Upload
denis-chambers
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IWMP Summary PresentationIWMP Summary Presentation
Carson, Compton, Gardena, Carson, Compton, Gardena, Irwindale, Lawndale, Irwindale, Lawndale,
South El Monte, and West CovinaSouth El Monte, and West Covina
I-WMPs prepared for I-WMPs prepared for Carson, Compton, Gardena, Lawndale, Carson, Compton, Gardena, Lawndale, Irwindale, South El Monte, and West CovinaIrwindale, South El Monte, and West Covina
The MS4 permit provides 3 compliance options (SWMP, The MS4 permit provides 3 compliance options (SWMP, WMP, and EWMP)WMP, and EWMP)• Cities chose the WMP because it was the least stringentCities chose the WMP because it was the least stringent• Cites preferred the SWMP but RB staff is of the opinion that the Cites preferred the SWMP but RB staff is of the opinion that the
SWMP is not a valid option – despite the fact that the MS4 SWMP is not a valid option – despite the fact that the MS4 Permit clearly identifies the SWMP Permit clearly identifies the SWMP as not only a valid as not only a valid compliance option but the only valid compliance option compliance option but the only valid compliance option (more on this latter)(more on this latter)
• I-WMP/WMP carry the disadvantage of providing limited I-WMP/WMP carry the disadvantage of providing limited compliance with TMDLs – interim only – and through a “safe compliance with TMDLs – interim only – and through a “safe harbor” that harbor” that forgives violationsforgives violations while the I-WMP/WMP are while the I-WMP/WMP are being implementedbeing implemented
• Enviro NGOs contend that the safe harbors are illegal (we agree Enviro NGOs contend that the safe harbors are illegal (we agree – only the iterative process mandated by WQO 99-05 provides – only the iterative process mandated by WQO 99-05 provides protection during program development implementation by protection during program development implementation by preemptingpreempting instead of instead of forgivingforgiving violations through the violations through the implementation of a SWMP or WMPs implementation of a SWMP or WMPs
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
SWMP/WMP
DevelopmentPlanning
Illicit Connection& Discharge
Industrial & CommercialInspections
DevelopmentConstruction
Public EducationOutreach
Public Agency
I-WMPs SQMPs that have been revised to reflect changes to I-WMPs SQMPs that have been revised to reflect changes to
each of the 6 core programs (e.g., LID for the development each of the 6 core programs (e.g., LID for the development planning program and Green Streets for the Public Agency planning program and Green Streets for the Public Agency Program) Program)
I-WMP also reflects sub-watershed considerations I-WMP also reflects sub-watershed considerations such as TMDLs (real v. pseudo TMDLs) such as TMDLs (real v. pseudo TMDLs) • Example: Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo is not subject to the Example: Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo is not subject to the
metals or trash TMDL because none of these pollutants metals or trash TMDL because none of these pollutants is on the 303(d) list is on the 303(d) list
• Cities are not subject to hydromodification because they Cities are not subject to hydromodification because they all drain to flood control channels that have hardened all drain to flood control channels that have hardened walls that prevent stream bank erosion walls that prevent stream bank erosion
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
I-WMPs propose enhancements (BMPs) that will be based on outfall I-WMPs propose enhancements (BMPs) that will be based on outfall
monitoring against ambient standards through a true monitoring against ambient standards through a true iterative iterative processprocess
• Type and extent of BMPs needed to meet TMDL waste load allocations Type and extent of BMPs needed to meet TMDL waste load allocations and other numeric water quality standards will be determined through and other numeric water quality standards will be determined through computer modeling (e.g., adding more project categories to the LID list, computer modeling (e.g., adding more project categories to the LID list, requiring existing industrial and commercial building to route roof-top to requiring existing industrial and commercial building to route roof-top to areas of infiltration, improving parks and vacant properties within cities areas of infiltration, improving parks and vacant properties within cities to function as runoff collection areas) to function as runoff collection areas)
• The iterative process is meant to achieve water quality standards over a The iterative process is meant to achieve water quality standards over a period time – as noted in the draft North Orange County MS4 Permit:period time – as noted in the draft North Orange County MS4 Permit:
Iterative ProcessIterative Process. This Order is based on an iterative approach that, in . This Order is based on an iterative approach that, in summary, is comprised of planning, implementing, evaluating, and summary, is comprised of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving BMPs carried out as part of the Co- Permittees’ storm water improving BMPs carried out as part of the Co- Permittees’ storm water programs. programs. Multiple iterations will occur during this permit term, and are Multiple iterations will occur during this permit term, and are likely to occur over multiple permit terms, to achieve water quality likely to occur over multiple permit terms, to achieve water quality objectivesobjectives..
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
IWMP SummaryIWMP SummaryBasic Iterative Process Problem Resolution CycleBasic Iterative Process Problem Resolution Cycle
SWMP/WMP Implementation
Evaluate Program Effectiveness through
Annual Outfall Monitoring Against Ambient Standards
Record Outfall Exceedances for TMDL
WLA/Water Quality Standards
Identify Cause of the Exceedance and if City has
Control over the Source
Report Exceedances to Regional Board and discuss revisions to SWMP/WMP
to be incorporated into the MS4 Permit
Based on modeling results recommend revisions to SWMP/WMP to made in
the next MS4 Permit
Computer ModelingComputer Modeling Type and extent of BMPs needed to meet TMDL waste load Type and extent of BMPs needed to meet TMDL waste load
allocations and other numeric water quality standards will be allocations and other numeric water quality standards will be determined through computer modeling (e.g., adding more project determined through computer modeling (e.g., adding more project categories to the LID list, requiring existing industrial and commercial categories to the LID list, requiring existing industrial and commercial building to route roof-top to areas of infiltration, improving parks and building to route roof-top to areas of infiltration, improving parks and vacant properties within cities to function as runoff collection areas)vacant properties within cities to function as runoff collection areas)
• Computer modeling has resulted in demonstrating that the cities are Computer modeling has resulted in demonstrating that the cities are meeting TMDL waste load allocations between 70 and 77%meeting TMDL waste load allocations between 70 and 77% Based on assumed values assigned to stormwater management program Based on assumed values assigned to stormwater management program
that will reduce pollutants to attain TMDL waste load allocations that will reduce pollutants to attain TMDL waste load allocations
• Future modeling based on outfall monitoring results (instead of in-Future modeling based on outfall monitoring results (instead of in-stream monitoring) measured against ambient standards should a more stream monitoring) measured against ambient standards should a more accurate TMDL compliance picture for each of the cities accurate TMDL compliance picture for each of the cities In fact, it would have been advisable to defer RAA/computer modeling after In fact, it would have been advisable to defer RAA/computer modeling after
each of the cities MS4s have been characterized based on outfall monitoring each of the cities MS4s have been characterized based on outfall monitoring data data
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
NGO Concerns Regarding SubmittalsNGO Concerns Regarding Submittals
• Did not submit RAA documentsDid not submit RAA documents False: these were submitted along with computer False: these were submitted along with computer
modeling datamodeling data
• Maps showing outfall monitoring locations are missingMaps showing outfall monitoring locations are missing False: Maps were in fact submittedFalse: Maps were in fact submitted
• Did not comply with hydromodification requirement Did not comply with hydromodification requirement False: None of the cities should be subject to False: None of the cities should be subject to
hydromodification because they all discharge to hydromodification because they all discharge to conveyances that are hardenedconveyances that are hardened• NGOs point to earthen bottom channels: they NGOs point to earthen bottom channels: they
have nothing to do with hydromodification have nothing to do with hydromodification because each of the channels are hardened and, because each of the channels are hardened and, therefore, are not vulnerable to stream bank therefore, are not vulnerable to stream bank erosion erosion
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
IWMP SummaryIWMP SummaryCompton Creek ExampleCompton Creek Example
Of Hardened Walls/Soft BottomOf Hardened Walls/Soft Bottom
NGO Concerns Regarding SubmittalsNGO Concerns Regarding Submittals
• WMP Submittals Read Like Legal Comment LettersWMP Submittals Read Like Legal Comment Letters Perhaps – Cities reiterated the legal arguments raised in their Perhaps – Cities reiterated the legal arguments raised in their
administrative petitions challenging the WMP. administrative petitions challenging the WMP. Legal arguments were Legal arguments were raised so that the cities WMP submittals, which are voluntary, would raised so that the cities WMP submittals, which are voluntary, would not be construed to mean that the cities are okay with the WMP as a not be construed to mean that the cities are okay with the WMP as a compliance optioncompliance option
Cities Legal arguments include: Cities Legal arguments include: • The iterative process exists even through WQO 99-05 (supported by The iterative process exists even through WQO 99-05 (supported by
USEPA) – despite the Regional Board’s opinion to the contraryUSEPA) – despite the Regional Board’s opinion to the contrary• Cities are not legally required to conduct in-stream monitoring; only Cities are not legally required to conduct in-stream monitoring; only
monitoring at the outfall (end of the regulatory line for MS4 permits)monitoring at the outfall (end of the regulatory line for MS4 permits)• Cities are not required to meet TMDLs in non-stormwater discharges Cities are not required to meet TMDLs in non-stormwater discharges
(from outfalls) – the reason: no iterative process applies to non-(from outfalls) – the reason: no iterative process applies to non-stormwater (per WQO 2009-0008stormwater (per WQO 2009-0008))
• Cities are required to comply with ambient (dry weather standards) Cities are required to comply with ambient (dry weather standards) not wet weather ones (per 2001-15) not wet weather ones (per 2001-15)
• Cities are only required to comply with legitimate TMDLs that are Cities are only required to comply with legitimate TMDLs that are 303(d) listed303(d) listed
• WQBELs cannot be the same as TMDL WLAs (they translate WLAs WQBELs cannot be the same as TMDL WLAs (they translate WLAs in compliance actions such as BMPs and surrogate parameters) – in compliance actions such as BMPs and surrogate parameters) – this will aid in voiding the WMP and EWMP which should be covered this will aid in voiding the WMP and EWMP which should be covered by WQBELs but are not by WQBELs but are not
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
NGO Concerns Regarding SubmittalsNGO Concerns Regarding Submittals
• NGOs recommend that WMP submittal be rejected -- doubtful NGOs recommend that WMP submittal be rejected -- doubtful because:because: State Board indicated that a tentative order will be issued by mid-State Board indicated that a tentative order will be issued by mid-
November addressing the cities legal arguments – we believe it will November addressing the cities legal arguments – we believe it will uphold the iterative process to be applied to the SWMP and WMP uphold the iterative process to be applied to the SWMP and WMP
Were the Regional Board to reject the WMP, staff has opined that the Were the Regional Board to reject the WMP, staff has opined that the cities would be subject to SWMP/Minimum Control Measures which cities would be subject to SWMP/Minimum Control Measures which require absolute compliance with TMDL WLAsrequire absolute compliance with TMDL WLAs
The Permit, however, under V.A.1-4 makes clear that SWMP The Permit, however, under V.A.1-4 makes clear that SWMP implementation in a timely and complete manner, together with implementation in a timely and complete manner, together with permittee’s appropriate response to reporting and responding to permittee’s appropriate response to reporting and responding to exceedances prevents Receiving Water Limitation violations – no such exceedances prevents Receiving Water Limitation violations – no such provision exists for the WMP or EWMPprovision exists for the WMP or EWMP
Note: the V.A.1-4 does not include the WMP or EWMP as being subject Note: the V.A.1-4 does not include the WMP or EWMP as being subject to the iterative process (WMP/EWMP are covered under safe harbors that to the iterative process (WMP/EWMP are covered under safe harbors that foregive violations – on this we agree with the NGOs: there is no such foregive violations – on this we agree with the NGOs: there is no such thing as a safe harbor that forgives violationsthing as a safe harbor that forgives violations
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
NGO Concerns Regarding SubmittalsNGO Concerns Regarding Submittals
• NGOs recommend that WMP submittal be rejected -- doubtful NGOs recommend that WMP submittal be rejected -- doubtful because:because: State Board indicated that a tentative order will be issued by mid-State Board indicated that a tentative order will be issued by mid-
November addressing the cities legal arguments – we believe it will November addressing the cities legal arguments – we believe it will uphold the iterative process to be applied to the SWMP and WMP uphold the iterative process to be applied to the SWMP and WMP
Were the Regional Board to reject the WMP, staff has opined that the Were the Regional Board to reject the WMP, staff has opined that the cities would be subject to SWMP/Minimum Control Measures which cities would be subject to SWMP/Minimum Control Measures which require absolute compliance with TMDL WLAsrequire absolute compliance with TMDL WLAs
The Permit, however, under V.A.1-4 makes clear that SWMP The Permit, however, under V.A.1-4 makes clear that SWMP implementation in a timely and complete manner, together with implementation in a timely and complete manner, together with permittee’s appropriate response to reporting and responding to permittee’s appropriate response to reporting and responding to exceedances prevents Receiving Water Limitation violations – no such exceedances prevents Receiving Water Limitation violations – no such provision exists for the WMP or EWMPprovision exists for the WMP or EWMP
Note: the V.A.1-4 does not include the WMP or EWMP as being subject Note: the V.A.1-4 does not include the WMP or EWMP as being subject to the iterative process (WMP/EWMP are covered under safe harbors that to the iterative process (WMP/EWMP are covered under safe harbors that foregive violations – on this we agree with the NGOs: there is no such foregive violations – on this we agree with the NGOs: there is no such thing as a safe harbor that forgives violationsthing as a safe harbor that forgives violations
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
Executive Officer recently denied submittals for my Executive Officer recently denied submittals for my cities.cities.• Means that compliance defaults to the stormwater Means that compliance defaults to the stormwater
management programmanagement program RB staff have concluded that this option requires absolute RB staff have concluded that this option requires absolute
compliance with TMDLs compliance with TMDLs Permit clearly says that compliance is determined by Permit clearly says that compliance is determined by
implementing the SWMP which is subject to the iterative process implementing the SWMP which is subject to the iterative process Staff disagrees but without compelling reasonsStaff disagrees but without compelling reasons
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
A. Receiving Water Limitations 1. Discharges from the MS4 that cause or contribute to the violation of receiving
water limitations are prohibited. 2. Discharges from the MS4 of storm water, or non-storm water, for which a
Permittee is responsible20, shall not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance. 3. The Permittees shall comply with Parts V.A.1 and V.A.2 through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharges in accordance with the storm water management program and its components and other requirements of this Order including any modifications. The storm water management program and its components shall be designed to
achieve compliance with receiving water limitations. If exceedances of receiving water limitations persist, notwithstanding implementation of the storm water management program and its components and other requirements of this Order, the Permittee shall assure compliance with discharge prohibitions and receiving water limitations by complying with the following procedure:
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary
While staff disagrees that this provision does not apply
to the Stormwater Management Program, it has not explained what purpose it serves; what does the iterative process apply to?
This issue will be resolved through the State Board’s order which will be issued in a few weeks
IWMP SummaryIWMP Summary