1 / 15

New and Redevelopment Performance Standards: Controversial Issues in Water Quality Control

This document discusses controversial issues in water quality control standards for new and redevelopment projects, including thresholds for requiring treatment, reporting databases, small and regulated projects, O&M inspections, single-family home requirements, alternative compliance programs, lack of LID requirements, infiltration limitations, and more.

kpress
Download Presentation

New and Redevelopment Performance Standards: Controversial Issues in Water Quality Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Provision C.3.New and Redevelopment Performance Standards Sue Ma Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region November 15, 2006 1

  2. C.3. New and RedevelopmentControversial Issues • 5000 ft2 threshold for requiring treatment • Reporting – Databases • Small projects • Regulated projects • O&M inspections 2

  3. C.3. New and Redevelopment Controversial Issues • Single-family home requirements • O&M inspections - new treatment systems • Alternative compliance program • Impracticability, oversight, current programs • Lack of LID requirements • 3rd party certifications of treatment designs • Infiltration limitations 3

  4. Impervious Surface DataProject Categories • Group 1 Projects > 1 acre • Group 2 Projects > 10,000 ft2 & < 1 acre • Small Projects < 10,000 ft2 • Single-Family • Non Single-Family 4

  5. City of Pleasanton3-Year SummaryNew/Replaced Impervious Surface88.7 AcresJanuary 2003 – November 2005 0.4 acres 69.7 acres 4.0 acres 3.6 acres 15.0 acres 9

  6. City of Pleasanton3-Year SummaryNew/Replaced Impervious SurfaceSmall Projects, 4.0 AcresJanuary 2003 – November 2005 78% (3.16 acres) > 5000 ft2 & <10,000 ft2 (95% single-family res.) = 2.99 acres (5% non single-family res.) = 0.17 acres 22% (0.87 acres) < 5000 ft2 (71% single-family res.) = 0.62 acres (29% non single-family res.) = 0.25 acres 10

  7. City of Palo Alto4-Year SummaryNew/Replaced Impervious Surface43.3 AcresOctober 2001 – December 2005 19.34 acres 13.7 acres 21.5 acres 8.1 acres 2.12 acres 13

  8. City of Palo Alto4-Year SummaryNew/Replaced Impervious SurfaceSmall Projects, 21.5 Acres October 2001 – December 2005 87% (18.8 acres) < 5000 ft2 (92% single-family res.) = 17.34 acres (8% non single-family res.) = 1.42 acres 13% (2.7 acres) > 5000 ft2 & <10,000 ft2 (74% single-family res.) = 2 acres (26% non single-family res.) = 0.7 acres 14

  9. Conclusions • Current data represents small percentage of Bay Area cities • Data illustrates two extremes • Capturing all impervious surfaces requires threshold to be < 1000 ft2 of impervious surface • 5000 ft2 threshold for requiring stormwater treatment will have small impact • Some site design requirements appropriate for single-family homes 15

  10. MRP Provisions • Threshold for treatment reduced to > 5000 ft2 new/replaced impervious surface • Site Design BMPs required for single-family homes creating/replacing > 5000 ft2 new/replaced impervious surface • Implementation in 4th year of MRP adoption • Required data collection for new/replaced impervious surface for small projects 16

  11. MRP Provisions List of BMPs for Single-Family Homes • Divert roof runoff to vegetated areas before discharge to storm drain • Direct surface flow to vegetated areas before discharge to storm drain • Install driveways, patios and walkways with pervious material such as pervious concrete or pavers 17

  12. Alternative Compliance • Preserves intent in current permits • Eliminates variability and levels playing Preserves preference for onsite treatment or compliance at Regional Project • Allows finding of impracticability based only on cost or inability to meet other federal, state or local requirements • Maintains reduction in requirements for special projects (Brownfields, low income, transit villages, etc.) 18

  13. Operation and Maintenance Requirements: • Inspect newly installed treatment BMPs • Inspect minimum percentage • Coordinate with vector control agencies • Determine compliance rates 19

  14. Reporting Regulated Projects: Sample reporting tables were distributed 1½ years ago; most data already being collected and reported O&M: More specific data for inspections (compliance status and enforcement actions) allows a more quantitative effectiveness evaluation by programs and Water Board Small Projects Impervious Data: Data serves to validate MRP thresholds and provide database for next permit reissuance 20

  15. 21

More Related