1. Environmental Reform: Stormwater Quality and Ventura County Anna Lantin, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ RBF Consulting

2. Where does rainfall and urban stormwater go? 1. Drains to curb inlets then to sewer plants 2. Drains to curb inlets then to rivers/ocean 3. Soaks into the ground 4. Don’t really know

3. Are there stormwater quality requirements in Ventura County? 1. Yes 2. No

4. Agenda  Drivers: Clean Water Act and NPDES Permitting  Ventura MS4 Permit - what this means to Developers, Land Planners, and Municipalities  Environmental Reform What’s the end game? Approaches to environmental objectives National Efforts on stormwater, what to expect

5.  1969 California Porter-Cologne Act  1972 Federal CWA (start NPDES)  1990 EPA Publishes NPDES Regulations  1990 RWQCBs adopt MS4 Permits  1992 SWRCB adopts General Construction Permit  2009 New Construction General Permit  2010 New Ventura MS4 Permit MS4 : Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System “Brief” Clean Water Act and NPDES History

6. Why is Stormwater Quality a concern?  When it rains it drains!  Storm Water Pollution is a concern  Enforceable regulations

7.  EPA  SWRCB / RWQCBs  Other Agencies  Private Citizens NRDC Baykeepers Other Watchdog Groups Who Enforces These Laws?

8. Why Water Quality? Urban runoff causes surface water pollution. Best management practices; swales, detention basins, low impact development, trash removal devices, sweeping

9. Calleguas Creek Watershed, Ventura Co.

10. So. California Regional Municipal Permits  Ventura County – adopted 2010  Los Angeles County  City of Long Beach  Orange County (2)  San Diego County  San Bernardino County  Riverside County (3)

11. Ventura County MS4 Permit Purpose  Lessen water quality impacts of development Promote Smart Growth, Compact Development, Infill, Redevelopment  Minimize impacts on biological integrity of Natural Drainage  Mimic predevelopment water balance  Minimize pollutant loading through source control, LID, and treatment control BMPs  Proper design of BMPs to address pollutants of concern and to ensure long-term adequate function

12. What does the MS4 Permit apply to?  All projects ≥ 1 acre disturbed area and >10,000 sf impervious area  Industrial park ≥ 10,000 sf  Commercial strip mall, roadway projects ≥ 10,000 sf impervious area  Retail gasoline, restaurants, automotive service facilities ≥ 5,000 sf  Parking lots 5,000 sf impervious area or 25 spaces  Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to ESA and ≥ 2,500 sf impervious area

13. What does the MS4 Permit apply to (cont’d)?  Roadway project Implement “Green Streets”  Single family hillside home  Redevelopment projects Create, add, or replace 5,000 sf of impervious area Existing single family homes are exempt unless they create, add, or replace 10,000 sf of impervious area

14. Urban Runoff Treatment BMPs

15. Low Impact Development (LID)  The permit fundamentally changes development through use of “low impact development” (LID). All projects must capture, treat, retain and infiltrate runoff from storm events.

16. What if not technically feasible?  Developer must prove that low impact development is technically infeasible.  A developer still must create an EIA that is at least 30%, but financial contributions or construction to public or private offsite LID projects may be used as an offset.  The Alternative Program Projects In the same watershed; complete construction by May 7, 2013 Approved by the Regional Board Demonstrate a reduction of volume and load for the subwatershed Alternative Program Projects is critical to future development in Ventura County.

17. Is this the end game?  Current permit is to lessen impacts from new development/redevelopment  Current permits are based on iterative approach  Updated every 5 years  Will this ultimately reduce stormwater pollution?

18. 1 Daughton (2004) Long-Term Strategy  Stormwater dischargers must ultimately achieve receiving water quality standards, but there are compliance problems  The true scope of the problem is unknown: Nearly 23 million organic and inorganic substances About 7 million of these substances are commercially available 1  Current system is not an efficient approach

19. Environmental Reform?  We are investing significant resources in the urbanizing fringe, but this area is not the problem  The emphasis on treatment control or LID is not the answer for the built environment: Plumbing is wrong, grading is wrong Costs are too high Effectiveness is modest And, pace of redevelopment is slow:

20. Consider…  About 110 million acres currently ‘developed’ in the US (5.5% of land area)  Redevelopment proceeds modestly…. ABAG estimates 22,274 acres redeveloped from 1985 to 1995 This represents 0.5% of land area in the 8 counties sampled over the 10 year period. And, residential areas rarely redevelop

21. Meanwhile, Regulatory Pressure is Increasing ….  1998 - 21,749 waterbodies impaired in US.  2008, the number rose to 43,446 in US  Leading Causes (US EPA): 1.Pathogens 2.Mercury 3.Metals 4.Nutrients 5.Sediment California 1700 pollutant-waterbody impaired 60% of State drains to impaired waterbodies

22. Need for Change  The current regulatory system is reactive and based on proxies to achieve water quality standards: Best management practices (BMPs)  The system is not working Plans to fix impairments require more program resources Litigation taking more program resources Municipal governments being asked to pay for programs with no clear pathway to the ‘goal’

23. True Source Control Source Control = keeping potential pollutants out of stormwater  Operational Focused on physically keeping potential pollutants out of contact with rainfall and stormwater runoff through covering, berming, or cleaning  True (or Original) Focuses on the original source of a potential pollutant or on runoff by eliminating or significantly reducing the existence of the potential pollutant or runoff thereby negating the need to physically prevent contact between the two

24. True Source Control  ↓ Potential Pollutants Reduce the number potential pollutants – Green chemistry (DTSC), Design with nature If you make it, you take care of it (Cradle-to-cradle) – Product stewardship (CPSC), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (CIWMB)  ↓ Runoff Start at the Source / Low Impact Development (LID)

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

26. An Example of Source Control  Brake pads are the single largest source for copper in highly urbanized watersheds in California  SB346 – Brake pad bill to minimize copper in brakepads 26

27. Costs / Benefits  Chollas Creek watershed – San Diego Without brake pad copper reduction = $1.4 B With = $10s M  Los Angeles River watershed – Los Angeles Without brake pad copper reduction = $15 B With = $10s M

28. Questions? Anna Lantin, PE RBF Consulting alantin@rbf.com www.rbf.com alantin@rbf.com