Urban Runoff Management: So Far, So Good. So What? Geoff Brosseau

1. Urban Runoff Management: So Far, So Good. So What?Geoff Brosseau The RMP 2007 Annual Meeting Perspectives on the Impact of the Clean Water Act on San Francisco BayOctober 2, 2007

2. So Far • 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Plan • 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments • 1990 Phase I Stormwater Regulations (Municipal, Industrial, Construction) • 1990s Phase I permits and programs • 1999 Final Phase II Stormwater Regulations (Municipal, Construction) • 2003 State Phase II General Permit

3. So Good • Bay Area has been a leader in the State and country in developing the stormwater program and meeting Clean Water Act requirements • ~90 Phase I communities • ~30 Phase II communities • ~1,350 Industrial facilities • ~1,500 Construction sites • BASMAA

4. So Good (cont’) • Recognized Surface Cleaner program (1996 - ) • Construction site inspection / education program (1990s) • Regional Advertising Campaigns (1996 - ) • Brake Pad Partnership (1996 - ) • Start at the Source manual (1997, 1999) • Our Water, Our World Program (1998 - ) • Hydromodification management plans (2001 - )

5. So Good (cont’) • USEPA Clean Water Act Recognition Award-winning programs - in 12 years California has produced: • 7 Municipal award winners • 3 Industrial award winners – fully half from the Bay Area • Santa Clara Valley • Alameda • Lockheed • LLNL

6. So What? Case Study: Diazinon In 1998, using Clean Water Act authority, USEPA: • listed waterbodies in virtually every urbanized area of California as impaired by pesticides and toxicity • required that TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) be calculated and that dischargers (local governments) reduce the amount of these pesticides in the waterbodies to the TMDL targets (max. allowable amount)

7. So What? (cont’) • In 1999 – California MS4s pushed USEPA OPP and OW to coordinate on urban pesticides and water quality • In 2000 – USEPA announced the phase out of diazinon products • By 2002 – The amount of reported diazinon applications had decreased substantially • By 2006 – Aquatic toxicity and diazinon concentrations in urban creeks had decreased dramatically–in most cases below TMDL targets

8. So What(‘s Next)? • Effectiveness Assessment • Quantifiable measures • True source control (↓Potential Pollutants ↓Runoff) • Product stewardship / EPR / Green chemistry • Start at the Source / Low Impact Development (LID) • Monitoring – Creeks >> Bay / Ocean / River

9. Challenges to measuring stormwater program effectiveness (Cause ―? Effect)(Action ―? Outcome) • Degrees of separation phenomenon • Complicating effects of integrating all inputs • Outcome Level is defined by: • Type of best management practice being measured • Power of BMP

10. Municipal Program Effectiveness Assessment Assessment Outcome Levels Level 6 – Protecting Receiving Water Quality Increasing Difficulty Level 5 – Improving Runoff Quality Level 4 – Reducing Loads from Sources Level 3 – Changing Behavior Level 2 – Raising Awareness Level 1 – Documenting Stormwater Program Activities

11. True Source Control (↓Potential Pollutants)Product-based Pollutants: Conceptual Relationships Manufacture True Source Control Source Control Sale Use Release to urban runoff Treatment Control Urban runoff discharge Costs Effectiveness Receiving water

12. True Source Control (↓Runoff)Stormwater Quality Management Hierarchy Reduce Reuse Recycle Treat

13. Thank you

14. Implementation Success Story: Pesticides and Stormwater • By 2006 – Aquatic toxicity and diazinon concentrations in urban creeks decreased dramatically – in most cases below TMDL targets - Level 6 Outcome – Protecting receiving water quality • USEPA and DPR changing the way pesticides are regulated to address/prevent water quality problems / Retailer data show less-toxic product sales ↑ - Level 3 Outcome – Changing behavior • Surveys - Level 2 Outcome – Raising awareness