RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_02_19_02_Stormwater_Quality_Regulations_MS4CrTYOF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
LES JONES,INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKJ7~
FEBRUARY 19,2013 '-'-0
REPORT ON REQUIREMENTS OF AND THE CITY'S
RESPONSE TO STORMWATER QUALITY (MS4)
REGULATIONS AS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CON!F}C?LL EBOARD
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER:J.Y--
Andy Winje,Associate Civil Engineer hIJ
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 8,2012,the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board)adopted a new permit for municipal stormwater system operators in
Los Angeles County.This new permit requires an increase in the City's effort to comply
over the previous one.Staff and the City's stormwater consultant have taken initial
steps along the permit's path to compliance but will need to bring several items back to
the City Council in the coming months in order to meet certain milestones.This report
is intended to familiarize the City Council with these upcoming expectations and the
additional effort required in the future to comply with the new permit:
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act authorizes the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to
regulate the discharge of pollutants to the nation's waterways.The EPA developed the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)to carry out this
responsibility.In Los Angeles County,this authority has been delegated to the State
through the work of the Regional Board.The Regional Board regulates the discharge of
pollutants through a number of permits and in the case of municipal §.eparate
2-1
MEMORANDUM:Requirements of and Response to Recently Adopted MS4 Permit
February 19,2013
Page 2
§.tormwater §.ewer §.ystems,the permit is known as the MS4 permit.MS4 permits are
valid for five years or as replaced by subsequent permits and the most recent was
adopted last November and brought into effect on December 28,2012.
Due to continuing pressure from the environmental community and the public
awareness of storm water quality issues,the new permit has been strengthened to
require municipalities to make stronger efforts to eliminate the discharge of pollutants
through the storm drain system in both dry and wet weather.The process to rewrite the
permit was not without controversy.The new permit was due to be revised in 2006 but
extensive technical requirements,formidable reduction goals,legal issues and limited
resources at the State delayed its adoption until last year.The new requirements pose
additional financial challenges that many permittees believe are unfunded mandates.
The State insists,however,that the mandate for pollution prevention is from the Federal
government,and that the permit requirements are not subject to typical unfunded
mandate considerations.
Our City along with many others in the county,filed a petition to protest the permit in its
current form.We requested the petitions be held in "abeyance"(essentially an
extension of the window for the City to file a lawsuit if the MS4 provisions prove too
costly or unworkable at some point in the future).This matter is still pending.
In the absence of further legal action,the MS4 permit as written is the law of the land.
Legal efforts to protest the enforcement of the permit notwithstanding,public works staff
is compelled to respond to the requirements of the permit in order to meet upcoming
deadlines.
DISCUSSION
New Permit Requirements
For the first time,the recently adopted permit will require MS4 operators to meet strict
Numeric Effluent Limits (NELs).NELs are the maximum measured amounts of
pollutants allowed in stormwater leaving the City's storm drain system.Beyond these
limits,the City can be found to be in violation of the permit,leading to fines and other
legal exposure.These limits are very low,and it is probable that the City will exceed
them,perhaps only occasionally,in the absence of additional efforts to prevent
pollutants from leaving the City.While every city subject to the permit will be required to
comply with these limits,the timeline for accountability to them varies with how a city
approaches the permit implementation.Staff is pursuing an approach that will maximize
that timeline while still remaining in compliance during the implementation period.In the
absence of this approach,the City can be held accountable to the NELs effective
December 28,2012,meaning RPV may already be out of compliance.
In order to gain extra time for compliance,the City will need to develop a Watershed
Management Plan (WMP).This plan can be pursued alone or in conjunction with other
agencies.The City heretofore has worked with the other Peninsula cities to jointly
2-2
MEMORANDUM:Requirements of and Response to Recently Adopted MS4 Permit
February 19,2013
Page 3
address requirements under the old permit.Staff believes our continued cooperation
with the other Peninsula cities can be mutually beneficial both in terms of minimizing
redundant work efforts,and in terms of increasing our influence with the Regional
Board.Opportunities may exist for even further extension of permit compliance
deadlines if the City is able to identify certain projects that can be committed to (Le.
installed)in the near term.Therefore,staff has been in discussion with staff from the
other Peninsula cities as we develop our response strategy.If we are to take
advantage of working with the other Peninsula cities,a draft memorandum of
understanding must be in place and working its way toward adoption by early summer
of this year.Staff anticipates the ability to comply with this deadline,unless Council
objects to this approach.
According to the permit language,the WMP must include certain ordinances and
programs be adopted by the City.The first is a Low Impact Development (LID)
ordinance that seeks to minimize runoff,and therefore the transport of pollutants,from
new and existing development.The second is a Green Streets program which seeks to
do the same from the public right of way.Model language for these ordinances is not
fully developed but typically relies heavily on infiltration (letting water soak in on site)
and bio-filtration (directing runoff through vegetation to remove pollutants).While
infiltration may not always be advisable in RPV given our landslide prone geology,staff
is confident an ordinance can be written that will qualify the WMP without jeopardizing
local land stability in the City.These ordinances must be adopted by June,2013 and
staff anticipates bringing them back to City Council soon in order to comply with this
deadline.
The WMP will also require the City to develop extensive monitoring and response plans.
A monitoring plan will describe how the City will test the stormwater leaving the storm
drain system to ensure compliance with the NELs.Considerations of location,
frequency,contracted services,pollutants of concern, reporting and response to
exceedances must be included in the monitoring plan.Developing these plans will
require resources in future years beyond what is typically budgeted.
Once sufficient monitoring data is available,the City will be able to determine what
needs to be done to comply with the NELs.The WMP will identify Best Management
Practices (BMPs)that must be implemented and continually improved in order to meet
the NELs.BMPs range from public outreach,to in-house practices,to structural
improvements and are specific to the land use,pollutants of concern,and existing levels
of discharge.The City will be required to demonstrate through computer modeling that
implementation of the selected BMPs provide a reasonable assurance that the NELs
can be met.The right BMPs for RPV have yet to be identified,but the suite of potential
solutions is well known and selecting,justifying and implementing additional practices
will not occur without increased expense over what the City currently spends.
Costs to the City
Regarding costs,the following is an excerpt from the City Council staff report presented
2-3
MEMORANDUM:Requirements of and Response to Recently Adopted MS4 Permit
February 19,2013
Page 4
on December 21,2012.
The City currently budgets about $180,000 per year from the General Fund to
address ongoing annual activities to comply with water quality regulations under
the old permit.There has been only a small need,about $50,000,for capital
improvements over the last three years.Costs to meet requirements of the new
permit are harder to determine because the implementation plans have yet to be
developed or approved and monitoring results identifying any pollutants have yet
to be analyzed.The newly granted powers of the Regional Board to determine
the intensity of compliance activities required of each city or watershed group are
broad and untested.However,according to the City's storm water consultant,
John Hunter &Associates,the City should expect an initial doubling of annual
costs at a minimum.Furthermore,the City should anticipate capital outlay in
the millions to the tens of millions of dollars over the next ten to twenty years,
depending on the concentrations of pollutants found in the City's storm drain
outfalls.
Staff anticipates the need for a significant increase to the stormwater quality program
budget moving forward.Staff is working diligently to identify these increases in time for
the next budget cycle.
In a related matter,the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors had extended the
date of the protest hearing for the Water Quality Funding Initiative (aka Parcel Fee),an
item that staff brought before the City Council in December 2012.It is still unclear
whether the Supervisors will bring this item forward for a public vote,but it almost
certainly will not happen soon enough to receive funding for the coming fiscal year.
CONCLUSION
The newly adopted municipal stormwater quality permit has extensive additional
requirements that make it both more strenuous and more expensive to demonstrate
compliance.Staff is working to follow a path to compliance that delays exposure to
strict and unforgiving numerical limits and seeks to take advantage of similar efforts in
our neighboring cities.The City's response will require new ordinances,increased
workloads and additional funding to meet the deadlines and conditions of the permit set
by the Regional Board.Staff is bringing this item to City Council at this time in
anticipation of near-term future action by the City Council,and to provide an opportunity
for the City Council to become familiar with this increased regulatory burden.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are negligible fiscal impacts to receive and file the information presented.As
discussed in the staff report,the future impacts will be significant but at this time are
unable to be quantified.
2-4