Mark Smythe Chief, Coastal Storm Water Unit (revised 9/27/01)

1. September 26, 2001 Public WorkshopOrange County MS4 Permit,Urban Storm Water RunoffManagement ProgramOrder No. 01-20(NPDES No. CAS 618030) Mark Smythe Chief, Coastal Storm Water Unit (revised 9/27/01)

2. Background • Changes From the June 15, 2001 Draft • Comparison to the R9 Orange County Permit • Anticipated Changes in the October 12, 2001 Draft • Remaining Issues

3. Storm Water Permits • Statewide General Construction • Statewide General Industrial • Caltrans Other storm water discharges regulated through: • MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System • Municipal activities • Residential activities • Industrial and construction activities

4. Storm Water NPDES Permits • Unlike most NPDES permits, storm water permits are not required to have numeric discharge limits, but nothing prohibits the inclusion of such limits. • Historically, municipal storm water permits have been based on an iterative process: • Implement structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Evaluate if water quality standards are being met in receiving waters • If the standards are not being met then additional BMPs must be implemented and the process repeated.

5. MS4 Permit History • For Orange County, this will be the start of the third permit cycle. • For Los Angeles & Ventura Counties (Region 4), this will also be the start of their third permit cycle. • For San Diego County (Region 9), this was the start of their second permit cycle, no new permit was issued in 1995/6.

6. MS4 Permit History (cont.) • The 1990 and 1995 MS4 permits have lacked prescription, generally allowing the permittees to develop programs that are suitable to that particular county and its problems. • As is the case with the other Statewide storm water permits, as the permits mature, it is possible to identify weaknesses and specifically address those weaknesses through more prescriptive requirements

7. Major Changes From the June 15, 2001 Draft • Implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plans (SUSMPs) • Municipal Inspection Requirements • Monitoring Requirements • Others • MS4 discharges not to cause or contribute to a nuisance. • Ensure that permittees have legal authority. • Specifying additional considerations in CEQA review. • Public education goal of 10 million impressions.

8. Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plans (SUSMPs) • Los Angeles County • In the 1996 permit, Region 4 required the permittees to prepare SUSMPs, listing required sized, structural and non-structural BMPs on new development and redevelopment. • By 1999, the permittees had not submitted an acceptable plan, so staff prepared the SUSMPs. • San Diego County • Adopted similar SUSMPs in the 2001 San Diego Permit. • Orange County • Prepared a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which included requirements on new development and redevelopment.

9. SUSMPs (cont.) • The June 15, 2001 draft permit: • Allowed continued implementation of the current DAMP/Water Quality Plan (WQMP) until an improved DAMP/WQMP is developed that meets the standards set forth in the permit or July 1, 2004. • On July 1, 2004, if an acceptable plan was not submitted, then implement the size-based SUSMP criteria essentially equivalent to Los Angeles and San Diego.

10. SUSMPs(cont.) • The September 12, 2001 draft permit: • Allow permittees to develop an improved DAMP/Water Quality Plan (WQMP) that meets the standards set forth in the permit. • In the interim, implement the size-based SUSMP criteria essentially equivalent to Los Angeles and San Diego on all applicable projects that have not received project or tentative tract approval by Sept. 26, 2001.

11. Municipal Inspection Requirements • Restaurants • Construction Sites • Industrial Sites

12. Restaurant Inspections • The county Public Facilities and Resources Department (PFRD) or county public health inspectors are to establish an inspection program to ensure that oil & grease are properly disposed of, equipment wash water is not discharged off site, parking lots are not hosed down and grease traps have adequate capacity and are maintained.

13. Construction Inspections • Each permittee create and maintain an inventory of construction sites. • Sites will be prioritized into high, medium and low threat to water quality. • Minimum wet weather inspections - (high, monthly), (medium and low, twice during 7 months). • Dry weather as necessary to prevent pollutants from entering storm drain system and prevent unauthorized, non-storm water discharges. • Adequate enforcement authority to levy fines, require bonds, issue stop work orders, or deny permits.

14. Industrial Inspections • Each permittee create and maintain an inventory of industrial/commercial sites. • Sites will be prioritized into high, medium and low threat to water quality. • All high priority sites should have been inspected by July 1, 2003 and on an annual basis thereafter. Medium priority sites are to be inspected every two years and low priority sites, once per permit cycle. Increased inspections are required where violations are noted. • Adequate enforcement authority to levy fines, require bonds, or deny/revoke permits.

15. Monitoring Requirements • The permittees have, over the past 10 years, amassed a great deal of water quality data, especially in conjunction with Public Health and Orange County Sanitation District monitoring. • The current water quality monitoring plan focuses on regional ‘warm spots’ and areas of critical aquatic habitat. • The current water quality monitoring plan was updated in 1999 and was due to be revised by 2003, that date has been moved up to July 1, 2002.

16. Monitoring Requirements (cont.) • The revised plan will again take a county-wide look at water quality issues and will include: • Mass emissions monitoring, • Estuary/wetland monitoring, • Water column toxicity monitoring, • Bacteriological/pathogen monitoring, • Bioassessment (with SCCWRP), • Reconnaissance for illicit discharges, • Land use correlations, and • TMDL/303(d) listed waterbody monitoring.

17. Major Differences with Region 9’s Draft Orange County Permit • In discharge prohibitions, there is a list on non-storm water discharges which are not prohibited. Region 8 allows the Executive Officer to add or remove categories from this list. • Region 9 has removed the requirement that storm water discharges to the MS4 meet MEP. • For illicit connections, Region 8 requires elimination or permitting of such connections within 120 days, Region 9 requires immediate elimination.

18. Major Differences (cont.) • Region 8 includes litter, debris and trash control requirements, Region 9 does not. • Region 8 references requirements and commitments in the Orange County DAMP, Region 9 requires the preparation of a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). • For public education, Region 8 sets a timeline for the program. Region 9 has no timeline, but specifies additional target groups.

19. Major Differences (cont.) • For industrial inspections, Region 8 mandates that facilities under the General Permit be considered high priority. Region 9 requires the permittees to designate a set of minimum BMPs for high, medium, and low priority sites. • For construction inspections of high priority sites, during the wet season, Region 8 requires monthly inspections unless violations are noted. Region 9 requires weekly inspections unless permittees certify that site is in compliance.

20. Anticipated Changes to the September 12, 2001 Draft • Finding 5 will include the Anaheim Lake system. • Staff will review the definition listed for BMP in footnote 1 (Finding 9A). • Staff will review the definition listed for MEP in footnote 2 (Finding 21). • Staff will review Orange County’s contention that Section A.2 does not belong in Section XII, New Development. • The word “model” will be removed from Section XII.B, New Development.

21. Anticipated Changes (cont.) • Section XII.B.2.b (WQMP for Urban Runoff) states that “The discharge of any listed pollutant in levels exceeding pre-development levels is prohibited to impaired waterbodies on the 303(d) list” will be changed to “The discharge of any listed pollutant to an impaired waterbody on the 303(d) list shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives.” • The second sentence in that section, “This requirement may be met by maintaining the total load of the listed pollutant to pre-development levels”will be deleted

22. Anticipated Changes (cont.) • In Section XVI.1 and 2 (Sub-Watersheds and TDML Implementation), the phrase “to maximum extent practicable,” will be removed from the requirement that the permittees meet TMDL target load allocations. • The Fact Sheet will be reviewed and any discrepancies will be corrected to bring it in line with with Permit itself.

23. Discharge of Storm WaterInto the MS4 • Phase II Final Rule NPDES storm water regulations states that ”The operators of regulated small MS4s cannot passively receive and discharge pollutants from third parties.” • 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i) requires municipal permittees to control the contribution to the MS4 by storm water associated with industrial activity.

24. Municipal Inspections of Facilities Under NPDES Permits • 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i) requires municipal permittees to control the contribution to the MS4 by storm water associated with industrial activity, control the discharge to the MS4 of materials other than storm water, and requires that they carry out all inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance and non-compliance. • US EPA agrees that the storm water regulations envision a cooperative effort on the part of the State and municipalities in implementing the industrial storm water program.

25. Municipal Inspections of Facilities Under NPDES Permits (cont.) • In a 12/19/00 letter to the Los Angeles Region, US EPA notes that while the 1996 MS4 permit for Los Angeles required “‘educational visits’ by MS4 personnel to assist industrial/commercial facilities in complying with local ordinances and prohibition,” the current draft L.A. permit should require implementation of an effective enforcement program.

26. Next Steps • Staff is has set a deadline of October 3, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. for submittal of written comments. • This will provide time for those comments to be considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in the draft to be distributed and posted on October 12, 2001. • The October 12, 2001 draft will then be proposed for adoption at the October 26, 2001 Public Hearing, to be held at the City Council Chambers of Corona.