,492,864 Total Net Position 24,694,105 21,737,737 Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows and Net Position $ 60,707,009 $ 60,775,223
19
84 of 316 Item 2.3 CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES Business-Type AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION Activities Enterprise Fund Water Utility June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Operating Revenues: Sales and service charges $ 11,163,344 $ 11,537,514 Miscellaneous 41,729 64,048 Total Operating Revenues 11,205,073 11,601,562
Operating Expenses: Administration and general 2,049,885 1,912,444 Source of supply 1,420,957 1,361,371 Water system operations 663,756 768,995 Transmission and distribution 1,100,121 1,084,387 Depreciation expense 1,706,271 1,537,316 Total Operating Expenses 6,940,990 6,664,513
Operating Income (Loss) 4,264,083 4,937,049 Non-operating Revenues (Expenses): Intergovernmental 200,689 1,157,153 Interest revenue 41,097 22,011 Interest expense (1,465,736) (1,598,146) Gain (loss) on disposal of fixed assets (139,202) 89,391
Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) (1,363,152) (329,591)
Income (Loss) Before Transfers 2,900,931 4,607,458 Contributions from developers 55,437 - Changes in Net Position 2,956,368 4,607,458 Net Position: DRAFT Beginning of year, as originally reported 21,737,737 17,946,962 Restatements (1) - (816,683) Beginning of year, as previously restated 21,737,737 17,130,279 Changes in Net Position 2,956,368 4,607,458
End of Fiscal Year $ 24,694,105 $ 21,737,737
(1) Includes adjustments pursuant to GASB Statement No. 68 Accounting for Pensions ($4,500,427) and a restatement of capital assets to record values for previously unrecorded water mains of $3,683,564.
20
85 of 316 Item 2.3 CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Business-Type Activities Enterprise Fund Water Utility June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Cash Flows from Operating Activities: Cash received from customers and users $ 11,326,016 $ 11,347,898 Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (3,192,984) (3,702,471) Cash paid to employees for services (2,179,853) (2,217,678) Net Cash Provided by/(Used) for Operating Activities 5,953,179 5,427,749 Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing Activities: Proceeds from capital debt - 1,238,421 Acquisition and construction of capital assets (1,998,653) (3,832,159) Principal paid on capital debt (2,449,000) (2,793,846) Interest paid on capital debt (1,584,313) (1,707,297) Contributions from other governments 4,458 1,088,027 Proceeds from sales from capital assets 169,292 647,862 Net Cash Provided (Used) by Capital and Related Financing Activities (5,858,216) (5,358,992)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities: Interest received 35,079 20,602 Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities 35,079 20,602 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents 130,042 89,359 Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year 10,616,150 10,526,791 Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year $ 10,746,192 $ 10,616,150
DRAFT
21
86 of 316 Item 2.3 CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CONTINUED Business-Type Activities Enterprise Fund Water Utility June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015
Reconciliation of Operating Income to Net Cash Provided by/(Used) for Operating Activities Operating income (loss) $ 4,264,083 $ 4,937,049 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities: Depreciation 1,706,271 1,537,316 Decrease in accounts receivable 59,522 86,863 (Increase) decrease in receivables due in more than one year 57,784 (332,257) (Increase) in retroactive deposit refund (7,433) - Increase in inventories (74,830) (61,700) Decrease in prepaid expenses 17 1,700 Decrease (increase) in deferred outflows from pensions 404,770 (2,694,838) Decrease in accounts payable 106,663 (421,382) Increase in accrued liabilities 23,254 30,404 Decrease in due to other governments (40,000) (6,336) Decrease in deposits payable 11,070 (8,270) Decrease in claims and judgments (21,160) (42,116) Increase in net pension liability 328,151 94,770 (Decrease) increase in deferred inflows from pensions (830,797) 2,282,811 (Decrease) increase in compensated absences (34,186) 23,735 Total Adjustments 1,689,096 490,700 Net Cash Provided by (Used) for Operating Activities $ 5,953,179 $ 5,427,749
Non-cash Investing, Capital, and Financing Activities: Amortization of premiums and loss on refunding $ 231,452 $ 231,452 Contributions from developersDRAFT 55,437 -
22
87 of 316 Item 2.3
Reconciliation of Net Activity All Funds to Change in Net Assets Fiscal Year 2015/16
Year ended June 30, 2016 In 000s Net Activity All Funds (Page 27) $ (42) Less: Depreciation Expense (1,706) Installments from Sale of Rimforest (64) Add: Revenue Reserved for Future Spending 109 Principal Payments on Debt 2,449 GASB 68 Pension Adjustments 97 Capitalized Asset Expenditures 2,113 Adjustment to Net Fund Activity $ 2,998 Change in Net Position (Page 20) $ 2,956
DRAFT
23
88 of 316 Item 2.3
Fund Activity Statements - Unaudited Budget vs. Actual Analysis Revenues Total revenues from operations were $11,227,310, less than expected by $96,399 (0.9%). Usage revenues fell short of expectations by $324,297 (16.7%) due to greater conservation efforts by our customers in response to the Governor’s mandate to conserve water due to the on-going drought. Capacity charges and meter installation fees exceeded expectations by $113,179 (20.3%) because new construction exceeded expectations by 7.59 Equivalent Dwelling Units. The budget provided for a total of 59.5 new EDUs to be added to the water system whereas 67.09 were actually added. Administrative Fees fell short of expectations by $15,830 (10.2%). These fees are dependent upon customer behavior and are difficult to estimate; however this trend is supported by the decrease in accounts receivable balances and past due balances. Standby fees exceeded expectations by $9,211 (5.8%) which is most likely due to the recovery of past due property taxes through transfer of real estate titles. Other Income includes miscellaneous projects requested by customers and funds received from the Lehman Brothers Settlement. Operations and Maintenance Gross expenditures in the Operations and Maintenance Fund (O&M) were $5,833,625, under budget by $291,054 (4.8%).
Production Production spending totaled $1,262,836 under budget by $71,107 (5.3%). Electricity costs were under budget $71,293 (10.6%) as a result of three factors: 1) recent infrastructure improvements have reduced the power required to transfer water from east to west, 2) replacement pumping units are operating more efficiently, and 3) water production decreased which resulted in a reduced demand for electricity. Maintenance spending was under budget by $10,865. This variance was offset by non-cash contractual costs related to the Arrastre Creek Well that were considered in the original budget.
Conservation/Public Information Conservation spending totaled $210,644 over budget by $7,615 (3.8%). Spending for the demand offset program exceeded expectations by $7,641. Unfavorable variances in personnel spending of $2,500 were offsetDRAFT by a favorable variance in printing costs. Other minor spending variances also offset each other.
Transmission and Distribution Transmission and Distribution (T&D) spending totaled $791,236, under budget by $59,796 (7%). Personnel costs were less than expected by $138,625 due to a reduction in staffing in this department that resulted from the creation of a new position in the Water Operations department and the elimination of a utility technician position. Overtime wages budgeted for this department were also less than expected. Maintenance spending was less than expected by $12,096 and the purchase of mobile devices was deferred until Fiscal Year 2016/17 creating a favorable variance of $6,100. These favorable variances were offset by greater than expected spending for inventory of $48,325 and basic materials of $49,200.
24
89 of 316 Item 2.3
Meter Department Spending for the Meter Department totaled $633,163, under budget by $35,024 (5.2%). Personnel costs were less than expected by $26,426 because a Meter Technician Level II at step 5 was promoted to the Production Department and the position was filled with a Meter Tech Level I at step 1. Maintenance spending was less than expected by $8,427.
Property Taxes Property taxes were $54,574, under budget by $53,865 (49.7%). The DWP worked with the City of Big Bear Lake, the County of San Bernardino, and the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the DWP’s parcels in the county to the City. The purpose of the annexation was to relieve the DWP’s ratepayers of the property tax costs that exceeded $100,000 per year. Property taxes were budgeted in full for the year pending the outcome of the annexation which was completed in the fall of 2015. Water Operations Spending in Water Operations totaled $709,842, over budget by $30,736 (4.5%). Personnel costs exceeded the original budget by $114,569 due to the creation of a new position – Water Operations Assistant. The employee who was awarded this position was transferred from the T&D department and the T&D position was eliminated. There was no increase in planned head count as a result of the new position. There is an offsetting favorable variance in the T&D department for personnel spending. Fuel and other vehicle costs were less than expected by $38,412. License and permit fees are incurred when state agencies perform inspections. These fees were less than expected by $19,169. The provision for accidents and damages was under utilized by $10,074. A number of other accounts were under budget by minor amounts, including reserve for future equipment purchases, clothing and laundry, travel, computer purchases, small tools and other various accounts.
Customer Accounts Spending for Customer Accounts, which includes general accounting, billing, and customer service, totaled $961,443, was under budget by $19,269 (2.0%). Personnel costs were less than expected by $5,290 due to turnover in the department where by a Customer Service Representative level II was replaced by a Customer Service Representative level I. Bad debt expense was less than expected by $4,962. Maintenance fees for certain software and technology were less than expected by $3,125 primarily because expenses relating to future periods were reclassified to prepaidDRAFT expenses. Costs for printing had a favorable variance of $2,534 because fewer door tags were ordered than projected. Bank fees were less than expected by $1,382. Postage was less than expected by $1,320. Administration Administration spending totaled $1,209,887, under budget by $90,344 (6.9%). Insurance costs had a favorable variance of $61,903. Insurance requirements for Fiscal Year 2015/16 were reduced $39,000 from projections and the DWP received a credit for reductions to the retro- active deposit requirement for insurance of $22,903. Professional fees offset this saving with an unfavorable variance of $67,027. This unfavorable variance was related to costs associated with the annexation of the DWP’s parcels to the City and costs associated with the facilities plan for the Bear Valley Water Sustainability plan. Legal fees were less than projected by $28,259. The DWP had planned to set aside current year revenues as a reserve for future equipment purchases.
25
90 of 316 Item 2.3
Due to the decrease in Usage Fees the DWP elected to forego this planned savings of $17,492. Personnel costs were under budget by $12,167 due to turnover in the department that left a vacancy for a month and the appointee was hired at lesser pay and under the tier 2 retirement rules. Electricity costs were less than expected by $11,882 as the DWP completed its first full year with solar power for its office building. The budget for electricity was prepared with the best knowledge available at the time. IT support costs were less than expected by $10,500 which correlates to the level of service that was actually received from the prior contractor. Education and training costs were less than planned by $5,857 because after evaluating the content of some conferences two employees elected to forego the conference. Telecommunications costs were less than expected by $5,825 due to savings that were realized by upgrading the service contract to digital. The expense allowance provided for the Board of Commissioners was under utilized by $5,757. Capitalized Costs Capitalized costs represent the efforts of DWP staff expended toward capital projects. Direct labor and overhead exceeded estimates by $35,266 (8.8%). Efforts associated with the meter replacement program were conservatively budgeted because we had limited data from which to develop a more accurate estimate. Debt Service Income from investments in the Debt Service Fund was $18,858, which exceeded expectations by $8,631 (84.4%) due to an increase in the rate of return from the Local Agency Investment Fund from 0.26% to 0.55%. Total Debt Service expenditures were $3,924,018, over budget by $768 (0%). Funding for Infrastructure Improvements When the budget was prepared for Fiscal Year 2015/16 the DWP had no funding awarded for infrastructure projects and spending plans anticipated using current year revenues and funds reserved for capital improvements. In January 2016 the DWP filed for funding from the Bureau of Reclamation which resulted in two awards and generated $200,689 in grant revenues. Additionally, two small residential construction projects required main line extensions that were completed by the respective developers and the assets were subsequently dedicated to the DWP at a value of $55,437. Capital Expenditures DRAFT Capital expenditures in the System Rehabilitation Fund, Capital-Growth Fund and General Plant Fund were $2,284,590, which was more than budgeted by $536,062 (30.7%). The Board authorized the use of reserves for the meter replacement program and costs associated with the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project which was not planned to start until Fiscal Year 2016/17. The pipeline project was expedited to be completed before Caltrans repaves the road in 2017. Additionally several well pumping units failed and were replaced ahead of schedule.
26
91 of 316 Item 2.3
Comparison of Actual Results to Original Budget Variance Fiscal Year Ended Budget Adopted Favorable % June 30, 2016 May 26, 2015 (Unfavorable) Revenue Fund Usage Fees $ 1,615,892 $ 1,940,189 $ (324,297) -16.7% Service Charges 8,571,483 8,498,713 72,770 0.9% Administrative Fees 139,170 155,000 (15,830) -10.2% Meter Installation Fees 85,125 37,500 47,625 127.0% Capacity Charges 584,256 518,702 65,554 12.6% Standby Fees 167,416 158,205 9,211 5.8% Investment Income 22,240 10,400 11,840 113.8% Other Income 41,728 5,000 36,728 734.6% Net Fund Activity $ 11,227,310 $ 11,323,709 $ (96,399) -0.9% Operations and Maintenance Fund (Actual spending includes encumbrances carried forward from prior year) Production $ 1,262,836 $ 1,333,942 $ 71,106 5.3% Conservation/Public Information 210,644 203,030 (7,614) -3.8% Transmission/Distribution 791,236 851,032 59,796 7.0% Meter Department 633,163 668,187 35,024 5.2% Property Taxes 54,574 108,439 53,865 49.7% Water Operations 709,842 679,106 (30,736) -4.5% Customer Accounts 961,443 980,712 19,269 2.0% Administration 1,209,887 1,300,231 90,344 6.9% Gross Expenditures $ 5,833,625 $ 6,124,679 $ 291,054 4.8% Capitalized Costs (434,082) (398,815) 35,266 -8.8% Net Expenditures 5,399,543 5,725,864 326,320 5.7% Net Fund Activity $ (5,399,543) $ (5,725,864) $ 326,320 5.7% Debt Service Fund Investment Income $ 18,858 $ 10,227 $ 8,631 84.4% Payments from the Sale of Rimforest 63,704 63,704 - 0.0% Total Funding $82,562 $73,931 $8,631 11.7% Principal Payments $2,449,000 $2,449,000 $ - 0.0% Interest Expense and Other Expenses 1,475,018 1,474,249 (769) -0.1% Total Expenditures $ 3,924,018 $ 3,923,249 $ (769) 0.0% Net Fund Activity DRAFT$ (3,841,456) $ (3,849,318) $ 7,862 -0.2% Capital Expenditures (Actual spending includes encumbrances carried forward from prior year) Grants $ 200,689 $ - $ 200,689 N/A Contributions in aid of construction 55,437 - 55,437 N/A Total Funding $ 256,126 $ - $ 256,126 N/A General Plant $ 132,426 $ 136,200 $ 3,774 2.8% Wells, Boosters, Reservoirs 479,313 388,162 (91,151) -23.5% Mains, Meters, Hydrants 1,672,851 1,224,166 $ (448,685) -36.7% Total Expenditures $ 2,284,590 $ 1,748,528 $ (536,062) -30.7% Net Fund Activity $ (2,028,464) $ (1,748,528) $ (279,936) 16.0% Net Activity All Funds $ (42,153) $ - $ (42,153) N/A
27
92 of 316 Item 2.3
Analysis of Actual Results to Prior Year Results Revenues Operating revenues decreased $374,466 (3.2%) over the prior year. Usage fees decreased $280,469 (14.8%) in response to the Governor’s mandate to conserve water. Service charges increased $134,803 (1.6%). The DWP implemented a 2% rate increase on July 1, 2015. Administrative fees declined $9,170 (6.2%), which is reflective of the DWP’s efforts to reduce past due accounts and formalization of the DWP’s Rules and Regulations on June 23, 2015. Revenues from new connections decreased $257,831 (30.6%) because a large development was connected in the prior year. Standby fees decreased $4,686 (2.7%) which is a result of new connections being removed from the standby rolls. Other income is primarily proceeds from the Lehman Brothers settlement agreement. Operations and Maintenance Gross Operations and Maintenance spending decreased $95,906 (1.6%) compared to the prior year. Production Production spending decreased $58,563 (4.4%) compared to the prior year. Spending for electricity decreased $64,368 as a result of decreased demand for water and also due to improvements in the infrastructure that allows for more efficient movement of water from east to west, and the DWP paid off retroactive obligations to the electric company effective September 30, 2015. Savings of $15,616 was realized in purchased water as a result of the sale of the Rimforest Water System. Costs for lab services also decreased $8,470. Licenses and permits were $7,014 less than the prior year. These fees vary from year to year based upon site inspections. Personnel costs increased $21,689 due to a temporary increase in staffing to cover workflow during a leave of absence in the department. Rent/lease expense increased $12,553 as a result of non-cash contractual requirements of a contract related to the Arrastre Creek Well. Maintenance costs increased $5,395 over the prior year primarily due to increased spending for maintenance of well buildings. Conservation/Public Information Conservation spending increased $27,501 (15%) compared to the prior year. Personnel costs increased $25,703 as a result of a temporary vacancy in the department that occurred in the prior year. The appointee who filled the vacancy had previous experience with the DWP and therefore was hired at a higher pay rate DRAFTthan the previous incumbent. Spending for the demand offset program increased $4,050 as a result of greater awareness of rebate programs. Spending for supplies also increased as inventories of aerators, showerheads and other conservation devices were replenished. Spending for advertising decreased by $2,781 because the DWP re-prioritized its advertising budget and partnered with Big Bear City CSD on some conservation messages.
Transmission and Distribution Spending for Transmission and Distribution decreased $15,116 (1.9%) compared to the prior year. Personnel costs decreased $88,323 due to the elimination of a utility technician position when the water operations assistant position was created. This savings was offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of trench patches of $62,276. Spending for inventory increased $10,930 as a result of the meter replacement program
28
93 of 316 Item 2.3
Meter Department Spending for the Meter Department decreased $9,487 (1.5%) over the prior year. Maintenance fees for the new Sensus radio read collector system decreased $13,055 compared to the prior year. This savings was offset in part by increases in personnel spending of $3,429 related to merit increases and promotions.
Property Taxes Property taxes decreased $54,828 (50.1%) compared to the prior year as a result of the efforts to annex the DWP’s parcels in the county to the City of Big Bear Lake. Water Operations Water Operations spending decreased $74,779 (9.5%). Personnel costs decreased $69,350 because the position of Contracts and Water Conservation Manager was eliminated; however, a new, unrelated position was created – Water Operations Assistant – which was created to better ensure tracking of GIS water facilities data, assist with cross connection control compliance, and coordinate underground utility alerts for the DWP. Spending for basic materials decreased $43,168 from the prior year because this spending was recognized in Transmission and Distribution expenses in Fiscal Year 2015/16. Fuel spending decreased $10,376, which is indicative of the low price of crude oil. Fees for licenses and permits decreased $9,524. These fees fluctuate over time. Developer reimbursement fees incurred in the prior year of $8,213 were not required in FY 2015/16. Automotive expenses decrease $4,131; accidents and damages decreased $3,367 and miscellaneous professional services decreased $2,844. These savings were offset $76,230 because the DWP adopted a reserve policy in 2014 whereby the DWP sets aside revenues for the purchase of future vehicles and equipment. In Fiscal Year 2015/16 the DWP was able to reserve $76,230 for this purpose. Reserves are not expenses but the appropriation of current earnings for spending in future years.
Customer Accounts Spending related to customer accounts increased $40,496 (4.4%) compared to the prior year. Personnel-related costs increased $29,402 over the prior year primarily due to expected increases in pension costs and secondarily due to staffing a temporary position to cover a leave of absence and thirdly due to expected merit increases and cost of living adjustments. The overall increase in personnel costs year-over-year is an increase of 3.7%. Bank charges increased $7,750 (20%) which is consistent with the 25% increase in the dollar volume of online payments by credit cards. Spending for equipmentDRAFT leases increased $4,683 that resulted from an upgrade to the DWP’s postage meter and the implementation of new technology that will reduce postage costs going forward. Minor savings were realized in a number of other accounts. Administration Administration spending increased $48,870 (4.2%) compared to the prior year. Professional services increased $62,595 because the DWP incurred costs associated with the annexation project of $20,600 and secondly because the DWP participated in costs sharing for the Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project of $37,775. Building maintenance costs increased $6,998. This increase was primarily routine maintenance and upgrade of some office lighting to LED lights to reduce energy costs in the future. Dues, memberships, and subscription costs increased $5,736 over the prior year because the DWP elected to join the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The increase represents two years of dues. Personnel costs increased
29
94 of 316 Item 2.3
$4,526 compared to the prior year, which is an increase of 0.7% over the prior year. The DWP incurred increased costs for employee recognition of $3,500 as several employees reached longevity milestones and some retired with over 20 years of service. The DWP realized savings of $9,597 in electricity spending as a result of installing solar power facilities at the DWP’s office. Insurance expense decreased $8,398 as a result of a credit applied to the DWP’s retro- active insurance obligation. Professional services for legal and information technology decreased $7,790 and $7,187, respectively, based upon the needs of the organization. Costs for telephone service decreased $7,370 as a result of upgrading the DWP’s phone service to digital. Capitalized Costs The DWP dedicated $59,020 less of its labor costs to capital projects than it did in the prior year. This decrease is due to the shift from large construction projects to the Meter Replacement Program which requires more field labor and less management effort. Debt Service Revenues in the Debt Service Fund increased $10,603 primarily as a result of increased returns from the Local Agency Investment Fund. Contract payments from the sale of the Rimforest system increased $2,606 which reflects a full year of installments compared with nine installments in the prior year. Debt service expenditures decreased $476,056 over the prior year because the DWP elected to use funds available in the California Loan Reserve Account to pay off the balance of the 1993 loan from the Department of Water Resources in October 2014. This resulted in savings of over $7,000 in interest expense. Funding for Infrastructure Improvements In Fiscal Year 2014/15, the DWP was drawing on loan and grant proceeds awarded from the USDA in 2013. This funding was exhausted in Fiscal Year 2014/15. In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP applied for grant funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation to support the DWP’s Meter Replacement Program and partially fund the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement project. The DWP was awarded $300,000 in matching funds for each of those projects in July 2016. The grant period for the meter program was retroactive to July 1, 2015; the pipeline grant was retroactive to May 1, 2016. As a result the DWP recorded grant income of $200,689 for Fiscal Year 2015/16. The balance available from these awards is expected to be received in Fiscal Year 2016/17.DRAFT Capital Expenditures In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the DWP’s primary focus for infrastructure spending was the Meter Replacement Program. Secondarily, the DWP began engineering for the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement Project and the proposed Sawmill Well. Additionally, the DWP replaced a number of well pumping units either due to planned replacement or unplanned failure. Capital spending for Fiscal Year 2015/16 totaled $2,284,590. In the prior year, the DWP’s primary focus for infrastructure improvements included completing the Arrastre Creek Well pumping plant, the Angels Camp Reservoir and the Klamath Booster Station, and commencing its comprehensive meter replacement program. A number of other smaller projects were completed, including upgrades to the Monte Vista Well and Lakeplant Well #6, upgrading the Pontell Booster Station, and finalizing the Atlas Maps. Expenditures for
30
95 of 316 Item 2.3
the General Plant included installing solar power and upgrading radio communication systems, networking and telecommunication systems on the main office building; replacing a backhoe and trailer, a forklift, a crew service truck, and a meter technician truck. As a result of a number of equipment failures the DWP completed an analysis of its fleet and heavy equipment and implemented an equipment replacement policy. This spending totaled $3,943,553.
DRAFT
.
31
96 of 316 Item 2.3
Comparison of Actual Results to Prior Year Results Variance Fiscal Year Ended Fiscal Year Ended Favorable % June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 (Unfavorable) Revenue Fund Usage Fees $ 1,615,892 $ 1,896,361 $ (280,469) -14.8% Service Charges 8,571,483 8,436,680 134,803 1.6% Administrative Fees 139,170 148,340 (9,170) -6.2% Meter Installation Fees 85,125 58,067 27,058 46.6% Capacity Charges 584,256 842,087 (257,831) -30.6% Standby Fees 167,416 172,101 (4,685) -2.7% Investment Income 22,240 11,153 11,087 99.4% Other Income 41,728 36,987 4,741 12.8% Net Fund Activity $ 11,227,310 $ 11,601,776 $ (374,466) -3.2% Operations and Maintenance Fund (Actual spending includes encumbrances carried forward from prior year) Production $ 1,262,836 $ 1,321,399 $ 58,563 4.4% Conservation/Public Information 210,644 183,144 (27,500) -15.0% Transmission/Distribution 791,236 806,352 15,116 1.9% Meter Department 633,163 642,650 9,487 1.5% Property Taxes 54,574 109,402 54,828 50.1% Water Operations 709,842 784,621 74,779 9.5% Customer Accounts 961,443 920,947 (40,496) -4.4% Administration 1,209,887 1,161,017 (48,870) -4.2% Gross Expenditures $ 5,833,625 $ 5,929,532 $ 95,907 1.6% Capitalized Costs $ (434,082) (493,102) (59,020) 12.0% Net Expenditures 5,399,543 5,436,430 36,887 0.7% Net Fund Activity $ (5,399,543) $ (5,436,430) $ 36,887 0.7% Debt Service Fund Investment Income $ 18,858 $ 10,861 $ 7,997 73.6% Payments from the Sale of Rimforest 63,704 $ 61,098 2,606 4.3% Total Funding $82,562 $71,959 $10,603 14.7% Principal Payments $2,449,000 $2,793,900$ 344,900 12.3% Interest Expense and Other Expenses 1,475,018 1,606,174 131,156 8.2% Total Expenditures $ 3,924,018 $ 4,400,074 $ 476,056 10.8% Net Fund Activity DRAFT$ (3,841,456) $ (4,328,115) $ 486,659 -11.2% Capital Expenditures (Actual spending includes encumbrances carried forward from prior year) Grants/Loans $ 200,689 $ 2,395,574 $ (2,194,885) -91.6% Other Income 55,437 10,938 44,499 406.8% Total Funding $ 256,126 $ 2,406,512 $ (2,150,386) -89.4% General Plant $ 132,426 $ 547,293 $ 414,867 75.8% Wells, Boosters, Reservoirs 479,313 2,108,243 1,628,930 77.3% Mains, Meters, Hydrants 1,672,851 1,288,017 (384,834) -29.9% Total Expenditures $ 2,284,590 $ 3,943,553 $ 1,658,963 42.1% Net Fund Activity $ (2,028,464) $ (1,537,041) $ (491,423) 32.0% Net Activity All Funds $ (42,153) $ 300,190 $ (342,343) -114.0%
32
97 of 316 Item 2.3
Five-Year Fund Activity Statement1 Fund Accounting Basis – Unaudited in 000s Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Revenue Fund Usage Fees $ 1,888 $ 2,014 $ 1,953 $ 1,896 $ 1,616 Service Charges 8,085 8,035 8,334 8,437 8,571 Administrative Fees 163 180 166 148 139 Meter Installation Fees 15 26 46 58 85 Capacity Charges 226 375 553 842 584 Standby Fees 163 173 163 172 167 Investment Income 11 6 11 11 22 Other Income 258 116 374 38 42 Net Fund Activity $ 10,809 $ 10,925 $ 11,600 $ 11,602 $ 11,227 Operations and Maintenance Fund Production $ 1,195 $ 1,341 $ 1,339 $ 1,321 $ 1,263 Conservation/Public Information 168 168 185 184 211 Transmission/Distribution 685 820 819 806 791 Meter Department 552 614 621 643 633 Property Taxes 112 115 117 109 55 Water Operations 818 690 776 785 710 Customer Accounts 801 869 920 921 961 Administration 1,548 1,246 1,248 1,161 1,210 Gross Expenditures 5,879 5,863 6,025 5,930 5,834 Capitalized Costs (558) (425) (240) (493) (434) Net Expenditures $ 5,321 $ 5,438 $ 5,785 $ 5,437 $ 5,400 Net Fund Activity $ (5,321) $ (5,438) $ (5,785) $ (5,437) $ (5,400) Debt Service Fund Investment and other Income $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 72 $ 83 Principal Payments 2,140 2,331 2,452 2,794 2,449 Interest Expense and Other Expenses 1,788 1,758 1,686 1,606 1,475 Total Expenditures $ 3,928 $ 4,089 $ 4,138 $ 4,400 $ 3,924 Net Fund Activity $ (3,920) $ (4,080) $ (4,128) $ (4,328) $ (3,841) Capital Expenditures Loans Proceeds $ 1,937 $ 4,525 $ 1,919 $ 1,238 $ - Grants 1,436 2,379 - 1,157 201 Other Income - 155 25 11 55 Total Funding DRAFT $ 3,373 $ 7,059 $ 1,944 $ 2,406 $ 256 General Plant and Facilities $ $ $ 3 $ 547 $ 132 Wells, Boosters, Reservoirs 1,681 2,745 1,703 2,108 479 Mains, Meters, Hydrants 3,682 4,474 1,157 1,288 1,673 Total Expenditures $ 5,363 $ 7,219 $ 2,863 $ 3,943 $ 2,285 Net Fund Activity $ (1,990) $ (160) $ (919) $ (1,537) $ (2,028) Net Activity All Funds $ (422) $ 1,247 $ 768 $ 300 $ (42)
1 Fund Activity Statements are not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and therefore figures may vary from audited financial statements. 33
98 of 316 Item 2.3
Tables and Graphs
5-Year Chart Fund Accounting Data in Thousand Dollars
Operating Income ($000s) $14,000 Investment Income $12,000 Other Income
$10,000 Standby Fees
$8,000 Capacity Charges $6,000 Meter Installation Fees $4,000 Administrative Fees $2,000 $- Usage Fees Service Charges
Operations and Maintenance Expenses
($000s) Administration $7,000 Customer Accounts $6,000 Water Operations $5,000 $4,000 Property Taxes $3,000 DRAFTMeter Department $2,000 Transmission/Distribution $1,000 Conservation/Public $- Information Production
34
99 of 316 Item 2.3
Debt Service ($000s) $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $-
Principal Payments Interest Expense and Other Expenses
Capital Expenditures ($000s) $8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000 $0 DRAFT
Wells, Boosters, Reservoirs Mains, Meters, Hydrants General Plant and Facilities
35
100 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 1 – Water Production Sources Well Information Pump Test Information Well Name Year of Construction Capacity (gpm) Rated Hp Discharge PSI Plant Efficiency % Big Bear Lake System Division-2 1964 260 50 120 58.0% Division-4 1975 Inactive 25 N/A Division-5 1976 125 20 120 61.0% Division-6 1976 372 50 120 61.0% Division-7 1986 159 25 120 59.0% Division-8 2013 127 50 120 N/A Knickerbocker 1989 Inactive 20 N/A Lakeplant-5 1996 81 15 118 55.0% Lakeplant-6 2011 217 40 118 61.8% Middle School 1991 127 25 89 59.0% Oak 1991 105 20 90 52.0% Pennsylvania 1989 Inactive 25 149 N/A McAlister 2005 118 25 65 51.0% Moonridge System Bow Canyon 1990 192 50 127 55.0% La Crescenta 1990-1991 154 60 101 54.0% Lassen-4 1991 136 8 14 24.0% Sand Canyon 1972 121 25 108 34.0% Sheephorn 2002 128 30 163 56.0% Slant Wells (2-20) 1955-98 150-500 N/A Sugarloaf System Maple Well 1989 490 75 26 58.0% Magnolia Well 2013 249 75 130 N/A Erwin Lake System Lakewood-3 1972 106 20 99 47.0% Lakewood-5 1976 110 15 98 42.0% Lakewood-6 1982 Inactive 20 100 N/A Lakewood-7 1987 157 15 94 49.0% Lakewood-27 1970 Inactive 20 99 N/A Fawnskin System Seminole 2013 185 25 85 N/A North Shore 3 1970 30 5 94 37.0% Raccoon Slant Well 1966DRAFT5-30 N/A Cedar Dell Slant Wells 1959-98 10-40 N/A Cherokee 2011 104 25 78 56.3% Lake William System Arrastre Creek 2015 100 20 75 56.0% Monte Vista Well 1979 71 25 102 45.0% Onyx Well 1968 77 10 99 39.0% Sky View Well 1968 15 2 37.0% RV Park RV Park 1 1966 50 7.5 25 34.0% RV Park 2 1991 22 3 13 23.0%
36
101 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 2 – Summary of Existing Storage Tanks
Year of Diameter High Water Capacity Tank Construction (Ft) Height (ft) Elevation (ft) (MG) Big Bear Lake System Bear Valley No. 1 1963 54 30 7,038 0.50 Bear Valley No. 2 1997 77 30 7,038 1.00 Cedar 1982 74 32 7,038 1.00 Pontell 2000 77 32 7,038 1.00
Moonridge System Lassen-1 1971 40 32 7,284 0.50 Lassen-2 1977 52 32 7,284 0.30 Shuff Tank 1992 77 32 7,437 1.00 Wolf Tank 1963 33 24 7,440 0.10 Yosemite 1988 96 24 7,552 1.20
Erwin Lake and Sugarloaf Systems Angels Camp 2015 75 36 7,348 1.00 Barton 1995 60 24 7,014 0.50
Fawnskin System Cedar Dell 2000 75 32 6,940 1.00 Raccoon 1998 62 12 7,113 0.25
Lake William System Lake William 1994 42 16 7,430 0.16
RV Park RV Park 1990 26 24 0.12 DRAFTTOTAL CAPACITY: 9.63
37
102 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 3 – Summary of Pipelines by Water System and Diameter Diameter Water System Percent (in) Erwin Lake (%)
Big Bear Lake Moonridge Sugarloaf Lake Fawnskin William RV Park Total Length (ft) 1 550 - - - 596 - - 1,146 0.12% 1.5 - 104 - - 1,514 - - 1,618 0.17% 2 17,118 3,923 393 3,604 3,882 66 - 28,986 3.03% 2.3 - - - 2,590 - - - 2,590 0.27% 2.5 - 1,075 - - - - - 1,075 0.11% 2.8 - - - 391 - - - 391 0.04% 3 46 - 55 - - - - 101 0.01% 3.5 - 810 -- - - - 810 0.08% 4 64,664 20,795 5,637 5,429 5,786 1,553 - 103,864 10.87% 5 - 1,415 - - - - - 1,415 0.15% 5.5 - 737 - - - - - 737 0.08% 6 146,491 47,243 70,689 16,362 18,782 10,525 6,471 316,563 33.14% 8 164,542 127,954 51,515 21,122 18,998 7,177 - 391,308 40.96% 10 20,919 9,223 - - 1,797 - - 31,939 3.34% 12 52,252 9,968 2,807 2,088 4,462 - - 71,577 7.49% Unknown 1,182 - - - 12 - - 1,194 0.12%
Total 467,764 223,247 131,096 51,586 55,829 19,321 6,471 955,314 100.00%
% 48.96% 23.37% 13.72% 5.40% 5.84% 2.02% 0.68% 100.00%
DRAFT
38
103 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 4 – Summary of Pipelines by Age and Material Age Total Length Percent (yrs) AC PVC STL Others (ft) (%) 81-90 - - 264 411 675 0.07% 71-80 - - 44,521 - 44,521 4.66% 61-70 7,598 - 16,895 183 24,676 2.58% 51-60 66,838 - 2,850 2,843 72,531 7.59% 41-50 150,402 - 4,074 1,401 155,877 16.32% 31-40 213,450 9,130 378 6,798 229,756 24.05% 21-30 26,880 222,519 388 2,644 252,431 26.42% 11-20 322 98,680 1,142 1,845 101,989 10.68% 0-10 106 68,403 787 3,562 72,858 7.63%
Total 465,596 398,732 71,299 19,687 955,314 100%
Percent 48.74% 41.74% 7.46% 2.06% 100.00%
DRAFT
39
104 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 5 – Water Production In Million Gallons 1-year % Water System 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Change Change Big Bear Lake/Moonridge 528.88 573.86 507.90 527.48 484.32 (43.16) -8.2% Sugarloaf/Erwin Lake 162.75 168.30 175.64 147.36 173.87 26.51 18.0% Fawnskin 25.46 28.85 26.26 26.52 22.59 (3.93) -14.8% Lake William 5.63 7.81 7.05 7.38 9.15 1.77 24.0% RV Park 5.97 6.41 6.82 5.41 4.49 (0.92) -17.0% Sub-total 728.69 785.23 723.67 714.15 694.42 (19.73) -2.8% Rimforest 17.60 19.92 17.36 4.06 - (4.06) -100.0% Grand Total 746.29 805.15 741.03 718.21 694.42 (23.79) -3.3% Transfers from East to West (Included in Grand Total above) Transferred from East to West 43.60 48.51 63.87 42.43 68.35 25.92 61.1% Slant Well Production in Million Gallons (Included in Grand Total above) 1-year % Water System 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Change Change
Big Bear Lake/Moonridge 189.66 156.81 142.57 120.65 106.69 (13.96) -11.6%
Fawnskin 17.24 13.67 13.21 11.98 12.13 0.15 1.3% Percentage of Gravity Production vs. Electrical Production Big Bear Lake/Moonridge Gravity 36% 27% 28% 23% 22% Big Bear Lake/Moonridge Electrical 64% 73% 72% 77% 78% Fawnskin Gravity 68% 47% 50% 45% 54%
Fawnskin Electrical 32% 53% 50% 55% 46%
DRAFT
40
105 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 6 - Water Production by Source and Subunit in Acre Feet Page 1 of 2 Hydrologic Subunit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Village Knickerbocker - - - - - Pennsylvania 41.11 6.85 - - - Middle School 39.59 44.12 53.32 60.30 57.77 Oak 32.40 48.05 50.49 47.73 48.79 subtotal 113.10 99.02 103.81 108.03 106.56
Rathbone Lakeplant Wells (#1, #2, #3) - - - - - Lakeplant Well #5 46.64 38.92 48.05 48.59 48.83 Lakeplant Well #6 20.13 158.38 80.53 103.80 153.38 Sand Canyon 40.31 98.60 61.45 74.55 55.87 Sheephorn (online in 2002) 38.07 81.23 78.31 77.05 40.88 Lassen Well #4 116.57 73.07 58.40 61.22 47.04 Bow Canyon 104.58 104.66 106.40 119.86 101.47 Dogwood Springs 8.95 0.82 16.64 - - Goldmine Boosters A - - - - - Goldmine Boosters B - - - - - Slant Well #2, #3, #4 31.79 23.29 15.12 9.70 7.31 #6 0.93 0.68 0.48 0.14 0.28 #7 81.92 73.76 67.42 61.32 59.03 #8 66.75 63.07 63.71 12.83 73.94 #9 22.64 18.06 14.72 13.71 11.89 #10, #11 43.26 35.01 26.66 26.54 15.09 #15 44.70 21.76 12.49 7.57 8.11 #16 20.57 71.88 83.29 68.71 41.09 #17 23.82 13.68 10.81 8.04 5.96 #18 109.59 74.63 67.07 59.40 52.49 #19 95.63 65.37 53.16 42.92 34.59 #20 36.62 23.47 21.42 20.73 19.18 subtotal 953.47 1,040.34 886.12 816.68 776.43
Division / No.Shore F La Cresenta DRAFT 68.19 104.14 110.88 88.03 83.53 Division #1 - - - - - Division #2 18.23 156.34 107.72 73.17 17.98 Division #4 - - - - - Division #5 65.74 26.12 - - 48.48 Division #6 194.76 146.97 98.36 235.34 185.19 Division #7 134.05 124.12 115.16 79.77 98.74 Division #8 - - 89.85 103.46 115.52 McAllister 81.27 68.29 62.27 78.25 55.57 subtotal 562.24 625.98 584.24 658.02 605.01
41
106 of 316 Item 2.3
Table 6 - Water Production by Source and Subunit in Acre Feet (continued) Hydrologic Subunit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Erwin Maple 261.63 231.08 317.90 175.23 222.18 Lakewood #3 55.85 59.65 24.23 6.27 1.43 Lakewood #5 49.16 72.44 28.03 20.40 7.46 Lakewood #6 42.79 36.03 - - - Lakewood #7 89.96 117.35 56.03 45.19 38.86 Lakewood #27 - - - - - Magnolia Well - 58.34 112.41 205.16 263.68 Skyview #1 1.08 0.94 0.91 0.79 0.70 MonteVista #1 8.38 11.83 10.08 11.17 3.31 Onyx 7.72 11.21 10.67 10.37 2.42 subtotal 516.57 598.87 560.25 474.58 540.04
Arrastre Creek Subunit Arrastre Creek - - - 10.74 23.55 subtotal - - - 10.74 23.55
North Shore RV Park #1 13.22 14.31 14.98 11.49 9.29 RV Park #2 5.04 5.42 5.97 5.17 4.56 subtotal 18.26 19.73 20.95 16.66 13.85
Grout Creek Cherokee 2.47 22.75 12.75 4.55 6.39 North Shore #1 23.00 22.00 - - - Seminole - 1.00 27.20 40.10 25.68 North Shore #3 - - - - - Raccoon (slant) 26.34 17.44 13.38 9.69 8.97 Cedar Dell (slant) 26.40 28.61 27.26 27.08 28.26 subtotal 78.21 91.80 80.59 81.42 69.30
Mill Creek Subunit Canvasback (on line 07/off line 08) - - - - - subtotal DRAFT - - - - - Total Production (AF)* 2,241.85 2,475.74 2,235.97 2,166.13 2,134.74 * Minor variances from production data presented in Table 5 as a result of master metering differences for slant well production.
42
107 of 316 Item 2.4 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
RESOLUTION NO. DWP 2017-XX for USBR Grant Funding RE: Application for Infrastructure Improvements
Background: During the October 27, 2015 Board Meeting, staff requested the Board to consider allowing staff to pursue up to $5 million in outside funding as approved by the City Council in September 2015. Actual construction costs along with grants should bring the actual loan amount below $5 million. As a result of grant and loan applications completed in 2016, the DWP was awarded two grants from USBR, each for $300,000 under its WaterSMART Program. The USBR grants provided partial funding for the installation of 5,000 new radio read meters and the Big Bear Blvd. Pipeline Replacement Project, which is also funded in part through an IBank Prop 1 loan. In subsequent meetings with USBR representatives, the DWP was encouraged to submit additional grant applications for future projects. Currently, there are two additional funding opportunities that a DWP project would qualify for under the 2017 WaterSMART Drought Response Program: design and construction of the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant. The deadline for filing these applications was February 14, 2017. One additional funding opportunity from the USBR has a deadline on April 27, 2017. The WaterSMART Drought Response Program requires 50% matching funds. Funding for the 50% match can be a State grant, a State loan, or DWP’s capital improvement funds. The expected cost for the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant project is approximately $826,000. The WaterSMART Drought Response Program has two programs, one with a $300,000 limit and one with a $750,000 limit. DWP is applying to both programs for this project. The applications are very similar for each program, so the attached Resolution is good for both applications. Financial Impact: Group I Funding: up to a $300,000 grant. Group II Funding: up to a $375,000 grant. DWP’s 50% match will be funded by a State loan, DWP’s capital improvement funds, or DWP reserves.
108 of 316 Item 2.4 RESOLUTION NO. DWP 2017-XX for USBR Grant Funding Application for Infrastructure Improvements February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Recommendation: Review and adopt Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX supporting the USBR Grant Funding applications.
109 of 316 Item 2.4 RESOLUTION NO. DWP 2017-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WaterSMART DROUGHT RESPONSE PROGRAM FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT NO. BOR-DO-17-FO10
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake was incorporated on November 28, 1980, and
WHEREAS, the electors of the City of Big Bear Lake did in 1985 adopt an Amendment to the City of Big Bear Lake Charter which created a Department of Water and Power; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, under its WaterSMART Grant Program, has made available to qualifying applicants grant funding on a matching fund basis, funds for Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power has identified a project that exemplify the objectives of the WaterSMART Drought Response Program in its Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power does hereby adopt Resolution No. DWP 2017-XX confirming the following:
1. The Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power verify that the General Manager, Reginald A. Lamson has legal authority to enter into an agreement with Bureau of Reclamation. 2. The Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power have reviewed and support the attached grant applications. 3. The City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power is capable of providing the amount of funding and/or in-kind contributions specified in the funding plan. 4. That if selected for a WaterSMART Grant under the Bureau of Reclamation’s Drought Response Program for Fiscal Year 2017, the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power will negotiate and execute a Cooperative Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation on/or prior to the established deadline, to fund a minimum of 50% of the project costs and will provide documentation showing the 50% matching funds are not funded by a Federal Agency.
110 of 316 Item 2.4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2017.
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
______V. Don Smith, Chairman DWP Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
______Jack P. Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
111 of 316 Item 2.4 CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
I, Jack P. Roberts, Secretary to the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of said Board is five; that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. DWP 2016-01, was duly passed and adopted by said Board and attested to by the Secretary of said Board, all at a Regular Meeting, held on the 24th day of January 2017,and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
______Jack P. Roberts, Secretary DWP Board of Commissioners
112 of 316 Item 2.4 Grant Application Package
Opportunity Title: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017 Offering Agency: Bureau of Reclamation CFDA Number: 15.514 CFDA Description: Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Opportunity Number: BOR-DO-17-F010 Competition ID: BOR-DO-17-F010 Opportunity Open Date:
Opportunity Close Date: 02/14/2017 Agency Contact: Mattehw Reichert Grants Management Specialist E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 303-445-3865
This opportunity is only open to organizations, applicants who are submitting grant applications on behalf of a company, state, local or tribal government, academia, or other type of organization.
Application Filing Name: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
Select Forms to Complete
Mandatory
Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)
Optional
Budget Information for Construction Programs (SF-424C)
Assurances for Construction Programs (SF-424D)
Attachments
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A)
Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B)
Instructions Show Instructions >>
This electronic grants application is intended to be used to apply for the specific Federal funding opportunity referenced here. If the Federal funding opportunity listed is not the opportunity for which you want to apply, close this application package by clicking on the "Cancel" button at the top of this screen. You will then need to locate the correct Federal funding opportunity, download its application and then apply.
113 of 316 Item 2.4 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 10/31/2019
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
* 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): Preapplication New
Application Continuation * Other (Specify):
Changed/Corrected Application Revision
* 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: Completed by Grants.gov upon submission.
5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier:
State Use Only:
6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier:
8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
* a. Legal Name: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
* b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 30-0678743 6245046350000 d. Address:
* Street1: 41972 Garstin Drive
Street2: PO Box 1929
* City: Big Bear Lake County/Parish:
* State: CA: California Province:
* Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip / Postal Code: 92315-1929 e. Organizational Unit:
Department Name: Division Name:
f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:
Prefix: Mr. * First Name: Reginald Middle Name: A.
* Last Name: Lamson Suffix:
Title: General Manager
Organizational Affiliation:
* Telephone Number: (909)866-5050 Fax Number:
* Email: [email protected]
114 of 316 Item 2.4
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
* 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C: City or Township Government
Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:
Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:
* Other (specify):
* 10. Name of Federal Agency: Bureau of Reclamation
11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 15.514
CFDA Title: Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
* 12. Funding Opportunity Number: BOR-DO-17-F010
* Title: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017
13. Competition Identification Number: BOR-DO-17-F010
Title:
14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):
Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
* 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: City of Big Bear Lake Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project Group I
Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions.
Add Attachments Delete Attachments View Attachments
115 of 316 Item 2.4
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
16. Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant CA-008 * b. Program/Project CA-008
Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: 08/01/2017 * b. End Date: 12/31/2018
18. Estimated Funding ($):
* a. Federal 300,000.00 * b. Applicant 482,298.00
* c. State 0.00
* d. Local 0.00
* e. Other 0.00
* f. Program Income 0.00
* g. TOTAL 782,298.00
* 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?
a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on 02/13/2017 . b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.
c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.
* 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) Yes No
If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ** I AGREE
** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions.
Authorized Representative:
Prefix:Mr. * First Name: Reginald
Middle Name: A.
* Last Name: Lamson
Suffix:
* Title: General Manager
* Telephone Number: (909) 866-5050 Fax Number:
* Email: [email protected]
* Signature of Authorized Representative:Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. * Date Signed: Completed by Grants.gov upon submission.
116 of 316 Item 2.4 ATTACHMENTS FORM
Instructions: On this form, you will attach the various files that make up your grant application. Please consult with the appropriate Agency Guidelines for more information about each needed file. Please remember that any files you attach must be in the document format and named as specified in the Guidelines.
Important: Please attach your files in the proper sequence. See the appropriate Agency Guidelines for details.
1) Please attach Attachment 1 BBLDWP_Sawmill_WaterSMART_Dro Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
2) Please attach Attachment 2 BBLDWP_Sawmill_WaterSMART_Dro Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
3) Please attach Attachment 3 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
4) Please attach Attachment 4 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
5) Please attach Attachment 5 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
6) Please attach Attachment 6 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
7) Please attach Attachment 7 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
8) Please attach Attachment 8 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
9) Please attach Attachment 9 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
10) Please attach Attachment 10 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
11) Please attach Attachment 11 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
12) Please attach Attachment 12 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
13) Please attach Attachment 13 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
14) Please attach Attachment 14 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
15) Please attach Attachment 15 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
117 of 316 OMB Number: 4040-0008 Expiration Date: 01/31/2019
BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction Programs Item 2.4 NOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arrive at the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such is the case, you will be notified. b. Costs Not Allowable c. Total Allowable Costs COST CLASSIFICATION a. Total Cost for Participation (Columns a-b)
1. Administrative and legal expenses $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
3. Relocation expenses and payments $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
4. Architectural and engineering fees $ 82,298.00 $ $ 82,298.00
5. Other architectural and engineering fees $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
6. Project inspection fees $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
7. Site work $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
8. Demolition and removal $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
9. Construction $ 700,000.00$ $ 700,000.00
10. Equipment $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
11. Miscellaneous $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11) $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
13. Contingencies $ $ $
14. SUBTOTAL $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
15. Project (program) income $ $ $
16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from #14) $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
FEDERAL FUNDING 118 of316 17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows: (Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.) Enter eligible costs from line 16c Multiply X 38% $ 297,273.24 Enter the resulting Federal share. Item 2.4 ASSURANCES - CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS OMB Number: 4040-0009 Expiration Date: 01/31/2019
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0042), Washington, DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
NOTE: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the Awarding Agency. Further, certain Federal assistance awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant:, I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, 8. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and the institutional, managerial and financial capability of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§4728-4763) relating to prescribed (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share standards of merit systems for programs funded of project costs) to ensure proper planning, under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in management and completion of project described in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of this application. Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General 9. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning of the United States and, if appropriate, the State, Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq.) which the right to examine all records, books, papers, or prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or documents related to the assistance; and will establish rehabilitation of residence structures. a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency 10. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to non- directives. discrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) 3. Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, terms of the real property title or other interest in the color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education site and facilities without permission and instructions Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§1681 from the awarding agency. Will record the Federal 1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination awarding agency directives and will include a covenant on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29) U.S.C. with Federal assistance funds to assure non- §794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of discrimination during the useful life of the project. handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as 4. Will comply with the requirements of the assistance amended (42 U.S.C. §§6101-6107), which prohibits awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse approval of construction plans and specifications. Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of 5. Will provide and maintain competent and adequate drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and engineering supervision at the construction site to Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation ensure that the complete work conforms with the Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to approved plans and specifications and will furnish nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or progressive reports and such other information as may be alcoholism; (g) §§523 and 527 of the Public Health required by the assistance awarding agency or State. Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§290 dd-3 and 290 ee 3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol 6. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, 7. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from rental or financing of housing; (i) any other using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statue(s) presents the appearance of personal or organizational under which application for Federal assistance is being conflict of interest, or personal gain. made; and (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statue(s) which may apply to the application.
Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424D (Rev. 7-97) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
119 of 316 Item 2.4
11. Will comply, or has already complied, with the Federal actions to State (Clean Air) implementation requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); (g) 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable protection of underground sources of drinking water treatment of persons displaced or whose property is under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as acquired as a result of Federal and federally-assisted amended (P.L. 93-523); and, (h) protection of programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real endangered species under the Endangered Species property acquired for project purposes regardless of Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205). Federal participation in purchases. 16. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 12. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§1271 et seq.) related to protecting §§1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political components or potential components of the national activities of employees whose principal employment wild and scenic rivers system. activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 17. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance 13. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis- with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470), EO 11593 (40 U.S.C. §276c and 18 U.S.C. §874), and the Contract (identification and protection of historic properties), and Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§327- the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 333) regarding labor standards for federally-assisted 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§469a-1 et seq). construction subagreements. 18. Will cause to be performed the required financial and 14. Will comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133, (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase Organizations." flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more. 19. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies 15. Will comply with environmental standards which may be governing this program. prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National 20. Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91- the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as 190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification amended (22 U.S.C. 7104) which prohibits grant award of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) recipients or a sub-recipient from (1) Engaging in severe protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance that the award is in effect (2) Procuring a commercial with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency sex act during the period of time that the award is in with the approved State management program effect or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of award or subawards under the award. 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL TITLE
Completed on submission to Grants.gov General Manager
APPLICANT ORGANIZATION DATE SUBMITTED City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Completed on submission to Grants.gov
SF-424D (Rev. 7-97) Back
120 of 316
Item 2.4
WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for FY2017 Funding Opportunity Announcement No. BOR-DO-17-F010 Funding Group I
City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power
Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project
Applicant Information: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power 41972 Garstin Drive/ P.O. Box 1929 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Project Manager: Reginald A. Lamson General Manager [email protected] Phone: (909) 866-5050 x 201 Fax: (909) 866-3184
2/13/2017 Page 1 of 40
121 of 316
Item 2.4
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Tables ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ...... 3 Section 1. Executive Summary ...... 3 Section 2. Background Data ...... 4 Section 3. Project Description ...... 8 Section 4. Evaluation Criteria ...... 10 Section 5. Performance Measures ...... 19 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE ...... 20 Existing Drought Contingency Plan: Appendix A ...... 20 LETTERS OF SUPPORT ...... 21 REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS ...... 21 OFFICIAL RESOLUTION ...... 21 PROJECT BUDGET ...... 22 Section 1. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment ...... 22 Section 2. Budget Proposal ...... 23 Section 3. Budget Narrative ...... 24 UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER AND SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT ...... 24
List of Tables
Table No. 1 Current and Projected Supply/ Demand ...... 5 Table No. 2 Summary of the Current and Future Water Demand by Customer Class ...... 5 Table No. 3 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources ...... 22 Table No. 4 Funding Sources ...... 23 Table No. 5 Budget Proposal...... 23 List of Figures
Figure 1 Typical DWP Well Pumping Plant Facility ...... 3 Figure 2 Water Service Area ...... 4 Figure 3 Percentage of Accounts by Customer Class ...... 6 Figure 4 Proposed Sawmill Well Site ...... 8 Figure 5 Typical DWP Wellhead Facilities ...... 8 Figure 6 West Baldwin Sub Basin Map ...... 11 Figure 7 Sawmill Well Completion Diagram ...... 12 Figure 8 DWP Tree Mortality Map Layers ...... 15 Figure 9 DWP Recent Drought Conditions ...... 17
2/13/2017 Page 2 of 40
122 of 316
Item 2.4
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Section 1. Executive Summary
Date February 14, 2017 Applicant City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power City, County, State Big Bear Lake, San Bernardino, California Project Name Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project Project Length 2 years Estimated Completion Date December 31, 2018
The City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (DWP) is applying for funding by the United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) WaterSMART Drought Response Program: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Opportunity Announcement No. BOR- DO-17-F010. The DWP is applying for $300,000 in federal funding assistance for Federal Funding Group I to design and construct the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project (the Project). The Project will be DWP's second largest producing well at 350 gallons per minute (gpm), with an expected annual production of 200 (maximum capacity of 564 afy) acre-feet per year (afy) of additional supply from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. The project is expected to take one year, starting in August of 2017 with completion in no more than two years. The Project will improve water management as it pumps water to the recently constructed Angels Camp Reservoir which can supply water to the east or west side of the Bear Valley. The additional supply from the Project will improve the water manager’s flexibility to rest existing sub-basins, which may become stressed during drought conditions. The Project will also aid in the transfer of water as it is capable of providing supply to the recently constructed Erwin intertie with the Big Bear City Community Services District (CSD), the other Bear Valley water purveyor.
By reducing pumping in the Erwin sub-basin, the Project could also enhance the environment for the federally protected and endangered Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish (“UTS” or “Stickleback”). Also the proposed well pumping plant will be designed to operate more efficiently, which will save energy over the life of the project by offsetting production from older inefficient pumps.
The Project is not located on a Federal Facility.
Figure 1 Typical DWP Well Pumping Plant Facility
2/13/2017 Page 3 of 40
123 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 2. Background Data
2.1 Location The DWP’s water service area is located within the Bear Valley, as depicted in Figure 2. The Bear Valley lies, on average, 6,750 feet above sea level at the eastern end of the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County, California. The DWP’s service area is located primarily along the south shore of Big Bear Lake. The Fawnskin service area lies to the north of the lake, and the Sugarloaf-Erwin Lake and Lake William service areas are located east of Big Bear Lake. Portions of DWP’s service area serve disadvantaged communities. In total, the DWP’s service areas encompass approximately 13 square miles.
Figure 2 Water Service Area
2.2 Source of Water Supply DWP lies within the northeastern portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed and produces potable water from a combination of horizontal wells (gravity) and vertical wells (pumped) in the Bear Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR designation 8-9). The Bear Valley Groundwater Basin is un-adjudicated, however the DWP works closely with the other public water provider, the Big Bear City Community Services District (CSD), to ensure the basin is not over drafted. The perennial yield of the entire Bear Valley Groundwater Basin is estimated at 5,500 acre-feet per year (afy) while the safe yield within the DWP’s service area is estimated at 3,100 afy. The DWP’s current demands are below the perennial yield of its service area and the DWP has adequate pumping facilities to meet those demands. Table No. 1, below, demonstrates that the average annual demand is within the safe yield for the DWP service area. The DWP does not use surface or imported water to meet its water demand as importing water into the Bear Valley would be extremely costly and is not a viable option. The DWP, CSD, and Big Bear
2/13/2017 Page 4 of 40
124 of 316
Item 2.4
Municipal Water District (MWD, Lake Management) are working together to form the Bear Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency to be in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
Table No. 1 Current and Projected Supply/Demand
Annual Pumping (afy) Supply Source 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Groundwater/ Total 2,095 2,169 2,246 2,326 2,408 2,494
Note: The calculations used for the demands are based on a 0.7% growth in demand each year, beginning in 2015. Supplies are assumed to equal Demand, up to 3,100 AFY (DWP’s share of the operating safe yield of the Bear Valley Groundwater Basin). These quantities meet all state water conservation requirements.
2.3 Water Delivery System The DWP distributes potable water supply through a distribution system consisting of five water systems with 15 separate pressure zones, 180 miles of pipeline, 33 vertical wells, 22 slant wells, 16 reservoirs, 12 booster stations, 41 pressure reducing valves, 26 chlorination stations, and 22 sample stations. The proposed Project will be capable of providing additional water supply to DWP’s Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the aforementioned intertie. Table No.2 is a summary of DWP’s current and projected water demand by customer class. Based on the data collected in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the average annual population in the DWP service area in 2015 was estimated at 25,601 (including full time and temporary populations). The 2015 UWMP assumed a growth rate of 0.7 percent for subsequent years. The proposed project will provide operational flexibility, enhancing the Bear Valley’s drought resiliency without encouraging additional growth in the valley.
Table No. 2 Summary of the Current and Projected Water Demand by Customer Class
2020 2025 2030 Customer Class Population 26,510 Population 27,451 Population 28,425 Demand (afy) Demand (afy) Demand (afy) Residential 1,443 1,495 1,548 Commercial 474 491 509 System Losses 220 227 235 Unbilled Consumption 32 33 34 Total 2,169 2,246 2,326 2.4 Current Water Uses As of 2016, the DWP maintains 15,612 water meters, of which 14,675 are residential and 937 are commercial. Multi-family residential accounts are classified as commercial accounts. Thus, about 94% percent of the accounts are residential (Figure 3).
2/13/2017 Page 5 of 40
125 of 316
Item 2.4
6%
94%
Residential Commercial
Figure 3 Percentage of Accounts by Customer Class 2.5 Historic and Potential Shortfalls in Water Supply From 2000 to 2002 the DWP experienced three extremely dry years, with average precipitation of only 20.84 inches per year (in comparison to a 130 year average of 35.83 annual inches). In 2002 the DWP declared a Water Shortage Emergency. While conservation regulations existed before this time, that year was a “watershed” moment in DWP conservation. The Water Shortage Emergency lasted over a decade, resulting in a building moratorium for DWP’s Lake William water system and vastly expanded rules and regulations related to conservation.
At that time, the DWP instituted and continues to hold a twice annual Technical Review Team (TRT or the Committee) committee meeting to review and evaluate the status, condition, and availability of the DWP's groundwater supplies. The Committee makes recommendations and advises the DWP’s Board of Commissioners (Board) concerning conservation and other significant resource management constraints, including any possible declarations of a Water Shortage Emergency.
At the November 17, 2016 TRT committee meeting the DWP discussed the fact that precipitation at the dam from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 was 30.80 inches, nearly 86% of the 132-year annual precipitation average. The annual rainfall, measured at the Big Bear Dam, has been below average for the last five years. Therefore, despite improved precipitation, the Bear Valley is still beginning its sixth year of severe drought and relies strictly on naturally charged groundwater for its source of supply. The proposed Project will allow DWP’s water supply manager to pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin, reducing the pumping from the Erwin, Division, and Rathbone sub-basins during times of drought.
Part of the DWP’s water supply is derived from slant wells (horizontal wells) and the slant well production has declined or stopped completely during the current drought. Fortunately, past and present investments have added critical flexibility in how the DWP can exercise different sub-basins within the Bear Valley. New sources and additional storage, improved pump efficiency, better water transfer systems and improved monitoring capabilities have improved the DWP’s drought resiliency. While some aquifer sub-units’ levels are in decline, other aquifer sub-units’ levels have increased. Recent calculations show that even with some wells offline
2/13/2017 Page 6 of 40
126 of 316
Item 2.4
and continued drought projections, the water supply is sufficient for more than three years. Nevertheless, DWP staff continues to closely monitor the basin and water agencies across the Bear Valley are working together to create and promote comprehensive and consistent conservation policies based on prior experience.
2.6 Working Relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation In July 2016, the DWP entered into two assistance agreements with the USBR. Assistance Agreement #R16AP0113 was executed on July 31, 2016 to provide up to $300,000 in grant funding for the AMI Program Phase II. Phase II of the AMI program was for the purchase and installation of 5,000 AMI meters and necessary components. Phase II is still in progress and is ahead of schedule with an expected completion date of March 1, 2017.
Assistance Agreement #R16AP0116 was the second agreement entered into with the USBR and it was executed on July 31, 2016 to provide up to $300,000 in grant funding for the replacement of approximately 4,000 feet of 12 inch riveted steel pipeline in Big Bear Boulevard. The 4,000 feet of water distribution main pipeline has been installed and is operational. The contractor is currently working diligently to make the final service and lateral connections. The project commencement was delayed one month due to other contractors working on projects in the same right of way. Winter weather conditions caused additional construction delays. The USBR granted the DWP an extension until June 30, 2017 to complete this project.
2/13/2017 Page 7 of 40
127 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 3. Project Description
The proposed Project is located within the Sugarloaf portion of the DWP’s service area which is located southeast of Big Bear Lake on the northern alluvial slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain. Approximately half of the Sugarloaf area is within the West Baldwin Hydrologic Subunit and half is in the Erwin Hydrologic Subunit. The proposed Project will be within the West Baldwin hydrologic sub-basin.
3.1 The Proposed Project The Project will provide up to 350 gallons per minute of additional water supply to DWP’s Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. The Project site is located within the relatively remote Sawmill Canyon and will pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin hydrologic sub-basin. The Figure 4 Proposed Sawmill Well Site proposed project will be designed and constructed to be in compliance with the environmental documents approved by the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power Board of Commissioners and recorded on March 31, 2016. Project design is about 90% complete and construction can begin in 2017. Upon execution of the contract with the USBR, DWP’s consultant will finalize project contract documents and place the project out for competitive bid. The DWP Board believes that this project will allow the water supply manager to rest sub- basins that can become stressed during periods of extended drought and pump from the underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. The Project will provide operational flexibility benefitting the entire Bear Valley.
The proposed Project will equip the recently constructed Sawmill Well. The Sawmill Well was test pumped in excess of 350 GPM and when equipped, it is expected to be the second largest water supply within DWP’s system. The Project will include a 350 GPM submersible pumping unit, a concrete block building with metal roof, sodium hypochlorite disinfection equipment, electrical and control equipment, minor site grading and paving, and approximately 800 linear feet of 8-inch PVC piping to connect the pumping plant to DWP’s existing distribution system.
The proposed submersible pumping unit and concrete block building will provide silent operation so the Project will not disturb existing neighbors. The proposed well pumping plant will be more efficient than many of DWP’s existing Figure 5 Typical DWP Wellhead Facilities well pumping plants, so by offsetting production
2/13/2017 Page 8 of 40
128 of 316
Item 2.4
the DWP will save energy once this Project is operational. The proposed Project will pump to the recently constructed Angels Camp Reservoir. The Angels Camp Reservoir is strategically located to provide water supply to the Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. The Project will allow DWP to minimize the pumping from the Lakewood Well Plants, which pump from the Erwin sub-basin. Reduced Erwin sub-basin pumping, could benefit the endangered Stickleback, as its pond is located within the Erwin sub-basin.
2/13/2017 Page 9 of 40
129 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 4. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criterion A: Project Benefits Additional Water Supplies under Better Management: The Project will make additional water supply available by pumping from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin, allowing the DWP to rest some of other Bear Valley sub-basins that sometimes become stressed during extended droughts. The Sawmill Well was test pumped and the hydrogeologist recommended a design capacity for the pumping unit of 350 GPM. If run continuously, the proposed 350 GPM pumping unit could produce 564 acre feet per year of additional water supply. Based on DWP’s 2016 water production of 2,169 acre feet, the proposed Project could produce up to 26% (564 AF / 2,169 AF) of DWP’s annual water supply. The DWP plans to use the Project to pump approximately 200 AFY, 9.22% of DWP’s annual water supply.
Significance: The proposed Project will supply the Angels Camp Reservoir, which can distribute water to three different areas of DWP’s service area: Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake. These three areas provide water service to well over half of DWP’s 15,612 accounts, serving a population of approximately 26,000 people. Water from the Project can also provide supply to the neighboring CSD via the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie.
Long Term Resilience: The DWP pumps its water supply from ten sub-basins located within its service area, some of which are being pumped near their safe annual yield. The proposed Project is located within the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. By pumping from the West Baldwin sub-basin DWP will reduce pumping in some of the sub-basins that are being stressed, increasing DWP’s operational flexibility. Reducing the pumping in these existing wells will also result in long-term drought resilience by minimizing the stress placed on each sub- basin. DWP’s Well Pumping Facilities have a useful life of 50-years.
Energy Efficiency, Operational Flexibility and Water Marketing: The proposed well pumping unit will be more efficient than many of DWP’s existing pumping units. By offsetting the water produced at older, less efficient well sites, the total energy required to pump the same amount of water will be reduced. In this way, maximizing pumping from the Sawmill Well Plant will increase DWP’s overall operating efficiency and reduce energy usage. The Project can provide water supply to the CSD via the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. This will facilitate DWP’s water marketing ability.
Information: The proposed well plant will be equipped with a pressure transducer which will provide continuous West Baldwin sub-basin water levels to DWP’s telemetry monitoring system. Currently there are no monitoring wells near the proposed Project location, so this additional data point will be beneficial to DWP, CSD, and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) which receives water level information as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring, “CASGEM” program. In this way, the Project will provide new information to water managers.
Environmental Benefits: The federally protected endangered Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish (UTS or Stickleback) pond is located within the Erwin sub-basin and could benefit from
2/13/2017 Page 10 of 40
130 of 316
Item 2.4
reduced pumping in this area. Both the DWP and the CSD will be able to reduce pumping within the Erwin sub-basin by utilizing the West Baldwin sub-basin.
The Sawmill Well Project: The DWP plans to use the proposed Sawmill Well as a primary supply well, extracting 200 acre feet per year, offsetting water currently extracted from sites with less efficient pumps. The proposed Sawmill Well Project was test pumped and the hydrogeologist recommended a design capacity for the pumping unit of 350 GPM. If run continuously, the proposed 350 GPM pumping unit could produce up to 564 acre feet per year of additional water supply. The proposed well is located within the West Baldwin sub-basin which is currently underutilized by approximately 500 acre feet per year. The proposed Project will equip the recently drilled 12-inch diameter, 570’ deep Sawmill Well. A map showing the West Baldwin sub basin is shown in Figure 6 while a diagram showing detailed construction information is shown in Figure 7.
According to the 2009 Analysis of Potential Well Sites within the BBLDWP Service Area, part of Appendix A, “the aquifer system in the Sugarloaf area is relatively thick and permeable. Ground water occurs approximately 235 ft bgs and the depth to lower permeability sediments is approximately 600 ft. Thus, there is approximately 300 ft of permeable aquifer material at the Sawmill drilling site. The surface geology in the Sugarloaf area consists of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated older (Miocene; approximately 5 to 23 million years before present) alluvial sediments. At depth, the sediments consist primarily of sand and gravel mixtures with localized layers of increased silt to a depth of 700 feet below ground surface, “bgs” (GEOSCIENCE, 2005). Below 700 feet bgs, the sediments become increasingly silty and clayey. The depth to substantially consolidated bedrock in this area is greater than 1,000 feet bgs, making it one of the deepest areas of unconsolidated to semi consolidated sediment in the Big Bear Valley.”
The DWP’s Magnolia Well Pumping Plant is located 2,650 feet east of the proposed project. The Magnolia Well Casing is 12-inches in diameter, is 670 feet deep Figure 6 West Baldwin Sub Basin Map and has a capacity of 300 GPM. There are three private wells located 540 feet, 950 feet, and 1,200 feet south of the proposed Project. There is one private well located 1,500’ north of the proposed Project. DWP was not able to obtain detailed information for the four private wells. The West Baldwin basin is not currently being overdraft.
2/13/2017 Page 11 of 40
131 of 316
Item 2.4
Figure 7 Sawmill Well Completion Diagram
2/13/2017 Page 12 of 40
132 of 316
Item 2.4
CSD and DWP are currently participating in DWR’s state wide CASGEM program. DWP also meets twice a year with its Technical Review Team (TRT, which includes two Board members, DWP staff members, and a consulting Hydrogeologist) to review well levels and sub-basin hydrographs. Based off of CSD and DWP well data presented at the TRT meetings, DWP adjusts its pumping operations and makes recommendation to the DWP Board of Commissioners if usage restrictions need to be implemented. If the proposed Project results in adverse impacts to the four private wells, then production will be reduced until the impact on the private wells is mitigated.
Evaluation Criterion B: Drought Planning and Preparedness
The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant has been part of the DWP planning process for over a decade. The well is referenced in multiple documents including the 2009 “Analysis of Potential Well Sites” created by Thomas Harder Ground Water Consulting (applicable pages included in Appendix A), the “Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report: March 30, 2010” by the Alternative Water Source Committee and the staff of the DWP (included in Appendix A), the 2014 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (Appendix D) as well as the DWP’s “2015 Urban Water Management Plan,” (“2015 UWMP,” full text available at www.bbldwp.com/2015uwmp with applicable pages included in Appendix A).
The proposed Project and planning documents were developed through a collaborative process including the General Manager, Water Superintendent, Board of Commissioners, Technical Review Team Committee, and with the input of multiple consultants and hydrogeologists. The Project will allow DWP operational flexibility to pump different sub-basins as water level data dictates (relevant data is reviewed at the twice annual TRT meetings).
Multiple planning documents consider climate change impacts to water resources in the Bear Valley. As stated in the 2015 UWMP, “While reliable climate change forecasts are not available for the San Bernardino Mountains, climate change is likely to add uncertainties to supply planning and future supply availability. The severe and prolonged drought that began in 2012 has been a test of the DWP's ability to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. Considering reductions in per capita use and projected demands below the safe perennial yield, the DWP continues to balance a cautious optimism with a long term strategy for sustainable sources of supply.”
The report continues, “Since all of the DWP’s current and future water supply is groundwater with a current estimate of perennial yield available to the DWP of 3,100 afy, the DWP has identified and evaluated alternative water sources for its service area and determined that some local options have yet to be explored. Sixteen alternative water sources were evaluated in the Reconnaissance Analysis of Alternative Water Sources document included as part of Appendix A. The alternative sources were evaluated by potential volume supplied, capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, technical feasibility, and political feasibility.” The Reconnaissance Analysis concluded that maximizing groundwater is the best alternative available to the agency. The DWP’s 2015 UWMP states that “the DWP is constructing the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant, which will increase pumping capacity to approximately 565 afy (or 350 gpm).”
2/13/2017 Page 13 of 40
133 of 316
Item 2.4
Construction of the proposed Project is a mitigation action that implements a goal and need identified throughout the documents that collectively make up the DWP “Drought Plan” in Appendix A, and is also referenced in the DWP’s 2015 UWMP.
The proposed Project is the last phase of several supply facilities that were constructed recently to improve operational flexibility and improve operational efficiency. Construction of the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant, the Angels Camp Reservoir, the Klamath Booster Pumping Station, and associated connecting pipelines have greatly improved DWP’s ability to distribute water supply from the East to the West or the West to the East side of the Bear Valley. The proposed Project will complete this long term project and will increase the Bear Valley’s drought resiliency.
The DWP contracted for a complete Water Master Plan in 2006, which is also available on the website at http://www.bbldwp.com/2006BBLDWPWMP. As that plan is out of date, the DWP is already under contract to prepare an updated Water Master Plan during 2017.
Lastly, the DWP has multiple long term and permanent policies that plan for, and preemptively address the effects of drought. The Water Conservation Policy (Resolution 2014-02 available at http://www.bbldwp.com/conservationpolicy) has thorough and far reaching rules and regulations on water use, intended to make water conservation a way of life in this isolated mountain community. In the event a more drastic approach is necessary, Resolution 2007-02 establishes regulations for a Water Shortage Emergency in the Big Bear Valley, with each stage dependent upon the severity of the situation.
Evaluation Criterion C: Severity of Actual or Potential Drought Impacts to be Addressed by the Project
The Bear Valley potable water supply is 100% ground water pumped from the Bear Valley Basin. The Bear Valley is not connected to the State Water Project as a connection would cost an estimated $60 to $100 million, not a viable alternative. Therefore, having groundwater operational flexibility is of paramount importance for the Bear Valley Community. Past droughts have resulted in building moratoriums and usage restrictions. While the water quality within the Basin is generally good, the eastern part of the Basin is characterized by elevated fluoride. Other problem constituents include manganese, uranium, and arsenic. Water quality issues have resulted in occasional blending projects, water treatment plants, and wells being shut down. However, water quality issues are not anticipated to disrupt groundwater supply (DWR, 2004).
Drought, and the related lack of rainfall results in increased wildfire risk, a reduction in lake levels, increased tree mortality and a related infestation of bark beetles. The online Tree Mortality Viewer also shows that nearly the entire Bear Valley is a U.S. Forest Service Designated Insect and Disease Area, faces between “Moderate” and “Very High” Fire Threat, is vulnerable to water stress, is a Tier Two High Hazard Zone and faces increasing numbers of background tree mortality. Each of these data points may be accessed by visiting http://egis.fire.ca.gov/TreeMortalityViewer/. They are also illustrated in Figure 8. All of these factors have a negative impact on recreation, the environment and the economy.
2/13/2017 Page 14 of 40
134 of 316
Item 2.4
Figure 8 DWP Tree Mortality Map Layers
Recreation and the Economy: The DWP’s service area is primarily residential and as southern California’s “Four Season Resort Community,” recreation has been the most important economic factor in the Valley for nearly a century. Current and past droughts have a significant impact on the environment and economy. A lack of seasonal snowfall has a negative impact on the local ski resorts, Bear Mountain and Snow Summit. This has a domino effect on restaurants, lodges and retailers. Tourism to nearby attractions also affects occupancy rates in the hospitality sector. Big Falls, a scenic recreation area in the San Bernardino National Forest was closed for swimming from October of 2015 to October 2016 due to the drought. The decreased water flow exposed large areas of slick rock, resulting in multiple injuries.
Summer wildfires also have an impact on mountaintop recreation. One of the most dramatic and recent events was the Lake Fire in June of 2015 that burned 31,284 acres. Then marketing director for Big Bear Mountain Resorts, Clayton Shoemaker, reported that the Resorts’ ticket sales [for downhill mountain biking] were down 35%. Southern California Public Radio reported, “Whether it’s due to fear of smoke or flames, the Lake Fire has dealt another blow to a tourism industry already faltering in 2015. The drought left this year’s winter slopes parched, temperatures often climbed too high even for fake snow, and an unseasonable May storm
2/13/2017 Page 15 of 40
135 of 316
Item 2.4
forced a pro-cycling tour to relocate to Santa Clarita.1” The same fire resulted in a softball tournament being cancelled as the school was transformed into a fire command post. Other resort managers reported up to an 80% loss in reservations.
“So far this year 4,636 wildfires in California have burned more than 200,000 acres. That’s more fires than this time last year and more fires than the five-year average. In fact, in the last few decades, the number of large fires are on the rise across the Western United States and the length of the fire season continues to expand.2”
Environmental: In December of 2016 the U.S. Forest Service reported that since 2010, more than 100 million trees had died from the ongoing drought and ensuing bark beetle attacks. This is not the first time the area’s forests have been the victim of drought. According to an Inventory of Tree Mortality in Southern California Mountains (2001-2004) due to Bark Beetle Impacts, 3
“Consecutive years of below-average precipitation from 1998 to 2003 resulted in large scale insect outbreaks which caused moderate to severe tree mortality on almost 375,000 acres of forest land in Southern California. From 2001 through 2004, bark beetles of several species attacked drought weakened trees in epidemic proportions, leading to millions of dead trees and large areas of dead and dying forests. In response to the threats posed by the dead trees, Governor Gray Davis signed a Declaration of a State Emergency on March 7, 2003. The dead and dying forests pose a potential hazard to lives, property, and ecosystem health in the region. In the southern California Mountains about 12.7% of conifer trees died among all size classes between 2001 and 2004, in large part due to drought conditions and insect attacks. Coulter pine suffered the largest percentage mortality by volume of the conifers in the region. More than 44% of the trees died in the event, comprising nearly 69% of the species’ total volume. Ponderosa pine lost about 66% of its total live volume and incurred about 55% mortality in terms of the number of trees.”
1 Taylor Haney, “Lake Fire singes Big Bear's troubled tourism industry.” Southern California Public Radio, June 23, 2015 Accessed January 26, 2017. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/23/52607/lake-fire-singes-big-bear-s- troubled-tourism-indus/ 2Tara Lohan, “The Surprising Science of Wildfires and Tree-Killing Beetles.” Water Deeply, September 14, 2016 Accessed January 26, 2017. https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/09/14/the-surprising-science-of- wildfires-and-tree-killing-beetles 3 Rich Walker et al. “Inventory of Tree Mortality in Southern California Mountains (2001-2004) due to Bark Beetle Impacts.” Report by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. June 14, 2006.
2/13/2017 Page 16 of 40
136 of 316
Item 2.4
Economic: During the drought that decimated tree populations, which ended in 2005, the Lake William area of DWP’s service area saw a decline in water table levels and water quantity and quality was impacted. The DWP Board of Commissioners imposed a building moratorium on this area that lasted nearly ten years. Property values were impacted and have still not recovered. Only one home is currently being built in this area even though the building moratorium was lifted on April 22, 2014. The Lake William area moratorium was resolved by drilling a well about a mile from the existing wells, within a different sub-basin, to provide a new water supply to the Lake William area. This project was made possible due to partial grant and loan funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Now DWP has the operational flexibility to pump from two different sub-basins to provide Lake William’s water supply. The proposed Project will provide similar drought resiliency to the Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, Erwin Lake, and CSD areas. This is a good example of the importance of the proposed Project to be more drought-resilient and prevent the long lasting effects a drought can have on the Bear Valley Community.
The DWP has mitigated many effects of past droughts through the implementation of extensive conservation programs and construction of water infrastructure improvements. The DWP service area has been experiencing drought conditions since early 2012 and Figure 9 DWP Recent Drought Conditions remained in “Severe” to “Extreme” drought conditions according to the California Drought Monitor Map until January 17, 2017, as shown in Figure 9. After heavy winter storms the area has been categorized between “Moderate” and “Severe” since the week of January 24, 2017. The dividing line between these two conditions currently runs through the center of Big Bear Lake. The current drought has resulted in the two Bear Valley water purveyors teaming up on water conservation projects and constructing a new water intertie so that we can transfer water easily between water systems during high demand periods or during emergencies. However, if the current drought continues or the next one is more severe, projects like the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant will be required to maintain DWP’s drought resiliency.
Evaluation Criterion D: Project Implementation
The proposed Project is part of DWP’s current 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The construction contract documents are 90% complete. DWP’s consultant will finalize the construction contract documents and the project will be ready to go out to bid by June 30, 2017. The Project will be awarded for construction during the August 22, 2017 Board of
2/13/2017 Page 17 of 40
137 of 316
Item 2.4
Commissioners meeting. The Project will have a 9-month construction period and should be completed by June 30, 2018. Pending Division of Drinking Water approvals, the plant should be operational by August of 2018.
DWP has an existing permit with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). This permit needs to be amended whenever an additional supply facility is added to the distribution system. The amendment to the existing DDW permit occurs after DDW conducts an inspection of the completed well pumping plant facilities. Timing of the permit is contingent upon DDW’s work load at the time of project completion.
A design and construction engineering contract was awarded to Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) on July 28, 2015. WSC completed 90% construction drawings and the project was placed on hold because another major DWP pipeline project had to be fast-tracked so that it was constructed ahead of a 2017 Caltrans paving project. WSC will complete the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant construction contract documents by June 30, 2017. The Board of Commissioners will need to approve a construction contract, tentatively scheduled for the August 22, 2017 Board meeting.
Evaluation Criterion E: Nexus to Reclamation
The proposed Project is indirectly connected to the State Water Project because of in lieu water transfers. The Big Bear Municipal Water District (MWD, the Agency in charge of Big Bear lake) has annual downstream water obligations to the San Bernardino area. In order to maintain lake levels, MWD has a contract with the local State Water Contractor to provide in lieu water transfers, out of Lake Silverwood, so MWD does not have to discharge water from the Big Bear Dam. In this way the annual Bear Valley precipitation stays in the Bear Valley to fill the lake and percolate into the aquifers. The Project will result in more operational flexibility providing more balanced pumping from the Bear Valley sub-basins. Balance pumping may result in additional stream flow into Big Bear Lake.
This Project will not help Reclamation meet trust responsibilities to any tribe. The DWP’s water system does not rely on reclamation project water at this time. The Project is not on Reclamation project lands and does not involve Reclamation facilities.
The project is not in the same basin as a Reclamation project or activity, however, the State Water Project does benefit the Bear Valley via in lieu water transfers as discussed in the criteria above. The proposed Program will not contribute water to a basin where a Reclamation project is located.
2/13/2017 Page 18 of 40
138 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 5. Performance Measures
The proposed Project will pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. DWP plans on pumping 200 acre feet per year from the proposed Project. This pumping will offset pumping from the Erwin, Rathbone, Division and North Shore sub-basins. DWP maintains annual pumping records for all of its well pumping plants. Once the proposed Project is operational for one year, DWP can demonstrate reduced pumping from existing well pumping plants (sub-basins) via annual pumping records. Also, water table elevation records (hydrographs) are maintained for each sub-basin, so DWP will be able to demonstrate balanced pumping from each of the above sub-basins via the hydrographs.
2/13/2017 Page 19 of 40
139 of 316
Item 2.4
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE
The minor impacts created during construction of the Project will be mitigated with best management practices.
It is not anticipated that any species would be negatively affected by any activities associated with the proposed project.
There are no wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under CWA jurisdiction as "waters of the United States."
The majority of DWP’s water system was constructed during the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60’s. The City of Big Bear Lake acquired the water system from Southern California Water Company in 1989 and has made over $65,000,000 in improvements.
The project will not result in any modifications or effects to individual features of an irrigation system.
There are no buildings, structures, or features in the project area listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no known archaeological sites in the proposed project area.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations.
The project will not limit access to any ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites or result in other negative impacts on tribal lands.
The project will not contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative species known to occur in the area. Existing Drought Contingency Plan: Appendix A
The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant has been part of the DWP planning process for over a decade. The well is referenced in multiple documents; the relevant portion of each is included in Appendix A.
2/13/2017 Page 20 of 40
140 of 316
Item 2.4
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Please see Appendix C REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS
There are no required permits anticipated for this project. The DWP Board of Commissioners adopted a categorical exemption on November 16, 2015 and filed a Notice of Exemption on March 31, 2016 for the proposed Project, see Appendix E.
The State CEQA Guidelines provide a series of Categorical Exemptions for actions that have been deemed by the State Legislature not to pose any potential for significant impact as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Project is the installation of the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant and approximately 800 feet of 8" diameter replacement pipeline. Categorical Exemption Class 2 (Section 15302) states: Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including but not limited to: (c) Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. The proposed action has been determined to fall within the scope of this Class 2 Categorical Exemption. Therefore, this proposed action is exempt from further CEQA evaluation in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines,
NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act: There will be no impacts on historic sites as a result of this project.
ESA - Endangered Species Act: There is no critical habitat or endangered or threatened species that will be negatively affected by this project.
State Permits: DWP has an existing permit with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). This permit needs to be amended whenever an additional supply facility is added to the distribution system. The amendment to the existing DDW permit occurs after DDW conducts and inspection of the completed well pumping plant facilities. Timing of the permit is contingent upon DDW’s work load at the time of project completion.
Local Permits: There are no other local permits that will be required for the project. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION
The DWP Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the Resolution during the February 28, 2017 Regular Board meeting. Once approved, the Resolution will be included with BBLDWP’s applications (Appendix B).
2/13/2017 Page 21 of 40
141 of 316
Item 2.4
PROJECT BUDGET Section 1. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment
The DWP will be funding any costs for the Project above and beyond the amount funded by the federal government with a combination of the following: California State Revolving Fund Drinking Water Loan, revenue from water rates, and/or capital improvement reserves. The DWP will proceed with the project, utilizing capital improvement reserves, even if they are not successful in obtaining a California State Revolving Fund Drinking Water Loan.
The DWP began the design phase of the project in August 2015. From July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, the costs for design services totaled $44,264.69. These pre-award costs are not included in the budget proposal.
Engineering and design services and construction phase engineering support are expected to total approximately $82,298.
The DWP intends to move forward with this Project irrespective of potential funding from the State Revolving Fund. Potential state funding is included in this application in the interest of full disclosure of potential sources of outside funding. The DWP has capital improvement reserves to rely upon in the event no state funding is awarded.
The DWP is considering applying from the State of California Drinking Water Revolving fund, as well as submitting an application to United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) WaterSMART for $375,000 for this project within the Group ll funding application. The DWP will meet its matching requirement using eligible state funding and reserves. No other federal funds will be used as matching for this program.
Table No. 3 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING AMOUNT Non-Federal entities California Drinking Water $ -- State Revolving Fund loan† Recipient in-kind labor -- Recipient Capital Improvement Reserves 482,298 Non-Federal subtotal: 482,298 Other Federal entities None - Other Federal subtotal - Requested Reclamation funding: 300,000 Total Project Funding $782,298 †An application to California’s Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is under consideration. The DWP may apply for state funding, however; the DWP has sufficient reserves to fund 100% of the non-federal share of costs.
2/13/2017 Page 22 of 40
142 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 2. Budget Proposal
A budget proposal is provided in the following tables. Table No. 5 identifies both the DWP contributions and the WaterSMART grant funds required to implement the project, and Table No. 6 outlines the proposed budget by item.
Table No. 4 Funding Sources
Percent of Funding sources Total cost by source total Recipient funding 61.7 % $ 482,298 Reclamation funding 38.3 % 300,000 Other Federal funding 0.0% - State Revolving Fund 0.0% -- Totals 100% $782,298
Table No. 5 Budget Proposal
Budget item description Computation Quantity Type Total $/unit Quantity (hours/days) Cost Salaries and wages - Fringe Benefits - Travel - Equipment - Supplies/materials - Contractual/construction Engineering and Design 33,654 Services Construction Phase 48,644 Engineering Support Estimated Construction 700,000 Costs Reporting - Total Direct Costs $782,298 Indirect cost % -% Total project costs $ 782,298
2/13/2017 Page 23 of 40
143 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 3. Budget Narrative
Salaries and Wages The DWP is not including salaries or wages in the budget proposal.
Fringe Benefits
The DWP is not including fringe benefits in the budget proposal.
Travel DWP is not requesting reimbursement for travel costs for this project.
Equipment Equipment, such as well pumps and telemetry components, will be included in the construction cost of the Project.
Materials and Supplies Materials and supplies will be included in the construction cost of the Project.
Contractual The DWP expects enter into two contracts associated with the Project. DWP has entered into a contract for engineering design and construction phase engineering services with WSC. This contract includes remaining eligible costs not to exceed $82,298. The second contract for construction of the Project is expected to total $700,000
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs After consulting with Reclamation staff on funding required for USBR to conduct any environmental compliance activities, including Reclamation’s cost to review environmental compliance documentation, DWP has budgeted $1,000 for USBR environmental review costs.
Other Expenses No other expenses are anticipated for this project.
Indirect Costs No indirect cost reimbursement is being requested for this project.
Total Costs The total estimated project cost is $782,298. The requested Federal share is $300,000; the total non-Federal share is $482,298. UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER AND SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT
The DWP is registered with SAM, ASAP and Grants.gov. The BBLDWP unique entity identifier has been provided in the SF-424. SAM registration will be maintained throughout the grant period.
2/13/2017 Page 24 of 40
144 of 316
Item 2.4
Appendix A. “Drought Plan”- Attached Separately Applicable pages from each of the following have been included for review: • BBLDWP Urban Water Management Plan (2015) • Analysis of Potential Well Sites within the BBLDWP Service area (2009) • Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report (2010)
Appendix B. Official Resolution- Attached Separately The DWP Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the Resolution during the February 28, 2017 Regular Board meeting. Once approved, the Resolution will be included with BBLDWP’s applications.
Appendix C. Letters of Support- Attached Separately • Scott Heule, General Manager, Big Bear City Community Services District • Mr. Paul Cook, 8th Congressional District • Mr. Jay Obernolte, 33rd Assembly District • Mr. Mike Morrell, Senator, California’s 23rd District
Appendix D. Capital Improvement Plan
Appendix E. CEQA Notice of Exemption
2/13/2017 Page 25 of 40
145 of 316 Item 2.4
Appendix D. Capital Improvement Plan
2/13/2017 Page 26 of 40 146 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 27 of 40 147 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 28 of 40 148 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 29 of 40 149 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 30 of 40 150 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 31 of 40 151 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 32 of 40 152 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 33 of 40 153 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 34 of 40 154 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 35 of 40 155 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 36 of 40 156 of 316 Item 2.4
Appendix E. CEQA Notice of Exemption
2/13/2017 Page 37 of 40 157 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 38 of 40 158 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 39 of 40 159 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 40 of 40 160 of 316 Item 2.4 Grant Application Package
Opportunity Title: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017 Offering Agency: Bureau of Reclamation CFDA Number: 15.514 CFDA Description: Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Opportunity Number: BOR-DO-17-F010 Competition ID: BOR-DO-17-F010 Opportunity Open Date:
Opportunity Close Date: 02/14/2017 Agency Contact: Mattehw Reichert Grants Management Specialist E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 303-445-3865
This opportunity is only open to organizations, applicants who are submitting grant applications on behalf of a company, state, local or tribal government, academia, or other type of organization.
Application Filing Name: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
Select Forms to Complete
Mandatory
Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)
Optional
Budget Information for Construction Programs (SF-424C)
Assurances for Construction Programs (SF-424D)
Attachments
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A)
Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B)
Instructions Show Instructions >>
This electronic grants application is intended to be used to apply for the specific Federal funding opportunity referenced here. If the Federal funding opportunity listed is not the opportunity for which you want to apply, close this application package by clicking on the "Cancel" button at the top of this screen. You will then need to locate the correct Federal funding opportunity, download its application and then apply.
161 of 316 Item 2.4 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 10/31/2019
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
* 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): Preapplication New
Application Continuation * Other (Specify):
Changed/Corrected Application Revision
* 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: Completed by Grants.gov upon submission.
5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier:
State Use Only:
6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier:
8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
* a. Legal Name: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power
* b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 30-0678743 6245046350000 d. Address:
* Street1: 41972 Garstin Drive
Street2: PO Box 1929
* City: Big Bear Lake County/Parish:
* State: CA: California Province:
* Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip / Postal Code: 92315-1929 e. Organizational Unit:
Department Name: Division Name:
f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:
Prefix: Mr. * First Name: Reginald Middle Name: A.
* Last Name: Lamson Suffix:
Title: General Manager
Organizational Affiliation:
* Telephone Number: (909)866-5050 Fax Number:
* Email: [email protected]
162 of 316 Item 2.4
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
* 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C: City or Township Government
Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:
Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:
* Other (specify):
* 10. Name of Federal Agency: Bureau of Reclamation
11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 15.514
CFDA Title: Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
* 12. Funding Opportunity Number: BOR-DO-17-F010
* Title: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017
13. Competition Identification Number: BOR-DO-17-F010
Title:
14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):
Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
* 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: City of Big Bear Lake Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project Group II
Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions.
Add Attachments Delete Attachments View Attachments
163 of 316 Item 2.4
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
16. Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant CA-008 * b. Program/Project CA-008
Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: 08/01/2017 * b. End Date: 12/31/2018
18. Estimated Funding ($):
* a. Federal 375,000.00 * b. Applicant 407,298.00
* c. State 0.00
* d. Local 0.00
* e. Other 0.00
* f. Program Income 0.00
* g. TOTAL 782,298.00
* 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?
a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on 02/13/2017 . b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.
c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.
* 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) Yes No
If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ** I AGREE
** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions.
Authorized Representative:
Prefix:Mr. * First Name: Reginald
Middle Name: A.
* Last Name: Lamson
Suffix:
* Title: General Manager
* Telephone Number: (909) 866-5050 Fax Number:
* Email: [email protected]
* Signature of Authorized Representative:Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. * Date Signed: Completed by Grants.gov upon submission.
164 of 316 Item 2.4 ATTACHMENTS FORM
Instructions: On this form, you will attach the various files that make up your grant application. Please consult with the appropriate Agency Guidelines for more information about each needed file. Please remember that any files you attach must be in the document format and named as specified in the Guidelines.
Important: Please attach your files in the proper sequence. See the appropriate Agency Guidelines for details.
1) Please attach Attachment 1 BBLDWP_Sawmill_WaterSMART_Dro Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
2) Please attach Attachment 2 BBLDWP_Sawmill_WaterSMART_Dro Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
3) Please attach Attachment 3 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
4) Please attach Attachment 4 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
5) Please attach Attachment 5 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
6) Please attach Attachment 6 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
7) Please attach Attachment 7 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
8) Please attach Attachment 8 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
9) Please attach Attachment 9 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
10) Please attach Attachment 10 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
11) Please attach Attachment 11 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
12) Please attach Attachment 12 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
13) Please attach Attachment 13 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
14) Please attach Attachment 14 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
15) Please attach Attachment 15 Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
165 of 316 OMB Number: 4040-0008 Expiration Date: 01/31/2019
BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction Programs Item 2.4 NOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arrive at the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such is the case, you will be notified. b. Costs Not Allowable c. Total Allowable Costs COST CLASSIFICATION a. Total Cost for Participation (Columns a-b)
1. Administrative and legal expenses $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
3. Relocation expenses and payments $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
4. Architectural and engineering fees $ 82,298.00 $ $ 82,298.00
5. Other architectural and engineering fees $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
6. Project inspection fees $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
7. Site work $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
8. Demolition and removal $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
9. Construction $ 700,000.00$ $ 700,000.00
10. Equipment $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
11. Miscellaneous $ 0.00 $ $ 0.00
12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11) $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
13. Contingencies $ $ $
14. SUBTOTAL $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
15. Project (program) income $ $ $
16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from #14) $ 782,298.00$ $ 782,298.00
FEDERAL FUNDING 166 of316 17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows: (Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.) Enter eligible costs from line 16c Multiply X 48% $ 375,503.04 Enter the resulting Federal share. Item 2.4 ASSURANCES - CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS OMB Number: 4040-0009 Expiration Date: 01/31/2019
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0042), Washington, DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
NOTE: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the Awarding Agency. Further, certain Federal assistance awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant:, I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, 8. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and the institutional, managerial and financial capability of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§4728-4763) relating to prescribed (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share standards of merit systems for programs funded of project costs) to ensure proper planning, under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in management and completion of project described in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of this application. Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General 9. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning of the United States and, if appropriate, the State, Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq.) which the right to examine all records, books, papers, or prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or documents related to the assistance; and will establish rehabilitation of residence structures. a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency 10. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to non- directives. discrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) 3. Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, terms of the real property title or other interest in the color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education site and facilities without permission and instructions Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§1681 from the awarding agency. Will record the Federal 1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination awarding agency directives and will include a covenant on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29) U.S.C. with Federal assistance funds to assure non- §794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of discrimination during the useful life of the project. handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as 4. Will comply with the requirements of the assistance amended (42 U.S.C. §§6101-6107), which prohibits awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse approval of construction plans and specifications. Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of 5. Will provide and maintain competent and adequate drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and engineering supervision at the construction site to Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation ensure that the complete work conforms with the Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to approved plans and specifications and will furnish nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or progressive reports and such other information as may be alcoholism; (g) §§523 and 527 of the Public Health required by the assistance awarding agency or State. Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§290 dd-3 and 290 ee 3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol 6. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, 7. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from rental or financing of housing; (i) any other using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statue(s) presents the appearance of personal or organizational under which application for Federal assistance is being conflict of interest, or personal gain. made; and (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statue(s) which may apply to the application.
Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424D (Rev. 7-97) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
167 of 316 Item 2.4
11. Will comply, or has already complied, with the Federal actions to State (Clean Air) implementation requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); (g) 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable protection of underground sources of drinking water treatment of persons displaced or whose property is under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as acquired as a result of Federal and federally-assisted amended (P.L. 93-523); and, (h) protection of programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real endangered species under the Endangered Species property acquired for project purposes regardless of Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205). Federal participation in purchases. 16. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 12. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§1271 et seq.) related to protecting §§1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political components or potential components of the national activities of employees whose principal employment wild and scenic rivers system. activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 17. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance 13. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis- with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470), EO 11593 (40 U.S.C. §276c and 18 U.S.C. §874), and the Contract (identification and protection of historic properties), and Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§327- the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 333) regarding labor standards for federally-assisted 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§469a-1 et seq). construction subagreements. 18. Will cause to be performed the required financial and 14. Will comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133, (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase Organizations." flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more. 19. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies 15. Will comply with environmental standards which may be governing this program. prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National 20. Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91- the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as 190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification amended (22 U.S.C. 7104) which prohibits grant award of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) recipients or a sub-recipient from (1) Engaging in severe protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance that the award is in effect (2) Procuring a commercial with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency sex act during the period of time that the award is in with the approved State management program effect or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of award or subawards under the award. 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL TITLE
Completed on submission to Grants.gov General Manager
APPLICANT ORGANIZATION DATE SUBMITTED City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Completed on submission to Grants.gov
SF-424D (Rev. 7-97) Back
168 of 316
Item 2.4
WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for FY2017 Funding Opportunity Announcement No. BOR-DO-17-F010 Funding Group II
City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power
Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project
Applicant Information: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power 41972 Garstin Drive/ P.O. Box 1929 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Project Manager: Reginald A. Lamson General Manager [email protected] Phone: (909) 866-5050 x 201 Fax: (909) 866-3184
2/13/2017 Page 1 of 40
169 of 316
Item 2.4
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Tables ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ...... 3 Section 1. Executive Summary ...... 3 Section 2. Background Data ...... 4 Section 3. Project Description ...... 8 Section 4. Evaluation Criteria ...... 10 Section 5. Performance Measures ...... 19 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE ...... 20 Existing Drought Contingency Plan: Appendix A ...... 20 LETTERS OF SUPPORT ...... 21 REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS ...... 21 OFFICIAL RESOLUTION ...... 21 PROJECT BUDGET ...... 22 Section 1. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment ...... 22 Section 2. Budget Proposal ...... 23 Section 3. Budget Narrative ...... 24 UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER AND SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT ...... 24
List of Tables
Table No. 1 Current and Projected Supply/ Demand ...... 5 Table No. 2 Summary of the Current and Future Water Demand by Customer Class ...... 5 Table No. 3 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources ...... 23 Table No. 4 Funding Sources ...... 24 Table No. 5 Budget Proposal...... 24 List of Figures
Figure 1 Typical DWP Well Pumping Plant Facility ...... 3 Figure 2 Water Service Area ...... 4 Figure 3 Percentage of Accounts by Customer Class ...... 6 Figure 4 Proposed Sawmill Well Site ...... 8 Figure 5 Typical DWP Wellhead Facilities ...... 8 Figure 6 West Baldwin Sub Basin Map ...... 11 Figure 7 Sawmill Well Completion Diagram ...... 12 Figure 8 DWP Tree Mortality Map Layers ...... 15 Figure 9 DWP Recent Drought Conditions ...... 17
2/13/2017 Page 2 of 40
170 of 316
Item 2.4
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Section 1. Executive Summary
Date February 14, 2017 Applicant City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power City, County, State Big Bear Lake, San Bernardino, California Project Name Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project Project Length 2 years Estimated Completion Date December 31, 2018
The City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (DWP) is applying for funding by the United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) WaterSMART Drought Response Program: Drought Resiliency Projects for Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Opportunity Announcement No. BOR- DO-17-F010. The DWP is applying for $375,000 in federal funding assistance for Federal Funding Group I to design and construct the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project (the Project). The Project will be DWP's second largest producing well at 350 gallons per minute (gpm), with an expected annual production of 200 (maximum capacity of 564 afy) acre-feet per year (afy) of additional supply from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. The project is expected to take one year, starting in August of 2017 with completion in no more than two years. The Project will improve water management as it pumps water to the recently constructed Angels Camp Reservoir which can supply water to the east or west side of the Bear Valley. The additional supply from the Project will improve the water manager’s flexibility to rest existing sub-basins, which may become stressed during drought conditions. The Project will also aid in the transfer of water as it is capable of providing supply to the recently constructed Erwin intertie with the Big Bear City Community Services District (CSD), the other Bear Valley water purveyor.
By reducing pumping in the Erwin sub-basin, the Project could also enhance the environment for the federally protected and endangered Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish (“UTS” or “Stickleback”). Also the proposed well pumping plant will be designed to operate more efficiently, which will save energy over the life of the project by offsetting production from older inefficient pumps.
The Project is not located on a Federal Facility.
Figure 1 Typical DWP Well Pumping Plant Facility
2/13/2017 Page 3 of 40
171 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 2. Background Data
2.1 Location The DWP’s water service area is located within the Bear Valley, as depicted in Figure 2. The Bear Valley lies, on average, 6,750 feet above sea level at the eastern end of the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County, California. The DWP’s service area is located primarily along the south shore of Big Bear Lake. The Fawnskin service area lies to the north of the lake, and the Sugarloaf-Erwin Lake and Lake William service areas are located east of Big Bear Lake. Portions of DWP’s service area serve disadvantaged communities. In total, the DWP’s service areas encompass approximately 13 square miles.
Figure 2 Water Service Area
2.2 Source of Water Supply DWP lies within the northeastern portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed and produces potable water from a combination of horizontal wells (gravity) and vertical wells (pumped) in the Bear Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR designation 8-9). The Bear Valley Groundwater Basin is un-adjudicated, however the DWP works closely with the other public water provider, the Big Bear City Community Services District (CSD), to ensure the basin is not over drafted. The perennial yield of the entire Bear Valley Groundwater Basin is estimated at 5,500 acre-feet per year (afy) while the safe yield within the DWP’s service area is estimated at 3,100 afy. The DWP’s current demands are below the perennial yield of its service area and the DWP has adequate pumping facilities to meet those demands. Table No. 1, below, demonstrates that the average annual demand is within the safe yield for the DWP service area. The DWP does not use surface or imported water to meet its water demand as importing water into the Bear Valley would be extremely costly and is not a viable option. The DWP, CSD, and Big Bear
2/13/2017 Page 4 of 40
172 of 316
Item 2.4
Municipal Water District (MWD, Lake Management) are working together to form the Bear Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency to be in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
Table No. 1 Current and Projected Supply/Demand
Annual Pumping (afy) Supply Source 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Groundwater/ Total 2,095 2,169 2,246 2,326 2,408 2,494
Note: The calculations used for the demands are based on a 0.7% growth in demand each year, beginning in 2015. Supplies are assumed to equal Demand, up to 3,100 AFY (DWP’s share of the operating safe yield of the Bear Valley Groundwater Basin). These quantities meet all state water conservation requirements.
2.3 Water Delivery System The DWP distributes potable water supply through a distribution system consisting of five water systems with 15 separate pressure zones, 180 miles of pipeline, 33 vertical wells, 22 slant wells, 16 reservoirs, 12 booster stations, 41 pressure reducing valves, 26 chlorination stations, and 22 sample stations. The proposed Project will be capable of providing additional water supply to DWP’s Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the aforementioned intertie. Table No.2 is a summary of DWP’s current and projected water demand by customer class. Based on the data collected in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the average annual population in the DWP service area in 2015 was estimated at 25,601 (including full time and temporary populations). The 2015 UWMP assumed a growth rate of 0.7 percent for subsequent years. The proposed project will provide operational flexibility, enhancing the Bear Valley’s drought resiliency without encouraging additional growth in the valley.
Table No. 2 Summary of the Current and Projected Water Demand by Customer Class
2020 2025 2030 Customer Class Population 26,510 Population 27,451 Population 28,425 Demand (afy) Demand (afy) Demand (afy) Residential 1,443 1,495 1,548 Commercial 474 491 509 System Losses 220 227 235 Unbilled Consumption 32 33 34 Total 2,169 2,246 2,326 2.4 Current Water Uses As of 2016, the DWP maintains 15,612 water meters, of which 14,675 are residential and 937 are commercial. Multi-family residential accounts are classified as commercial accounts. Thus, about 94% percent of the accounts are residential (Figure 3).
2/13/2017 Page 5 of 40
173 of 316
Item 2.4
6%
94%
Residential Commercial
Figure 3 Percentage of Accounts by Customer Class 2.5 Historic and Potential Shortfalls in Water Supply From 2000 to 2002 the DWP experienced three extremely dry years, with average precipitation of only 20.84 inches per year (in comparison to a 130 year average of 35.83 annual inches). In 2002 the DWP declared a Water Shortage Emergency. While conservation regulations existed before this time, that year was a “watershed” moment in DWP conservation. The Water Shortage Emergency lasted over a decade, resulting in a building moratorium for DWP’s Lake William water system and vastly expanded rules and regulations related to conservation.
At that time, the DWP instituted and continues to hold a twice annual Technical Review Team (TRT or the Committee) committee meeting to review and evaluate the status, condition, and availability of the DWP's groundwater supplies. The Committee makes recommendations and advises the DWP’s Board of Commissioners (Board) concerning conservation and other significant resource management constraints, including any possible declarations of a Water Shortage Emergency.
At the November 17, 2016 TRT committee meeting the DWP discussed the fact that precipitation at the dam from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 was 30.80 inches, nearly 86% of the 132-year annual precipitation average. The annual rainfall, measured at the Big Bear Dam, has been below average for the last five years. Therefore, despite improved precipitation, the Bear Valley is still beginning its sixth year of severe drought and relies strictly on naturally charged groundwater for its source of supply. The proposed Project will allow DWP’s water supply manager to pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin, reducing the pumping from the Erwin, Division, and Rathbone sub-basins during times of drought.
Part of the DWP’s water supply is derived from slant wells (horizontal wells) and the slant well production has declined or stopped completely during the current drought. Fortunately, past and present investments have added critical flexibility in how the DWP can exercise different sub-basins within the Bear Valley. New sources and additional storage, improved pump efficiency, better water transfer systems and improved monitoring capabilities have improved the DWP’s drought resiliency. While some aquifer sub-units’ levels are in decline, other aquifer sub-units’ levels have increased. Recent calculations show that even with some wells offline
2/13/2017 Page 6 of 40
174 of 316
Item 2.4
and continued drought projections, the water supply is sufficient for more than three years. Nevertheless, DWP staff continues to closely monitor the basin and water agencies across the Bear Valley are working together to create and promote comprehensive and consistent conservation policies based on prior experience.
2.6 Working Relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation In July 2016, the DWP entered into two assistance agreements with the USBR. Assistance Agreement #R16AP0113 was executed on July 31, 2016 to provide up to $300,000 in grant funding for the AMI Program Phase II. Phase II of the AMI program was for the purchase and installation of 5,000 AMI meters and necessary components. Phase II is still in progress and is ahead of schedule with an expected completion date of March 1, 2017.
Assistance Agreement #R16AP0116 was the second agreement entered into with the USBR and it was executed on July 31, 2016 to provide up to $300,000 in grant funding for the replacement of approximately 4,000 feet of 12 inch riveted steel pipeline in Big Bear Boulevard. The 4,000 feet of water distribution main pipeline has been installed and is operational. The contractor is currently working diligently to make the final service and lateral connections. The project commencement was delayed one month due to other contractors working on projects in the same right of way. Winter weather conditions caused additional construction delays. The USBR granted the DWP an extension until June 30, 2017 to complete this project.
2/13/2017 Page 7 of 40
175 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 3. Project Description
The proposed Project is located within the Sugarloaf portion of the DWP’s service area which is located southeast of Big Bear Lake on the northern alluvial slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain. Approximately half of the Sugarloaf area is within the West Baldwin Hydrologic Subunit and half is in the Erwin Hydrologic Subunit. The proposed Project will be within the West Baldwin hydrologic sub-basin.
3.1 The Proposed Project The Project will provide up to 350 gallons per minute of additional water supply to DWP’s Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. The Project site is located within the relatively remote Sawmill Canyon and will pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin hydrologic sub-basin. The Figure 4 Proposed Sawmill Well Site proposed project will be designed and constructed to be in compliance with the environmental documents approved by the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power Board of Commissioners and recorded on March 31, 2016. Project design is about 90% complete and construction can begin in 2017. Upon execution of the contract with the USBR, DWP’s consultant will finalize project contract documents and place the project out for competitive bid. The DWP Board believes that this project will allow the water supply manager to rest sub- basins that can become stressed during periods of extended drought and pump from the underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. The Project will provide operational flexibility benefitting the entire Bear Valley.
The proposed Project will equip the recently constructed Sawmill Well. The Sawmill Well was test pumped in excess of 350 GPM and when equipped, it is expected to be the second largest water supply within DWP’s system. The Project will include a 350 GPM submersible pumping unit, a concrete block building with metal roof, sodium hypochlorite disinfection equipment, electrical and control equipment, minor site grading and paving, and approximately 800 linear feet of 8-inch PVC piping to connect the pumping plant to DWP’s existing distribution system.
The proposed submersible pumping unit and concrete block building will provide silent operation so the Project will not disturb existing neighbors. The proposed well pumping plant will be more efficient than many of DWP’s existing Figure 5 Typical DWP Wellhead Facilities well pumping plants, so by offsetting production
2/13/2017 Page 8 of 40
176 of 316
Item 2.4
the DWP will save energy once this Project is operational. The proposed Project will pump to the recently constructed Angels Camp Reservoir. The Angels Camp Reservoir is strategically located to provide water supply to the Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake service areas and to CSD, through the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. The Project will allow DWP to minimize the pumping from the Lakewood Well Plants, which pump from the Erwin sub-basin. Reduced Erwin sub-basin pumping, could benefit the endangered Stickleback, as its pond is located within the Erwin sub-basin.
2/13/2017 Page 9 of 40
177 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 4. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criterion A: Project Benefits Additional Water Supplies under Better Management: The Project will make additional water supply available by pumping from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin, allowing the DWP to rest some of other Bear Valley sub-basins that sometimes become stressed during extended droughts. The Sawmill Well was test pumped and the hydrogeologist recommended a design capacity for the pumping unit of 350 GPM. If run continuously, the proposed 350 GPM pumping unit could produce 564 acre feet per year of additional water supply. Based on DWP’s 2016 water production of 2,169 acre feet, the proposed Project could produce up to 26% (564 AF / 2,169 AF) of DWP’s annual water supply. The DWP plans to use the Project to pump approximately 200 AFY, 9.22% of DWP’s annual water supply.
Significance: The proposed Project will supply the Angels Camp Reservoir, which can distribute water to three different areas of DWP’s service area: Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, and Erwin Lake. These three areas provide water service to well over half of DWP’s 15,612 accounts, serving a population of approximately 26,000 people. Water from the Project can also provide supply to the neighboring CSD via the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie.
Long Term Resilience: The DWP pumps its water supply from ten sub-basins located within its service area, some of which are being pumped near their safe annual yield. The proposed Project is located within the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. By pumping from the West Baldwin sub-basin DWP will reduce pumping in some of the sub-basins that are being stressed, increasing DWP’s operational flexibility. Reducing the pumping in these existing wells will also result in long-term drought resilience by minimizing the stress placed on each sub- basin. DWP’s Well Pumping Facilities have a useful life of 50-years.
Energy Efficiency, Operational Flexibility and Water Marketing: The proposed well pumping unit will be more efficient than many of DWP’s existing pumping units. By offsetting the water produced at older, less efficient well sites, the total energy required to pump the same amount of water will be reduced. In this way, maximizing pumping from the Sawmill Well Plant will increase DWP’s overall operating efficiency and reduce energy usage. The Project can provide water supply to the CSD via the CSD – DWP Erwin intertie. This will facilitate DWP’s water marketing ability.
Information: The proposed well plant will be equipped with a pressure transducer which will provide continuous West Baldwin sub-basin water levels to DWP’s telemetry monitoring system. Currently there are no monitoring wells near the proposed Project location, so this additional data point will be beneficial to DWP, CSD, and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) which receives water level information as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring, (CASGEM) program. In this way, the Project will provide new information to water managers.
Environmental Benefits: The federally protected endangered Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish (UTS or Stickleback) pond is located within the Erwin sub-basin and could benefit from
2/13/2017 Page 10 of 40
178 of 316
Item 2.4
reduced pumping in this area. Both the DWP and the CSD will be able to reduce pumping within the Erwin sub-basin by utilizing the West Baldwin sub-basin.
The Sawmill Well Project: The DWP plans to use the proposed Sawmill Well as a primary supply well, extracting 200 acre feet per year, offsetting water currently extracted from sites with less efficient pumps. The proposed Sawmill Well Project was test pumped and the hydrogeologist recommended a design capacity for the pumping unit of 350 GPM. If run continuously, the proposed 350 GPM pumping unit could produce up to 564 acre feet per year of additional water supply. The proposed well is located within the West Baldwin sub-basin which is currently underutilized by approximately 500 acre feet per year. The proposed Project will equip the recently drilled 12-inch diameter, 570’ deep Sawmill Well. A map showing the West Baldwin sub basin is shown in Figure 6 while a diagram showing detailed construction information is shown in Figure 7.
According to the 2009 Analysis of Potential Well Sites within the BBLDWP Service Area, part of Appendix A, “the aquifer system in the Sugarloaf area is relatively thick and permeable. Ground water occurs approximately 235 ft bgs and the depth to lower permeability sediments is approximately 600 ft. Thus, there is approximately 300 ft of permeable aquifer material at the Sawmill drilling site. The surface geology in the Sugarloaf area consists of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated older (Miocene; approximately 5 to 23 million years before present) alluvial sediments. At depth, the sediments consist primarily of sand and gravel mixtures with localized layers of increased silt to a depth of 700 feet below ground surface, “bgs” (GEOSCIENCE, 2005). Below 700 feet bgs, the sediments become increasingly silty and clayey. The depth to substantially consolidated bedrock in this area is greater than 1,000 feet bgs, making it one of the deepest areas of unconsolidated to semi consolidated sediment in the Big Bear Valley.”
The DWP’s Magnolia Well Pumping Plant is located 2,650 feet east of the proposed project. The Magnolia Well Casing is 12-inches in diameter, is 670 feet deep Figure 6 West Baldwin Sub Basin Map and has a capacity of 300 GPM. There are three private wells located 540 feet, 950 feet, and 1,200 feet south of the proposed Project. There is one private well located 1,500’ north of the proposed Project. DWP was not able to obtain detailed information for the four private wells. The West Baldwin basin is not currently being overdraft.
2/13/2017 Page 11 of 40
179 of 316
Item 2.4
Figure 7 Sawmill Well Completion Diagram
2/13/2017 Page 12 of 40
180 of 316
Item 2.4
CSD and DWP are currently participating in DWR’s state wide CASGEM program. DWP also meets twice a year with its Technical Review Team (TRT, which includes two Board members, DWP staff members, and a consulting Hydrogeologist) to review well levels and sub-basin hydrographs. Based off of CSD and DWP well data presented at the TRT meetings, DWP adjusts its pumping operations and makes recommendation to the DWP Board of Commissioners if usage restrictions need to be implemented. If the proposed Project results in adverse impacts to the four private wells, then production will be reduced until the impact on the private wells is mitigated.
Evaluation Criterion B: Drought Planning and Preparedness
The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant has been part of the DWP planning process for over a decade. The well is referenced in multiple documents including the 2009 “Analysis of Potential Well Sites” created by Thomas Harder Ground Water Consulting (applicable pages included in Appendix A), the “Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report: March 30, 2010” by the Alternative Water Source Committee and the staff of the DWP (included in Appendix A), the 2014 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (Appendix D) as well as the DWP’s “2015 Urban Water Management Plan,” (“2015 UWMP,” full text available at www.bbldwp.com/2015uwmp with applicable pages included in Appendix A).
The proposed Project and planning documents were developed through a collaborative process including the General Manager, Water Superintendent, Board of Commissioners, Technical Review Team Committee, and with the input of multiple consultants and hydrogeologists. The Project will allow DWP operational flexibility to pump different sub-basins as water level data dictates (relevant data is reviewed at the twice annual TRT meetings).
Multiple planning documents consider climate change impacts to water resources in the Bear Valley. As stated in the 2015 UWMP, “While reliable climate change forecasts are not available for the San Bernardino Mountains, climate change is likely to add uncertainties to supply planning and future supply availability. The severe and prolonged drought that began in 2012 has been a test of the DWP's ability to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. Considering reductions in per capita use and projected demands below the safe perennial yield, the DWP continues to balance a cautious optimism with a long term strategy for sustainable sources of supply.”
The report continues, “Since all of the DWP’s current and future water supply is groundwater with a current estimate of perennial yield available to the DWP of 3,100 afy, the DWP has identified and evaluated alternative water sources for its service area and determined that some local options have yet to be explored. Sixteen alternative water sources were evaluated in the Reconnaissance Analysis of Alternative Water Sources document included as part of Appendix A. The alternative sources were evaluated by potential volume supplied, capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, technical feasibility, and political feasibility.” The Reconnaissance Analysis concluded that maximizing groundwater is the best alternative available to the agency. The DWP’s 2015 UWMP states that “the DWP is constructing the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant, which will increase pumping capacity to approximately 565 afy (or 350 gpm).”
2/13/2017 Page 13 of 40
181 of 316
Item 2.4
Construction of the proposed Project is a mitigation action that implements a goal and need identified throughout the documents that collectively make up the DWP “Drought Plan” in Appendix A, and is also referenced in the DWP’s 2015 UWMP.
The proposed Project is the last phase of several supply facilities that were constructed recently to improve operational flexibility and improve operational efficiency. Construction of the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant, the Angels Camp Reservoir, the Klamath Booster Pumping Station, and associated connecting pipelines have greatly improved DWP’s ability to distribute water supply from the East to the West or the West to the East side of the Bear Valley. The proposed Project will complete this long term project and will increase the Bear Valley’s drought resiliency.
The DWP contracted for a complete Water Master Plan in 2006, which is also available on the website at http://www.bbldwp.com/2006BBLDWPWMP. As that plan is out of date, the DWP is already under contract to prepare an updated Water Master Plan during 2017.
Lastly, the DWP has multiple long term and permanent policies that plan for, and preemptively address the effects of drought. The Water Conservation Policy (Resolution 2014-02 available at http://www.bbldwp.com/conservationpolicy) has thorough and far reaching rules and regulations on water use, intended to make water conservation a way of life in this isolated mountain community. In the event a more drastic approach is necessary, Resolution 2007-02 establishes regulations for a Water Shortage Emergency in the Big Bear Valley, with each stage dependent upon the severity of the situation.
Evaluation Criterion C: Severity of Actual or Potential Drought Impacts to be Addressed by the Project
The Bear Valley potable water supply is 100% ground water pumped from the Bear Valley Basin. The Bear Valley is not connected to the State Water Project as a connection would cost an estimated $60 to $100 million, not a viable alternative. Therefore, having groundwater operational flexibility is of paramount importance for the Bear Valley Community. Past droughts have resulted in building moratoriums and usage restrictions. While the water quality within the Basin is generally good, the eastern part of the Basin is characterized by elevated fluoride. Other problem constituents include manganese, uranium, and arsenic. Water quality issues have resulted in occasional blending projects, water treatment plants, and wells being shut down. However, water quality issues are not anticipated to disrupt groundwater supply (DWR, 2004).
Drought, and the related lack of rainfall results in increased wildfire risk, a reduction in lake levels, increased tree mortality and a related infestation of bark beetles. The online Tree Mortality Viewer also shows that nearly the entire Bear Valley is a U.S. Forest Service Designated Insect and Disease Area, faces between “Moderate” and “Very High” Fire Threat, is vulnerable to water stress, is a Tier Two High Hazard Zone and faces increasing numbers of background tree mortality. Each of these data points may be accessed by visiting http://egis.fire.ca.gov/TreeMortalityViewer/. They are also illustrated in Figure 8. All of these factors have a negative impact on recreation, the environment and the economy.
2/13/2017 Page 14 of 40
182 of 316
Item 2.4
Figure 8 DWP Tree Mortality Map Layers
Recreation and the Economy: The DWP’s service area is primarily residential and as southern California’s “Four Season Resort Community,” recreation has been the most important economic factor in the Valley for nearly a century. Current and past droughts have a significant impact on the environment and economy. A lack of seasonal snowfall has a negative impact on the local ski resorts, Bear Mountain and Snow Summit. This has a domino effect on restaurants, lodges and retailers. Tourism to nearby attractions also affects occupancy rates in the hospitality sector. Big Falls, a scenic recreation area in the San Bernardino National Forest was closed for swimming from October of 2015 to October 2016 due to the drought. The decreased water flow exposed large areas of slick rock, resulting in multiple injuries.
Summer wildfires also have an impact on mountaintop recreation. One of the most dramatic and recent events was the Lake Fire in June of 2015 that burned 31,284 acres. Then marketing director for Big Bear Mountain Resorts, Clayton Shoemaker, reported that the Resorts’ ticket sales [for downhill mountain biking] were down 35%. Southern California Public Radio reported, “Whether it’s due to fear of smoke or flames, the Lake Fire has dealt another blow to a tourism industry already faltering in 2015. The drought left this year’s winter slopes parched, temperatures often climbed too high even for fake snow, and an unseasonable May storm
2/13/2017 Page 15 of 40
183 of 316
Item 2.4
forced a pro-cycling tour to relocate to Santa Clarita.1” The same fire resulted in a softball tournament being cancelled as the school was transformed into a fire command post. Other resort managers reported up to an 80% loss in reservations.
“So far this year 4,636 wildfires in California have burned more than 200,000 acres. That’s more fires than this time last year and more fires than the five-year average. In fact, in the last few decades, the number of large fires are on the rise across the Western United States and the length of the fire season continues to expand.2”
Environmental: In December of 2016 the U.S. Forest Service reported that since 2010, more than 100 million trees had died from the ongoing drought and ensuing bark beetle attacks. This is not the first time the area’s forests have been the victim of drought. According to an Inventory of Tree Mortality in Southern California Mountains (2001-2004) due to Bark Beetle Impacts, 3
“Consecutive years of below-average precipitation from 1998 to 2003 resulted in large scale insect outbreaks which caused moderate to severe tree mortality on almost 375,000 acres of forest land in Southern California. From 2001 through 2004, bark beetles of several species attacked drought weakened trees in epidemic proportions, leading to millions of dead trees and large areas of dead and dying forests. In response to the threats posed by the dead trees, Governor Gray Davis signed a Declaration of a State Emergency on March 7, 2003. The dead and dying forests pose a potential hazard to lives, property, and ecosystem health in the region. In the southern California Mountains about 12.7% of conifer trees died among all size classes between 2001 and 2004, in large part due to drought conditions and insect attacks. Coulter pine suffered the largest percentage mortality by volume of the conifers in the region. More than 44% of the trees died in the event, comprising nearly 69% of the species’ total volume. Ponderosa pine lost about 66% of its total live volume and incurred about 55% mortality in terms of the number of trees.”
1 Taylor Haney, “Lake Fire singes Big Bear's troubled tourism industry.” Southern California Public Radio, June 23, 2015 Accessed January 26, 2017. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/23/52607/lake-fire-singes-big-bear-s- troubled-tourism-indus/ 2Tara Lohan, “The Surprising Science of Wildfires and Tree-Killing Beetles.” Water Deeply, September 14, 2016 Accessed January 26, 2017. https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/09/14/the-surprising-science-of- wildfires-and-tree-killing-beetles 3 Rich Walker et al. “Inventory of Tree Mortality in Southern California Mountains (2001-2004) due to Bark Beetle Impacts.” Report by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. June 14, 2006.
2/13/2017 Page 16 of 40
184 of 316
Item 2.4
Economic: During the drought that decimated tree populations, which ended in 2005, the Lake William area of DWP’s service area saw a decline in water table levels and water quantity and quality was impacted. The DWP Board of Commissioners imposed a building moratorium on this area that lasted nearly ten years. Property values were impacted and have still not recovered. Only one home is currently being built in this area even though the building moratorium was lifted on April 22, 2014. The Lake William area moratorium was resolved by drilling a well about a mile from the existing wells, within a different sub-basin, to provide a new water supply to the Lake William area. This project was made possible due to partial grant and loan funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Now DWP has the operational flexibility to pump from two different sub-basins to provide Lake William’s water supply. The proposed Project will provide similar drought resiliency to the Big Bear Lake, Sugarloaf, Erwin Lake, and CSD areas. This is a good example of the importance of the proposed Project to be more drought-resilient and prevent the long lasting effects a drought can have on the Bear Valley Community.
The DWP has mitigated many effects of past droughts through the implementation of extensive conservation programs and construction of water infrastructure improvements. The DWP service area has been experiencing drought conditions since early 2012 and Figure 9 DWP Recent Drought Conditions remained in “Severe” to “Extreme” drought conditions according to the California Drought Monitor Map until January 17, 2017, as shown in Figure 9. After heavy winter storms the area has been categorized between “Moderate” and “Severe” since the week of January 24, 2017. The dividing line between these two conditions currently runs through the center of Big Bear Lake. The current drought has resulted in the two Bear Valley water purveyors teaming up on water conservation projects and constructing a new water intertie so that we can transfer water easily between water systems during high demand periods or during emergencies. However, if the current drought continues or the next one is more severe, projects like the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant will be required to maintain DWP’s drought resiliency.
Evaluation Criterion D: Project Implementation
The proposed Project is part of DWP’s current 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The construction contract documents are 90% complete. DWP’s consultant will finalize the construction contract documents and the project will be ready to go out to bid by June 30, 2017. The Project will be awarded for construction during the August 22, 2017 Board of
2/13/2017 Page 17 of 40
185 of 316
Item 2.4
Commissioners meeting. The Project will have a 9-month construction period and should be completed by June 30, 2018. Pending Division of Drinking Water approvals, the plant should be operational by August of 2018.
DWP has an existing permit with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). This permit needs to be amended whenever an additional supply facility is added to the distribution system. The amendment to the existing DDW permit occurs after DDW conducts an inspection of the completed well pumping plant facilities. Timing of the permit is contingent upon DDW’s work load at the time of project completion.
A design and construction engineering contract was awarded to Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) on July 28, 2015. WSC completed 90% construction drawings and the project was placed on hold because another major DWP pipeline project had to be fast-tracked so that it was constructed ahead of a 2017 Caltrans paving project. WSC will complete the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant construction contract documents by June 30, 2017. The Board of Commissioners will need to approve a construction contract, tentatively scheduled for the August 22, 2017 Board meeting.
Evaluation Criterion E: Nexus to Reclamation
The proposed Project is indirectly connected to the State Water Project because of in lieu water transfers. The Big Bear Municipal Water District (MWD, the Agency in charge of Big Bear lake) has annual downstream water obligations to the San Bernardino area. In order to maintain lake levels, MWD has a contract with the local State Water Contractor to provide in lieu water transfers, out of Lake Silverwood, so MWD does not have to discharge water from the Big Bear Dam. In this way the annual Bear Valley precipitation stays in the Bear Valley to fill the lake and percolate into the aquifers. The Project will result in more operational flexibility providing more balanced pumping from the Bear Valley sub-basins. Balance pumping may result in additional stream flow into Big Bear Lake.
This Project will not help Reclamation meet trust responsibilities to any tribe. The DWP’s water system does not rely on reclamation project water at this time. The Project is not on Reclamation project lands and does not involve Reclamation facilities.
The project is not in the same basin as a Reclamation project or activity, however, the State Water Project does benefit the Bear Valley via in lieu water transfers as discussed in the criteria above. The proposed Program will not contribute water to a basin where a Reclamation project is located.
2/13/2017 Page 18 of 40
186 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 5. Performance Measures
The proposed Project will pump from the currently underutilized West Baldwin sub-basin. DWP plans on pumping 200 acre feet per year from the proposed Project. This pumping will offset pumping from the Erwin, Rathbone, Division and North Shore sub-basins. DWP maintains annual pumping records for all of its well pumping plants. Once the proposed Project is operational for one year, DWP can demonstrate reduced pumping from existing well pumping plants (sub-basins) via annual pumping records. Also, water table elevation records (hydrographs) are maintained for each sub-basin, so DWP will be able to demonstrate balanced pumping from each of the above sub-basins via the hydrographs.
2/13/2017 Page 19 of 40
187 of 316
Item 2.4
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE
The minor impacts created during construction of the Project will be mitigated with best management practices.
It is not anticipated that any species would be negatively affected by any activities associated with the proposed project.
There are no wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under CWA jurisdiction as "waters of the United States."
The majority of DWP’s water system was constructed during the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60’s. The City of Big Bear Lake acquired the water system from Southern California Water Company in 1989 and has made over $65,000,000 in improvements.
The project will not result in any modifications or effects to individual features of an irrigation system.
There are no buildings, structures, or features in the project area listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no known archaeological sites in the proposed project area.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations.
The project will not limit access to any ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites or result in other negative impacts on tribal lands.
The project will not contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative species known to occur in the area. Existing Drought Contingency Plan: Appendix A
The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant has been part of the DWP planning process for over a decade. The well is referenced in multiple documents; the relevant portion of each is included in Appendix A.
2/13/2017 Page 20 of 40
188 of 316
Item 2.4
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Please see Appendix C REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS
There are no required permits anticipated for this project. The DWP Board of Commissioners adopted a categorical exemption on November 16, 2015 and filed a Notice of Exemption on March 31, 2016 for the proposed Project, see Appendix E.
The State CEQA Guidelines provide a series of Categorical Exemptions for actions that have been deemed by the State Legislature not to pose any potential for significant impact as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Project is the installation of the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant and approximately 800 feet of 8" diameter replacement pipeline. Categorical Exemption Class 2 (Section 15302) states: Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including but not limited to: (c) Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. The proposed action has been determined to fall within the scope of this Class 2 Categorical Exemption. Therefore, this proposed action is exempt from further CEQA evaluation in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines,
NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act: There will be no impacts on historic sites as a result of this project.
ESA - Endangered Species Act: There is no critical habitat or endangered or threatened species that will be negatively affected by this project.
State Permits: DWP has an existing permit with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). This permit needs to be amended whenever an additional supply facility is added to the distribution system. The amendment to the existing DDW permit occurs after DDW conducts and inspection of the completed well pumping plant facilities. Timing of the permit is contingent upon DDW’s work load at the time of project completion.
Local Permits: There are no other local permits that will be required for the project. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION
The DWP Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the Resolution during the February 28, 2017 Regular Board meeting. Once approved, the Resolution will be included with BBLDWP’s applications (Appendix B).
2/13/2017 Page 21 of 40
189 of 316
Item 2.4
PROJECT BUDGET Section 1. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment
The DWP will be funding any costs for the Project above and beyond the amount funded by the federal government with a combination of the following: California State Revolving Fund Drinking Water Loan, revenue from water rates, and/or capital improvement reserves. The DWP will proceed with the project, utilizing capital improvement reserves, even if they are not successful in obtaining a California State Revolving Fund Drinking Water Loan.
The DWP began the design phase of the project in August 2015. From July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, the costs for design services totaled $44,264.69. These pre-award costs are not included in the budget proposal.
Engineering and design services and construction phase engineering support are expected to total approximately $82,298.
The DWP intends to move forward with this Project irrespective of potential funding from the State Revolving Fund. Potential state funding is included in this application in the interest of full disclosure of potential sources of outside funding. The DWP has capital improvement reserves to rely upon in the event no state funding is awarded.
The DWP is considering applying from the State of California Drinking Water Revolving fund, as well as submitting an application to United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) WaterSMART for $300,000 for this project within the Group l funding application. The DWP will meet its matching requirement using eligible state funding and reserves. No other federal funds will be used as matching for this program.
Table No. 3 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING AMOUNT Non-Federal entities California Drinking Water $ -- State Revolving Fund loan† Recipient in-kind labor -- Recipient Capital Improvement Reserves 407,298 Non-Federal subtotal: 407,298 Other Federal entities None - Other Federal subtotal - Requested Reclamation funding: 300,000 Total Project Funding $782,298 †An application to California’s Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is under consideration. The DWP may apply for state funding, however; the DWP has sufficient reserves to fund 100% of the non-federal share of costs.
2/13/2017 Page 22 of 40
190 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 2. Budget Proposal
A budget proposal is provided in the following tables. Table No. 5 identifies both the DWP contributions and the WaterSMART grant funds required to implement the project, and Table No. 6 outlines the proposed budget by item.
Table No. 4 Funding Sources
Percent of Funding sources Total cost by source total Recipient funding 52.1 % $ 407,298 Reclamation funding 47.9 % 375,000 Other Federal funding 0.0% - State Revolving Fund 0.0% -- Totals 100% $782,298
Table No. 5 Budget Proposal
Budget item description Computation Quantity Type Total $/unit Quantity (hours/days) Cost Salaries and wages - Fringe Benefits - Travel - Equipment - Supplies/materials - Contractual/construction Engineering and Design 77,919 Services Construction Phase 48,644 Engineering Support Estimated Construction 700,000 Costs Reporting - Total Direct Costs $782,298 Indirect cost % -% Total project costs $782,298
2/13/2017 Page 23 of 40
191 of 316
Item 2.4
Section 3. Budget Narrative
Salaries and Wages The DWP is not including salaries or wages in the budget proposal.
Fringe Benefits
The DWP is not including fringe benefits in the budget proposal.
Travel DWP is not requesting reimbursement for travel costs for this project.
Equipment Equipment, such as well pumps and telemetry components, will be included in the construction cost of the Project.
Materials and Supplies Materials and supplies will be included in the construction cost of the Project.
Contractual The DWP expects enter into two contracts associated with the Project. DWP has entered into a contract for engineering design and construction phase engineering services with WSC. This contract includes remaining eligible costs not to exceed $82,298. The second contract for construction of the Project is expected to total $700,000
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs After consulting with Reclamation staff on funding required for USBR to conduct any environmental compliance activities, including Reclamation’s cost to review environmental compliance documentation, DWP has budgeted $1,000 for USBR environmental review costs.
Other Expenses No other expenses are anticipated for this project.
Indirect Costs No indirect cost reimbursement is being requested for this project.
Total Costs The total estimated project cost is $782,298. The requested Federal share is $375,000; the total non-Federal share is $407,298. UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER AND SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT
The DWP is registered with SAM, ASAP and Grants.gov. The BBLDWP unique entity identifier has been provided in the SF-424. SAM registration will be maintained throughout the grant period.
2/13/2017 Page 24 of 40
192 of 316
Item 2.4
Appendix A. “Drought Plan”- Attached Separately Applicable pages from each of the following have been included for review: • BBLDWP Urban Water Management Plan (2015) • Analysis of Potential Well Sites within the BBLDWP Service area (2009) • Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report (2010)
Appendix B. Official Resolution- Attached Separately The DWP Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the Resolution during the February 28, 2017 Regular Board meeting. Once approved, the Resolution will be included with BBLDWP’s applications.
Appendix C. Letters of Support- Attached Separately • Scott Heule, General Manager, Big Bear City Community Services District • Mr. Paul Cook, 8th Congressional District • Mr. Jay Obernolte, 33rd Assembly District • Mr. Mike Morrell, Senator, California’s 23rd District
Appendix D. Capital Improvement Plan
Appendix E. CEQA Notice of Exemption
2/13/2017 Page 25 of 40
193 of 316 Item 2.4
Appendix D. Capital Improvement Plan
2/13/2017 Page 26 of 40 194 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 27 of 40 195 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 28 of 40 196 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 29 of 40 197 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 30 of 40 198 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 31 of 40 199 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 32 of 40 200 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 33 of 40 201 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 34 of 40 202 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 35 of 40 203 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 36 of 40 204 of 316 Item 2.4
Appendix E. CEQA Notice of Exemption
2/13/2017 Page 37 of 40 205 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 38 of 40 206 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 39 of 40 207 of 316 Item 2.4
2/13/2017 Page 40 of 40 208 of 316 Item 2.4 City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power
Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project
Appendix A. “Drought Plan” Applicable pages from each of the following have been included for review: BBLDWP Urban Water Management Plan (2015) Analysis of Potential Well Sites within the BBLDWP Service area (2009) Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report (2010) Appendix B. Official Resolution- To follow The DWP Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the Resolution during the February 28, 2017 Regular Board meeting. Once approved, the Resolution will be included with BBLDWP’s applications.
Appendix C. Letters of Support Scott Heule, General Manager, Big Bear City Community Services District Mr. Paul Cook, 8th Congressional District Mr. Jay Obernolte, 33rd Assembly District Mr. Mike Morrell, Senator, California’s 23rd District Appendix D. Capital Improvement Plan- Included in the proposal document Appendix E. CEQA Notice of Exemption- Included in the proposal document
Applicant Information: City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water & Power 41972 Garstin Drive/ P.O. Box 1929 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Project Manager: Reginald A. Lamson General Manager [email protected] Phone: (909) 866-5050 x 201 Fax: (909) 866-3184
209 of 3161 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015)
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Big Bear Lake DWP
JUNE 2016
FINAL
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 3920 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 • P. 213.489.1587 • F. 213.716.3501 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/)LQDOReport/TOC.docx 210 of 3162 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Chapter 6 SYSTEM SUPPLIES The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include a description of the agency’s existing and future water supply sources for the next 20 years. The description of water supplies must include detailed information on surface water, groundwater, the groundwater basin, potential opportunities for desalination of groundwater and seawater, and detailed information on the agency’s imported water.
6.1 PURCHASED OR IMPORTED WATER The DWP does not currently use surface or imported water to meet its water demand. Up until September 2014, the DWP served the Rimforest area by imported water delivered from the Crestline Lake Arrowhead Water Agency (CLAWA). This area is geographically separate from Bear Valley and receives water from CLAWA. Previously, Rimforest annual demand accounted for approximately 2 percent of DWP’s total annual demand. Since Rimforest is no longer in the DWP's service area, the DWP does not currently use imported water.
DWP also has interconnections with Big Bear City Community Services District (BBCCSD) in order to transfer water in the event of an emergency shortage. These connections are for temporary emergency supplies only and are therefore not factored into demand projections.
6.2 GROUNDWATER Groundwater underlying the DWP’s service area is of good quality and requires little treatment before use in the potable water supply system. The maximum perennial yield for the Bear Valley groundwater basin has been estimated at 4,800 afy with approximately 3,100 afy of that volume being available to the DWP (CDM, 2006).
6.2.1 Groundwater Basin Description 10631 (b) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater.
Bear Valley lies in the northeastern portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The Bear Valley groundwater basin (Basin) is primarily composed of alluvium and the main tributaries include Rathbun Creek, Grout Creek, Van Dusen Canyon, Sawmill Canyon, Sand Canyon, Knickerbocker Creek, Metcalf Creek, and North Creek. Based on the drainage system, Bear Valley is divided into 16 hydrologic subunits (LCA, 1987 a & b). Details on the Basin can be found in California's Groundwater bulletin 118, which can be found in Appendix E.
June 2016 - FINAL 6-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 211 of 3163 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
The water bearing deposits within the Valley have been divided into upper, middle, and lower aquifers. The upper and middle aquifers are the primary water-producing formations. The upper aquifer extends through the eastern part of the Basin where it reaches more than 200 feet thick, but is thin and unsaturated in the western portion of the Basin. The middle aquifer is found throughout the Basin and ranges from 150 to more than 800 feet thick (DWR, 2004).
Basin recharge is from percolation of precipitation and runoff, as well as underflow from fractured rock formations. Groundwater levels generally correlate with annual fluctuations of precipitation.
Total storage capacity of the Basin is estimated at 42,000 af. Average inflow is 6,240 afy and main losses to the basin are outflow and pumping (DWR, 2004).
6.2.2 Groundwater Management
10631 (b) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: (1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier… or any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
Based on input from DWP staff, the Basin is not an adjudicated basin and is well managed with no water rights issues. The DWP is part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program and provides monthly monitoring data to the State. Based on the DWP's groundwater monitoring data, the Basin has maintained a steady depth. Reports for the various hydrologic subunits as of March 31, 2016 are attached in Appendix E.
6.2.3 Overdraft Conditions
10631 (b)(2) For basins that have not been adjudicated, (provide) information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
While the Village subunit was overdrafted in previous years, it has since recovered (CDM, 2005). Since the DWP's production was approximately 3,014 afy in 2002, nearing the aquifer estimated perennial yield of 3,100 afy, the DWP began a comprehensive conservation program. Over the last five years, the DWP's production has averaged 2,228 afy. At present, no subunit within the Bear Valley groundwater basin is known to be in overdraft.
6-2 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 212 of 3164 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
6.2.4 Historical Groundwater Pumping
10631 (b) …If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: (3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
The DWP uses 53 wells to extract water from the Basin. Of these wells, 24 are slant wells and 29 are typical pump powered vertical wells. The DWP's groundwater supply is summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped (afy) Groundwater Location or Basin 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Type Name Alluvial Basin Bear Valley Basin 2,156 2,235 2,424 2,215 2,095
Total 2,156 2,235 2,424 2,215 2,095 Note: (1) Source: Groundwater Volume based on water superintendent reports from calendar years 2011 through 2015.
As shown in Table 6.1, the annual volume of groundwater pumped for the most recent 5 years are below the perennial yield of 3,100 afy. Since the 2010 UWMP, annual use of the groundwater has reached a maximum of 2,424 afy in 2013, but has decreased to approximately 2,095 afy in 2015. This decrease is likely due to conservation efforts.
6.3 SURFACE WATER The DWP does not currently use surface water to meet its water demand.
6.4 STORMWATER The DWP has not identified any opportunities related to stormwater recapture to offset potable water use.
6.5 WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER The UWMPA requires that the UWMP address the opportunities for development of recycled water, including the description of existing recycled water applications, quantities of wastewater currently being treated to recycled water standards, limitations on the use of available recycled water, an estimate of projected recycled water use, the feasibility of said projected uses, and practices to encourage the use of recycled water.
June 2016 - FINAL 6-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 213 of 3165 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
6.7.2 Transfers Water transfers entail a temporary or long-term change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer, sale, lease, or exchange of water or water rights. The DWP does not currently have any existing or new transfer opportunities identified.
6.7.3 Emergency Interties The DWP currently has two emergency supply interconnections with the BBCCSD system, which supplies water to unincorporated areas of Big Bear City and the eastern portion of the Valley. These interconnections are for emergencies that disrupt the DWP’s or the BBCCSD’s ability to serve their customers. The interconnections are intended to be used until either agency declares water exchanges are no longer necessary.
There are no set agreements between the BBCCSD and DWP for limits on the quantity of water that could be transferred. Each transfer would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but in no way would be allowed to affect the transferring agency’s ability to supply their customers’ needs (CDM, 2005).
6.8 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS 10631(g)… The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs… that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant is currently under design with an anticipated construction completion in year 2017. This project will serve as DWP's second largest producer at 350 gpm or 564 afy and pump to the recently constructed Angels Camp Reservoir. Expected future projects and programs are summarized in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Expected Name of Joint Planned Planned Increase in Future Project Description for Use Implementation Water Projects or with other (if needed) in Year Year Supply to Programs agencies? Type Agency Sawmill Well Pump into Average Pumping No N/A Angels Camp 2017 564 Year Plant Reservoir
6-8 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 214 of 3166 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
6.9 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PLANNED SOURCES OF WATER The actual source and volume of water for the year 2015 is presented in Table 6.8. As shown in Table 6.8, the DWP's actual supply was approximately 2,095 afy, which is below the Basin's safe yield of 3,100 afy.
Table 6.8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual 2015 Additional Detail Water Supply Actual Total Right or on Water Supply Volume Water Quality Safe Yield (afy) (afy) Groundwater Bear Valley Basin 2,095 Drinking Water 3,100 Total N/A 2,095 N/A 3,100
The projected water supply in 5-year increments is included in Table 6.9. For the DWP, the available water supply is projected based on estimated future demands, which are below the safe yield of the Basin.
6.10 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS TO SUPPLY The CWC does not require that UWMPs address climate change. The potential water supply effects related to climate change are discussed briefly in this section.
Because the DWP is 100 percent reliant on groundwater for its potable water supply, the effects of climate change are best summarized by considering the effects of the region as a whole. These effects will likely include: x Reduction in snowpack, which is a significant source of water as it melts and feeds aquifers in the San Bernardino Mountains x Increase in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events x Effects on groundwater recharge during droughts x General decline in ecosystem health and function x Changes to demand levels and patterns due to increasing temperatures
As scientific understanding of climate change continues to advance, the nature of these impacts and the impact on water supply availability and reliability will be thoroughly studied to identify proper mitigation and adaptation strategies.
June 2016 - FINAL 6-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 215 of 3167 Big Bear Lake DWP
AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015)
2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Yield Yield
or Safe Safe or Total Right Right Total
3,100 3,100 Volume
2040
Available Available Reasonably Reasonably
2,494 2,494
Yield Yield
or Safe Safe or Total Right Right Total
3,100 3,100 Volume
2035
Available Available Reasonably Reasonably
2,409 2,409
Yield Yield
or Safe Safe or Total Right Right Total
3,100 3,100 Volume
2030
Available Available Reasonably Reasonably
2,326 2,326
Yield Yield
or Safe Safe or
Projected Water SupplyProjected Water (afy) Total Right Right Total
3,100 3,100 Volume
2025
Available Available Reasonably Reasonably
2,247 2,247
Yield Yield
or Safe Safe or Total Right Right Total
3,100 3,100 Volume
2020
Available Available Reasonably Reasonably
2,170 2,170
Water Supply Water
Total Additional Detail on on Detail Additional Basin
Bear Valley Bear Valley Water Supply Water Groundwater Table 6.9 6.9 Table — Supplies Water Retail: Projected Notes: (1) Groundwater projected water supply is based on estimated future demands since it is less than the safe yield of 3,100 afy. (2) RecycledWater projections have not beenyet determined and are not included in these projections.
6-10 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch06.docx 216 of 3168 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Chapter 7 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY UWMPs are required to address the reliability of the agency’s water supply, seasonal and long-term supply vulnerability, and the effect of water quality on supply. Finally, vulnerabilities for a single-dry year and in multiple-dry years must be addressed.
10631 (c)(2) For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable.
10634. The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of ection 10631 and the manner in which water quality affects management strategies and supply reliability.
7.1 CONSTRAINTS ON WATER SOURCES Two aspects of supply reliability were considered. The first relates to real-time demand and is primarily a function of the adequacy of the supply. The second aspect is climate-related, and involves the availability of water during drought periods.
There are a variety of factors that can affect water supply reliability. The factors that might result in supply reliability issues for the DWP include water quality and climactic changes.
7.1.1 Water Quality
The water quality within the Basin is generally good. The eastern part of the Basin is characterized by elevated fluoride. Other problem constituents include manganese, uranium, and arsenic. Water quality issues have resulted in occasional blending projects, water treatment plants, and wells being shut down. However, water quality issues are not anticipated to disrupt groundwater supply (DWR, 2004). Annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) for the DWP's service area in year 2015 can be found in Appendix F.
7.1.2 Climate
While reliable climate change forecasts are not available for the San Bernardino Mountains, climate change is likely to add uncertainties to supply planning and future supply availability. The severe and prolonged drought that began in 2012 has been a test of the DWP's ability to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. Considering reductions in per capita use and projected demands below the safe perennial yield, the DWP continues to balance a cautious optimism with a long term strategy for sustainable sources of supply.
June 2016 - FINAL 7-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 217 of 3169 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
7.1.3 Potential Alternative Sources Since all of the DWP’s current and future water supply is groundwater with a current estimate of perennial yield available to the DWP of 3,100 afy, the DWP has identified and evaluated alternative water sources for its service area and determined that some local options have yet to be explored. Sixteen alternative water sources were evaluated in the Reconnaissance Analysis of Alternative Water ources document (see Appendix E). The alternative sources were evaluated by potential volume supplied, capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, technical feasibility, and political feasibility.
Based on the study, four alternatives will be focused on in the next 10 to 20 years: x Maximizing extraction from each hydrologic subunit. x Enhance groundwater recharge.
A list of all potential projects investigated by the DWP can be found in Appendix E.
7.2 RELIABILITY BY TYPE OF YEAR 10631 (c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following: (A) an average water year, (B) a single dry water year, ( ) multiple dry water years.
This section compares water supply and demand for three scenarios: normal year, single- dry year, and multiple-dry years. x Average Year: An average year is a year in the historical sequence that most closely represents median precipitation levels and patterns. Water supply quantities for this condition are represented by historical average yields. x Single-Dry Year: This is defined as a year with minimum useable supply. The supply for this condition is derived by the minimum historical annual yield. x Multiple-Dry Years: This is defined as the three consecutive years with the minimum useable supply. Water systems are more vulnerable to droughts of long duration, which deplete water supply reserves. The supply for this condition is defined from the minimum, recorded historical three year supply.
7.2.1 Methodology In the event of single and multiple dry years, reduced rainfall results in lower groundwater recharge. However, aquifers contain more water in storage than the perennial yield. Thus, water remains available. The DWR estimates total storage of the Basin at approximately 42,000 acre-feet. Provided annual pumping does not exceed safe yield, the groundwater
7-2 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 218 of 31610 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
basin will continue to contain sufficient water during multiple dry-year conditions.
The DWP’s system has an instantaneous pumping capacity of roughly 4,800 gallons per minute (gpm) with approximately 500 gpm of this capacity from slant wells. During droughts, water production from slant wells will decline, requiring vertical wells to make up lost production. In addition, the DWP is constructing the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant, which will increase pumping capacity to approximately 565 afy (or 350 gpm).
Due to the estimated 42,000 acre-feet of storage capacity in the Basin and proper groundwater management, there should be sufficient groundwater to meet future supply needs. Based on the current water table, the groundwater levels have remained steady in comparison to the last drought on record. The groundwater basin is being monitored on a monthly basis. For reference, the monthly data is located in Appendix E. Based on the data, the groundwater basin is still showing signs of recovery and recharge during the drought.
7.2.2 Basis of Water Year Data The specific years identified for average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years are presented in Table 7.1, as well as the actual water supply for each year. The assumptions that underlie the calculations of supply and demand are based on historical demand data.
Table 7.1 Retail: Bases of Water Year Data Volume Available1 Year Type Base Year (afy) Average Year 2003 2,655
Single-Dry Year 2013 2,484
Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 2012 2,291
Multiple-Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 2,484
Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 2,249 Note: (1) Volume available is based on production data for each year.
To determine the average demand year, the DWP’s historical per capita water usage was evaluated. By normalizing water consumption with population and thus expressing consumption in gpcd, differences in demand due to growth were eliminated. The historical per capita consumption from the period 1995 to 2015 is shown in Figure 7.1. The average consumption during this period was 92 gpcd. Since 2003 per capita demand was also 92 gpcd, this year represents an average year.
June 2016 - FINAL 7-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 219 of 31611 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0 Average Year: 80.0 92 gpcd Consumption (gpcd) Consumption 5-year Maximum: 70.0 87 gpcd (+10%)
60.0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Year
Annual gpcd Average gpcd (92) '95-'15 Dry Year Average (79) '10-'15
Figure 7.1 Historical Per Capita Consumption Variation
The years chosen to represent the dry-year scenarios were determined by examining precipitation records. Based on precipitation data, the DWP has experienced low rainfall levels in the last five years with the lowest level occurring in the year 2013. As shown in Figure 7.1, the average per capita demand during this 5-year period was 87 gpcd. The 2013 demand was 10 percent greater than the average gpcd demand over the 5-year period. Per capita consumption in the multiple-dry year period of 2012 to 2014 was 80, 87, and 79 gpcd, which are approximately 2 percent higher than the average use, 10 percent higher than the average use, and 1 percent lower than the average usage. The decrease in per capita demand during the last year of the multiple-dry year period is likely a result of conservation efforts. For conservative planning purposes and to imitate the effects of conservation efforts, demand was therefore increased by 10 percent for the single-dry year and 2 percent and 10 percent for the first 2 years in the multiple-dry year, and decreased by 1 percent for the third year of the multiple-dry year.
Despite changing conditions, the demand from groundwater has remained constant and is projected to do so in the future.
7-4 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 220 of 31612 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
7.3 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 10635 (a) very urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to ection 10631, including available data from the state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
The projected demand and supplies are compared in 5-year increments in Table 7.2, Table 7.3, and Table 7.4.
7.3.1 Average Year As shown in Table 7.2, on an average year, demands are projected to increase up to 2,494 afy by year 2040. Since the DWP is able to pump up to 3,100 afy from the Basin, it is projected that DWP has sufficient supplies available to meet demand through year 2040 under average year conditions.
Table 7.2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (afy)
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply totals 2,169 2,246 2,326 2,408 2,494
Demand totals 2,169 2,246 2,326 2,408 2,494
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Note: (1) Supplies are assumed to be equal to demand, up to 3,100 afy (DWP's share of the operating safe yield of the groundwater basin).
7.3.2 Single-Dry Year As described in the previous section, the projected average year water demand was increased by 10 percent to estimate the water demand during a single-dry year, which increases demands to 2,749 afy by year 2040. The projected demands are summarized in Table 7.3.
As shown in Table 7.3, based on the DWP's 3,100 afy operating safe yield, the DWP is projected to have sufficient supply available to meet water demand through 2040 for single- dry year conditions. Based on historical groundwater monitoring data, the groundwater levels have been steady and unaffected by the drought conditions in the recent years.
June 2016 - FINAL 7-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 221 of 31613 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Since groundwater levels maintained stable levels, it is expected that the DWP will be able to operate up to the 3,100 afy operating safe yield during a single-dry year.
Table 7.3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (afy)
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply totals 2,391 2,476 2,563 2,654 2,749
Demand totals 2,391 2,476 2,563 2,654 2,749
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Note: (1) Supplies are assumed to be equal to demand, up to 3,100 afy (DWP's share of the operating safe yield of the groundwater basin).
7.3.3 Multiple-Dry Years To estimate the water demand during multiple-dry years, the projected average year water demand was increased by 2 percent for the first year, 10 percent for the second year, and decreased by 1 percent for the third year. This increases demands to 2,749 afy by the year 2040. Based on recent historical data, demands reduced during the last year of the multiple-dry year as a result of conservation efforts. The projected demands are summarized in Table 7.4
Table 7.4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (afy) Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals 2,207 2,286 2,367 2,451 2,538
First year Demand totals 2,207 2,286 2,367 2,451 2,538 Difference00000 Supply totals 2,391 2,476 2,563 2,654 2,749 Second Demand totals 2,391 2,476 2,563 2,654 2,749 year Difference00000
Supply totals 2,156 2,233 2,312 2,394 2,479
Third year Demand totals 2,156 2,233 2,312 2,394 2,479
Difference00000 Note: (1) Supplies are assumed to be equal to demand, up to 3,100 afy (DWP's share of the operating safe yield of the groundwater basin).
7-6 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 222 of 31614 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
As shown in Table 7.4, the DWP is projected to have sufficient supply available to meet water demands through the year 2040 for multiple-dry year conditions, which is within DWP's operating safe yield of 3,100 afy. Since DWP performs monthly groundwater monitoring, which has demonstrated that the groundwater basin levels have remained steady despite the ongoing drought, it is assumed that the operating safe yield will be sufficient to meet future demands.
7.4 REGIONAL SUPPLY RELIABILITY 10620 (f) an urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.
The DWP does not utilize imported water within its service area. As mentioned in Chapter 6, the DWP is currently in coordination with BBARWA, MWD, and BBCCSD to develop a Facilities Plan for the BVWSP. This project will maximize resources by retaining 2,000 afy within the Valley instead of exporting the secondary treated water to alfalfa fields in Lucerne Valley.
June 2016 - FINAL 7-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 223 of 31615 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
-This Page eft Blank Intentionally-
7-8 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch07.docx 224 of 31616 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Chapter 8 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
106312(a). The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier.
The UWMPA requires that UWMPs include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes stages of action to be undertaken in the event of water supply shortages; a draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance; prohibitions, consumption reduction methods and penalties; an analysis of revenue and expenditure impacts and measures to overcome these impacts; actions to be taken during a catastrophic interruption; and a mechanism for measuring water use reduction.
8.1 STAGES OF ACTION 10632 (a)(1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions which are applicable to each stage.
The following sections describe the DWP’s water shortage stages and the conservation measures employed during each stage, as outlined in Resolution No. DWP 2007-02 (Appendix G). These stages are only enacted during a water shortage emergency and summarized in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Retail: Stages of WSCP
Stage Percent Supply Reduction1
I 5%
II 10%
III 25%
IV 45%
As shown in Table 8.1, the DWP has four conservation stages, depending on the supply reduction. The existence of Stage I, Stage II, Stage III, or Stage IV conservation conditions may be declared and adopted by the DWP in accordance with California State law.
8.1.1 Permanent Water Use Policies and Efficiency Requirements Water use efficiency requirements are detailed in the DWP’s rules and regulations. Violations are considered waste and an unauthorized use of water, which result in penalties
June 2016 - FINAL 8-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 225 of 31617 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN as outlined in Resolution No. DWP 2008-05 and Conservation Policy 2014-02 (see Appendix G).
1. No outdoor watering shall occur between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. April 1 through November 1, annually.
2. Outdoor watering shall occur on an alternate day schedule with even addresses watering on evenly numbered days of the month and odd addresses watering on odd numbered days.
3. Customers are to keep water from running off onto adjacent properties, public or private roadways, and streets.
4. There is to be no hose washing of sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, or other paved areas except when needed to protect public health and safety.
5. Customers are to repair all water leaks from any water line, faucet, toilet, etc. once detected.
6. All new structures shall be equipped with low flow faucets, showerheads, toilets, and urinals in compliance with current State Standards. All dishwashers and clothes washers must follow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines.
7. The square footage of new turf, on new landscapes, shall be limited to 1,000. Existing landscapes that already contain 1,000, or more, square feet of turf may not install additional new turf. Existing landscapes that contain less than 1,000 square feet of turf may add turf for a total square footage, existing and new, of 1,000.
8.2 PROHIBITIONS ON END USES 106312(a)(4). Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street cleaning.
(5) Consumption reduction methods on the most restrictive stages. Each urban water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply.
8.2.1 Conservation Stage Restrictions The mandatory prohibitions for each water shortage stage are detailed below and summarized in Table 8.2.
8-2 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 226 of 31618 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Conservation Stage I – (5 Percent Overall Reduction of Water Use, 15 Percent Outdoor Reduction of Water Use) Conservation Stage I exists when the DWP Board of Commissioners reviews the recommendations of the Technical Review Team and determines that a drought, water supply shortage, or a threatened water shortage exists and reductions in customer allocations are necessary. In this case, an overall 5 percent reduction of water use will be required.
The following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Conservation Stage I, as outlined in Resolution 2007-02. 1. Hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, patios, porches, or verandas is prohibited. 2. Landscape irrigation will be permitted only every other day, with addresses ending in odd numbers watering on odd numbered calendar days and addresses ending in even numbers watering on even numbered calendar days. 3. DWP water may not be used for soil compaction or dust control. 4. Washing of vehicles, trailers, buses, or boats anywhere but at commercial car washes must be conducted with the use of a bucket and a hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle. 5. Use of water from fire hydrants, except for fire protection, is prohibited.
Conservation Stage II – (10 Percent Overall Reduction of Water Use, 30 Percent Outdoor Reduction of Water Use)
Conservation Stage II includes all prohibitions and regulations as outlined in Stage I, plus the following: 1. Outdoor irrigation will be permitted only on days authorized by the DWP Board of Commissioners. 2. No new turf will be permitted in any location.
Conservation Stage III – (25 Percent Overall Reduction of Water Use, 60 Percent Outdoor Reduction of Water Use) Conservation Stage III includes all prohibitions and regulations as outlined in Stages I and II, plus the following: 1. Outdoor irrigation will be permitted only two days per week, and will be specified by the DWP. 2. Irrigation of turf will be prohibited. 3. No DWP water will be used for ponds, streams, or fountains with a capacity of greater than 50 gallons.
June 2016 - FINAL 8-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 227 of 31619 Big Bear Lake DWP AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Penalty, Charge, or or Charge, Penalty, Other Enforcement? Other (optional) Additional Explanation or Reference Additionalor Reference Explanation Includes sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, patios, verandas. or porches, address. depending on other day Permitted every only Includes or dust control. soil compaction but anywhere at commercialWashing car vehicles of with a equipped a hose and bucket must use a washes shut-off nozzle. firefromProhibitfirefor water hydrants, except use of protection All restrictionsfrom prohibitions Stage I. and of Board the by DWP Permitted authorized on days only Commissioners. turf be permittedNo new location. will in any II. All restrictions I and Stage from Stage be specified will perand week, Permitted days two only the DWP. by Irrigation turf of prohibited. All restrictionsII,from I, Stage III. Stage Stage and Prohibitcar all outdoor use, except commercial water thatwater. recycle washes End Users Restrictions and Prohibitions on Restrictions on and Prohibitions Other - Other water potable of use Prohibit for surfaces washing hard Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation days to specific - Other water potable of use Prohibit for control construction and dust Other Other Other Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation days to specific Landscape - Other landscape restriction prohibition or Other Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation days to specific Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Other Other I I I I I II II II III III III IV IV Stage Table 8.2 8.2 Table Uses End on Prohibitions and Restrictions Only: Retail
8-4 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx228 of 31620 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Conservation Stage IV – (45 Percent Overall Reduction of Water Use, 100 Percent Outdoor Reduction of Water Use)
Conservation Stage IV includes all prohibitions and regulations as outlined in Stages I, II, and III regulations, plus the following: 1. No outdoor water use will be permitted except commercial car washes that recycle water. This includes water for irrigation, water for ponds, streams, fountains, and swimming pools.
8.2.2 Defining Water Features 10632 (b). ommencing with the urban water management plan update due uly 1, 2016, for purposes of developing the water shortage contingency analysis pursuant to subdivision (a), the urban water supplier shall analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of ection 115921 of the ealth and afety ode. The DWP restricts water use for water features, such as fountains, unless the water is recirculated.
8.3 PENALTIES, CHARGES, OTHER ENFORCEMENT OF PROHIBITIONS 106312(a)(6). Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable.
The UWMPA requires the UWMP discusses the penalties or charges for excessive use during water shortages.
8.3.1 Excessive Use Penalties Violations of the DWP’s water use rules and regulations may be subject to penalties established in Resolution No. DWP 2008-05 and Conservation Policy 2014-02. The DWP may not terminate service due to a customer's failure to comply with the DWP's rules and regulations unless the DWP first gives notice of the violation and the consequence of the violation. Every failure to comply notice will include all of the following information. x The name and address of the customer whose account is in violation of the DWP's rules and regulations. x The specific nature of the violation. x The deadline by which the customer must comply with the DWP's rules and regulations. x The consequences of failing to comply with the DWP's rules and regulations. x The telephone number of a DWP representative who can provide additional information regarding the notice.
June 2016 - FINAL 8-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 229 of 31621 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
When a notice of violation has been sent to an owner of a property that has multiple tenants, the DWP will endeavor to provide notice to each unit whether residential or commercial. Within fourteen calendar days of the date of the failure to comply notice, the customer must correct the violation or contact the DWP staff regarding correction of the violation. If the customer fails to correct the violation or contact the DWP staff regarding correction of the violation, the DWP will move forward with terminating service.
After contacting DWP staff, if DWP staff determines that the customer is unable to comply with the DWP's rules and regulations within the time period prescribed by the DWP but is willing to comply and has made reasonable progress towards compliance, the DWP may grant an extension for compliance, not exceeding twelve months. If, however, the customer has not made reasonable progress to comply with said rules and regulations, the DWP will proceed to terminate service unless the customer appeals that decision to the Board of Commissioners. The customer's failure to appeal, in the case where the customer is not making reasonable progress to comply with said rules and regulations, will result in the termination of service.
8.3.2 Review Process A customer will have the right to a hearing before the Board of Commissioners, if the DWP receives a written request for such a hearing on or before five business days after the DWP staff renders a decision. The written request for a hearing will include a statement setting forth the reasons why the customer disagrees with the decision of DWP staff. Documentation that substantiates the applicant's position must be submitted with the request for a hearing.
Upon request for a hearing, the General Manager will contact the customer regarding the proposed date for the hearing. The hearing will be conducted at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting for which the hearing can be placed on the agenda. If the Board does not render a decision at the hearing, the Board will render a written decision on or before five business days following the date of the hearing. The decision of the Board will be final.
Upon completion of the appeal process and a determination that the customer has failed to comply with the DWP's rules and regulations, the DWP may move forward with the termination of service.
8.4 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS 106312(a)(5). onsumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. ach urban water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply.
8-6 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 230 of 31622 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that addresses methods to reduce demand within the service area, whereas the prohibitions in Section 8.2 limit specific uses of water.
8.4.1 Mandatory Prohibitions on Water Wasting The DWP has permanent prohibitions in place for wasteful practices, including: x Customers are to keep water from running off onto adjacent properties, public or private roadways, and streets. x Customers are to repair all water leaks from any water line, faucet, toilet, etc. once detected. x Upon a change in service all properties (residential, commercial, and industrial) shall be equipped with low flow faucets, showerheads, toilets, and urinals in compliance with State Standards. x Washing vehicles must be done with a bucket and a hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle. x All new and retrofitted landscapes with turf must be irrigated, using a sprinkler system with Automatic Irrigation Controllers and include the ability to accommodate all time and date restrictions employed by the DWP and must be equipped with one of the following: rain shut-off or soil moisture sensors or evapotranspiration adjustment capabilities. The DWP's permanent consumption reduction methods are summarized in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 Retail Only: Stages of WSCP - Consumption Reduction Methods
Consumption Reduction Additional Explanation or Reference Stage Methods by Water Supplier (optional) Letters sent to high use residential and N/A Offer Water Use Surveys commercial customers offering indoor and outdoor water audits. Begin or enlarge media campaign, including bill Expand Public Information N/A inserts, newspaper articles, water efficiency Campaign workshops, educational outreach, etc. Rebates for toilets, clothes washer, etc.; Provide Rebates on Plumbing N/A Giveaway programs for shower head, aerator, Fixtures and Devices automatic shut-off hose spray nozzles, etc. Provide Rebates for Rebates for landscape conversion, irrigation N/A Landscape Irrigation Efficiency controllers, sprinkler heads. Provide Rebates for Turf Rebate program is currently $0.50 per square N/A Replacement foot. Note: (1) All consumption reduction methods are permanent and not dependent on conservation stages.
June 2016 - FINAL 8-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 231 of 31623 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
8.5 DETERMINING WATER SHORTAGE REDUCTIONS UWMPs must include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that addresses a method to measure the reduction in demand.
106312(a)(9). A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the urban water shortage contingency analysis.
The DWP’s water system currently has water meters on all connections. In 2014, the DWP began a meter replacement program to replace each of the DWP's meters with a radio-read meters (or smart meters). The DWP is currently a year ahead of schedule and has installed over 6,000 radio-read meters to date with anticipated project completion by the summer of 2019. DWP will use these meters to monitor district-wide use, individual customer use, and track actual reductions in water use. The purpose of this Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system is to better track water system demands in real time and measure effects of conservation measures. By tracking real time data of water system demands, the DWP is able to educate customers regarding water use and also identify leaks and other areas where additional conservation may be possible.
8.6 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMPACTS UWMPs are required to include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that addresses the financial impacts from reduced water sales.
10632(a)(7). An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such as the development of reserves and rate adjustments.
The DWP has adjusted their budget based on the reduction of consumption. However, the current rate structure is drought resistant in that 76 percent the revenue is fixed and built into the service fee. Since the DWP is not as vulnerable to water sales fluctuation and is able to compensate any loss with reserves, the DWP does not implement any emergency surcharges.
8.7 RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE UWMPs are required to include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes a draft or approved/adopted water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
10632(a)( ) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
The DWP’s Water Shortage Response Plan is outlined in Resolution 2007-03 and Resolution 2007-02 (see Appendix G).
8-8 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 232 of 31624 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
8.8 CATASTROPHIC SUPPLY INTERRUPTION UWMPs must include an urban water shortage contingency analysis that addresses catastrophic interruptions of water supplies.
10632(a)(3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster.
During declared shortages, or when shortage declarations appear imminent, emergency regulations can be enacted by the DWP Board of Commissioners or the General Manager. Declared emergencies will be addressed in three phases as outlined in Resolution DWP No. 2007-03.
8.8.1 Assessment Phase The Assessment Phase is defined as beginning upon the declaration of an emergency at the inception of the event. Upon the declaration of an emergency DWP staff will assess the emergency and its potential effects on the DWP's ability to provide water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. This assessment should be completed within 48 hours or less.
Use of water outdoors for other than emergency purposes will be prohibited. Use of water indoors for purposes other than human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection will be prohibited. All other water use will be minimized.
8.8.2 Emergency Phase The Emergency Phase will begin and continue as long as emergency conditions persist. Use of water outdoors for other than emergency purposes will be prohibited. Use of water indoors for purposes other than human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection will be prohibited. All water use will be minimized.
8.8.3 Recovery Phase The Recovery Phase will last until normal conditions return to the DWP service area. The use of water outdoors for other than emergency purposes will be prohibited, unless the General Manager determines that restricted outdoor water use is reasonable given the current state of the DWP's water system. When restricted outdoor use is permissible, the public will be provided with a specific list of approved outdoor water uses. All water use will be minimized.
June 2016 - FINAL 8-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 233 of 31625 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
8.9 MINIMUM SUPPLY NEXT THREE YEARS The CWC requires that the DWP estimate the minimum water supply available at the end of the 12, 24, and 36 months (2016, 2017, and 2018), assuming the driest three-year historic supply shortage. 10632(a)(2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence for the agency's water supply.
The DWP does not anticipate significant decreases in available supply in the Basin. Thus, the minimum water supply is assumed to be the projected demand, not exceeding the Basin's safe yield of 3,100 afy. The estimate for the minimum supply for the next three years is included in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4 Retail Only: Minimum Supply Next Three Years
Year 2016 2017 2018
Available Water Supply 2,110 2,124 2,139 Note: (1) Assumed to be the DWP's projected demand with a maximum of 3,100 afy (the safe yield for the Basin).
8-10 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch08.docx 234 of 31626 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Chapter 9 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The UWMPA requires that the UWMP involve a comprehensive discussion of the agency’s water conservation measures. This includes an overview of the supplier’s DMM as well as a discussion of how the supplier intends to meet the water conservation targets established by SB X7-7.
10631 (f)(A)…The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.30. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances (ii) Metering (iii) Conservation pricing (iv) Public education and outreach (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss (vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measure, if implemented.
The DWP has been a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) since December 2004 and is therefore a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding urban water conservation in California. The DWP’s 2010 UWMP provided information regarding conservation measures already in place and those that would improve the efficiency of water use within the service area. In 2014, the retail agency DMMs were simplified from 14 specific measures to six more general requirements plus an "other" category based on recommendations from the Independent Technical Panel (ITP). The consolidated retail requirements are listed below: x Water waste prevention ordinances x Metering x Conservation pricing x Public education and outreach x Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss x Water conservation program coordination and staffing support x Other demand management measures
9.1 WATER WASTE PREVENTION ORDINANCES As part of the DWP's Water Conservation Program (Policy #2014-02), several water use policies have been implemented to prevent water waste. The policy requires that water should be used reasonably and productively at all times.
June 2016 - FINAL 9-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 235 of 31627 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Regulations require customers to repair all water leaks from any water line, faucet, toilet, etc. once detected. In addition, all new structures must be equipped with low flow faucets, showerheads, toilets, and urinals in compliance with current state standards. All dishwashers and clothes washers must follow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines.
For outdoor use, the DWP does not allow water run-off onto adjacent properties, public, or private roadways, and streets. Vehicle washing must be completed with a bucket and a hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle. The policy also restricts hose washing of sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, or other paved areas except when needed to protect public health and safety. Fire hydrants are only used for fire protection purposes and approved construction purposes.
Restrictions have also been placed on landscaping. Outdoor watering is restricted to alternate days, based on the customers address, and is restricted to the hours between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. All outdoor irrigation must be shut-off and winterized between November 1 and April 1, annually.
All new and retrofitted landscapes must follow the requirements for landscape plan submittals, turf installation guidelines, irrigation requirements and systems, ground water recharge and erosion control, and water feature installation as identified in the Water Conservation Program (see Policy 2014-02 in Appendix G). For new landscapes, turf and water features combined may not occupy more than 25 percent of the landscaped area in all proposed landscapes and decorative fountains and water features must use re- circulating systems. Landscape Elements are expected to be appropriately maintained to maximize Water-Use Efficiency and grouped by similar irrigation requirements. Irrigation systems must be set up to irrigate individual water-use zones in accordance with their individual needs. All new and retrofitted landscapes with turf must be irrigated, using a system with Automatic Irrigation Controllers. Automatic Irrigation Controllers must have the ability to accommodate all time and date restrictions employed by the DWP and must be equipped with one of the following: rain shut-off, soil moisture sensors, or have evapotranspiration adjustment capabilities.
The DWP works diligently in implementing the water waste prevention restrictions and imposes consequences on those that fail to comply. The DWP sends a notice of violation and an impending consequence of the violation to those that fail to comply. Within fourteen calendar days, the customer must correct the violation or contact the DWP staff regarding the correction of the violation. If the customer fails to correct the violation or contact the DWP staff, the DWP will terminate service and the customer can be reinstated once the correction has been made. The customer has the ability to appeal the violation before the Board of Commissioners within five days of notice.
9-2 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 236 of 31628 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
9.2 METERING Agencies are required to install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area by year 2025. The DWP does not have any industrial meters within its service area. Beginning in 1989, the DWP required water meters for all new and existing services. The last non-metered account was changed to a metered account in 2003. The DWP is fully metered and customers within the DWP's service area are billed for usage. The DWP considered implementing a program that provided incentives to exchange mixed-use accounts to install dedicated landscape meters, but determined such a program would not be cost effective. The DWP found it more cost effective and water efficient to pursue a total reduction in heavily irrigated landscapes, which was accomplished through a landscape ordinance (see Appendix G) and a Turf Buy-Back Program.
To better track water system demands in real time and measure the effects of conservation measures, the DWP’s Board of Commissioners approved an AMI project to replace all of the meters in the system with new meters and radio read technology. The DWP conducted extensive research and testing on eleven different types of meters from five different manufacturers and five different radio read systems. Upon completion of the research and testing, the DWP selected the Sensus Accustream and Omni meters and Sensus 520M MXU radio system. The DWP began installing Sensus AccuSTREAM composite meters with Sensus 520M MXU radios in October 2014. To date, over 6,000 Sensus meters have been installed, and the project is one year ahead of schedule.
9.3 CONSERVATION PRICING The UWMPA requires each agency to describe the pricing structure, including a conservation pricing structure. Conservation pricing can come in different forms, including a tiered rate structure or water budgets.
The DWP applies a tiered rate schedule to all residential connections ranging from $2.64 to $12.53 per ccf billed bi-monthly as listed in Table 9.1. Through the DWP’s tiered pricing structure, customers are encouraged to minimize landscape water use in order to avoid high water bills. New customers, and those changing service, are notified of the landscape water use regulations. The DWP also has a high use outreach program in which identified “high-use” residential customers utilizing over 25 CCF per month are sent a letter including conservation brochures and offering free indoor or outdoor audits to help them find ways to conserve. Unlike the tiered rate schedule for residential connections, commercial customers pay a flat rate of $3.79 per ccf and are billed on a monthly basis as listed in Table 9.1. The rates presented in Table 9.1 are in accordance with Ordinance No. 2013-424, which increases the usage fee on July 1st of each year through year 2017.
June 2016 - FINAL 9-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 237 of 31629 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Table 9.1 Rate Structure Consumption (hcf) Tier Rate/ccf 9-24 One $2.64 25-40 Two $3.67 41-60 Three $5.47 61-100 Four $9.31 101+ Five $12.53 5+ Commercial Rate1 $3.79 Notes: (1) Commercial customers are billed monthly, whereas residential customers are billed bi- monthly. (2) Rates are current as of March 2016 and available at: http://www.bbldwp.com/
In addition to volume charges, a bi-monthly service charge is assessed based on usage type and meter size and varies from $51.92 to $156.94.
Table 9.2 Service Charge User Type Meter Size Service Charge2,3 Residential 5/8 inch meter $87.66 Residential 1 inch meter $156.92 Commercial1 5/8 inch meter $51.92 Commercial1 1 inch meter $86.55 Notes: (1) Commercial customers are billed monthly, whereas residential customers are billed bi- monthly. (2) Bi-monthly service charge includes 8 ccf per cycle for residential customers and 4 ccf per cycle for commercial customers. (3) Rates are current as of March 2016 and available at: http://www.bbldwp.com/
9.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The DWP educates the public and businesses on water supply issues and conservation through a variety of means, including local newspapers and radio advertisements, restaurant table cards, bill inserts, business placards, and various platforms of social media.
The DWP posts seasonally appropriate signage at high traffic points within its service area, offers lists of drought tolerant and native plants, and conducts presentations for community groups, such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and the Sierra Club. The DWP has also partnered with agencies such as meals on wheels and the electric company to distribute collateral materials on finding and fixing leaks in resident’s homes.
In July 2012, the DWP broke ground on the Xeriscape Demonstration Garden, which is approximately 380 square feet with 7 zones representing various garden themes such as
9-4 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 238 of 31630 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
"A Weekender's Dream" and "It's a Colorful Life." The Xeriscape Demonstration Garden is open to the public along a busy street and serves to educate the residents and visitors on water-efficient landscape design, particularly in the mountain community. The DWP also features drought tolerant gardens at the front entrance of the DWP building where customers come to pay their bills, open accounts, and get information.
The DWP annually sponsors and participates in the Xeriscape Garden Tour, which features 7 to 8 homes and businesses, and attracts 300 to 650 attendees each year. The DWP also conducts public events at the garden, including a Water Wise Gardening presentation.
In addition to public events at the garden, the DWP also participates in information booths at fairs and other public events, such as the Earth Day event hosted by the neighboring Bear Valley Electric Service, a Realtor Association presentation, and Kiwanis Club presentations. The DWP also hosts school education programs, including a water cycle education program, a drought program and production tours for middle and high school children.
9.5 PROGRAMS TO ASSESS AND MANAGE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REAL LOSS A water audit is a process of accounting for water use throughout a water system in order to quantify unmetered water usage. Non-revenue-water is the difference between metered production and metered usage on a system-wide basis.
The DWP performed a full water system audit in 2001, when 167 miles of the distribution system were surveyed. The DWP has been active in locating and repairing leaks, and responding immediately to repair leaks. Field personnel are trained to recognize potential service and main line leaks. Pipelines with chronic leak problems are replaced.
When the DWP purchased the system from Southern California Water Company in 1989, the percent of unaccounted-for-water was 29.6 percent. At that time, the DWP applied for and obtained a low-interest loan from the State of California, and began a significant leak detection and repair program. Between 1990 and 2000, the DWP replaced over 108,000 feet (20.5 miles) of pipelines in the system, reducing the unaccounted-for-water from 29.6 to 11.05 percent. Recent records show a 9.7 percent unaccounted-for-water loss, which is typical for Southern California water agencies.
Since 1989, the main focus of the DWP’s Capital Improvement Plan has been on supply facilities and pipeline replacement. The DWP has replaced several well pumping units and constructed new wells to improve the quantity and quality of pumping facilities. The DWP replaced 5.5 mile of pipelines during the summer of 2012 and a half mile of pipeline in the Erwin Lake area in 2013-2014. The DWP also constructed 1.7 miles of new pipelines associated with the Arrastre Creek Well and Angels Camp Reservoir Projects.
June 2016 - FINAL 9-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 239 of 31631 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
The DWP conducts regular mass balance audits of metered water production versus metered water sales to detect unusual changes in the water operation. The goal is to minimize water losses and increase overall system efficiencies. Ten years ago, the DWP averaged 40 to 50 main leaks per year. Currently, the DWP averages about five to ten main line leaks per year. As part of the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan, the DWP staff is going to replace 1,000 LF of undersized steel pipeline and will focus on areas prone to freezing and on steel water mains located within back lot easements; relocating those mains to street rights-of way.
The DWP recently approved a hydraulic modeling project, which is scheduled for completion in late 2016. The model will assist in identifying existing system deficiencies that will be utilized to develop a list replacement projects that will be prioritized in a 15 year Capital Improvement Plan. The current GIS database contains a complete inventory of all pipelines in the service area along, which include data regarding the pipelines age, material, and diameter. This information, along with the hydraulic model, will form the basis for developing a 75 or 100-year pipeline replacement program.
The DWP recently applied to the WaterSmart grant program for funding of the Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline Replacement project. The proposed project is located within Big Bear Boulevard right-of-way. The existing 12-inch riveted, unlined steel pipeline was constructed in 1947 and is nearly seventy-years old. The 12-inch Big Bear Boulevard Transmission main is a key transmission facility within DWP’s system and is nearly 21,000 linear feet. Due to frequent leaks, DWP began replacing the steel Big Bear Boulevard Pipeline in 1990. Although grant funding has not been received, approximately 17,000 linear feet of the Big Bear Boulevard steel pipeline have been replaced and the remaining 4,000 linear feet will be replaced by fall 2016.
9.6 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATION AND SUPPORTING STAFF The DWP employs one full-time staff person as Water Conservation and Public Information Specialist and one part-time Water Conservation Technician to manage the responsibilities of the water conservation program.
9.7 OTHER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 9.7.1 Indoor Conservation Consults/Audits The DWP offers all residential and commercial customers free indoor water conservation consultations. In the process, staff checks showerheads, faucets, and toilets for leaks and flow rates. If an item fails to meet current state and/or federal standards they are offered a rebate or free low-flow fixture. From January 2011 through December 2015, the DWP conducted at least 782 indoor water audits/consultations.
9-6 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 240 of 31632 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Every new customer receives a new customer information packet informing them of all the rules and regulations, as well as survey programs and rebates. Existing customers are informed of the program through bill inserts, radio commercials, newspaper advertisements, community events, social media pages, and the DWP website (BBLDWP.com).
According to the California Urban Water Conservation Council 2005 BMP Costs and Savings Study, residential surveys result in a savings range of 21-32.2 gpd depending on whether it is a targeted household or not.
9.7.2 Incentive and Rebate Programs The DWP provides a limited number of water efficient items, shower timers and rain gauges, to current account holders for free at the front counter of the DWP office or upon request, as well as other water efficient items found useful upon completion of an indoor or outdoor audit, such as high efficiency showerheads and low flow faucet aerators. In addition, the DWP offers rebate programs, such as high efficiency toilet rebates and the turf buyback program. Current free items and rebate incentives are summarized in Table 9.3.
Based on inventory and ordering data, from calendar year 2011 through calendar year 2015, the DWP granted rebates for 713 low flow toilets and gave away approximately 1,188 showerheads, 1,428 bathroom aerators and 300 kitchen aerators. While the DWP records devices given away on each survey form and at the counter, it is more difficult to account for all devices given away at community events. In the process of data entry, the DWP has also discovered that not all surveys or devices distributed have been recorded and some information from 2011 is missing resulting from a change in software. Therefore, true savings may be higher based on inventory and items given away that have not been recorded. A summary of the known number of items given in years 2011 to 2015 is shown in Appendix H.
The high efficiency toilet rebate program provides a rebate of $50 to $100 per toilet with a maximum of two toilets per household. Prior to installation, DWP conservation staff performs an indoor audit to confirm the existing toilet is a non- ultra-low flush toilet (ULFT). Once the toilet has been installed, the customer delivers a receipt or invoice to the DWP, along with proof that the new ULFT has been installed, and the rebate is issued (usually as a credit on the customer's water bill).
June 2016 - FINAL 9-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 241 of 31633 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
Table 9.3 Free items and Rebates Program Desciption Free at front desk of DWP office or upon request 1 free per household, available to DWP customers at Shower Timer DWP office 1 free per household, available to DWP customers at Dish scraper DWP office 1 free per household, available to DWP customers at Rain Gauge DWP office Leak Detection Tablets Available free to DWP customers at DWP office Other free items Provided free (to replace higher use, broken or missing Low Flow Faucet Aerators aerators) upon completion of an indoor audit Provided free upon request, customer must pay service Weather-Based Irrigation Controller fee Provided free (to replace higher use showerheads) upon High Efficiency Showerhead completion of an indoor audit High Efficiency Auto Shut-off Hose Provided free (if missing and needed) upon completion Nozzle of an indoor or outdoor audit Soil Moisture Sensor Provided free during an outdoor audit Rebates Up to a $100 rebate for replacing a toilet exceeding 1.6 gallons GPF with 1.28 GPF or less. Up to a $50 rebate for replacing a toilet with a flush volume of 1.6 GPF with High Efficiency Toilet Rebate 1.28 GPF or less. Limit two per residential household, commercial/industrial may be allowed additional rebates. Requires pre-inspection before the old toilet is removed, receipt/invoice and proof of new toilet installation. $0.50 per square foot, no minimum, and no limits- Turf Buyback commercial, industrial, institutional, or residential.
The DWP calculated the water savings from toilet replacement to be 31 gallons per day per toilet. For purposes of this BMP, 31 gpd per toilet, or 0.0347 acre-feet per year per toilet will be used in both single- and multi-family dwellings. The cost per acre-foot of water savings is approximately $2,111 for toilet rebates and $6,700 for direct installs for the first year. Assuming a 20-year life for a toilet, the cost per acre-foot over the lifetime of the toilet comes out to $106 per acre-foot for rebates, and $335 per acre-foot for direct installs. While the cost per acre-foot for rebates is significantly cheaper than for direct installs, customer participation is much higher for direct installs, allowing more toilets to be retrofitted. The
9-8 FINAL - June 2016 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 242 of 31634 AppendixItem 2.4 A: UWMP (2015) Big Bear Lake DWP 2015 URBAN W ATER M ANAGEMENT P LAN
WDO fee was replaced in 2009 and funding for the toilet rebate program now comes from DWP’s operations and maintenance budget.
The DWP instituted a Retrofit on Change of Service program, Resolution No. DWP 2014-05 (see Appendix G). This resolution requires that all faucets and showerheads have flow rates of 2.5 gallons or less and toilets have a volume of 1.6 gallons per flush or less. Property owners must inspect fixtures to ensure compliance and provide a signed certificate to the DWP. Since 2005 to 2016, the DWP has provided a $100 rebate per toilet for up to two toilets.
Water savings based on installing low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, and toilet displacement devices was estimated by the CUWCC to be 5.5 gallons per day (gpd), 1.5 gpd, and 4 gpd respectively. All three devices are generally distributed concurrently, so for the purposes of this DMM the total estimated water savings is based on the cumulative savings of 11 gallons per day.
9.7.3 Landscape surveys and turf buybacks Landscape surveys are performed by the Water Conservation Specialist or Technician upon request. During these surveys, the Specialist or Technician examines the sprinkler system, landscaping, and makes recommendations for improving water use efficiency. The DWP provides a number of incentives to encourage landscape water use efficiency. In 2005, a Turf Buy-Back Program was implemented in which the DWP reimburses customers who voluntarily removed turf from their property. Under this program, the reimbursement rate is now $0.50 per square foot with no minimum or maximum amount limitations.
From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015 the DWP issued $61,408.75 in turf buybacks to customers who removed a total 85,821 square feet of grass. It is difficult to determine the water savings from turf removal due to multiple factors, including customers that may stop watering their lawn before having it removed, replacing the lawn with other water-thirsty plants, and the possibility of using slightly more water than usual to establish new plants once the lawn is removed. In addition there are changes to the account holders, seasonal and annual changes in the weather and the general trend toward conservation.
However, based on an informal survey of six customers who partook in the DWP turf removal program between the summer of 2009 and the summer of 2013, the DWP estimates water savings to be approximately 28.12 gallons per square foot per summer (a six month period generally ranging May 1 to October 31). Since the DWP’s watering regulations only allow outdoor irrigation from April 1 through the end of October, it is reasonable to calculate water savings on this summer irrigation period. The DWP used data from customers who removed more than 1,000 square feet of turf and estimates water savings at 7.41 acre feet per year resulting from the grass removed in the last five years. Over the lifetime of the program customers have removed over 393,178 square feet of turf resulting in an approximate annual savings of nearly 34 acre feet.
June 2016 - FINAL 9-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Big Bear Lake/10169A00/Deliverables/Final Report/Ch09.docx 243 of 31635 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
ͳ
ͳǤͳ
As part of an ongoing effort to maximize available water resources within their service area, the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power (BBLDWP) developed a Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources (BBLDWP, 2008). Of the 16 potential water supply alternatives explored, maximizing ground water resources was identified as the easiest and most cost effective alternative for increasing future water supply and was given the highest priority for future action.
The amount of ground water available for municipal supply within the Big Bear Valley (known as the ground water basin perennial yield) has been estimated numerous times. The most recent available valley-wide estimates are shown in Table 1 and range from approximately 4,800 to 5,600 acre-ft/yr (GEOSCIENCE,1999; GEOSCIENCE, 2006).1 This perennial yield has been subdivided between the eleven hydrologic subunits that make up the watershed (surface water drainage catchment) that encompass the Big Bear Valley (see Figure 1; Table 1). The portion of the valley-wide perennial yield that is available to the BBLDWP is the sum of the perennial yields (minus private well production) of the individual hydrologic subunits that encompass the BBLDWP service area (North Shore, Grout Creek, Gray’s Landing, Mill Creek, Village, Rathbone, Division, and a portion of Erwin and West Baldwin). The total perennial yield available to the BBLDWP is estimated to range from approximately 3,300 to 3,400 acre-ft/yr (BBLDWP, 2008).
The BBLDWP currently produces ground water from 32 municipal supply wells and a network of slant wells and springs located throughout the service area (see Figure 1). In addition, two wells are planned to produce ground water from the Division and Rathbone Subunits (Division No. 8 and Lake Plant No. 6, respectively). Currently, annual ground water production, as averaged over the five years ending 2007, is 2,436 acre-ft/yr. Comparison of ground water production with the perennial yield available to the BBLDWP shows that up to 800 acre-ft of additional ground water resources are available to develop and utilize.
1 The United States Geological Survey has prepared estimates of ground water recharge (of which perennial yield is a subset) for the Big Bear Valley. However, as of this printing, the report of this work has not been published.
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 1
244 of 31636 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
Table 1. Comparison of Perennial Yield and Ground Water Production – BBLDWP Service Area
Estimated Perennial 5-Year Average Private Yield Ground Water Subunit Estimate of Well Available to Production3 1 Production2 Perennial Yield the DWP
Grout Creek 280 7 273 106.4
Mill Creek 100 – 175 3 97 – 172 29.24
Village 250 3 247 229.9
Rathbone 1,100 135 965 934.0
Division w/ NS “F” 540 2 538 633.3
North Shore w/o 240 5 235 17.3 NS “F”
Erwin 890 14 5765 621.4
West Baldwin 500-1,000 NA 3756 0
TOTAL 3,900 – 4,475 169 3,306 – 3,381 2,436
All values are in acre-ft/yr
1GEOSCIENCE, 2006.
2CDM, 2006.
3BBLDWP data from 2003 to 2007.
42007 data only.
5300 acre-ft assumed to be used by the Big Bear City Community Services District
6375 acre-ft assumed to be used by the Big Bear City Community Services District
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 2
245 of 31637 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
ͳǤʹ
The purpose of this investigation was to identify potential sites for future ground water supply wells within and around the BBLDWP service area, particularly in hydrologic subunits where the available perennial yield is not being fully utilized. The study was focused on potential sites within the BBLDWP service area. However, promising areas outside the BBLDWP service area were considered as well. Potential well sites were considered in areas of predominantly fractured bedrock as well as areas that are known to have alluvial aquifer systems.
Although all portions of the BBLDWP service area were considered for future well sites, the following areas were screened in consultation with BBLDWP staff and targeted for focused investigation:
• Fawnskin Area – Grout Creek and North Shore Subunits • Mill Creek Area – Mill Creek Subunit • Sugarloaf Area – West Baldwin/Erwin Subunits • Erwin Lake Area – Erwin Subunit
Specific sites within each area were inspected in the field on 9-Dec-08. Sites and/or areas were evaluated based on the hydrogeology of the area, property ownership/jurisdiction, construction logistics (i.e. drilling rig access, overhead/underground utilities, distance from existing BBLDWP infrastructure), potential for regulatory obstacles, and potential for environmental constraints. A total of 14 sites were analyzed for this investigation.
ͳǤ͵
The Big Bear Valley is characterized by two major watersheds, each of which encompasses the two primary surface water features in the area: Big Bear Lake and Baldwin Lake (see Figure 1). As discussed previously, each major watershed is subdivided into hydrologic subunits, which are smaller drainage catchments within the larger watersheds. The Big Bear Lake watershed has seven hydrologic subunits (North Shore, Grout Creek, Grays Landing, Mill Creek, Village, Rathbone, and Division) and the Baldwin Lake watershed has four hydrologic subunits (Van Dusen, West Baldwin, East Baldwin, and Erwin). The North Shore hydrologic subunit has been further subdivided into six tributary subareas (A through F). North Shore Tributary Subarea F has recently been grouped with the Division Hydrologic Subunit because ground water recharge within these drainages replenish the same portion of the alluvial ground water basin.
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 3
246 of 31638 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
Ground water in the Big Bear Valley is produced from three primary geologic formations: unconsolidated or semi-consolidated alluvial sediments, fractures in granitic bedrock, and fractures and cavities in carbonate bedrock. A geologic map showing the distribution of different rock and sediment types across the valley is shown on Figure 2. Ground water production wells that typically have the highest yields are constructed within the aquifers of the alluvial sediments. Instantaneous production yields for these wells typically range from 50 gpm to 1,000 gpm and depend on the aquifer thickness and aquifer permeability for the perforated portion of the well (see Figure 3). Instantaneous production yields for wells perforated in fractured granitic bedrock typically range from 0 to 60 gpm although seasonal flow from some slant wells and springs can exceed 100 gpm. The only well that is known to be perforated in carbonate bedrock is BBLDWP’s Lassen No. 4, which produces approximately 180 gpm.
As shown on Figure 3, individual well yields for the alluvial aquifer system are typically higher in the eastern portion of Big Bear Valley than in the western portion. This is largely due to higher permeability aquifer sediments (i.e. a higher proportion of permeable sand and gravel relative to silt and clay) in the eastern portion of the basin as opposed to the western portion. The highest yielding alluvial wells within the BBLDWP service area are located in the Erwin subunit (i.e. Maple Well; 500 gpm).
Ground water production from individual wells within the fractured granitic bedrock aquifer system is more limited than from the alluvial aquifer system but collectively represents a significant source of water for the BBLDWP. For example, in the Rathbone Hydrologic Subunit during the 2005 year (which was an unusually wet precipitation year), ground water production from slant wells and springs emanating from the bedrock aquifer system accounted for 488.7 acre-ft of the 967.6 acre-ft of total production within the subunit (approximately 50 percent). During dry years (such as 2003), the contribution from bedrock aquifer sources drops to as low as 40 percent of total production. In the Grout Creek Hydrologic Subunit, water contribution from bedrock sources can be as high as 80 percent (2005) and as low as 27 percent (2002).
Naturally occurring ground water quality issues can have a significant impact on the siting of new wells. The most regionally extensive water quality issue in Big Bear Valley is the presence of fluoride in ground water at concentrations that exceed the Federal and State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The greatest fluoride impact is in the aquifer system between Big Bear and Baldwin Lakes, where fluoride concentrations as high as 13 mg/L have been detected (see Figure 4). Fluoride has also been detected in the Lake William and Mill Creek areas. It is noted that fluoride concentrations increase with depth in the aquifer and often fluoride concentrations in shallow aquifer zones are below the MCL. In the Mill Creek area, high concentrations of arsenic also occur locally in the deeper aquifer system. 7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 4
247 of 31639 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
ͳǤͶ
Potential well sites were evaluated with respect to the following seven evaluation categories:
• Potential well yield • Potential for interference with existing wells • Potential for water quality issues • Distance from existing BBLDWP conveyance pipelines • Drilling rig access • Property access/ownership • Potential for environmental constraints
Each evaluation category was assigned a subjective weighting factor, indicating its importance with respect to well site evaluation relative to the other categories. The highest weighting factor was assigned to potential well yield because constructing the highest yielding production well is considered essential for success and the hydrogeology at any given site cannot be improved through engineering or site improvements (see Table 2). Drilling rig access was assigned the lowest weighting factor because rig access can be obtained relatively easily through grading and site improvements.
Specific criteria were developed for evaluating each category. For potential well yield, separate criteria were developed for bedrock wells and wells completed in unconsolidated alluvium. Each criterion was assigned a raw score with the highest score indicating the greatest potential for success at that location. Criteria and raw scores for the remaining categories were developed specific to the issues associated with those categories, as shown in Table 2.
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 5
248 of 31640 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
Ͷ
The Sugarloaf portion of BBLDWP’s service area is located southeast of Big Bear Lake on the northern alluvial slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain (see Figure 1). Approximately half of the area is within the West Baldwin Hydrologic Subunit and half is in the Erwin Hydrologic Subunit (see Figure 14). The BBLDWP’s highest yielding well (the Maple Well) is located in the eastern portion of Sugarloaf. This well can consistently sustain instantaneous pumping rates in excess of 500 gpm. Further, data collected from the Magnolia test borehole, located at the BBLDWP property on the corner of Magnolia Lane and Sunset Lane, looked very promising for a production well at this location. Given the amount of available information, the Magnolia site is recommended as a future well site and is not part of this study. However, other portions of the Sugarloaf area were examined for potential well sites.
ͶǤͳ
The surface geology in the Sugarloaf area consists of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated older
(Miocene; approximately 5 to 23 million years before present) alluvial sediments (Ts4 on Figures 2 and 14). At depth, the sediments consist primarily of sand and gravel mixtures with localized layers of increased silt to a depth of 700 ft bgs (GEOSCIENCE, 2005). Below 700 ft bgs, the sediments become increasingly silty and clayey. The depth to substantially consolidated bedrock in this area is greater than 1,000 ft bgs, making it one of the deepest areas of unconsolidated to semiconsolidated sediment in the Big Bear Valley.
The aquifer system in the Sugarloaf area is relatively thick and permeable. Ground water occurs approximately 290 ft bgs (GEOSCIENCE, 2005) and the depth to lower permeability sediments is approximately 700 ft. Thus, there is approximately 400 ft of permeable aquifer material at the Magnolia drilling site, conditions which have also been observed at the Maple Well site.
ͶǤʹ
Three potential well sites were evaluated for this investigation: the Owen Well Site (SL-1), the former Sawmill Well Site (SL-2), and the northern portion of the Sugarloaf community in the vicinity of Eucalyptus Lane and Wabash Lane (SL-3)(see Figure 15).
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 24
249 of 31641 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
ͶǤʹǤʹ ȋǦʹȌ
The previously constructed Sawmill Well is located west of the Sugarloaf community along Sawmill Creek. This well was constructed to a total depth of 305 ft below land surface using a cable tool drilling rig. The date of construction could not be discerned from the driller’s log for the well, however given the drilling method and driller’s log form, it was likely constructed prior to 1960. The short-term instantaneous pumping yield of the well was 170 gpm at the time of construction, based on the driller’s log. However, by the mid-1980s, the well yield had dropped to 44 gpm, even after rehabilitation (Southern California Water Company, 1985). The well was destroyed by BBLDWP in the early 1990s because of its age and declining pumping yield. Ground water levels in the well ranged from approximately 50 to 200 ft bgs and fluctuations were generally correlated with precipitation cycles.
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 27
250 of 31642 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU
Evaluation Criteria
Previous 305-ft deep well capable of 170 gpm. A deeper well could increase the pumping yield significantly if the aquifer sediments below 300 ft are Potential Well Yield permeable. Potential well yield could range from approximately 200 to 300 gpm.
Potential for Nearest private well located approximately 1,100 ft to the south of the site. No Interference municipal wells located within 1,000 ft of the site.
Water Quality No known water quality issues.
Distance from Conveyance lines established Existing Conveyance
Flat level site with adequate rig access. Some trees may need to be removed Drilling Rig Access for well construction. No overhead lines.
Property BBLDWP property. Access/Ownership
Environmental No known significant environmental constraints. Constraints
ͶǤʹǤ͵ ȋǦ͵Ȍ
The Sugarloaf area north of the Magnolia Site is also promising for a future well. Although no specific site was identified for this study, vacant lots with available room for drilling and 7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 28
251 of 31643 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Potential Well Sites (2009) &LW\RI%LJ%HDU/DNH'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHUDQG3RZHU $QDO\VLVRI3RWHQWLDO:HOO6LWHVZLWKLQWKH%%/':36HUYLFH$UHD $SU operating a well were observed in the vicinity of Eucalyptus and Wabash Lanes. The area is free of existing wells although the thickness and permeability of the aquifer system in this area would need to be confirmed.
Evaluation Criteria
Unknown. Verification drilling necessary to confirm thickness and Potential Well Yield permeability of aquifer system.
Potential for Nearest private well located more than 1,000 ft to the southwest of the site. No Interference municipal wells located within 1,000 ft of the site.
Water Quality No known water quality issues.
Distance from Conveyance lines throughout area. Existing Conveyance
Drilling Rig Access Vacant lots observed. Access would depend on the lot chosen for construction.
Property Private property. Access/Ownership
Environmental No known significant environmental constraints. Constraints
7KRPDV+DUGHU *URXQG:DWHU&RQVXOWLQJ 29
252 of 31644 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Reconnaissance Level Analysis of Alternative Water Sources for the DWP Final Report: March 30, 2010
Groundwater is the only source of supply currently available to the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (DWP). The best estimate of the safe yield of the groundwater basins currently utilized by the DWP is approximately 3,100 af/yr (Ref. 1). The DWP’s projected demand will likely exceed this amount within the next 15 – 20 years. At build-out, the DWP is projected to require between 530 af/yr and 950 af/yr of additional water supply (or equivalent reductions in future demand per customer). The higher figure will be used for planning in order to provide for a reasonable contingency.
This report has been prepared by the Alternative Water Source Committee and the staff of the DWP. The purpose of this analysis is to review and evaluate a variety of alternative approaches for meeting the long term water supply needs of the DWP’s customers. This analysis is based solely on currently available information, and there was no attempt to develop new information for any of the alternatives.
The alternatives considered were derived from a preliminary list developed in an attempt to cover the fullest possible range of alternatives. In many cases, the individual alternatives on the original list that were similar in nature have been combined in this analysis. For ease of review, the alternative numbers from the original list are included under each alternative considered below.
Each alternative was evaluated based on our best estimate of the following factors: 1) the amount of additional water provided; 2) the capital and O&M costs required for implementation; 3) the technical feasibility; and 4) the political feasibility. To the extent possible these factors were evaluated based on previous studies of water resources within the Big Bear Valley. Where applicable, studies of other areas have also been used. Where little or no information is available, a “best estimate” has been provided and the need for additional study noted. As a reconnaissance level analysis, no specific engineering studies were undertaken to refine the expected costs or effectiveness of each alternative. In some cases only relative costs could be estimated and were used to prioritize different alternatives.
For wells and other facilities where cost estimates were available, the cost per acre-foot was calculated assuming the capital costs of the project would be financed at 5% over 30 years. The resulting annualized capital costs were then added to the estimated annual O&M costs (without any adjustments for inflation) to determine the estimated annual cost of each alternative. The cost per year was then divided by the expected water produced per year to determine the expected cost per acre-foot. Well O&M costs were based on the current DWP average cost of water from wells of $300 per af/yr.
For pipelines, the capital cost was assumed to be $150 per foot. Because pipelines have a life expectancy of over three times the financing period, the above method would significantly overestimate the average cost per year over the full life of the pipeline. Consequently, for
1 253 of 31645 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
pipelines the installation cost was assumed to be financed at 5% for 30 years and the 30 year total cost (installation plus financing) was then divided by the expected life of 100 years to get an average cost per year.
It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners utilize this analysis to select a sub-set of alternatives for further, more detailed analysis. To this end we have prioritized each alternative into three categories: Priority 1 – definitely worth further study; Priority 2 – probably worth at least some further study; or Priority 3 – not worth pursuing at this time, but may become viable in the future. No alternatives are recommended to be removed from consideration.
Alternative 1. Full utilization of the perennial yield of groundwater basins available to the DWP. The DWP’s most recent estimate of the perennial yield of the groundwater basins available to the DWP and the 5 year average (2005-09) groundwater production by subunit are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Perennial Yields and Production by Subunit (acre-feet/year) Geoscience Estimated Assumed 5 year Average Subunit Estimate of Pvt Well Available to Groundwater Perennial Yield Production the DWP Production by (Ref 1) (Ref 28) (Yld - Wells) DWP (Ref 2) Grout Creek 280 7 273 98.6 Mill Creek 100 – 175 3 97 – 172 12.0(a) Village 250 3 247 182.0 Rathbone 1,100 135 965 935.3 Division w/ NS “F” 540 2 538 622.1 North Shore w/o 240 5 235 18.7 NS “F” Erwin 890 14 429(b) 592.3 West Baldwin 500-1,000 ? 28 – 528(c) 0 TOTAL 3,900 – 4,475 169 2,812 – 3,351 2,460.9 (a) Only used during 2007 and 2008 due to water quality issues (b) Assumes 447 af/yr (5yr avg production 2004-08) by BBCCSD (Ref. 30) (c) Assumes 472 af/yr (5yr avg production 2004-08) by BBCCSD (Ref. 30)
The perennial yield estimates shown on Table 1 are based on a variety of different methods and data. For some subunits there is a long history of pumping data, whereas for other subunits there is almost no pumping data at all. While the accuracy of the perennial yield figures shown on Table 1 is unknown, it is clear that they simply represent our best estimate given the available information. As additional data becomes available, they may need to be revised.
A new study has recently been completed that attempts to estimate the average annual amount of water recharged into the valley’s groundwater basins using a sophisticated computer model (Ref 29). The model divides the valley into square grids (2 acres each) and estimates the
2 254 of 31646 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
amount of precipitation and groundwater recharge into each grid. The input for the precipitation model is the 2006 data from the CIMIS precipitation gauge near the golf course in Moonridge. Based on the data from this one point (and one year) it assigns a precipitation value to each grid using a 23 year averaging model and the difference in elevation between the grid point and the Moonridge gauge (Ref. 29, page 3-18 and 3-24). The output from this model indicates significantly higher values for annual recharge than the perennial yield values shown in Table 1 (Ref. 29, Table 3-11). While interesting and potentially valuable in the long term, the DWP has serious concerns about the computer model approach given that it is based on one year’s data from one point in the valley. Until the model can be verified by actual precipitation data over a long period of time, we are reluctant to use it for planning purposes. We will, however, take it to be at least one indication that there may be somewhat more groundwater available than previously believed, and that drilling additional wells is a viable alternative for expanding the valley’s domestic water supply. We certainly do not believe it provides a sufficient justification for abandoning any of the other alternatives discussed in this analysis.
The DWP continues to believe that one of the most reliable and direct means of establishing the yield of a groundwater basin is through long term pumping of the basin combined with consistent monitoring of groundwater levels as they respond to that pumping. In an attempt to refine the perennial yield estimates shown on Table 1, the DWP has begun a program to “stress” particular subunits on a consistent basis by deliberately exceeding the estimated yield of a particular subunit by roughly 10%. Over an extended period of time this will provide valuable new data to refine the yield estimates. Unfortunately, groundwater basins respond fairly slowly, and it will likely take many years (through both wet and dry periods) before significant revisions to the yield estimates will be possible.
The DWP does not currently have the facilities to fully utilize the perennial yield from all of the subunits shown. It is therefore necessary to evaluate each subunit to determine the ability of the DWP to access the full yield and the new facilities that will be needed.
Grout Creek Subunit The Grout Creek Subunit is primarily composed of fractured granite with a low transmissivity1. For this reason traditional domestic wells (with a 50 foot sanitary seal) have limited production capacity in this subunit and depend on the number of fractures that are intercepted by the well and the volume of water in these fractures. A shallow (roughly 50 foot) layer of water bearing alluvium exists in the southeastern portion of this subunit. To utilize water from this shallow layer for domestic purposes, however, requires the installation of a small treatment plant. The DWP is currently working with the regulatory agencies to design an appropriate treatment process to allow this shallow groundwater to be utilized for domestic purposes. The DWP is also in the process of completing a new well in the fractured granite portion of this subunit (Cherokee Well) which is expected to produce 50 gpm and will increase the utilization of this groundwater subunit.
To meet the estimated build-out demand of the Fawnskin system of 204 af/yr (Ref. 28, Table 4-1) we assume will require approximately 2 additional wells into the fractured granite (assuming 50 gpm/well on an 80% duty cycle = 65 af/yr/well) or one additional alluvial well
1 Transmissivity is the rate that groundwater moves within an aquifer.
3 255 of 31647 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
and treatment system. The estimated cost of constructing 2 additional fractured granite wells ($750,000 per well) is $1.5 million. It is assumed that the cost of one alluvial well and treatment system yielding the same amount of water will be comparable to this figure. Using the assumptions described in the introduction this project would produce water for a total cost of $1,050 per acre-foot (130 af/yr of assumed new capacity).
The estimated build-out demand for the Grout Creek Subunit of 204 af/yr represents 73% of the estimated perennial yield (see Table 1). To utilize the excess yield (roughly 70 af/yr) in other parts of the DWP system would require the construction of an additional well and a pipeline from the eastern edge of Fawnskin to the corner of North Shore Drive and Stanfield Cutoff. The estimated cost of constructing 1 additional well ($750,000) and roughly 4 miles of pipeline at $150/foot is $3.9 million. Using the assumptions described in the introduction this project would produce water for a total cost of $1,880 per acre-foot (70 af/yr of assumed new capacity). It should be noted that this pipeline could also be used to connect wells in the various North Shore Subunits to the DWP system which would lower the cost per acre-foot for the pipeline.
Mill Creek Subunit The alluvial aquifer in the Mill Creek Subunit is divided vertically into an upper portion with an estimated yield of 100 af/yr and a lower portion with an estimated yield of 75 af/yr. Currently there is one production well in the upper portion and it is estimated that 1 additional well pumping at 50 af/yr will be required to utilize the full yield of the upper portion of this subunit. However, water samples from the existing well have recently indicated levels of Uranium that exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water. Well head treatment will, therefore, be required before this water can be utilized by DWP customers.
There are currently no production wells in the lower portion of this subunit due to Arsenic levels that exceed the MCL for drinking water. Well-head treatment will be required before the lower portion of the subunit can be utilized by DWP customers.
The cost to fully utilize the Mill Creek Subunit therefore includes 2 additional wells (one in the upper and one in the lower portion) at $750,000/well and well-head treatment for three wells at $100,000/well for a total of $1.8 million capital investment. Using the assumptions described in the introduction plus $600/af for well-head treatment yields a total cost of $1,570 per acre- foot (175 af/yr of assumed yield).
Village Subunit The DWP is currently pumping at a rate that is 74% of the full yield of this subunit (5 year average pumping at 182 af/yr vs. an estimated yield of 247 af/yr). The perennial yield of this subunit was, in fact, exceeded for several years resulting in a steady decline in water levels even during wet periods. Pumping within this subunit has been recently reduced and it appears the DWP has the capacity to fully utilize the perennial yield. Therefore, no additional wells or “stress tests” are considered in this subunit.
Rathbone Subunit The ability of the DWP to fully utilize the perennial yield of the Rathbone Subunit has been limited in recent years due to the failure of 3 wells in the Lakeplant well field. The DWP has completed one replacement well (Lakeplant #5) and drilled a second replacement well
4 256 of 31648 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
(Lakeplant #6) which will be completed in 2010. A third Lakeplant replacement well (Lakeplant #7) is planned for the future. An additional well was drilled towards the middle of this basin near Elm Street (Moonridge well) but it has not been equipped due to low production volume 40 gpm.
The DWP is currently pumping 97% of the estimated yield of the Rathbone Subunit (5 yr avg pumping is 935 af/yr vs. an estimated yield of 965 af/yr – see Table 1). It is believed that drilling and equipping the above described new wells will allow the DWP to fully utilize the perennial yield from this subunit and to “stress test” the Rathbone Subunit by pumping approximately 10%-20% above the estimated yield.
The cost to drill and equip 1 additional well in the Lakeplant well field ($750,000) and equip the Moonridge well ($350,000) would be approximately $1.1 million. Assuming a total production of 250 acre-feet/yr for the two wells and using the assumptions described in the introduction, results in a weighted average cost of $580 per acre-foot ($760/af for the Moonridge well and $540/af for the Lakeplant well #7)..
Division and North Shore “F” Subunit Two wells (#1 and #4) in the Division well field have been removed from production in recent years due to age and Manganese contamination and one new well (McAllister) has been added. A well to replace Division wells #1 and #4 was drilled during 2008 (Division #8) and is scheduled to be operational in 2010.
Even without the proposed replacement well, the DWP is currently pumping roughly 116% of the estimated yield from this subunit (5 yr avg pumping is 622 af/yr vs. an estimated yield of 538 af/yr, see Table 1). To date, no systematic drop in water levels has been observed due to this “stress test” but several years of additional data will be required before a re-evaluation of the yield will be possible. It is worth noting that an average of 834 af/yr (155% of the estimated yield) was pumped from this basin from 1975 through 1990. This level of pumping did appear to result in a general decline in water levels and pumping was reduced to an average of 535 af/yr from 1990 through 2005. The current level of pumping is about 75% of the 1975- 1990 pumping rate and will provide additional data to evaluate the yield in the future.
The cost to drill 1 additional well in the Division well field is assumed to be $750,000. Assuming a total production of 200 acre-feet/yr from this well and using the assumptions described in the introduction, results in a total cost of approximately $540 per acre-foot. However, if the yield from this subunit is in fact 538 af/yr this new well will provide operational flexibility to meet peak demands but it will not provide additional new water to the DWP system.
North Shore Subunit, Area “A” North Shore Subunit “A” covers the area east of Fawnskin and includes the existing Moon Camp Subdivision and a proposed new residential subdivision. The estimated yield from this Subunit is 29 af/yr (Ref. 28, Table 4-2) and there are currently private wells which utilize approximately 5 af/yr (Ref. 28, Table 4-2). The proposed residential subdivision has drilled a well that appears capable of extracting the remaining estimated yield (24 af/yr) from Subunit “A”. If this well is connected to the Fawnskin system the excess capacity could be available
5 257 of 31649 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
to the rest of the Fawnskin system (or the rest of the DWP system if the pipeline considered in the Grout Creek Subunit section is constructed).
Assuming the cost to complete the new well is paid by the new residential subdivision, the only cost to utilize any excess yield from Subunit “A” would be the O&M cost which is assumed to be $300/af.
North Shore Subunit, Area “B” North Shore Subunit “B” consists of mostly land owned by the US Forest Service (USFS). The estimated yield from this subunit is 71 af/yr (Ref. 28, Table 4-2). The yield from this subunit is currently being utilized by the USFS to provide water for the Serrano Campground, Meadows Edge picnic area, and the Discovery Center. Big Bear Shores RV Park, Lighthouse RV Park, and the Observatory also have wells in this subunit. The RV Park is currently utilizing an average of 19 af/yr (Ref. 2- 5 yr average 2005-09), but the other uses are not directly measured. The combined pumping for all uses is estimated to be roughly 3 times the RV Park usage or 51 af/yr. The estimated 20 af/yr excess yield could be accessed by the DWP by drilling an additional well and constructing a pipeline to the corner of North Shore Drive and Stanfield Cutoff. Any new wells in this subunit would have to be located on private land and groundwater studies may be needed to demonstrate that additional groundwater extraction would not adversely affect sensitive habitats.
The cost to drill and equip 1 well in Subunit “B” is assumed to be $750,000. Assuming a total production of 20 acre-feet/yr for this well and using the assumptions described in the introduction, results in a total cost of approximately $2,740 per acre-foot. This analysis assumes the proposed relocation of the zoo to the Discovery center will provide a pipeline of sufficient size to get the water from Subunit “B” into the DWP system, and no cost for a pipeline is included. This may not be the case and the DWP may incur some cost to increase the size of the pipeline to handle the extra flow. On the other hand, wells in this area will likely be shallow and the DWP may be able to utilize a smaller drill rig which could reduce the drilling cost for the well.
North Shore Subunit, Areas “C” and “D” North Shore Subunits “C” and “D” extend from roughly Meadows Edge Picnic area to Stanfield Cutoff and is entirely USFS property. The combined estimated yield from these two subunits is 113 af/yr. The Forest Service is very unlikely to allow wells to be drilled on their property due to the possible adverse affect on the sensitive wet meadow habitat in Subunit “C”. It is assumed that none of this yield will be available to the DWP.
North Shore Subunit, Area “E” North Shore Subunit “E” extends from Stanfield Cutoff to just east of the Catholic Church. The estimated yield from this subunit is 27 af/yr (Ref. 28, Table 4-1). There are no known wells in this subunit.
The cost to drill and equip 1 well in Subunit “E” is assumed to be $750,000. Assuming a total production of 27 acre-feet/yr for this well and using the assumptions described in the introduction, results in a total cost of approximately $2,110 per acre-foot.
6 258 of 31650 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Erwin Subunit The yield from the Erwin Subunit is shared between the BBCCSD and the DWP. The BBCCSD has the capacity to pump 500 af/yr from the Erwin subunit (Ref. 29, Table 7-1, wells 2 & 10 and the Greenspot Spring). The average amount actually produced from the Erwin Subunit by the BBCCSD is assumed to be approximately 447 af/yr. The DWP therefore has available approximately 429 af/yr of the yield from the Erwin Subunit.
The data in Table 1 indicate that the total pumping is approximately 118% of the estimated yield (1,053 af/yr vs. the estimated yield of 890 af/yr). To date, no systematic drop in water levels has been observed due to this “stress test”, and it appears that the estimated perennial yield needs to be re-evaluated.
A deep test well completed in the central Sugarloaf area (Magnolia well) indicated the potential for significant additional pumping capacity. This well may or may not be part of the current Erwin Subunit yield estimate because it is located on the border between the Erwin and West Baldwin Subunits. Monitoring data on the Magnolia well have shown near constant water levels for the past three years, and a recent pump test indicated very little interference between the Magnolia well site and the existing Maple production well.
Based on the test well results we estimate that the pumping capacity of the Magnolia well will be in the range of 200-300 gpm and thus provide 250-350 af/yr assuming an 80% duty cycle. However, in order to determine which subunit the well is pumping from, it will be necessary to construct the well; operate it for a period of years; and monitor the groundwater levels within both the Erwin and West Baldwin Subunits.
The cost to drill and equip the Magnolia well is estimated to be $1 million due to the depth. Operating costs will also be higher due to the greater depth to water and are assumed to be $450 per acre-foot (50% higher than other wells). With these assumptions and those described in the introduction, we estimate the total cost for water from this well to be $710 per acre-foot (assuming 250 af/yr of production).
West Baldwin Subunit The DWP currently has a small well in the West Baldwin Subunit (Sawmill well) that was drilled in 1956 and is not currently in use. As discussed above, the Magnolia well may also be part of the West Baldwin Subunit. Additional water resources are potentially available from this subunit due to the large uncertainty in the perennial yield estimate. Assuming the Magnolia well is actually in the West Baldwin Subunit and the high end of the perennial yield estimate is correct, the DWP would still need to drill an additional well in this subunit to utilize the 528 af/yr assumed to be available.
The capital and O&M costs for such a well are assumed to be similar to the Magnolia well, $1 million capital and $710 per acre-foot O&M.
Summary. The DWP is currently pumping at or above the estimated yield in the Village, Division, and Erwin Subunits and is pumping 97% of the estimated yield from the Rathbone Subunit. “Stress tests” are either underway (Division and Erwin) or planned (Rathbone) to further evaluate the current yield estimates. The proposed Magnolia well may or may not be included
7 259 of 31651 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
in the current yield estimate for the Erwin Subunit. Based on the current estimated yields the only subunits with additional capacity are the Grout Creek, Mill Creek, North Shore, and West Baldwin (assuming the high estimate) Subunits. However, the production records and water level monitoring data seem to indicate that the yield estimates for the Erwin and Division Subunits may need to be revised upward.
The costs for new wells and pipelines needed to fully utilize the estimated yield in each subunit are shown in Table 2. The operating costs for well water were generally taken to be $300/af. The O&M costs associated with well head treatment were assumed to be $600/af.
Table 2. Estimated Additional Production Capacity and Costs Estimated Additional Subunit Production Capacity Capital Cost Estimated Cost per (acre-feet/yr) acre-foot Grout Creek 167 $1.5 - $5.4 million $1,050 - $1,880 Mill Creek 175 $1.8 million $1,570 Village None Rathbone 250(a) $1.1 million $580 Division 200(a) $750,000 $540 North Shore “A” 20 $0 $300 “B” 20 $750,000 $2,740 “C” and “D” 0 $0 “E” 27 $750,000 $2,110 Erwin 250(b) $1 million $710 West Baldwin 250 $1 million $710 TOTAL $8.65 - $12.55 million $300 - $2,740 (a) Production capacity will exceed the current estimate of the perennial yield of the subunit (b) Production capacity may be part of the West Baldwin Subunit.
Alternative 1 is clearly technically feasible in the broad sense and the DWP is currently pursuing full utilization of all of the subunits except for Grout Creek, and the North Shore Subunits. New wells in some of the North Shore Subunits are dependent upon protecting sensitive habitat in the area. A portion of the yield from these subunits will likely not be available to the DWP.
Given the fact that this alternative is technically feasible and results in a relatively low cost to produce the water, it is considered a Priority 1 Alternative, and the DWP is already pursuing many of the ideas included under this alternative.
Alternative 1a. Enhanced replenishment of groundwater basins. This alternative is labeled “1a” because it is actually an extension of Alternative 1 to include management of the perennial yield of the groundwater subunits available to the DWP.
It should be noted that any enhanced natural recharge project within the Big Bear Lake Watershed would also reduce the amount of surface inflow to Big Bear Lake. Subject to the
8 260 of 31652 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
terms of the 1977 Judgment (Ref 10), Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (BV Mutual) controls most, if not all, of these surface water rights. However, BV Mutual’s water rights were perfected prior to most of the development within the Big Bear Valley. As development has occurred runoff into the lake has actually increased (and groundwater recharge has decreased) due to the construction of roads, parking areas, buildings and other impervious surfaces. It is unclear whether or not the DWP would have a legal right to attempt to recover some of this lost recharge capacity by constructing recharge basins along various tributary streams. A review by legal counsel and discussions with BV Mutual and the BBMWD would be a necessary first step in consideration of any specific project to enhance the natural recharge of groundwater basins within the Big Bear Lake watershed.
Legal issues aside, the remainder of the section will attempt to evaluate the potential for enhanced “natural” recharge into the various groundwater basins available to the DWP. As with Alternative 1, the potential for enhanced “natural” recharge must be evaluated for each subunit separately.
Grout Creek Subunit. The Grout Creek Subunit is primarily composed of fractured granite with a low transmissivity. For this reason, deep wells in this basin have limited production capacity and it is unlikely that enhanced “natural” recharge will be possible. Enhanced recharge into the shallow aquifer may be possible along Grout Creek. Since the current perennial yield estimate exceeds the projected long term demand for the Fawnskin area, increasing the recharge would only be beneficial if a pipeline were constructed to bring the water to other parts of the DWP system.
Mill Creek Subunit. The recharge area for the Mill Creek Subunit is limited but includes Metcalf and Drive-in Creeks on each side of Metcalf Bay and North Creek flowing into Boulder Bay. It may be possible to increase “natural” recharge by constructing recharge basins on some or all of these creeks. Further engineering work would be needed to estimate the effectiveness, construction cost, and maintenance costs of such basins.
Village Subunit. The only two streams in this subunit are Knickerbocker Creek and the intermittent stream flowing down Red Ant Canyon. Most of Knickerbocker Creek is a concrete lined flood control channel with no recharge potential. There may be a small possibility to increase “natural” recharge above the concrete portion in the vicinity of the old Lyn Lift ski area (later known as Snow Forest Ski Area). Further engineering work would be needed to estimate the effectiveness, construction cost, and maintenance costs.
Rathbone Subunit. Rathbone Creek would appear to offer significant opportunities for enhanced “natural” recharge. The upper portion of the Rathbone Subunit (roughly above the confluence of Sand Canyon and Rathbone Creek) is believed to be the primary recharge area for the Rathbone subunit.
The DWP extensively studied the recharge characteristics of Sand Canyon in 1991 and concluded that there is a recharge potential of at least 750 acre-feet/year in this area (Ref 21, page III-4 based on the blending potential only). Bow Canyon and the streambed between
9 261 of 31653 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Sand Canyon and Bear Mountain Ski Area (east side of the first hole of the golf course) may also provide opportunities for additional “natural” recharge.
The Sand Canyon site, although not part of the GEOSCIENCE, 2001 study, was also given consideration for artificial recharge based on the results of test drilling conducted previously in this area (Ref 20, page 18). However, this site was removed from consideration by the BBARWA Study Team with concurrence from the Governing Board, prior to further testing due to perceived site access constraints and regulatory issues.
The BBARWA study was probably correct in assuming that the construction of large percolation basins within the existing Sand Canyon stream channel would most likely not be permitted due to flood control constraints. Therefore, removing the Sand Canyon site from consideration for the large scale BBARWA recharge project was probably appropriate. However, some potential clearly exists for enhancing the natural recharge in this area.
The 1991 DWP study assumes the construction of a series of small berms 4 feet in height along the Sand Canyon stream bed above Teton Drive with a total area of about 2.5 acres (Ref 21, Figure IV-8, and page IV-18). Presumably these berms would wash out during major flood events so as to not impede flood flows. Interference with flood flows was, however, not specifically addressed in the report.
An alternative approach would be to simply attempt to slow down the flow of water within the stream channel. The channel would be widened to the extent possible to create a meandering stream with small natural ponds to slow the water flow and allow maximum percolation but not interfere with large flood flows. A trail-way/park could also be included to further enhance the natural character of the stream channel.
The Assessors Parcel Maps (APN’s) indicate that the Sand Canyon stream channel consists of three parcels (APN 310-301-19 (5.8 ac), APN 310-672-35 (3.7 ac), and APN 310-392-20 [approx. 3 ac]) totaling approximately 12 acres. The 1991 DWP report (Ref 21, Table III-5) indicates that the long term percolation rate for the Sand Canyon stream channel is between 1.5 feet and 4.5 feet of water per day, but recommends using the minimum figure to be conservative. Assuming the meandering stream channel could be constructed to be roughly 1/3 of the total area (4 acres), the potential volume of water that could be recharged into this area is approximately 6 af/day. At this percolation rate, the Sand Canyon streambed could absorb significantly more than the 750 acre-feet of water per year assumed in the 1991 DWP study (note: the 750 af/yr figure from Ref 21, page III-4 is based on the amount of blending water available and not on the recharge capacity of the Sand Canyon area).
The 1991 DWP report estimated that under existing conditions the natural stream channel allows roughly 33% of the runoff to percolate into the ground and that this results in an average of about 400 af/yr of natural recharge into the Rathbone Subunit (Ref 21, Table III-1). How much the proposed modifications to the streambed might increase the amount of recharge is difficult to estimate, but an increased recharge of 100 to 200 af/yr (25% to 50% increase) might be achievable. Further study would be needed to develop a better estimate of the amount of increased natural recharge and ensure that the design could be approved by the appropriate flood control agency.
10 262 of 31654 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
The cost to construct a meandering stream (with or without a trail-way/park) within the Sand Canyon streambed is very difficult to estimate without a preliminary design and grading plan. To get a very rough estimate of costs we will assume the need to grade 10,000 cubic yards of material at a cost of $15 per cubic yard for a total capital cost of around $150,000. Assuming maintenance costs of $30,000 per year (20% of capital) and using our standard financial assumptions (including $300/af to pump the water out of the ground using existing wells) results in a water cost of $500-$700 per acre-foot not including the cost of replacing the lost runoff to the lake should this be required. The BBMWD is currently selling water out of the lake to the ski areas for snowmaking for about $300/af under the assumption that 50% of this water returns to the lake. Assuming none of the water used for enhanced “natural” recharge would return to the lake, we will assume the cost of replacement water, should it be required, would be approximately $600/af. This would increase the cost for this alternative to $1,100- $1,300/af.
Since natural runoff occurs over a relatively short period of time each year, it appears that significant recharge potential exists in the Sand Canyon area above and beyond that which can be achieved using natural runoff. Additional sources of water for recharge into this basin could be lake water and/or purified wastewater. These possibilities will be evaluated under Alternatives 5a and 6a.
Division and North Shore “F” Subunits. Recharge areas for the Division well field are not well defined and there are no significant streams which could be utilized for enhanced “natural” recharge. It is therefore assumed that there are no opportunities for increased “natural” recharge in the Division Subunit.
Erwin Subunit. Extensive studies were undertaken by BBARWA in the past to evaluate the recharge potential of the Erwin Subunit (Ref 20). This study concluded that, for planning purposes, the long term recharge rate for the upper portion of the Erwin Subunit was approximately 1.5 feet/day (Ref 20, page 3). Assuming a recharge area of approximately 5 acres yields a recharge rate of 7.5 af/day. The BBARWA study concluded that during dry climatic periods, up to 1,000 ac/yr of water can be artificially recharged at the Green Spot site (Ref 26, page 5).
The possibilities to enhance natural recharge appear to be limited in the upper Erwin Subunit due to the lack of significant stream flow in the area. No data were found to even estimate the natural stream flow in this area, consequently no realistic estimate of the enhanced natural recharge can be made. However it is believed that during above normal precipitation years, there may be significant flow available for recharge. Actual stream flow measurements should be undertaken to determine the potential available flow. Utilizing the recharge capacity of the upper Erwin Subunit for lake water or purified wastewater will be evaluated separately under Alternatives 5a and 6.
Summary. The costs and possible increased yield from each subunit is shown in Table 3.
11 263 of 31655 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Table 3. Estimated Additional Yield and Costs Estimated Capital Cost Annual O&M Estimated Subunit Additional Yield Costs Costs/af (acre-feet/yr) Grout Creek None Mill Creek ?? Village ?? Rathbone 100-200(a) $150,000 $30,000 $500-$1,300 Division None North Shore None Erwin ??(b) West Baldwin ?? TOTAL
(a) 750 af/yr with an additional water source. (b) 1,000 af/yr with an additional water source.
The full extent of possible increases in the perennial yield by basin management and /or enhanced natural recharge will require further analysis (both engineering and legal) and perhaps years of data collection. Given the low capital cost, however, this is still considered a Priority 1 Alternative.
Alternative 2. Purchase “excess” water from the BBCCSD. The BBCCSD has recently released its Water Master Plan (Ref 29) which evaluates their expected future water needs and available supply. The BBCCSD Water Master Plan concluded that “natural recharge to the east portion of the Big Bear Valley groundwater basin appears to be adequate to meet the demands projected for the BBCCSD service area.” (Ref 29, page ES-3). The plan estimates that the adjusted “mean (average) total recharge to groundwater within the Big Bear Valley basin is at least 16,531 ac-ft/yr and could exceed 21,534 ac-ft/yr” (Ref 29, page 3-27). The BBCCSD Water Master Plan does not foresee the need to drill additional wells during the planning period (20 years to 2030).
The above estimated recharge is roughly 4 to 5 times the current production requirements of the DWP and CSD combined (3,877 ac-ft in 2007) and indicates that significant groundwater supplies may be currently untapped within the Big Bear Valley. The report does not, however, indicate that the BBCCSD has excess pumping capacity available that would allow them to sell water to the DWP on a long term basis.
While, as discussed in the introduction, we have some concerns regarding the validity of the computer model used to generate the recharge estimates, drilling additional wells to fully exploit whatever groundwater is available is a Priority 1 project (Alternative 1). Based on the new CSD Water Master Plan, it appears that it may be desirable to expand Alternative 1 to include drilling additional wells outside the current DWP service area. Depending on the location of these new wells, the most cost effective way to bring the water into the DWP system might be through a wheeling agreement with the BBCCSD whereby the DWP pumps into the CSD system and takes delivery at the existing inter-connection between the two
12 264 of 31656 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
systems at Division Drive. Assuming any new wells drilled by the DWP would be low in fluoride; this alternative becomes nearly identical to the joint blending project discussed below (Alternative 2a).
The capital cost of this alternative would be relatively low and would simply involve improving the inter-connection between the two systems at Division Drive. The O&M costs would depend on the negotiated wheeling price from the BBCCSD. Further discussions with the BBCCSD are needed to explore this alternative.
Given the low capital costs, this is considered a Priority 1 Alternative.
Alternative 2a. Blend High Fluoride water from the BBCCSD with water from the Erwin or upper West Baldwin Subunits. The BBCCSD currently has wells with fluoride levels that exceed the allowed concentration (MCL) of 2 mg/l. To utilize some of this water the BBCCSD has for some time been blending their different sources of water to reduce the average fluoride concentration to acceptable levels. The BBCCSD has also obtained a special exemption from the State Department of Health Services which allows them to deliver water with a fluoride concentration of 3 mg/l (1 mg/l above the MCL). The BBCCSD has recently constructed an additional pipeline that will further enhance their blending capability. However, even with the new pipeline, additional water supplies could be developed if new sources of blending water were available.
The water quality tests for the DWP’s proposed Magnolia well indicate that no detectable fluoride is present in the groundwater at this location. Transferring some or all of the water from this well to the BBCCSD’s blending tank on Paradise Road and blending it with water at 2 times the MCL from the BBCCSD high fluoride wells effectively doubles the amount of water available for use. The DWP’s share of this blended water could then be put into the BBCCSD system and extracted by the DWP at the Division inter-connection between the two systems.
The costs associated with this alternative are difficult to estimate as most of the facilities are either in place or included in other alternatives. A detailed engineering analysis would be necessary to determine if the existing pipelines and pumping facilities within the two water systems are adequate to handle the increased flows from this type of operation. O&M costs would include normal well costs for the magnolia well, the cost to boost the water from the DWP’s lowest pressure zone to the higher pressure zones, and any costs associated with the joint blending operation.
On the assumption that most of the capital facilities required for this alternative are already in place, this is considered a Priority 1 Alternative.
Alternative 3. Import groundwater from Holcomb Valley. The DWP does not currently have any wells outside the Big Bear Valley drainage basin. This alternative would involve drilling wells on either private property or federal land in the Holcomb Valley and importing this water to the Big Bear Valley. To our knowledge no
13 265 of 31657 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
hydrogeologic studies have been conducted in the Holcomb Valley area. Consequently, it is impossible to estimate how much water might be available under this alternative.
The cost of this alternative is also difficult to estimate in that the number of wells is unknown and the length of pipeline required is also unknown.
Regardless whether the wells were drilled on private or public land, the pipeline to transport the water to the DWP system would require a permit from the USFS. The USFS would likely deny a pipeline permit unless it was clearly shown that the pumping would not adversely affect the habitat values in the Holcomb Valley. There will likely also be issues regarding water rights due to an inter-basin transfer and whether or not this area was included in the recent groundwater adjudication of the Mojave River area.
Before this alternative could be seriously considered an analysis of the legal issues and the availability of groundwater in the Holcomb Valley would be required.
Given the complete lack of information and likely opposition by the USFS this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 4. Attempt to adjudicate one or more groundwater subunits to limit pumping from private wells. If a groundwater basin is in a state of overdraft, California law provides a process for allocating the available yield among all of the parties with groundwater rights within the basin. Once the allocation has been made, a watermaster is typically appointed by the court to oversee the continued use of the basin and annually verify that the parties are complying with the terms of the judgment. The adjudication process is extremely expensive and must involve all parties with groundwater rights in the basin.
Using the DWP’s perennial yield estimates (Table 1) the Village, Division, and Erwin Subunits are currently being pumped at or above their estimated yields, and the Rathbone Subunit is being pumped very near its estimated yield. Using the results from the recent BBCCSD Water Master Plan, only the Division Subunit is being pumped above its estimated recharge rate. It does not appear that there is unequivocal evidence that any of valley’s groundwater basins are currently in an overdraft condition. The DWP specifically reduced pumping in the Village Subunit to eliminate an apparent overdraft condition. Whether or not it would be possible to undertake an adjudication in anticipation of an overdraft condition is not known and would require legal analysis.
The amount of water that might be saved is impossible to estimate at this time because the actual number of private wells and production per well is unknown. In addition, many private wells are for landscaping purposes and are therefore only sealed in the top 25 feet (DWP wells must be sealed in the top 50 feet). Some fraction of the water produced by private wells is, therefore, likely coming from perched groundwater that is not available to the DWP and not part of the current estimate of the perennial yield. Another issue relates to the right to drill a well. Southern California Water Company (the previous owner/operator of the DWP system) did not normally require the dedication of the groundwater rights as a condition of service. Consequently many more parcels within the DWP service area have the right to drill a well
14 266 of 31658 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
than have actually drilled them. An adjudication process might actually reduce the percentage of the perennial yield available to the DWP if a significant number of property owners were able to protect their right to drill a well through the adjudication process. A thorough legal evaluation would be required before this alternative could be seriously considered.
Given the uncertainty of its legality and effectiveness, this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 5. Conjunctive Use of Lake Water and Groundwater. Historically, Big Bear Lake and the groundwater basins surrounding the lake have been managed independently of each other. Conjunctive use involves managing these two resources in a coordinated manner attempting to maximize the benefits of each.
Before consideration of a conjunctive use program, it must first be noted that any use of lake water must be approved by the BBMWD and must also be consistent with the terms of the 1977 Judgment. The Judgment protects the water rights of BV Mutual and guarantees them an average of 6,500 acre-feet of water each year (Ref 10). It has been reported that BV Mutual has indicated that they would bring legal action against the BBMWD should they attempt to sell water out of Big Bear Lake for domestic purposes. While the precise legal basis for this claim is unknown, it should be noted that the BBMWD is currently selling water out of the lake for snowmaking purposes. It is estimated by the BBMWD that approximately 50% of the water used for snowmaking during the winter returns to the lake during the spring runoff. The other 50% either percolates into the ground or evaporates into the air and does not return to the lake. The BBMWD has sold water for snowmaking for many years and BV Mutual has never taken legal action. It is not clear why BV Mutual would oppose other uses of lake water when they are guaranteed their full 6,500 af/yr under the Judgment.
It should be noted, that using water out of the lake as part of a conjunctive use program is consistent with the intent of the “physical solution” contained in the 1977 Judgment. It is important to remember that the BBMWD originally sought to condemn BV Mutual’s water rights. The physical solution contained in the 1977 Judgment that settled that condemnation action not only protects BV Mutual’s water rights, but also allows the BBMWD to 1) utilize any excess storage capacity in the lake, and 2) utilize some of Mutual’s water by providing BV Mutual with water from another source up to an average of 6,500 acre-feet per year (which is considered to be the full yield of the lake – Ref 10, pages 7 and 8). Discussions with the BBMWD and BV Mutual and a more extensive legal analysis would be required before this alternative can be considered a viable alternative.
Legal issues aside, the concept of conjunctive use is relatively simple. When the lake level is high, lake water is used for domestic purposes and the groundwater wells are rested and aquifers are allowed to recharge. When lake levels are low, no water is taken from the lake and all of the domestic demand is supplied from groundwater. In between these two extremes, domestic demands are met using a combination of groundwater and lake water. The amount of water coming from each source is based on trying to maximize the use of the groundwater storage capacity and at the same time maximize the recreational values of the lake. This type of program allows for greater utilization of the full storage capacity of the groundwater basins and therefore results in a greater perennial yield. It also reduces the surface area of the lake
15 267 of 31659 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
when lake levels are high which results in reduced evaporative losses. Conjunctive use, therefore, results in a more efficient use of both the groundwater basins and the storage capacity of the lake. It does, however, result is a somewhat lower lake level particularly during high lake level conditions. The exact impact on lake levels can not be estimated at this time because we do not have access to the BBMWD lake simulation model.
The capital costs involved in a conjunctive use program depend on the method used to incorporate lake water into the DWP’s domestic water system. The least cost would be the construction of groundwater recharge facilities which will be considered here (Alternative 5). A more expensive alternative would be to construct a lake water filtration plant which will be considered as a separate alternative (Alternative 5a).
Based on the earlier analysis under alternative 1a, the only subunits available to the DWP with significant recharge capacity appear to be the Rathbone and Erwin Subunits.
Rathbone Subunit As described under Alternative 1a, there appears to be significant underground storage capacity beneath the Sand Canyon stream channel. Alternative 5 would utilize this capacity by pumping lake water through the Bear Mountain snow making pipeline from China Gardens to an appropriate point along the golf course. A new pipeline and a booster pump would have to be constructed to get the water from this point up Sand Canyon to the selected point of recharge, a distance of approximately 6,000 feet. For this analysis it was assumed that water would be discharged above Teton Drive to allow sufficient distance between recharge and extraction. Assuming a cost of $150 per foot for the pipeline and $250,000 for a booster pump, yields a total cost of $1.2 million. O&M costs are assumed to be $30,000 per year to maintain the recharge facilities in Sand Canyon, $600/af for water from the lake (twice the price currently paid by the ski areas to account for return flow), $100/af in pumping costs, and another $300/af to extract the water using existing wells. Using the assumptions described in the introduction and assuming a recharge rate of 750 af/yr (Ref 21, page IV-18) yields a total cost of $1,090/af.
Erwin Subunit The analysis of Alternative 1a indicated that excess recharge capacity also exists in the Erwin Subunit. To recharge the upper portion of the Erwin Subunit using water from Big Bear Lake would require a roughly 5-6 mile pipeline and would involve exporting water out of the Big Bear Lake Watershed. Such an export may be opposed by BV Mutual or the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). However, the basin compensation requirements of the 1977 Judgment should account for and mitigate the effects of such an export on the down stream water interests. Further legal analysis and discussions with the BBMWD, BV Mutual, and others would be required before this can be considered a viable alternative.
Using the data developed by BBARWA (Ref 20 – see Alternative 1a), a 5 acre recharge area in the upper Erwin Subunit should be capable of recharging approximately 1,500 af/yr assuming a 200 day/yr operation. During wet cycles this amount of recharge may not be available. For purposes of this analysis we will assume, on average, only this amount (750 af/yr) can be recharged each year.
16 268 of 31660 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
The BBARWA study concluded that the cost to purchase and develop the recharge site was $3.6 million, with annual O&M costs of $534,000 (Ref 20, page 7-6 and Ref 3). A 5 mile pipeline ($150/foot) and booster pump ($250,000) would add roughly $4.25 million to the capital cost. Using the financing assumptions described in the introduction and assuming a 100 year life for the recharge site and that lake water could be purchased for $600/af plus another $100/af in pumping costs and $300/af to pump the water out of the ground using existing wells yields a total cost of $1,930 per acre-foot for this alternative (assuming only 750 af/yr can be safely recharged).
While a conjunctive use program appears to be feasible, in order to determine the appropriate operating criteria for such a program it will be necessary to utilize the existing groundwater models in conjunction with the BBMWD’s existing lake simulation model.
There is little or no information on the recharge potential of the other groundwater subunits available to the DWP, consequently no additional estimates can be made at this time.
Given the relatively low cost, but uncertain legal and political constraints, conjunctive use through groundwater recharge is considered a Priority 2 alternative.
Alternative 5a. Coordinated use of groundwater and lake water using a water filtration plant. A more direct method of using lake water in a conjunctive or coordinated use program would be to construct a lake water filtration plant. A 5 mgd lake water filtration plant was considered in a 1981 water resources report (Ref 11). Since 1981, the Consumer Price Index has approximately doubled but a 5 mgd plant is most likely larger than needed. To get a rough idea of the costs related to this alternative, the prices from the 1981 report were doubled and then multiplied by 2/3’s to estimate the costs for a 3.3 mgd water filtration plant in 2008. Using the same financing terms assumed for the other alternatives and assuming the filtration plant would only operate 50% of the time for an average of 1,000 acre-feet per year, the unit cost of this alternative would be $1,290/acre-foot (including $600/af to purchase water from the lake). It should be noted that the transmission system costs shown in the 1981 report seem extremely high. The report indicated that it was assumed that lake water would be made available to Southern California Water Co. (now DWP) at China Gardens and to the BBCCSD at Division Drive. Most of the transmission costs may be associated with the assumed BBCCSD connection. Table 4. Rough Estimates of Water Filtration Costs Item Cost Intake System $500,000 Treatment Plant $3,700,000 Transmission System $4,300,000 Booster Pumps $500,000
TOTAL Capital Cost $9,000,000 TOTAL Capital w/o Trans. System $4,700,000 Average O&M Costs (w/water purchase costs) $900,000 Unit Cost/af $1,290
17 269 of 31661 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
The implementation of a conjunctive use program would require the approval of the BBMWD and the concurrence of BV Mutual and the Big Bear Watermaster (see the discussion in the second paragraph under Alternative 1a) that such a program was consistent with the 1977 Judgment.
Significant additional engineering analysis would be required to fully evaluate this alternative as the validity of 27 year old cost figures is clearly questionable. In addition, in order to determine the appropriate operating criteria for a conjunctive use program it will be necessary to link the existing groundwater models to the BBMWD’s existing lake simulation model.
Given the high capital cost and uncertain legal and political feasibility this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 6. Recharge the Erwin Subunit using purified wastewater. This alternative was studied by BBARWA in 2005 and this analysis will be primarily based on those studies. However, in 2007 a nearly identical, although substantially larger, recharge project was constructed by the Orange County Water District. Since actual costs are more reliable than pre-design estimates, the actual construction and O&M costs related to the OCWD project, adjusted to reflect economies of scale, will also be presented and discussed.
Alternative 6 involves treating 500 af/yr of wastewater to drinking water standards, blending it with 500 af/yr of groundwater and then recharging it into the Erwin Lake groundwater basin. It is anticipated that the 50/50 blending requirement may be reduced in the future to allow larger amounts of wastewater to be recharged (i.e. 600 af/yr wastewater and 400 af/yr of groundwater). OCWD currently recharges their purified wastewater without any external blending requirement (ie. existing groundwater is considered adequate to achieve a 50/50 blend).
The BBARWA analysis did not get to the point of a final design, but the wastewater treatment process considered includes the same advanced water purification methods being employed by OCWD (Ref 5). After secondary treatment the water would receive Microfiltration (MF) followed by Reverse Osmosis (RO) and then disinfection by Ultraviolet light and an Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP). This series of processes effectively removes pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP’s) (Ref 4). In the end the water is so pure (essentially distilled water) that selected minerals must be added back into the water before it can be recharged into the groundwater basins.
The water purification system constructed by OCWD can not be directly applied to the Big Bear Valley. The significantly smaller size of the plant, colder climate, and lack of an ocean brine disposal pipeline will require some modifications to be realistic for our purposes. The smaller size (1 MGD vs 70 MGD) will mean the loss of some economies of scale. However, to a large extent the components of the treatment system are modular allowing smaller plant sizes to have similar costs. The colder winter climate in the Big Bear Valley will require that most facilities be contained within heated buildings. All of the components in the OCWD plant were constructed inside buildings; consequently the only additional cost will be to heat the buildings during the winter months. Brine disposal during the initial startup phase of the project when treatment flows are small may involve nothing more than injecting the brine into
18 270 of 31662 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
the export line to Lucerne Valley. As treatment flows increase a separate brine evaporation system would need to be constructed. In addition to the actual water purification system this alternative requires a pipeline from the BBARWA plant to the recharge area as well as purchase and construction of the recharge site itself. Additional wells may also be needed to take full advantage of the recharged water.
The cost analysis contained in the BBARWA final report (Ref 6) assumed processing 1,000 af/yr. The initial 50/50 blending requirement would mean that only 500 af/yr would actually be processed through the plant. This would suggest that a modular design would be required such that a smaller plant be initially constructed that could be expanded when additional water is needed and/or the blending requirement was reduced.
Table 3. DWP Estimated Cost Summary Facility Size Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Treatment and Brine 500 af/yr $15,780,000(a) $482,000(b) Handling Greenspot Recharge 1,000 af/yr $3,600,000 $534,000 Site Pipeline and 12-16 inch $5,166,000 $61,000 pumping Property $2,099,000 $21,000(c) Acquisition Purchase blending 500 af/yr to start $250,000(d) water Legal Services $1,000,000 Environmental $1,500,000 Total $29,145,000 $1,348,000 (a) Adjusted to be 2/3 of the costs shown in Ref 6. (b) Adjusted to be ½ of the costs shown in Ref 6. (c) Property taxes were not included in BBARWA costs, but would be paid if the DWP owns the property. (d) Assumes a purchase cost of $500/af.
The cost per acre-foot given in the BBARWA final report is $4,970 (Ref 7, page 7-10). Using the financing assumptions described in the introduction and the costs from Table 3 (and treating the recharge facility construction costs and property acquisition costs similar to pipeline costs, ie. 100 year lifetime) and assuming 1,000 af/yr of total water, yields a cost per acre-foot of approximately $3,000. As pointed out by BBARWA in response to an earlier draft of this analysis (Ref 32), assigning a 100 year life to property acquisition, pipelines, and pond construction underestimates the actual cost during the financing period (30 years). Removing this assumption results in a per acre-foot cost of $3,540. This high cost is partially because of the need to purchase and develop the entire recharge site even though only half of the recharged water is “new”. We have also included the cost of purchasing 500 af/yr of well water to provide the blending required at the start of the project. There may, in fact, not be a need for an additional source of blend water as natural recharge in the Erwin Subunit may be sufficient to meet Department of Health Services (DOHS) blending requirements. The high costs are also partially due to the desire on the part of BBARWA to include sufficient
19 271 of 31663 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
contingencies to guarantee that actual costs would be less than or equal to the pre-design estimates.
The annualized capital and O&M costs of the OCWD plant (including water treatment, conveyance to the spreading basins, and required monitoring and reporting) were estimated to be $527 /af in 1997 (Ref 8, page 4-10). The most recent actual costs (less grants and contributions from other agencies) were $515 per acre-foot (Ref 9), or slightly less than the 1997 estimates. When the total actual capital costs are considered without taking into account the grants and contributions from OCSD and MWD, the most recent actual cost is $799 per acre-foot (Calculated from Ref 9).
BBARWA originally had federal commitments for grants to help finance the capital construction in the amount of $15 million (40% of the expected cost). Therefore, taking all of the grant money out of the above calculation is perhaps overly conservative as some grant money will likely be available.
Based on the actual cost data from the OCWD facility it appears that a similar project in Big Bear should cost between $800 and $1,000 per acre-foot. The BBARWA estimate is roughly a factor of 5 higher than this estimate. Before this alternative can be realistically evaluated it will be necessary to reconcile these two extremely different cost estimates.
It appears that Alternative 6 is technically feasible based on the success of the OCWD Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) program. However, there is a great deal of public concern regarding this alternative within the Big Bear Valley, and there is an extremely wide variation in the projected costs. Until these issues can be more thoroughly addressed, this alternative will be considered a Priority 2 Alternative.
Alternative 6a. Recharge the Rathbone Subunit (Sand Canyon) using purified wastewater. This alternative was not specifically included on the Original List, but is clearly an extension of the concept of recharging purified wastewater into a groundwater basin; consequently we have labeled it Alternative 6a.
This alternative was specifically described in a 1991 DWP report which concluded that up to 750 af/yr of purified wastewater could be recharged in Sand Canyon and meets the Department of Health Services (DOHS) requirements for underground retention time and distance between recharge and extraction (Ref 21, page IV-21 and Figure IV-7). Costs, however, were not addressed in the 1991 DWP report.
Unfortunately, this alternative suffers from the same uncertainty in treatment costs described under Alternative 6 and that discussion will not be repeated here. There are, however, two significant differences between the assumptions in Alternative 6 and this alternative: 1) blending water will not be required as 758 af/yr of natural recharge is presumed to be available (Ref 21, page III-4); and 2) a “skimming” water purification plant is assumed to be constructed on the China Gardens site to treat half the flow (approximately 500 af/yr) from the City of Big Bear Lake (see Alternative 8 for further details). These assumptions should significantly reduce the cost associated with this alternative.
20 272 of 31664 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Alternative 6a appears to be technically feasible and would likely be less costly than Alternative 6. However, like Alternative 6, the uncertainty in the cost of treatment makes this a Priority 2 alternative until this issue can be resolved.
Alternative 7. Snowmaking with reclaimed wastewater. The BBMWD currently has contracts with the ski areas for 1,100 acre-feet/year of lake water for snowmaking. Alternative 7 would involve replacing all or a portion of this water with reclaimed wastewater. Replacing a portion of the snowmaking water with reclaimed wastewater would allow an equal amount of lake water to be used for domestic purposes without any impact on lake levels.
The cost of this alternative will depend on the level of wastewater treatment required for snowmaking. If full removal of pharmaceuticals is required, then the water purification costs would be similar to Alternative 6 and the total cost of this alternative would be roughly the combination of Alternatives 5 and 6. Clearly, either directly recharging the purified wastewater (Alternative 6) or implementing conjunctive use (Alternative 5) would be more cost effective than building and operating two treatment plants. If however, the level of treatment can be significantly reduced and pharmaceutical removal is not necessary, this alternative might become cost competitive if the reductions in lake levels associated with Alternative 5 or 5a are considered unacceptable.
Since Big Bear Lake is considered a domestic supply by the regulatory agencies (for Redlands currently and Big Bear Valley potentially), significant reductions in the level of wastewater treatment for snow making purposes will likely not be allowed. The costs of wastewater purification and lake water filtration were estimated in Alternatives 5a and 6. Adding these values together (excluding the cost of purchasing lake water) yields a cost of $1,500 to $5,700 per acre-foot.
Given the expected high cost relative to direct groundwater recharge or conjunctive use, this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 8. Golf course irrigation with reclaimed water. Bear Mountain Golf Course currently uses approximately 120 af/yr of groundwater to irrigate the golf course each summer. By replacing this water with treated wastewater the DWP could increase it’s pumping from the Rathbone Subunit without exceeding the estimated perennial yield.
Since the quantity is relatively small, a modular wastewater treatment plant could be constructed at the China Gardens site to “skim” and treat 120 af/yr of wastewater and deliver it to the golf course via the existing Bear Mountain snowmaking pipeline. Solids, brine (if generated), and other by-products from the treatment process would be re-injected into the existing wastewater transmission line and pumped to the BBARWA plant.
Under normal circumstances wastewater used for golf course irrigation requires significantly less treatment and there is no need for pharmaceutical removal. However, given the relatively small size of the Rathbone Subunit and public concern regarding possible contamination from
21 273 of 31665 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
pharmaceuticals, it may be necessary to purify the wastewater to drinking water standards regardless of the use.
No information is currently available on the probable cost of a minimal wastewater treatment system. Consequently, no cost analysis can be performed at this time. However, given the fact that the pipeline is in place and if the treatment requirements could be significantly reduced, the cost of this alternative could be relatively low. If full water purification is required, the costs of this alternative should be comparable to Alternative 6a.
If full water purification is required, the “skimming” wastewater purification plant could also be operated in the winter months to provide approximately 10% of the snowmaking water. This could be used to offset any reductions in lake inflow due to enhanced recharge (Alternative 1a) or allow for lake water to be used for artificial recharge of the groundwater basins during the summer (Alternative 5a). If golf course irrigation were successful, possible additional uses for reclaimed wastewater would include park and school turf irrigation.
Like Alternatives 6 and 6a, the uncertainty in the cost of treatment makes this a Priority 2 Alternative until this issue can be resolved.
Alternative 9. Direct discharge of treated wastewater to Bear Creek. The concept is to deliver 1,000 to 2,000 af/yr of treated wastewater via a pipeline below Bear Valley dam to meet a portion of the downstream water demands. This alternative would reduce the BBMWD’s dependence on their contract with SBVWMD to deliver in-lieu water to BV Mutual. One thousand to 1,500 af/yr of lake water would then be removed from the lake for domestic purposes. The presumed advantage of this alternative would be a reduced level of wastewater treatment. The City of Redlands currently recharges approximately 6,700 af/yr of secondarily treated wastewater into the Bunker Hill (Santa Ana River) groundwater basin (Ref 31). If a similar level of treatment were sufficient for this alternative, the only cost would be a pipeline from the BBARWA treatment plant to the Dam. If, however, full water purification, including pharmaceutical removal, is required, this alternative would not be cost competitive with groundwater recharge (Alternative 6 or 6a) as two treatment plants would be required in addition to the construction of the pipeline to the dam.
The driving distance from the BBARWA treatment plant to the dam is 11.3 miles. At $150/foot a pipeline of this distance would cost roughly $9 million. Assuming no additional treatment costs and pumping costs of $100/af, the financing assumptions from the introduction result in a total cost of $280/af for this alternative. The total costs for this alternative could therefore range from $280/af to $5,210 depending on the level of treatment required.
By using this alternative to replace the minimum stream flow releases currently required from Big Bear Dam, a similar amount of water from the lake could be used for domestic purposes with no impact on the lake level. This alternative could therefore significantly reduce the cost of the other alternatives that involve the use of lake water (Alternative 1a, 5, 5a, or 6) and is therefore considered a Priority 2 Alternative.
22 274 of 31666 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Alternative 10. Direct discharge of treated wastewater to Big Bear Lake. This alternative is similar to Alternative 9 only the treated wastewater would be discharged into Stanfield Marsh rather than below the dam. This has the advantage of providing improved habitat conditions in Stanfield Marsh during periods of lower lake levels and would allow some reductions in the need for in-lieu water. It also eliminates the need to construct a pipeline to the dam. Unfortunately, discharging wastewater to BBL will require advanced wastewater treatment for at least nutrient removal and possibly to drinking water standards. No cost estimates were available to further evaluate this alternative.
Given the expected higher cost and public opposition to this alternative, this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 11. Partial diversion of Van Dusen and/or Sawmill Creeks to Big Bear Lake. There is currently no means to control flooding around Baldwin Lake during periods of high precipitation. For many years Van Dusen Creek has been diverted to flow totally into Baldwin Lake by an earthen dam across the portion of the drainage channel that flows west into Big Bear Lake. BV Mutual partially diverted the first 10 cfs from Sawmill Creek into Big Bear Lake many years ago. All flows over 10 cfs were diverted to Baldwin Lake. The flows from both creeks are needed to recharge the groundwater basins from which the BBCCSD pumps a significant portion of their water supply. This alternative involves the construction of diversion structures to divert “excess” water flow (ie. flows above what is needed to recharge the Baldwin Subunits) from Van Dusen and/or Sawmill Creeks to BBL for domestic use by both DWP and BBCCSD and use reclaimed wastewater to maintain and/or enhance the wildlife habitat values in Baldwin Lake.
A 1985 BBCCSD report evaluated the potential for capturing “excess” flows from Van Dusen Canyon (Caribou Creek) and (possibly Sawmill Creek and surface water from Shay Meadows as well) before they enter Baldwin Lake (Ref 27, page 2-24). This “excess” water was proposed to be recharged either on BBCCSD property (7.5 acres near Paradise) or via a pump back system along the stream channel. Should this project ever be implemented by the BBCCSD, there would be no “excess” water available for this alternative.
The 1985 BBCCSD report estimated that the average flow from Van Dusen Canyon (Caribou Creek) into Baldwin Lake was 700 af/yr (Ref 27, Table 2-H, 1964-1983 data). If this water were diverted to Big Bear Lake, it could be used to offset the impact on lake levels from any of the other alternatives that involve the use of lake water or surface water tributary to Big Bear Lake.
Since Caribou Creek represents approximately 40% of the inflow into Baldwin Lake, it is very likely that some form of habitat restoration would be needed in Baldwin Lake to mitigate the impact of reduced inflows. This might be accomplished using high fluoride water or treated wastewater from the nearby BBARWA treatment plant. In a letter commenting on an earlier draft of this analysis, the BBARWA Water Committee was unable to concur with an assumption that treated wastewater could be used to mitigate reduced flows to Baldwin Lake.
Without preliminary plans, the cost of this alternative is very difficult to estimate. The primary costs would be the construction of a diversion structure on Van Dusen Canyon to
23 275 of 31667 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
control the flow in each direction, improvements to the stream channel from the diversion structure to Big Bear Lake, and the cost of mitigating the reduced inflows to Baldwin Lake. If secondary effluent could be used for habitat restoration, the cost of the habitat restoration would be minimal. Higher levels of treatment could significantly increase the costs. Assuming a capital cost of $500,000 and annual O&M costs of $50,000 (10%), and using the same financial assumptions used on the other alternatives, the cost of water would be roughly $100/af.
Besides providing additional water to Big Bear Lake, this alternative would also provide a significant improvement in the valley’s ability to control flooding around Baldwin Lake. This benefit alone may be sufficient to justify further consideration of this alternative.
Given the possibly very low costs, potential flood control benefits, but low probability of increased water supply for the DWP this is considered a Priority 2 Alternative.
Alternative 12. Curtail further development, increase minimum lot size requirements, or otherwise modify the General Plans of the City of Big Bear Lake and/or the County of San Bernardino to reduce the number of potential new services within the DWP service area. The total amount of water needed to meet the needs of the DWP’s customers is directly proportional to the number of customers. While not a “supplemental water source”, any reduction in the number of potential customers will reduce the amount of supplemental water that may be required.
Within this alternative the only option available directly to the DWP would be a connection ban. Less drastic options are available to the City and County through adjustment of their minimum lot size requirements and the density of development contained in their respective general plans. An analysis by the City planning staff (Ref 12) indicates that changing the minimum lot size to 0.5 acre or 1.0 acre would reduce the number of developable lots within the City by 716 units and 783 units respectively. This same analysis showed 1,832 current vacant lots within the City and a potential of 3,288 dwelling units on these lots. If the City chose to limit development to one dwelling per lot, it would reduce the ultimate number of customers to the DWP by 1,456.
Should the City and/or the County decide to modify their general plans and/or their minimum lot size requirements and thereby reduce the maximum number of potential customers within the DWP service area, the DWP will proportionally reduce the maximum projected water demand. Since these are planning issues beyond the scope of the DWP, no further analysis will be undertaken regarding these options at this time.
In the event no supplemental water supply is developed and demands within the DWP service area exceed the available supply, the DWP would have no choice but to impose a connection ban. Given the current estimates of the perennial yields and the current figures on vacant lots, at least half of the existing vacant lots would not be allowed to connect to the DWP system under this scenario. If such a connection ban were made permanent, those lot owners denied building permits may be entitled to compensation. Assuming 1,800 parcels (about half the
24 276 of 31668 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
existing) and $50,000 per parcel, a very rough estimate of the cost of this compensation would be $90 million plus legal costs.
Given that the DWP portion of this alternative (ie. a connection ban) is an extreme and potentially expensive measure, this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 13. Eliminate outdoor watering, require Xeriscape landscaping, or require the use of “gray” water for landscaping. Watering of landscaped areas is a major use of water during the summer months. Reducing this water use by encouraging Xeriscape techniques and efficient irrigation methods has been a major component of the DWP’s water conservation program. Pushing this program to the extreme would involve prohibiting all outdoor watering except at schools and public parks. It is estimated that this would reduce average usage by approximately 20% or roughly 600 af/yr.
A less extreme alternative would be to require Xeriscape landscaping and prohibit all turf (i.e. remove existing turf) except at schools and public parks. It is estimated that this would reduce average usage by approximately 15% or roughly 450 af/yr.
Another variant of this alternative would be to require all landscaping be watered using “gray” water (ie. water from non-toilet sources within the house). The net effect of this alternative on average water usage would be the same as prohibiting outdoor watering (20% or roughly 600 af/yr). A possible negative side effect would be an increase in personal care products (soap, shampoo, etc.) entering the groundwater.
Under Water Code section 350 the DWP can declare a Water Shortage Emergency and can probably impose the above described restrictions on water use. If this authority were successfully challenged, the DWP would have to seek special legislation to get the authority to impose these restrictions.
It is very likely that a significant portion of the community would react negatively to the imposition of most if not all of these restrictions. Since the DWP can only regulate the use of water delivered through its’ facilities, the implementation of this alternative would likely result in many property owners drilling their own wells. Should this occur it would at least partially defeat the purpose of the restrictions.
Given the low cost but likely community opposition and increase in private wells, this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 14. Import state project water. The possible importation of state project water has been evaluated at least twice (Ref 11 and 13). The most recent analysis (Ref 13) concluded that “to obtain a long term water supply for the Big Bear Valley, Big Bear would probably have to purchase water from a farmer in Central California (the farmer would then either let his farm land go fallow or switch to a less water intensive crop).” The 2003 letter report (Ref 13) estimates that the cost of purchasing a long- term water supply is $200 to $500 per acre-foot. However, given the most recent cut backs in
25 277 of 31669 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
deliveries (not considered in Ref 13), it will likely be very difficult to negotiate such a purchase.
Assuming a long-term contract could be purchased, it would be necessary to negotiate an agreement to wheel the water to Lake Silverwood and then through the Mojave Water Agency’s Morongo Basin Pipeline to Camp Rock Road. From this turnout it would be necessary to construct a pipeline and pumping stations to transport the water to the Big Bear Valley. Ref 13 estimates that the capital cost to construct the necessary facilities to import 2,500 acre-feet per year would be between $18.1 and $26 million dollars with annual O&M costs of between $3.25 and $4.5 million (2003 dollars). Using the same interest rate and term used in the other alternatives (6.7%, 20 years), results in water costs of between $2,000 and $2,500 per acre-foot.
The 1981 report (Ref 11) examined several alternative routes including two from CLAWA and one from MWA. In 1981 dollars the capital costs were $5 to 5.2 million for the CLAWA alternatives and $11.1 million for the MWA alternative. Using the same factor of 2 assumed for Alternative 5 to adjust 1981 dollars to 2008 dollars gives capital costs of around $10 million for the CLAWA alternative and $22 million for the MWA alternative. It should be noted the CLAWA alternative assumes buying treated water at no extra cost and minimal pumping due to the small change in elevation. If the cost of a treatment plant is included, the capital costs for the CLAWA alternative increases to $15.4 million in 2008 dollars.
Given the very large capital costs, cutbacks in the State Water Project deliveries and the very small probability of obtaining a State Water Contract this is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 15. Cloud seeding. In 2004 the BBMWD proposed a cloud seeding project designed to increase precipitation within the valley by 5% - 15% (Ref 14). During the review process significant local opposition developed and the adequacy of the environmental documentation (Negative Declaration) was questioned. The proposal was eventually dropped when the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) threatened to withdraw grant funds for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) related studies if the project proceeded (Ref 15). The primary concern of the SARWQCB related to the need for completion of hydrological watershed models before beginning any program to increase runoff. The cloud seeding project was officially postponed for one year to allow the watershed models to be completed and the preparation of an EIR. Precipitation in 2005 was well above average, and it appears that no further work was done on the project.
During the hearing process on the 2004 project several opponents presented documentation questioning the efficacy of cloud seeding. Dr. William R. Cotton a professor at Colorado State University was quoted as saying -- "We have seen that with few exceptions, the scientific evidence is not conclusive that cloud seeding is causing the desired results. Cloud seeding may increase precipitation, but it is very modest. It's not going to be a drought breaker" (Ref 18). However, a 2007 article by Dr. Cotton on cloud seeding states -- “Although the amounts of precipitation increase are under debate, a 10 percent increase is conservatively estimated” (Ref 19).
26 278 of 31670 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Given the highly variable nature of weather events it is obviously very difficult to determine the direct effect of cloud seeding. Furthermore the wide variation in precipitation from East to West within the Big Bear Valley further complicates any analysis of the effects of cloud seeding. Most of the studies showing the effectiveness of cloud seeding appear to have been done on much larger watersheds. It is, therefore, difficult to estimate how precisely the weather modification contractor would be able to target the Big Bear Valley Watershed, and therefore how effective the program would actually be at increasing precipitation locally.
Another issue of concern was the effect of Silver Iodide on the environment. The BBMWD environmental consultant concluded that Silver Iodide is very stable and would not have a significant effect (Ref 16) whereas the project opponents submitted documents indicating possible long term toxic effects. It is not clear from the documents presented which is correct. If this project were going to be revived, it is clear that a full EIR would have to be prepared to evaluate the environmental effects.
Assuming a cloud seeding program could achieve a 10% increase in precipitation throughout the watershed (the mid-point in the BBMWD estimate and the conservative estimate by Dr. Cotton) it seems reasonable to assume the perennial yield of the groundwater basins would also be increased by 10% for a net increase of approximately 300 acre-feet per year. The proposed cost (in 2004 dollars) was roughly $167,000 (Ref 17) per year or $560 per acre-foot. If the BBMWD was still interested in cost sharing this program, the cost per acre-foot might be significantly reduced.
Given the currently available information and the large variation in precipitation throughout the valley, it is difficult to determine how effective a small cloud seeding program might actually be. If only a 2%- 3% increase were achieved within the Bear Valley Watershed, the benefit to the perennial yield would be reduced to between 60 and 90 acre-feet per year and the cost would increase to between $1,860 and $2,780 per acre-foot.
Given the high degree of uncertainty in the effectiveness (and therefore cost) of a cloud seeding program and the significant amount of public opposition to the possible adverse environmental effects, this alternative is considered a Priority 3 Alternative.
Alternative 16. Combine all or part of the DWP water system with the BBCCSD. This alternative was presented at the joint City Council/DWP meeting but it is not clear how it would create a source of supplemental water for the DWP. The possible transfer of water between the BBCCSD and the DWP is considered under Alternatives 2 and 2a.
Summary and Conclusions Based on this reconnaissance level analysis Alternatives 1, 1a, 2, and 2a are considered Priority 1 Alternatives. Alternatives 5, 6, 6a, 8, 9, and 11 are considered Priority 2 Alternatives and the remainder are Priority 3. It is believed that some combination of these alternatives will be able to provide a secure long term water supply for DWP customers including a reasonable
27 279 of 31671 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
Table 4. Summary of Alternatives Water Cost per Provided acre-foot Technical Political Priority Alternative (acre-feet) ($/af) Feasibility Feasibility Level 1. Maximize Groundwater N/A $300 - $2,740 Excellent Excellent 1 1a. Enhanced Groundwater 100-200 $480 - $1,260 Excellent Good 1 Recharge 2. Purchase Excess Water from 0-1,000 Unknown Excellent Good 1 BBCCSD 2a. Blend low fluoride DWP 250-350 Unknown Excellent Good 1 water with high fluoride BBCCSD water 3. Import from Holcomb Valley Unknown Unknown Good Poor 3 4. Groundwater Adjudication Unknown Unknown Poor Poor 3 5. Conjunctive Use with Lake 750-1,500 $1,090-$1,450 Excellent Fair 2 Water (groundwater recharge) 5a. Coordinated Use with Lake 1,000 $1,290 Excellent Fair 3 Water (filtration plant) 6. Recharge Erwin Lake using 1,000 $800 - $4,970 Excellent Fair 2 Purified Wastewater 6a. Recharge Sand Canyon using 750 $800 - $3,000 Excellent Fair 2 Purified Wastewater 7. Snowmaking with Purified 1,000 $1,500-$5,700 Good Fair 3 Wastewater 8. Golf Course Irrigation with 120 $800 - $3,000 Excellent Fair 2 Reclaimed Wastewater 9. Discharge Purified 1,000 – $280 - $5,250 Excellent Good 2 Wastewater to Bear Creek 2,000 10. Discharge of Purified 1,000 – $1,500-$5,700 Excellent Fair 3 Wastewater to Big Bear Lake 2,000 11. Partial Diversion of Van 700 $100 Good Good 2 Dusen and/or Sawill Creeks 12. Limit Development Varies w/ Varies w/ Varies w/ Varies w/ 3 Option Option Option Option 13. More Extensive Limits on 450 – 600 Unknown but Good to Poor 3 Outdoor Watering likely small Excellent 14. Import State Project Water 1,000 $2,000 - Poor Fair 3 $2,500 15. Cloud Seeding 50-300 $550 Fair Fair 3 16. Combine DWP with Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor 3 BBCCSD
contingency beyond the projected demand at build-out. Alternative 1 may provide the majority of the needed water, but this would require a roughly 30% increase in the perennial yield estimates for the Division and Erwin Subunits and the high estimate for the West Baldwin Subunit. This may be overly optimistic. Clearly, aggressive conservation and more effective
28 280 of 31672 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
and coordinated use of our surface water and wastewater must also be part of the DWP’s long term water management plans.
In most cases the cost estimates developed are extremely rough and are intended for comparison purposes only. They must not be taken too literally. It was the intent of this document to provide a framework for the DWP to evaluate the alternatives using whatever information was available. As we move forward, more precise cost estimates must be developed. It should also be noted that the BBARWA Water Committee does not concur with the cost estimates for the use of purified wastewater and recommends a range of $6,628/af to $9,021/af for these costs (not including the cost of blend water or the cost of extraction - Ref. 32). While we agree that BBARWA put forth a considerable effort earlier this decade to evaluate wastewater reclamation, we believe there is a legitimate issue regarding the wide disparity between CH2MHIll’s pre-design cost estimates and OCWD’s actual costs. We can not simply accept CH2MHILL’s estimates as totally accurate and reject OCWD’s actual costs as completely non-applicable. We continue to believe that our conclusion is appropriate – namely that the two extremely different cost estimates must be reconciled before a realistic conclusion can be reached.
It should also be noted that no alternatives have been dropped from the list. However, the DWP has limited resources and must efficiently focus those resources on the most promising alternatives. To this end, it is recommended that the DWP continue to evaluate only the Priority 1 and 2 Alternatives and postpone any further work on the Priority 3 Alternatives.
References 1. “Technical Memorandum Perennial Yield Update for the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Service Area”, February 2, 2006, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., Table 2, page 19. 2. DWP Data 3. “Recycled Water Master Plan”, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, March 2006, CH2MHill, 4. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System presentation by Mike Marcus April 22, 2008 to the DWP Board. 5. Ref. 3, Figure 6-20, page 6-43. 6. Ref 3, Table 7-7, page 7-9. 7. Ref 3, Page 7-10. 8. Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project, Project Report, September 1997. 9. Private communication from Greg Woodside, Orange County Water District, “Cost Summary for GWR”, June 30, 2008. 10. 1977 Judgment in the case of Big Bear Municipal Water District vs. North Fork Water Company, et al., 11. Big Bear Valley Water Resources Report and Management Plan for Big Bear City Community Services District and Southern California Water Co., 1981. 12. Presentation by Jim Miller to the joint City Council/DWP meeting, March 3, 2000 13. Letter report prepared by Engineering Resources of Southern California for BBARWA dated March 10, 2003,”Estimated Cost for State Project water”
29 281 of 31673 AppendixItem 2.4 A: Alternative Water Sources (2010)
14. BBWMD Report to Board of Directors, August 19, 2004, Agenda Item 6B and a report from Arlen Huggins, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada titled – “Wintertime Cloud Seeding: Positive Evidence for Snowpack Enhancement” 15. Letter Dated November 2, 2004 from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 16. Initial Study prepared by Timothy Moore, Risk Sciences, dated 9/28/04 17. Cost Estimate from Atmospherics Incorporated for cloud seeding for the winter of 2004-2006 18. Colorado State University, News and Information, September 10, 2002, “Media Tipsheet: Drought and Wildfire”. 19. “Basic Clouding Seeding Concepts, William R. Cotton, Colorado State University, Southwest Hydrology, March/April 2007, p. 16-17. 20. “Geohydrologic Evaluation of the Artificial Recharge Potential in the Big Bear Valley, California”, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., Oct 1, 2004. 21. “ Report of Waste Discharge/Engineering Report on the Proposed use of Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater for Groundwater Recharge”, Black & Veatch Engineers, July 1991 22. “Status of the Ground Water Replenishment Phase II Project’s Full Scale Preliminary Concepts & Capital Budget Estimates”, Steven C. Schindler, November 11, 2003, Bottom Line Values of Key Parameters. 23. “Feasibility Study of an Artificial Recharge Program for the Division and Lakeplant Well Fields Using Water Potentially Available from Big Bear Lake”, Geoscience, March 1991. 24. Letter dated April 18, 1991 from Jeffery L. Stone, District Engineer, DHS, Office of Drinking Water, to Michael Perry, DWP General Manager. 25. “Water Conservation Plan Report” for the BBCCSD, November 1985, by CM Engineering Associates, page 2-24. 26. Letter dated April 24, 2006 from Dennis Williams, Geoscience, to Steven Schindler, BBARWA General Manager regarding “Summary of Geohydrologic Investigations and Analyses Associated with BBARWA’s Ground Water Artificial Recharge Feasibility Study”). 27. Water Conservation Plan Report for BBCCSD, CM Engineering Associates, November 1985. 28. Water Master Plan, City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power, CDM, November 2006 ( Table 4-2) 29. Water Master Plan, Big Bear City Community Services District, Daniel B. Stevens & Associates, January 2010. 30. BBCCSD production data, 1997 – 2008 31. www.ci.redlands.ca.us/utilities/waste_water.htm 32. Letter dated February 25, 2009 from BBARWA Governing Board to Bill La Haye. 33. Letter dated February 12, 2009 from Michael K. Mayer, BBCCSD General Manager to Bill La Haye
30 282 of 31674 Item 2.4 Appendix C: Letters of Support
283 of 31675 Item 2.4 Appendix C: Letters of Support
284 of 31676 Item 2.4 Appendix C: Letters of Support
285 of 31677 Item 2.4 Appendix C: Letters of Support
Bureau of Reclamation Financial Assistance Operations Attn: Mr. Mattthew Reichert, Grants Management Specialist Mail Code: 84-27852 P.O. Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225
RE: WaterSmart, Drought Response Program, Fiscal Year 2017: City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power – Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project
Mr. Reichert,
It is my pleasure to write this letter in support of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power (BBLDWP) Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project (Well Project). The Well Project is proposed to be located near the west side of the Sugarloaf community, in the remote mountain community of Big Bear Lake, a four-season resort town that can attract in excess of 100,000 people on holiday weekends. The proposed Well Project will provide drinking water to the communities of Sugarloaf, Erwin Lake, Moonridge, and the City of Big Bear Lake.
Grant funds will be used to construct the Sawmill Well Pumping plant, which will produce 350 gallons per minute of high quality drinking water. The well project is located within the West Baldwin sub-basin within the Bear Valley Basin (DWR Basin 8-9). The West Basin sub-basin is currently underutilized and pumping from this basin will allow BBLDWP to not pump from other sub-basins within the Bear Valley Basin. This added operational flexibility will improve BBLDWP’s drought resiliency by allowing them to reduce pumping from sub-basins that are nearly fully utilized. The Well Project will include equipping a recently constructed municipal well, a concrete block building, minor site work, and connection piping. The Well Project will be highly efficient and will be capable of producing over 20% of BBLDWP’s water supply.
The proposed Well Project will be capable of providing water supply to the Big Bear City Community Services District (BBCCSD) during periods of high demand, if needed. BBCCSD and BBLDWP have interconnects between their water systems which allows for easy water transfers, as needed. The Well Project is a beneficial project for the entire Bear Valley community.
I fully support the efforts of the BBLDWP as they seek external funding for the Well Project.
It is my pleasure to write this letter in support of the City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Water and Power, Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project.
Sincerely,
Senator Mike Morrell California’s 23rd District
286 of 31678 Item 2.5 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
RE: Amgen Tour of California Partnership and Support Opportunities
Background
May 11 – 20, 2017 Established in 2006 The Amgen Tour of California is celebrating its 12th Anniversary as an international, world-class cycling road race that features the top elite professional teams and athletes from 33 countries competing for the highest prize purse of any cycling race in North America. As a World Tour event, it has grown to become one of the most important cycling events in the world – a major international sports property attracting a worldwide audience, the premier American race and a spectacular forerunner to the Tour de France.
Craig Smith, Local Organizing Committee Chair of the Amgen Tour of California Time Trial will provide the Board with information regarding the Tour during the Regular Board Meeting on February 28, 2017, and requested the Board consider sponsoring the event.
The sponsorship would provide DWP the opportunity to engage with thousands of Tour spectators at a CSD-DWP booth during the event. Local partnership levels range from $500 to $30,000 (see attached brochure). Staff recommends sponsoring the event at the $2,500 level. If approved, this $2,500 will be combined with the $2,500 that was contributed to the snowed-out event in 2015, for a total contribution level of $5,000. Please see attached brochure from Rick Herrick for additional information.
Financial Impact
The financial impact of $2,500 would be accommodated through a budget transfer from Water Production - Electricity (20.50.5560), which is currently under budget, to Conservation/Public Information - Advertising (20.51.6910).
Recommendation
Please discuss and consider sponsoring the Amgen Tour of California.
287 of 316 Item 2.5
2017 Local Partnership & Support Opportunities
2010 First Amgen Tour of California Stage Win 2012 Wire To Wire Winner Peter Sagan Sylvain Georges Liquigas Cannondale A2GR La Mondale 05:19:17
288 of 316 Item 2.5
Event Overview
BY THE NUMBERS . . . …Largest annual spectator sporting event in California with more than 2 million spectators annually …Over 5.41 billion on-line, print and television impressions worldwide … 2.9 million visits to the official event website …31 million total interactions with fans on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube …Over 189,700 combined followers on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook
Amgen Tour of California – May 11 – 20, 2017 Established in 2006 The Amgen Tour of California is celebrating its 12th Anniversary as an international, world-class cycling road race that features the top elite professional teams and athletes from 33 countries competing for the highest prize purse of any cycling race in North America. As a World Tour event, it has grown to become one of the most important cycling events in the world – a major international sports property attracting a worldwide audience, the premier American race and a spectacular forerunner to the Tour de France.
2017 Race Schedule
AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S RACE* MAY 11-20, 2017 MEN’S OVERALL START • STAGE 1 & 2 – South Lake Tahoe WOMEN’S OVERALL START
(Thursday, May 11th through Friday, May 12th) STAGE START
STAGE FINISH • STAGE 3- Elk Grove to Sacramento (Saturday, May 13th) SOUTH LAKE TAHOE THURSDAY, MAY 11 - WOMEN’S STAGE 1 6 TIME TRIAL FRIDAY, MAY 12 - WOMEN’S STAGE 2 1 2 • STAGE 4 – Sacramento (Sunday, May 14th) MOUNTAIN STAGE W SACRAMENTO SATURDAY, MAY 13 3 WOMEN’S STAGE 3 FINISH M MEN’S OVERALL FINISH ELK GROVE SUNDAY, MAY 14 SATURDAY, MAY 13 WOMEN’S STAGE 4 / MEN’S STAGE 1 MODESTO W WOMEN’S OVERALL FINISH 2 MONDAY, MAY 15 AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA MEN’S PROFESSIONAL RACE* SAN JOSE MONDAY, MAY 15 • STAGE 1 – Sacramento (Sunday, May 14th)
• STAGE 2 – Modesto to San Jose (Monday, May 15th) MORRO BAY TUESDAY, MAY 16 3 MOUNTAIN HIGH PISMO BEACH SATURDAY, MAY 20 TUESDAY, MAY 16 SANTA CLARITA WEDNESDAY, MAY 17 MT. BALDY • STAGE 3 – Pismo Beach to Morro Bay (Tuesday, May 16th) THURSDAY, MAY 18 SANTA BARBARA 4 6 BIG BEAR LAKE WEDNESDAY, MAY 17 5 PASADENA M TIME TRIAL FRIDAY, MAY 19 SATURDAY, MAY 20 • STAGE 4 – Santa Barbara to Santa Clarita (Wednesday, May 17th) ONTARIO THURSDAY, MAY 18 • STAGE 5 – Ontario to Mt. Baldy (Thursday, May 18th) • STAGE 6 – Big Bear Lake (Friday, May 19th) Individual Time Trial
• STAGE 7 – Mountain High to Pasadena (Saturday, May 20th) MAY 14-20 MAY 11-14
amgentourofcalifornia amgentoc #AMGENTOC AMGENTOUROFCALIFORNIA.COM
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
289 of 316 Item 2.5
Extensive Promotional Experience & Exposure
The Amgen Tour of California will be viewed by local, national and international audiences numbering in the millions. The Tour provides a platform to showcase Big Bear Lake as the “Cycling Capital of Southern California, and present the County of San Bernardino, as well as the State of California to cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts around the world. IMPACT • Global audience of 11.3 million viewers • Largest annual spectator sporting event in California • Largest cycling event in North America • Women’s race joins UC Womens World Tour - 4 days womens racing. • World-class field of men and women riders representing 33 countries DISTRIBUTION • The Amgen Tour of California was broadcast in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide via 24 media partners • 2 hours of live race coverage of the final stage on NBC Sports • Fourteen (14) hours of live coverage on NBCSN, including 2 hours of live coverage of the Big Bear Lake Time Trial • More than 5.41 billion online, print, and television impressions worldwide DIGITAL MEDIA • 2.9 million visitors to the official event website • 189,700 combined followers on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook • 181,836 hours of video delivered on the Tour Tracker in 2015 • 5.5 million page views in Tour Tracker (25% increase from 2015)
Broadcast Exposure 2016 BROADCAST VIEWERSHIP: • NBCSN & NBC Broadcast Combined Viewership: 1.725 Million • Major broadcast partners include: NBC (US), Eurosport (Europe), Eurosport (Asia and Pacific), Rogers SportsNet (Canada), TDN (Central America), Supersport (Subsaharan Africa) JSports (Japan) Sky Sports (New Zealand), LeTv (China) and SBS (Australia) • Fourteen (14) hours of live coverage on NBCSN and two (2) hours of live coverage on the final Sunday on NBC Sports • Distribution to over 200 countries and territories worldwide • Three (3) national broadcast hits: The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Today Show and ESPN SportsCenter
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected] 290 of 316 Item 2.5
LIVE Race Streaming – Tour Tracker TOUR TRACKER - LIVE RACE STREAMING The Amgen Tour of California Tour Tracker is the official live streaming platform; web and app based. The Tour Tracker combines live video, GPS tracking, text commentary, photo feeds, tour standings, stage previews, results and more. No matter where you are, with the Tour Tracker you are a part of the action. TOUR TRACKER DIGITAL METRICS • 274,000 viewers • 152,000 unique users • 5.5 million Page views (25% increase from 2015) • Average of 48 minutes of continuous view time per mobile device • 181,836 total hours streamed over the 8-day event
Demographics
Event Demographics • Median Age: 47 • Men: 55% • Women: 45% • Average household income: $130,000 (over double CA & National average) • Education: 60% are college graduates • 71% own home: 73% have children • Active lifestyle: 93% own a road bike (2.5 road bikes average per household), 70% ride a bike at least once a week, 93% exercise 2+ times a week • 66% have attended AMGEN Tour of California in the past • 80% of attendees likely to consider trying product or services from sponsors
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected] 291 of 316 Item 2.5
Local Partnership Levels & Benefits
A variety of local partnership opportunities are available, and all packages include extensive benefits that relate to local and regional marketing and public relations efforts coordinated by the Local Organizing Committee (LOC). Each of the following partnership packages is available for customization to best meet the needs of the partner. Please contact Rick Herrick, LOC Partnership Chair, for more information about the available packages or to arrange a meeting. .
$30,000 Yellow Leader Jersey - 3 Packages- (SOLDSOLD OUT) Select From . . . • Local presenting partner sponsorship (“Locally Presented by . . . “) in all Big Bear Stage advertising and public relations efforts • Exclusivity in local business category
Marketing • Premium Logo Placement in local and regional advertising and public relations efforts • Two (2) Public Address Announcements about your business from the announcer’s stage on day of race • :30 second commercial run two (2) times, on festival big screen.
• Premium “Village” banner presence (January – May, 2017) near the start / finish areas • Logo with link on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • Logo with link on BigBearTimeTrial.com website, the official local website for the Stage 6 Big Bear Time Trial • Premium logo placement on flyers and posters produced for the event, distributed to bike shops and at cycling events across Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada • Company listing on local partner banner in Amgen Tour of California Lifestyle Expo • Press Release sent to local and regional media announcing sponsorship of the event • Social media announcements of partnership • Ability to use “Proud Local Partner of Amgen Tour of California” in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Listing in the official Amgen Tour of California program – thank you page • “Official Amgen Tour of California Local Partner” banner for your business
Day of Event Presence • One (1) 10’ X 10’ Lifestyle Booth in the Amgen Tour of California Lifestyle Expo Area (10’ X 10’ tent provided) • Two (2) on course logo panels (3’ x 8’) as premium space is available on race fencing
VIP Access • On stage award presenter for the Big Bear Time Trial • Amgen Tour of California VIP Hospitality Passes (up to 6 people) • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (up to 20 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt • Recognition plaque or framed event poster
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
292 of 316 Item 2.5
$20,000 Red Polka Dot / King of the Mountain Jersey – (2 Available)
Select From . . . • Friday Finish Reception and Saturday Ride Partner (“Sponsored by … “) • Pedestrian Bridge Partner (“Locally Presented by … “) • Exclusivity in your local business category
Marketing • Prominent Logo placement in all local and regional advertising and public relations efforts • One (1) Public Address Announcement about your business from the announcer’s stage on day of race • :30 second commercial run one (1) time on festival big screen • Prominent “Village” banner presence (January - May, 2017) near the start / finish areas • Logo with link on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • Logo with link on BigBearTimeTrial.com website, official website for the Stage 6 Big Bear Time Trial • Prominent logo placement on flyers and posters produced for the event, distributed to bike shops and at cycling events across Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada • Press release sent to local and regional media announcing sponsorship of the event • Social media announcements of partnership • Company listing on sponsor banner in Amgen Tour of California Lifestyle Expo • Ability to use “Proud Local Partner of Amgen Tour of California” in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Listing in the official Amgen Tour of California program – thank you page • “Official Amgen Tour of California Local Partner” banner for your business
Day of Event Presence
• One (1) 10’ X 10’ Lifestyle Booth in the Amgen Tour of California Lifestyle Expo Area (10’X10’ tent provided) • One (1) on course logo panel (3’ x 8’) as prominent space is available on race fencing
VIP Access • On stage master of ceremonies for the Big Bear Time Trial finish reception and Saturday ride • Amgen Tour of California VIP Hospitality Passes (up to 4 people) • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (up to 16 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt • Recognition plaque or framed event poster
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
293 of 316 Item 2.5
$10,000 Green Sprinters Jersey (4 Available) Select From . . . • Finish Line VIP Hospitality Partner (“Locally Presented By … “) • Start Line VIP Hospitality Partner (”Locally Presented By ...”) • Fawnskin Turnaround Partner (“Locally Presented By …”) • Race Winner Award Partner (“Locally Presented By …”)
Marketing • Logo placement in local and regional advertising and public relations efforts • Village banner presence (January - May, 2017) near the start / finish areas • Logo with link on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • Logo with link on BigBearTimeTrial.com website, official website for the Stage 6 Big Bear Time Trial • Press release sent to local and regional media announcing partnership of the event • Social media announcements of partnership • Logo placement on stage-specific flyers and posters produced for the event, which will be distributed to bike shops and at cycling events across Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada • Ability to use “Proud Local Partner of Amgen Tour of California” logo in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Listing in the official Amgen Tour of California program – thank you page • “Official Amgen Tour of California Local Partner” banner for your business
Day of Event Presence • One (1) 10’ X 10’ Lifestyle Booth in the Amgen Tour of California Lifestyle Expo Area (10’X10’ tent provided)
VIP Access • Amgen Tour of California VIP Hospitality Passes (up to 2 people) • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (up to 12 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt • Recognition plaque or framed event poster
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
294 of 316 Item 2.5
$5,000 Best Young Rider Jersey (4 Available)
Select From . . . • Team Bus Parking Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .” ) • Beer Garden Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .” ) • Bike Valet Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .” ) • Media Center Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .” )
Marketing • Logo placement in local and regional advertising and public relations efforts • Two (2) public address announcements about your business from the announcer’s stage on day of race • Logo on finish site banner (January– May, 2017) near the finish area • Logo with link on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • Logo with link on BigBearTimeTrial.com website, official website for the Stage 6 Big Bear Time Trial • Logo placement on stage-specific flyers and posters produced for the event, which will be distributed to bike shops and at cycling events across Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada • Ability to use “Proud Local Partner of Amgen Tour of California” logo in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Listing in the official Amgen Tour of California program – thank you page • “Official Amgen Tour of California Local Partner” banner for your business
VIP Access • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (8 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt • Recognition plaque or framed event poster
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
295 of 316 Item 2.5
$2,500 Blue Breakaway from Cancer Young Rider Jersey (4 Available)
Select From . . . • Start Line Stage Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .” ) • Entertainment Partner (“Locally Presented By . . . “) • Park and Ride Partner (“Locally Presented By . . .”)
Marketing • Framed Event Poster • Ability to use “Proud Local Partner of Amgen Tour of California” in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Logo placement on stage-specific flyers and posters which will be distributed to bike shops and at cycling events across Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada. • Logo with link on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • Logo with link on BigBearTimeTrial.com website, official website for the Stage 6 Big Bear Time Trial • Sponsor logo placement in the official Amgen Tour of California program thank you page • “Official Amgen Tour of California Partner” banner for your business • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (6 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt
$1,000 Team Jersey (10 Available) • Ability to use “Proud Local Supporter of Amgen Tour of California” in company advertising or website (subject to approval by Amgen Tour of California) • Company Listing in local Big Bear advertising • Listing and supporter recognition on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • “Official Amgen Tour of California Supporter” window sign for your business • VIP Parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent Passes (4 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt
$500 Domestique Sponsor (10 Available) • Text listing on the Big Bear Lake page on the Amgen Tour of California website • “Official Amgen Tour of California Supporter” window sign for your business • VIP parking and Big Bear Hospitality Tent passes (2 people) • Commemorative Big Bear Time Trial Tour of California Shirt
Contact: Rick Herrick, Local Organizing Committee Partnership Chair (909) 584-5247 [email protected]
296 of 316 Item 2.6 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager Steve Wilson, Water Superintendent PREPARED BY:
Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids for a Vehicle Replacement Purchase RE:
Background:
During the February 2015 Board meeting, the Board approved Resolution No. DWP 2015-03, which amended the financial reserve policy. The amended policy included additional funding for the equipment and vehicle reserve and provided a tentative equipment and vehicle replacement schedule. The schedule included replacing a trailer air compressor during Fiscal Year 2016/17 and this purchase was included in this year’s budget.
Each year staff evaluates the DWP’s vehicle and equipment needs. Staff is requesting to purchase a new pickup truck instead of the scheduled trailer air compressor purchase in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget. The trailer air compressor will be deferred to Fiscal Year 2017/18 Budget. The new pickup truck will replace a 1995 Chevrolet pickup truck.
Financial Impact:
The FY 2016/17 Budget included funding of $35,000 in account #10-59-9905 (Capital Outlay- Machinery and Equipment) for the purchase of a trailer air compressor. The total cost of the new pickup truck under consideration will be around $40,000. The final budget adjustment will be done after we receive bids.
Recommendation:
1. Authorize staff to solicit bids for the purchase of a new pickup truck, not to exceed $40,000
297 of 316 Item 2.7 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: January 24, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Sierra Orr, Water Conservation and Public Information Specialist
RE: Technical Review Team Committee Report
Background On November 17, 2016, the Technical Review Team (TRT) committee, consisting of Don Smith, Craig Hjorth, Reggie Lamson, Dani McGee, Steve Wilson, Jason Hall, Sierra Orr and Tom Harder met to review and discuss the DWP’s water resources. Data reviewed by the TRT committee included monthly well production by hydrologic subunit, annual precipitation records from the dam, and well water-level hydrographs. The number of EDU’s added in the past 12 months was 72.4 as of October 2016. Continued efforts in conservation have been supported and embraced by the community, as evidenced by a reduction in demand and production. Fiscal year 15/16 water demand was down 2.86% from 2014/15 production. Past and present investments have added critical flexibility in how the DWP can exercise different sub-basins within the Bear Valley. New sources and additional storage, improved pump efficiency, better water transfer systems and improved monitoring capabilities have improved the DWP’s drought resiliency. While some well levels are in decline, recent calculations show that even with some wells offline and continued drought projections, the water supply is sufficient for more than three years. Precipitation at the dam from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 was 30.80 inches, nearly 86% of the 132-year annual precipitation average. Nevertheless, water agencies across the Bear Valley are working together to create and promote comprehensive and consistent conservation policies and DWP staff continue to closely monitor the basin as California enters a sixth year of drought. Recommendation
As a result of their review, the TRT committee makes the following recommendations for managing the DWP’s water resources: 1. Continue water resource management, monitoring, and conservation efforts. Data from monitoring wells show that basin management efforts have been effective, but continued drought could necessitate shifts in water production to alternative hydrological subunits. 2. Follow all developments associated with the drought including existing and future Senate Bills (ex: SB 814, SB88, SB555) and Executive Orders (ex: B-37-16) 3. Continue to promote our current water conservation message and regulations.
298 of 316 Item 2.8 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Danielle D. McGee, Administrative Manager
RE: Administrative Manager’s Report
Since the November Board Meeting my focus has been on: 1) Assisting members of the staff with grant applications 2) Working with senior staff to develop the policy for hourly unrepresented employees 3) Drafting the annual report for FYE June 30, 2016 4) Cross training on payroll 5) Preparing the Budget Model for FY 2017/18 6) Financial analysis December 31, 2016 Grant Applications Staff completed and filed grant applications with the United States Bureau of Reclamation ahead of the filing deadline. Funding has been requested for the proposed solar power plant at the Division Well Field, installation of additional AMI meters, and equipping the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant. Since November staff has filed six grant applications and more are slated. Sierra Orr was instrumental in compiling and filing these applications. Policy Development A team of senior staff worked together to draft and complete the policy for unrepresented hourly employees. The team spent many hours crafting, reviewing, and revising the document that was brought to the Board in January for consideration. Annual Report FYE 6/30/16 The draft annual report was completed and presented to the Board in this agenda package. Cross-training on Payroll Due to a staffing shortfall in my department, I was cross-trained on payroll so that the payroll could be processed for the pay period ended January 6, 2017. Budget model FY 2017/18 The budget model was completed for the budget kick off meeting with the staff on February 1st. Financial analysis December 31, 2016 Financials for December were completed in early February and are included in this agenda package.
299 of 316 Item 2.8 Administrative Manager’s Report February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Customer Service, Billing, and Accounting Customer Service Supervisor, Kelle Barrette, has completed an evaluation of e-billing options. Due to the priority of completing the grant applications, I have not had time to review her evaluation. We needed a port in the firewall opened to our credit card processing vendor to complete the testing of ebilling. Accent IT support facilitated the port opening on February 15th so testing has commenced for this service. We hope to bring our findings and recommendations to the Board for ebilling in the next two months. Customer Service staff continued to assist in accounting and billing during the staffing shortfall. In early February we focused on recruiting a replacement for CSR I Nikki Peterson who will leave the DWP in March to pursue a career in education. Congratulations to Nikki. We will miss her. Accounting Supervisor, Christine McIlrevey, played a critical role in the development of the policy for hourly employees. In addition to cross-training me on payroll, she ensured that many of the necessary payroll changes for January 6th were input in advance. In early February we were finally fully staffed in the accounting/billing section so Christine was able to focus on transferring some clerical and analytical tasks to her staff.
300 of 316 Item 2.8 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community
DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Sierra Orr, Water Conservation & Public Information Specialist
RE: Water Conservation & Public Information Specialist Report
Drought Update On February 8, 2017 the State Water Resources Control Board voted to re-adopt and extend the drought emergency. They may repeal the regulations in May “following a more thorough review of the state’s water supply conditions.” Since the DWP already submitted our “stress test” and has not experienced a change in our baseline water supply conditions, no further document is required to retain our existing standard. Lastly, the regulation still requires monthly reporting and “keeps in place the existing rules, including specific prohibitions against designated wasteful water use practices. Those prohibitions include outdoor watering during a rain event or 48 hours after; watering down a sidewalk with a hose instead of using a broom or a brush, or overwatering a landscape to where water is running off onto the sidewalk or into the gutter.”
Our average water reduction, June ‘15-December ‘16, was 11.24%. In calendar year (CY) 2016 the DWP’s production increased slightly over the previous year, but remained below the production of CY 2013 and 2014. In addition, the average residential gallon-per-capita-day (RGPCD) consumption was 55.97, following the same trend as production (higher than 2015, but lower than 2013 and 2014). A snapshot of our water production and RGPCD is attached.
Calendar Year 2016 Statistics • 200 indoor audits* • 24 outdoor audits • 137 toilet rebates processed* • Seventeen turf buybacks o 187 toilets replaced o 36,243 sq. ft of turf removed
*Indicates a record high
In January Conservation staff conducted 14 indoor audits and issued 17 toilet rebates (for a total 28 toilets). Department-wide, 198 total contacts were made regarding leaks in the form of door tags, letters, phone calls or visits in the field. Thirty-two new customers received letters for the Retrofit on Change of Service based on accounts that transferred in December and an additional thirty one received letters for a Change of Service in January.
301 of 316 Item 2.8
Meetings
In December Kelle Barrette and Jason Hall and I met with the California Water Loss Technical Assistance Program (TAP) Team for “Wave 2” of our water loss audit training. This series of meetings in person, online and over the phone, prepares the DWP to comply with the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 555 addressing water loss. The next meeting will be an in-person meeting in March in Claremont. By October 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, urban retail water suppliers must submit validated water loss audit reports to DWR and the reports must be made available for public viewing. January marked the beginning of preparations for the annual Big Bear Valley Xeriscape Garden Tour. Recent meetings were January 31 and February 21. This year’s tour is Saturday, July 15th. Regulation and Legislation Staff recently came across old legislation, SB 407 adopted in 2009, which requires all single- family homes to be retrofit with water conserving fixtures as of January 1, 2017 and multifamily and commercial buildings by January 1, 2019. It also requires a seller or transferor of said property to disclose to a buyer, in writing, the requirements for replacing plumbing fixtures, and whether the property includes noncompliant plumbing. Lastly, it also requires non compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water conserving fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. As a result, any time someone submits information regarding EDU/PFU’s they will also be required to submit a certificate attesting to all of the home’s plumbing fixtures being compliant with current California low-flow plumbing standards. Conservation staff is still working on these procedures and the corresponding form. Lastly, the Governor’s Executive Order B-37-16, signed last May has resulted in a draft report titled “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life.” Related to the DWP, the report details a long term conservation framework addressing new, or expanded regulations on: • Emergency Conservation Regulations • New Water Use Targets • Permanent Monthly Reporting • Water Use Prohibitions • Minimizing Water Loss • Innovative Water Loss & Control Technologies • Water Shortage Contingency Plans Tasks Much of the last two and a half months have been spent on the WaterSMART grant applications related to AMI, the Solar Project and the Sawmill well. The DWP plans to apply under at least one additional funding opportunity. Grant “season” generally ends around late April, just in time to get ready for events such as Earth Day (April 21) and the Xeriscape Garden Tour and start outreach for summer irrigation.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Water use
302 of 316 Item 2.8
BBLDWP Water Use Total Production in Million Gallons (MG) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2013 72.06 51.90 44.23 51.23 76.62 88.44 93.98 87.67 74.60 50.70 38.89 59.68 790.00 2014 45.48 39.80 39.89 45.69 63.69 83.60 92.33 81.17 74.36 63.56 44.02 48.26 721.85 2015 56.34 41.66 42.46 45.33 59.85 64.75 74.73 76.31 65.21 57.02 43.83 52.31 679.80 2016 66.4 51.63 39.74 35.48 54.75 73.38 90.11 76.59 68.56 55.80 41.26 51.74 705.44 2017 59.78 59.78
CY Avg. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Change
+/- 2013 % to 7.85% 0.52% 4.12% 8.10% 9.74 10.15% 30.74% 28.54% 17.03% 12.64% 13.30% - - - - +10.06 - +6.09% - - - - - 2016 -
+/-
2013
to 17.04 2016 -
SWRCB Average 11.55% Residential Gallons Per Capita per Day (R-GPCD) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec C/Y Avg. 2013 63.42 58.71 45.18 52.5 65.7 81.6 87 85.9 78.6 50.6 43.8 58.23 67.10 2014 40.4 46.6 34.8 43.5 57.10 76.91 85.22 79.26 78.11 63.19 49.41 46.96 58.46 2015 49.92 48.61 36.93 43.09 53.51 59.50 68.5 73.25 65.61 57.84 46.66 49.84 54.44 2016 58.45 56.5 37.75 32.71 48.18 69.77 83.20 70.05 67.32 55.42 43.25 49.07 55.97 2017 ADVERTISEMENTS
KBHR DECEMBER - DWP & CSD The Big Bear City Community Services District and City Of Big Bear Lake Department Of Water welcome all visitors to our mountain home. Ski the slopes, sail the lake, hike the trails, but while you’re here please remember water conservation, doesn’t get a vacation. Our natural resources, including the lake, forests and snow, draw hundreds of thousands of guests every year. You can start your New Year’s resolution early by preserving this place and experience for years to come: Try a 5 minute power shower, turn the water off when brushing your teeth, reuse your towels and report leaks to management or hosts. If you visit a business that exhibits conservation, let them know you appreciate their efforts. The Big Bear Lake DWP and Big Bear City CSD remind you: be smart, do your part, and join us in conserving water. We’re not out, of the California drought. For more information, call click or visit your local water provider.
DECEMBER- DWP Tis better to give than to receive. So, the Big Bear Lake Department Of Water has a little something for you, our customers, in appreciation for having reduced your water use by an average 10 gallons per person per day since 2013. Stop by our office on Garstin Drive behind the clean bear site for a dish scraper, full color booklet on landscaping for mountain homes, conservation coloring books for the little ones or a shower timer for that special someone who doesn’t realize a California power shower takes only 5 minutes. But remember, supplies are limited. If you’re new to mountain living, grab a
303 of 316 Item 2.8
brochure that explains how to use your stop and waste valve for winterization. Need a gift for someone who seemingly has everything? Stop by a local store for a rain barrel, water sense irrigation timer, or even a new showerhead. Want more ideas, give conservation, a call at 909- 866-5050, follow us on Facebook, or visit BBLDWP.com.
JANUARY - DWP/CSD The big bear city community services district and city of big bear lake department of water remind all big bear homeowners it’s time to winterize . No one knows how to handle winter weather better than our local plumbers, landscapers, and home supply stores. Stop by a local store for insulation to be used around your pipes. While you’re there, grab a tall stake to mark your stop and waste valve in case it gets lost in the snow. If you don’t have one, don’t forget the valve key. Whenever you turn your stop and waste off or on, it must be turned until snug, usually about a quarter turn. If it turns more than that, or doesn’t feel secure, be sure to call a professional as it may be time to repair or replace it. If it’s not securely in place it may create a constant leak. If you need more information on winterization, contact your local water provider. Big Bear City CSD at (909) 585-2565 or Big Bear Lake DWP at (909)866-5050.
JANUARY - DWP Welcome to a new year. For many of us, that means New Year’s resolutions. According to multiple surveys two of the top five resolutions include getting organized and saving more or spending less. The Big Bear Lake Department Of Water is here to help. Have you made the drops to watts connection? Saving water means saving money, and not just on your water bill. By reducing warm water use, you also save on the gas or power it takes to heat that water. Save time, money and water by taking shorter showers and upgrading to WaterSense certified showerheads or sink faucets. You can even start organizing now for summer savings later. Installing rain barrels in this, the wettest month of the year, will save drops and dollars later when your plants need moisture most. If you’re a Big Bear Lake DWP customer, call us for a free indoor water survey and we’ll provide low flow faucet aerators, WaterSense certified showerheads, and possibly even a toilet rebate to replace your old one. Save money, spend less, and get organized. Call today at 909 866 5050.
FEBRUARY- DWP Hi, this is Sierra with the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and I love cheesy jokes. In honor of our recent storms, I have to ask, Where does a snowman keep his money? . . . Well in a snow bank of course! But the real question is, does all that snow mean the drought is over? Officially no, and it’s a tough question to answer, but look at it this way: when you get sick, one dose of medication may help mask your symptoms, but it’s not going to make you well. You may have to take it for days or even weeks. Similarly, a couple of storms don’t usually end a drought, and in keeping with our cheesy theme, the snow must go on. In the meantime, we have to keep conserving if we want to keep our wells healthy and happy. So join me at the DWP and Make Water Conservation A California Way Of Life. Learn more at BBLDWP.com, SaveOurWater.com or call (909) 866-5050.
FEBRUARY – DWP/CSD #1: One thing about winter in the mountains, it’s all too easy to get a case of cabin fever. Luckily the Big Bear City Community Services District and City of Big Bear Lake Department Of Water have a few ideas on the easy ways you can save water and your sanity. If the beauty of winter has you feeling artistic, now is a great time to re-imagine your landscape. If you have grass, are
304 of 316 Item 2.8 there any areas you just don’t use? The State of California is still offering rebates of up to $2 per square foot for turf removals. An application is required so visit SaveOurWater.com for details. Did you know replacing the aerators on your sink faucets can reduce your use by more than 50%? Grab a wrench, then simply twist the old one off and the new one on. Both CSD and DWP provide aerators free for customers. This winter, ditch the cabin fever and catch the conservation craze. Join us in making Water Conservation, A California Way Of Life.
#2: One thing about winter in the mountains, it’s all too easy to get a case of cabin fever. Luckily the City of Big Bear Lake Department Of Water and Big Bear City Community Services District have a few ideas on the easy ways you can save water and your sanity. There’s nothing like a warm shower on a cold day but you don’t have to feel guilty if you make the switch to a WaterSense labeled showerhead. The average family could save 2,900 gallons per year by making this simple upgrade. Shorter showers and WaterSense showerheads stack up the savings, as less water means more savings on energy or gas, depending on your source. Call your water provider today to see if you qualify for free showerheads. Does all that snow and mud have your clothes washer running on repeat? A full-sized ENERGY STAR certified clothes washer uses 13 gallons of water per load, compared to 23 gallons used by a standard machine. This winter, ditch the cabin fever and catch the conservation craze. Join us in making Water Conservation, A California Way Of Life.
GRIZZLY
305 of 316 Item 2.8
306 of 316 Item 2.8 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community
DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Steve Wilson, Water Superintendent
RE: Water Superintendent’s Report
The snow has slowed us down on installing radio read meters, we have 8,362 installed. In December the Meter Department responded to 65 customer leaks that were detected on the radio read meter leak report and 86 in January.
During the Christmas/New Year Holidays, when the roads were icy, a vehicle driving on Moonridge Road heading towards Big Bear Boulevard slid on the ice and hit another vehicle pushing them off the road into our conservation winterize sign.
On Sunday January 15th around 8pm we received a low reservoir alarm at the Wolf reservoir, from our telemetry system . Wolf’s reservoir water level was dropping, we dispatched some employees to start patrolling to find the cause. After about an hour we found a fire hydrant that had blown off on Villagrove Ave. in upper Moonridge. The water was running into a canyon off the edge of the road out of sight, we lost about 203,900 gallons of water.
Bear Valley Paving (BVP), our contractor that’s installing the new waterline on Big Bear Boulevard, is still working in-between storms. On Wednesday January 17th BVP did the tie-in on the north side of Summit Boulevard. Thursday February 8th they completed the fire service connection for Snow Summit and installed the two inch water service to the Sheriff station on Friday Februuary 9th. The remaining work that needs to be completed is the tie-in on the north side of China Gardens Rd., complete the fire service at the Sheriff station, and abandon the main at Trush. Then dig up and remove the old fire hydrants.
On February 1st we had a Budget kickoff meeting. The supervisors and I are working on completing our departmental budgets.
Thanks, Steve
307 of 316 Item 2.8 City of Big Bear Lake Water Department Water Superintendent's Report (Fiscal Year) Total Production for: 1/31/17 MG "Measured in Million Gallons" 1/31/17 2017 2/1/16 2016 2017 Monthly 2017 Y-T-D Y-T-D = Year to Date Month-ended Y-T-D Month-ended Y-T-D % Difference % Difference
Big Bear Lake / Moonridge 39.26 305.31 44.36 310.69 -11.50% -1.73%
Sugarloaf / Erwin Lake 18.28 116.31 19.65 105.21 -6.97% 10.55%
Fawnskin 1.55 14.41 1.66 14.17 -6.63% 1.69%
Lake Williams 0.68 5.10 0.72 5.63 -5.56% -9.41%
RV Park 0.09 3.32 0.11 3.07 -18.18% 8.14% TOTAL 59.86 444.45 66.50 438.77 -9.98% 1.29%
Million Gallons transferred from Sugarloaf / Erwin Lake to Big Bear Lake / Moonridge. 9.45
Year to Date Transferred.* 53.13 *(This amount is included in the Sugarloaf / Erwin Lake Total but not in the BBL / Moonridge Total.)
SLANT WELL PRODUCTION: The totals below are included in the above totals.
MG "Measured in Million Gallons" 1/31/17 2017 2/1/16 2016 2017 Monthly 2017 Y-T-D Y-T-D = Year to Date Month-ended Y-T-D Month-ended Y-T-D % Difference % Difference
Big Bear Lake / Moonridge 10.20 66.08 8.32 60.46 22.60% 9.30%
Fawnskin 1.13 6.61 1.02 7.06 10.78% -6.37%
Monthly Percentage of GRAVITY PRODUCTION vs. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION
1/31/17 2017 2/1/16 2016 Month-ended Y-T-D Month-ended Y-T-D
BBL / Moonridge - GRAVITY 26% 22% 19% 19%
BBL / Moonridge - ELECTRICAL 74% 78% 81% 81%
1/31/17 2017 2/1/16 2016 Month-ended Y-T-D Month-ended Y-T-D
Fawnskin - GRAVITY 73% 46% 61% 50%
Fawnskin - ELECTRICAL 27% 54% 39% 50%
308 of 316 Item 2.8 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
PREPARED BY: Jack Roberts, Human Resources
RE: Human Resource Management Report
HR Update
1. Published a Proposition 64 letter to employees explaining that although the California voters approved recreational use of marijuana, it is contrary to the City of Big Bear Lake Drug/Alcohol Free Workplace Policy. A DWP policy is being drafted to replace the City policy and incorporate language that specifically addresses marijuana usage. 2. DWP employees are very appreciative of the Board’s generosity at the DWP Holiday Party. With the Board Member’s donations, we purchased enough $30 gift cards from local businesses to provide one to each employee. Thank You! 3. DWP hourly employees and exempt employees would like to thank the Board for their support in adopting the policies that set working conditions and benefits for the team. The Board’s actions have had a positive impact on employee morale. 4. We offered positions at DWP to two candidates for Customer Service Representative positions – one for a position which the employee did not successfully complete probation and another for an employee that resigned. 5. We will begin the recruitment process for temporary laborers we will use during the warmer months. This year we are looking to hire 2 temporary employees in lieu of 3 temporary employees hired during the previous years.
Worker’s Comp Claims = 5 (1 new claim) (3 settled with future medical & 2 open) Employees on FMLA/CFRA = 0
309 of 316 Item 2.8 Human Resource Management Report September 23, 2014 Page 2 of 2
310 of 316 Item 2.8 AGENDA REPORT
Service, Quality, Community DATE: February 28, 2017
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, General Manager
RE: General Manager’s Report
Meter Replacement Program
Staff continues working closely with Sensus and InHance to work out minor problems and use more features of the billing software. About 8,237 of our customers have radio-read meters, including all of the previous Itron radios, Fawnskin, Lake William, Erwin Lake, portions of Moonridge, portions of Sugarloaf, and 913 of the 933 commercial customers. Staff continues to exceed expectations and we are on pace to complete the meter replacement project within 4.5 years, instead of six years. Over 50% of DWP’s customers are now on AMI meters. Most customers are very thankful when they are notified about a leak. In 2016, over 800 customers were notified of potential leaks. Large snow berms significantly reduced the number of radio read meters installed during February. On January 12, 2017, staff submitted 2017 USBR Group I & II grant applications. USBR has acknowledged receipt of our applications and will notify DWP of the results sometime in June, 2017.
Capital Projects
12-inch Big Bear Blvd. Pipeline Replacement Project:
On June 22, 2016, I-Bank completed their review of our pre-application for a low interest State loan and instructed DWP to proceed with the application. The I-Bank application was submitted on July 8, 2016. Staff continued to work with IBank staff and our loan application for a $1,050,000, 30-year, 3% loan was approved by the IBank Board on September 27, 2016. Final loan documents were completed and executed in January.
The Georgia Street portion of the project has been installed and is operational. The 12-inch Big Bear Blvd. Pipeline is under construction and all of the mainline (4,000 linear feet) has been installed. The contractor completed installing services and laterals. Pipeline loading and acceptance testing has been completed. Only one connection and a few abandonments remain to be completed. Weather conditions have postponed project completion to the Spring of 2017, which is still ahead of the proposed Caltrans 2017 pavement overlay project.
311 of 316 Item 2.8 General Manager’s Report February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 3
Sawmill Well Pumping Plant:
The Sugarloaf area is now served by the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant, which pumps to the new Angels Camp Reservoir. During high demand periods the Barton and Magnolia Booster Pumping Plants are needed to supplement the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant. The future Sawmill Well Pumping Plant will be able to supplement the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant more efficiently than the Barton and Magnolia Booster Pumping Plants. The Sawmill Well Pumping Plant is scheduled to be constructed during fiscal year 2017/2018. To reduce the operating hours of the Magnolia Well Pumping Plant and to operate the system more efficiently during high demand periods, staff may request the Board authorize the use of reserves or obtain low interest loans ($700,000) to fund the construction of the Sawmill Well Pumping Plant during the 2017/2018 FY. WSC has provided 90% drawings and staff is reviewing and providing comments. On February 13, 2017, staff submitted Group I & II grant applications to USBR for consideration. USBR has acknowledged receipt of our applications and will notify DWP of the results sometime in June, 2017. If successful, the USBR grant will fund nearly 50% of the project costs. Staff is considering an additional low interest IBank loan to fund the project and will present this concept to the Board for consideration at a future Board meeting.
Division Well Field Solar Project:
The proposed Division Well Field Solar Project will provide solar power to Division Well Pumping Plant Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8. This will reduce DWP’s BVES power usage by about 400,000 KWh’s per year and reduce our annual power bill by about $125,000. In August of 2016, the Board approved the CEQA work for this project and recorded a Notice of Exemption with the County. The proposed project will include approximately 700 ground mounted solar panels, site fencing, inverters, one master meter with BVES, and minor site grading. On January 17, 2017, staff submitted 2017 USBR Group I & II grant applications. USBR has acknowledged receipt of our applications and will notify DWP of the results sometime in June, 2017. If successful, the USBR grant will fund nearly 50% of the project costs. Staff is considering an additional low interest IBank or CEC State loan to fund the project and will present this concept to the Board for consideration at a future Board meeting.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
CSD and DWP are within the DWR Bear Valley Basin, which is currently prioritized as a medium ranked basin. High and Medium prioritized basins must form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) by June 30, 2017. On August 9, 2016, Scott Heule and I had a conference call with Roy Hull of DWR. Roy is now in charge of creating new basin boundaries and re-prioritizing all of the basins in California. The new boundaries will result in new prioritization ranking scores for several basins in California. The new ranking scores may result in the Bear Valley’s ranking being revised from medium to low. These results will not be final until July, 2017. On August 16, 2016, Scott Huele and I met with Bob Page of the County of San Bernardino to provide him an update on Bear Valley’s SGMA process. The County may have jurisdiction over the private wells that are located outside of CSD’s and DWP’s service areas. The County has a number of basins throughout San Bernardino County where they may have to be part of GSA’s. The County would prefer Big Bear form a GSA with local Bear Valley Agencies and leave them out.
312 of 316 Item 2.8 General Manager’s Report February 28, 2017 Page 3 of 3
On January 19, 2017, Scott Huele and I met with DWR to discuss options for the Bear Valley Basin. The low production, non-impacted basin exemption does not apply to the Bear Valley Basin because Fluoride exists within our basin. DWR strongly recommended CSD and DWP form a GSA, prior to the July 1, 2017 deadline to avoid being placed on probation and the State Water Board from intervening. Because CSD’s and DWP’s service areas do not cover the entire Bear Valley Basin, a third agency with jurisdiction in the Bear Valley will need to be part of the Bear Valley GSA (BVGSA) to avoid possible State Water Board intervention. MWD is considering being part of the BVGSA, which would simplify the GSA formation process and only local agencies would be part of the BVGSA. On February 2, 2017, Mike Stephenson, Scott Huele, and I met with each agency’s attorneys at BB&K’s Riverside office, to discuss options for forming the BVGSA. We agreed to have the attorneys draft a document that met DWR’s minimum requirements for forming a GSA but deferred details of each agency’s obligations to a later date.
If the DWR re-prioritization process results in the Bear Valley Basin being prioritized as low, then the BVGSA can be easily dissolved. If the Bear Valley Basin remains a medium prioritized basin, then the BVGSA has until January of 2022 to develop detailed bylaws for the agency and develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Between now and July 1, 2017, several BVGSA formation items will be presented to the Board for consideration and public hearings will also be required.
313 of 316 Item 2.8 DEPARTMENT OF WATER
Service, Quality, Community DATE: December 27, 2016
TO: Jeff Mathieu, City Manager
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, DWP General Manager
RE: DWP Monthly Update – December SERVICE DELIVERY Water services that were provided November 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016:
15,651 Customers provided with water service. 978 Field service calls completed. 3 Main leak repaired. 22 Main leaks year-to-date 2016 18 Main leaks year-to-date 2015 0 Service leak repairs 70 Service leaks year-to-date 2016 65 Service leaks year-to-date 2015 41.30 Million gallons produced by wells. $833,413 Processed in billings. 8,140 Accounts processed in billings. 127 New Accounts (includes tenant turnover). 0.375 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) added to the water system. $891,768 Total Gross receipts processed. 273 Meters replaced with AMR meters. 8,221 Total installed for Program
BOARD MEETING The following was approved by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners at their November 22, 2016 Regular Meeting: • Board recognized Evelyn Poelking for 25 years, Di Eichenlaub for 10 years, Lisa Kinney for 10 years, Christine McIlrevey for 5 years, and Reggie Lamson for 5 years of service to DWP. • Board approved a contract amendment to the GM contract providing a 4% pay raise to the GM. • Board approved an amendment to the Bear Valley Water Sustainability Project agreement to expand the scope of work for WSC. • Board reviewed and adopted the DWP Failure to Comply Policy (DWP Policy # 2016-01). The new policy addresses civil penalties that may be applied. • Board approved the purchase of two DWP fleet vehicles and to surplus two vehicles. • Board adopted revisions to DWP Policy #2011-01, Benefits and Working Conditions for Unrepresented Exempt Employees – providing a 4.5% pay raise to exempt employees and significantly revising the policy.
Department of Water, City of Big Bear Lake 41972 Garstin Drive, P.O. Box 1929 · Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-1929 · Phone 909/866-5050 · Fax 909/866-3184 · www.BBLDWP.com This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 314 of 316
Item 2.8 DEPARTMENT OF WATER
Service, Quality, Community DATE: January 24, 2017
TO: Jeff Mathieu, City Manager
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, DWP General Manager
RE: DWP Monthly Update – January
SERVICE DELIVERY Water services that were provided December 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016:
15,621 Customers provided with water service. 801 Field service calls completed. 3 Main leak repaired. 25 Main leaks year-to-date 2016 17 Main leaks year-to-date 2015 6 Service leak repairs 70 Service leaks year-to-date 2016 67 Service leaks year-to-date 2015 51.77 Million gallons produced by wells. $849,345 Processed in billings. 8,654 Accounts processed in billings. 117 New Accounts (includes tenant turnover). 4.000 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) added to the water system. $931,545 Total Gross receipts processed. 95 Meters replaced with AMR meters. 8,152 Total installed for Program
BOARD MEETING The DWP Board Adjourned the December 2016 Regular Board Meeting to January 24, 2017.
Department of Water, City of Big Bear Lake 41972 Garstin Drive, P.O. Box 1929 · Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-1929 · Phone 909/866-5050 · Fax 909/866-3184 · www.BBLDWP.com This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 315 of 316
Item 2.8 DEPARTMENT OF WATER
Service, Quality, Community DATE: December 27, 2016
TO: Jeff Mathieu, City Manager
FROM: Reginald A. Lamson, DWP General Manager
RE: DWP Monthly Update – February SERVICE DELIVERY Water services that were provided January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2016:
15,621 Customers provided with water service. 730 Field service calls completed. 2 Main leak repaired. 2 Main leaks year-to-date 2016 0 Main leaks year-to-date 2015 2 Service leak repairs 2 Service leaks year-to-date 2016 5 Service leaks year-to-date 2015 59.86 Million gallons produced by wells. $821,303 Processed in billings. 8,078 Accounts processed in billings. 101 New Accounts (includes tenant turnover). 0 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) added to the water system. $843,329 Total Gross receipts processed. 0 Meters replaced with AMR meters. 8,360 Total installed for Program
BOARD MEETINGS The following was approved by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners at their January 10, 2017 Special Meeting and January 24, 2017 Special Board Meeting: • Board approved a contract amendments to the GM contract: clarifying what benefits are extended to the GM. • DWP general employees voted to decertify the Teamsters as their collective bargaining representatives – thus driving the need to develop a policy to cover the new category of unrepresented hourly employees. The Board adopted DWP Policy #2017-01 Benefits and Working Conditions for Unrepresented Hourly Employees – providing a 4.5% pay raise and creating a policy which replaced the previous MOU. • Board approved the creation of required new bank accounts to administer the IBank loan DWP is finalizing. • Board approved resolutions supporting the USBR grant applications for infrastructure funding. • Board approved the DWP FY 2017/2018 Budget Schedule. • Board established an ad-hoc benefits committee to assist staff with selecting medical, dental, and vision benefits for DWP employees. • Board denied a claim from Global Conductor Construction for time they lost looking for a marked water line. • Board authorized the GM to expend funds to establish the Bear Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
Department of Water, City of Big Bear Lake 41972 Garstin Drive, P.O. Box 1929 · Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-1929 · Phone 909/866-5050 · Fax 909/866-3184 · www.BBLDWP.com This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 316 of 316