Agenda packet, regular meeting — Newark City Council, April 23, 2026 (part 3 of 7)

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 185
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section, requirements to report monitoring results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a
frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the
discharge, but in no case less than once a year. . . .
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)-(2). This section allows “for monitoring other than mass or volume, namely some ‘other measurement specified in the permit [ ] for each pollutant limited in the permit’” (NRDC v. U.S.EPA, (2nd Cir. 2015) 808 F3d 556, 582.). The regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.48 state that all permits specify the “[r]equired monitoring including type, intervals, and frequency sufficient to yield data which are representative of the monitored activity including, when appropriate, continuous monitoring.”
Consistent with the federal regulations, water quality monitoring requirements in Provision C.8 require specific monitoring that will yield data that is both representative of the monitored activity and necessary to assure compliance with the requirements of the Permit, as described below.

C.8 includes monitoring231:
(1) At or near outfalls during storm events to determine the concentrations (mass) of pollutants of concern and to obtain information to identify source areas or contaminated watersheds. These concentration data, in combination with other information, are used to provide modeled loading estimates to assess progress on attaining TMDLs, including assuring compliance with the required load reductions in the permit (C.8.f. Pollutants of Concern Monitoring). This monitoring supports estimates of MS4 pollutant loads to receiving waters and requires data collection to support planning for control actions (e.g., identification of source areas or contaminated watersheds). The latter includes monitoring effectiveness of control measures and identifying pollutant source areas; and (2) In receiving waters, during wet and dry weather, to assess the extent to which LID controls and trash controls mitigate the physical, chemical and biological impacts of MS4 discharges to those receiving waters, and to therefore guide the management and implementation of existing and future LID controls and trash controls (C.8.d. LID Monitoring and C.8.e Trash Receiving Water Monitoring).

Provision C.8.d LID Monitoring requires monitoring of LID facilities, systems, components, including different LID design variations, in order to measure compliance and determine the effectiveness of LID controls, including the 231 Provisions C.14, C.16, C.18, and C.19 contain additional monitoring and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the requirements therein.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 186
extent to which LID controls address the physical, chemical and biological impacts to receiving waters caused by MS4 discharges. Provision C.8.d outlines the minimum requirements that Permittees’ LID Monitoring programs must comply with and what must be included in LID Monitoring Plans. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of Permittee representatives will guide the development and implementation of the LID Monitoring Plans.

Provision C.8.e Trash Monitoring requires monitoring of MS4 outfalls, direct monitoring of receiving waters, and indirect monitoring of receiving waters (adjacent on-land areas, when direct in-stream monitoring is not practicable).

The types, frequencies, and intervals of monitoring are expected to yield information that will verify whether implemented full trash capture systems or equivalent trash controls result in no or low levels of trash discharges from MS4s.

Receiving water monitoring is specified here in addition to, and in some cases as a substitute for, outfall monitoring, for the following reasons. First, there are no end-of-pipe limits in the Permit to measure. Instead, the Permit requires, for example, PCB load reductions; outfall monitoring would not allow the Water Board to assess whether the PCB limits are met. Second, there are hundreds if not thousands of outfalls in the Permittees’ jurisdictions and it is impractical to monitor every single outfall due to both cost and safety concerns. Monitoring a subset of outfalls would provide information about MS4 discharges at those specific locations at only one limited point in time, which leads to the third point that outfall monitoring is time- and spatially limited. In contrast, the required receiving water monitoring integrates the physical, biological and chemical effects to the water body of all MS4 discharges from multiple outfalls over multiple storms (i.e., time and space), yielding more useful data than outfall monitoring to determine compliance with the Permit. Receiving water monitoring is done in a probabilistic or rotating basis, depending on the parameter, again yielding more useful data than fixed-location monitoring. Also, both dry weather and storm flows are addressed in receiving water monitoring, whereas outfall monitoring is normally conducted only during storm events. Dry weather discharges can constitute a significant portion of annual pollutant loadings from storm systems in urban areas (NRC 2008).

To provide an example of how receiving water monitoring better captures permit compliance, consider an illicit discharge of chloramine from a swimming pool to an MS4. Both outfall and receiving water monitoring could detect the discharge. However, outfall monitoring would need to be done at the exact location and time of an illicit discharge; otherwise it would go undetected, because the discharge would have moved through the outfall and into receiving waters.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 187
Receiving water monitoring as a means to evaluate compliance with permit conditions is supported by the National Research Council (NRC). In Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, NRC states that the quality of stormwater from urbanized areas has been well-characterized.232 Continuing MS4 end-of-pipe monitoring produces data of limited usefulness because of a variety of shortcomings (as detailed in the report). The NRC strongly recommends233 that MS4 programs modify their evaluation metrics and methods to include biological and physical monitoring and an increased emphasis on watershed scale analyses to ascertain what is actually going on in receiving waters, much like what is required in the permit. Further, NRC finds that biological assessments respond to the range of non-chemical stressors identified as being important in urban waterways including habitat degradation, hydrological alterations, and sediment and siltation impacts, as well as to the influence of nutrients and other chemical stressors where chemical criteria do not exist or where their effects are difficult to measure directly (e.g., episodic stressors).

Prior to the current Permit, Permittees completed substantial biological and physical creek status monitoring to evaluate MS4 impacts on streams.

Continuing creek status monitoring will not generate substantial new actionable information. Baseline monitoring of all creeks has been completed and there is no near-term expectation for change. Consideration of additional or updated biological and physical monitoring will be relevant in future permit terms to evaluate long-term management actions that would cause a measurable change in creek conditions. Creek status monitoring and the associated stressor source Identification monitoring have been replaced in the current Permit with LID systems and trash control effectiveness monitoring, which are high priorities due to the high benefit costs of those actions, and more specific and near-term relevant pollutants of concern receiving water monitoring requirements.

U.S. EPA Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits notes that:
…storm water monitoring can be conducted for two basic
reasons: 1) to identify if problems are present, either in the receiving water or in the discharge, and to
characterize the cause(s) of such problems; and 2) to
assess the effectiveness of storm water controls in
232 National Research Council. 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. 233 U.S. EPA has endorsed the NRC’s recommendation (See, e.g., EPA’s District of Columbia MS4 Permit No. DC0000221 Fact Sheet, 2011.).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 188
reducing contaminants and making improvements in
water quality.

Permit Provision C.8 satisfies these two objectives by requiring monitoring that will provide Permittees with sufficient data to pinpoint sources of pollutants and assess the effectiveness of efforts to reduce pollutants, both at the source and in receiving waters.

C.8-6 The Water Quality Monitoring Provision is intended to provide answers to fundamental management questions, outlined below. Monitoring is intended to progress as iterative steps toward ensuring that the Permittees’ can fully answer, through progressive monitoring actions, management questions that include the following:
(1) Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses?
(2) What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems?
(3) What is the relative urban runoff contribution to the receiving water problem(s)?
(4) What are the sources of urban runoff that contribute to receiving water problem(s)?
(5) Are conditions in receiving waters getting better or worse? (6) What are the pollutant removal and hydrologic benefits, such as addressing impacts associated with hydromodification, of different types of LID facilities, systems, components, and design variations, and how do they change over time?
(7) What are the minimum levels of O&M necessary to avoid deteriorated LID facilities, systems, and components that reduce pollutant removal and hydrologic benefit performance?
C.8-7 On April 15, 1992, the Water Board adopted Resolution No. 92-043 directing the Executive Officer to implement the Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay. Subsequent to a public hearing and various meetings, Water Board staff requested major permit holders in the region, under authority of CWC section 13267, to report on the water quality of the Estuary. These permit holders, including the Permittees, responded to this request by participating in a collaborative effort through the San Francisco Estuary Institute. This effort has come to be known as the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), which produces world-class datasets on estuarine Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 189
contaminants.234 The RMP involves collection and analysis of data on pollutants and toxicity in water, sediment and biota of the Estuary. Because the RMP monitors waters in each Permittee’s jurisdiction and gathers data on the pollutants controlled in this Permit, the Permittees are required to continue to report on the water quality of the Estuary, as presently required. Compliance with the requirement through participation in the RMP is considered to be adequate compliance.

C.8-8 The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) is a statewide monitoring effort, administered by the State Water Board, designed to assess the conditions of surface waters throughout California. One purpose of SWAMP is to integrate existing water quality monitoring activities of the State Water Board and the Regional Water Boards, and to coordinate with other monitoring programs. Provision C.8 contains a framework, referred to as a regional monitoring collaborative, within which Permittees can elect to work cooperatively with SWAMP to maximize the value and utility of both the Permittees’ and SWAMP’s monitoring resources. In working cooperatively with SWAMP, Permittees can develop a monitoring program that evaluates waters in its jurisdiction and gathers data on each of the pollutants of concern discussed in this Permit.

C.8-9 In 1998, BASMAA published Support Document for Development of the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Strategy,
235 a document describing a possible
strategy for coordinating the monitoring activities of BASMAA member agencies. The document states:

BASMAA’s member agencies are connected not only by
geography but also by an overlapping set of
environmental issues and processes and a common
regulatory structure. It is only natural that the evolution of their individual stormwater management programs has
led toward increasing amounts of information sharing,
cooperation, and coordination.

In a prior permit, Permittees were given the option to implement this same concept by forming a regional monitoring collaborative, which they did. In conducting some of the monitoring required in this Provision, the Regional Monitoring Collaborative (RMC) provides efficiencies and economies of scale by performing certain tasks (e.g., planning, contracting, data quality assurance, data management and analysis, and reporting) at the regional level on behalf 234 https://www.sfei.org/programs/sf-bay-regional-monitoring-program 235 EcoAnalysis, Inc. & Michael Drennan Assoc., Inc., Support Document for Development of the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Strategy, prepared for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, March 2, 1998.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 190
of all Permittees. Further benefits are expected as more monitoring requirements are fulfilled through the RMC.

C.8-10 This Permit includes monitoring requirements to ensure compliance with adopted TMDL WLAs and to provide data needed for TMDL implementation.

This Permit incorporates the TMDLs’ WLAs adopted by the Water Board as required under CWA section 303(d).

C.8-11 SB1070 (California Legislative year 2005/2006) found that there is no single place where the public can go to get a look at the health of local water bodies.

SB1070 also states that all information available to agencies shall be made readily available to the public via the Internet. This Permit requires water quality data to be submitted in a specified format and uploaded to a centralized Internet site so that the public has ready access to the data.

Specific Provision C.8 Requirements
Each of the components of the monitoring provision is necessary to meet the objectives and answer the questions listed in the findings above. Justifications for each monitoring component are discussed below.

C.8.a. Compliance Options. Provision C.8.a. provides Permittees options for obtaining monitoring data through various organizational structures, including use of data obtained by other parties. This is intended to achieve the following:
 Promote cost savings through economies of scale and eliminate redundant monitoring by various entities;
 Promote consistency in monitoring methods and data quality; and  Simplify reporting.

In this Permit, all the Stormwater Countywide Programs are encouraged to work collaboratively to conduct all or most of the required monitoring and reporting on a region-wide basis. For each monitoring component that is conducted collaboratively, one report would be prepared on behalf of all contributing Permittees; separate reports would not be required from each Program. Cost savings could result also from reduced contract and oversight hours, fewer quality assurance/quality control samples, shared sampling labor costs, and laboratory efficiencies.

C.8.b. Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality. CWA regulations (40 CFR 122.41(j)(1)) require that data submitted pursuant to a NPDES permit meet certain quality standards. To achieve this, and to obtain data of known quality that can be compared to data collected in other California urban creeks, the permit requires monitoring data be collected and analyzed in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Project Plan and Standard Operating Procedures or U.S. EPA methods. The BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition’s Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan (January 2014) and Standard Operating Procedures (January Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 191
2014) have been deemed to be SWAMP comparable. These two BASMAA documents may be updated to reflect the changing state-of-the-science with Executive Officer’s approval.

C.8.c. San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring. The San Francisco Estuary is the ultimate receiving water for most of the urban runoff in this region. For this reason and because of the high value of its beneficial uses, Provision C.8.c requires focused monitoring on the Estuary to continue. Since the mid-1990s, Permittees have caused this monitoring to be conducted by contributing financially and with technical expertise, to the RMP. Provision C.8.c requires such monitoring to continue. The monitoring conducted through the RMP is an important component of determining compliance with receiving water limit (RWLs) in the MRP, and this monitoring complements the tributary-focused RWL and other monitoring required in Provision C.8 along with the tracking and accounting of required Permittee control actions.

RMP monitoring includes both wet season and dry season data collection in San Francisco Bay water, sediment, fish, shellfish, and birds. The analytes monitored in these media provide a comprehensive assessment of water quality in the estuary. Data are collected both in the sub-tidal (deeper) region as well as the shallow areas of the Bay where tributaries (many influenced by urban runoff) enter the Bay. The contaminant concentrations in Bay water, sediment and biota integrate all sources of contaminants (e.g., urban runoff, atmospheric deposition, wastewater treatment). Comparison of RMP data to water quality objectives allows water quality managers to determine if RWLs are achieved in the ultimate receiving water, San Francisco Bay.

C.8.d. Low Impact Development (LID) Monitoring. LID Monitoring is intended to measure compliance and effectiveness of LID implementation. It will improve the understanding of the following two management questions (which are repeated in Finding C.8-6 above) related to the implementation of LID controls:
(1) What are the pollutant removal and hydrologic benefits, such as addressing impacts associated with hydromodification, of different types of LID facilities, systems, components, and design variations, and how do they change over time?
(2) What are the minimum levels of O&M necessary to avoid deteriorated LID facilities, systems, and components that reduce pollutant removal and hydrologic benefit performance?
The purpose of the first management question is to confirm that Permittees’ LID controls are functioning as expected over time. Perhaps some design variations provide greater performance than others. The purpose is not only to compare relative performance between different types of MRP Permittee controls but also to compare their performance against the publicly-available databases of LID performance data, such as Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 192
those of the International Stormwater BMP Database236 and SCCWRP’s California BMP Effectiveness Calculator.237
The purpose of the second management question is straightforward: to assess whether LID controls that receive relatively insufficient O&M perform relatively poorly compared to LID controls that receive relatively sufficient O&M, which will directly inform management actions (such as, what O&M activities to perform, and how much of it to perform how frequently).

The Permittees are required to submit LID Monitoring Plans subject to review by a Technical Advisory Group and Executive Officer approval during the first year of the Permit term, detailing how exactly they will answer these two management questions, guided by the confines and structure of Provision C.8.d.i which describes what must be included in the LID Monitoring Plans, Provision C.8.d.ii which outlines a process for ongoing Regional Collaboration, Provision C.8.d.iii which outlines the Methods to be used to answer the Management Questions, and Provision C.8.d.iv which prescribes the Parameters that must be sampled and analyzed as well as the sampling Intensities.

Once their LID Monitoring Plans have been approved or conditionally approved, the Permittees will begin implementing them by no later than the beginning of the second Water Year to occur during the Permit term, which is October 1, 2023. LID Monitoring during the first Water Year of the Permit term is not required because Permittees will need that time to develop their LID Monitoring Plans.

C.8.d.i. This Provision sets forth the minimum contents of the LID Monitoring Plans to ensure that they are properly designed to address the two management questions and to implement the requirements in Provisions C.8.d.iii-v. Executive Officer approval will ensure the LID Monitoring Plans conform to Provision C.8.d’s requirements.

C.8.d.ii. Regional Collaboration requires the Permittees to form a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to review and make recommendations on the drafting of the LID Monitoring Plans so that they are scientifically sound, and to ensure that the Permittees’ sampling and analytical methodologies are regionally consistent. To further this, Water Board staff and impartial science advisors (e.g., SFEI, SCCWRP) may participate in the TAG. As the approved or conditionally approved LID Monitoring Plans are implemented, it is necessary for the TAG to provide ongoing feedback because LID Monitoring is new and therefore may need adjustments and ongoing improvements to (and adaptive management of) study design and methodology in real time during the Permit term.

Impartial science advisors participating in the TAG will support these needs and will also provide feedback on lessons learned from LID Monitoring as it occurs, which will culminate in recommendations for changes to the LID Monitoring in the subsequent Permit. This Provision requires that the Permittees submit the draft LID Monitoring Plans to the TAG by March 1, 2023, so that the TAG can provide feedback, and so that 236 https://bmpdatabase.org/get-data
237 https://sccwrp.shinyapps.io/bmp_eval/
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 193
the Permittees can incorporate that feedback, before the final LID Monitoring Plans are required to be submitted to the Water Board for Executive Officer approval (or conditional approval) by May 1, 2023, pursuant to Provision C.8.d.vi.

C.8.d.iii. Methods describes the methods that, when implemented by the Permittees, will address the LID Monitoring Management Questions. Permittees are required to use automated samplers to collect flow-weighted composite EMCs (time-weighted composites are allowed if they have many subsamples and can be closely approximated as flow-weighted composites), simultaneously at both the inlet and outlet of each control/site (this is needed to calculate both geomean and percent reduction), because this will generate the highest quality data, and because this is the same data type as the data in the databases used to perform the power analysis (see below).

Flow- or time-weighted composite EMCs involve the collection of a sample aliquot at a certain increment of flow passing through the monitored orifice, or at a certain increment of time, which is then added to a storage container to form a single composite sample.

These are explained in greater detail, including different types of flow-weighted composite EMC methodologies (e.g., volume proportional to flow rate, volume proportional to flow volume increment, and time proportional to flow volume increment), in the International Stormwater BMP Database’s 2009 monitoring guidance document.241 Because this method is required, flow data can be collected using the same automated samplers.

C.8.d.iv. Parameters and Intensities defines the parameters that are fundamental to characterizing the pollutant and hydrologic mitigation that LID facilities, systems, components and design variations provide. There are two types of parameters, those that are required and those that are optional. The required parameters are: Total Hg, Total PCBs, TSS, PFAS, TPH, Total and Dissolved Copper, Flow, Total Hardness, and pH. The optional parameters are: Other Emerging Contaminants (e.g., microplastics and 6PPD-quinone) and Other Ancillary Parameters. Other Ancillary Parameters may include, but are not limited to: zinc (and other metals), temperature, conductivity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), turbidity, pathogens (FIB), total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), pesticides of concern to water quality (e.g., pyrethroids, fipronil and its degradants, and neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid),238 major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K), and major anions (SO4, Cl). These parameters are typically found in and are of particular concern for urban stormwater discharges within the Permittees’ jurisdictions. The LID Monitoring Plans must implement monitoring for the required parameters.

The LID Monitoring Plans may or may not implement monitoring for the optional parameters at each site, for example, depending on whether they will inform the relevant LID Monitoring Management Questions, and whether they are appropriate for a given site due to the characteristics of the tributary drainage area. Characteristics that 238 And other pesticides of concern to water quality, listed in Provision C.9, Pesticides Toxicity.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 194
Permittees may consider include soil type, land use, types and loading from actual and potential sources of stormwater pollution (e.g., IGP sites and traffic loading), existing management actions and stormwater controls (both natural and engineered), and imperviousness.

Provision C.8.d.iv also specifies the minimum total number of sample events that must be collected during the Permit term as well as the minimum number of sample events that must be collected annually. The minimum annual samples are set at a level that ensures satisfactory annual progress towards the total number of required sample events, that ensures a certain minimum frequency of data collection which is important for the quality of the dataset, but that also allows for additional flexibility and cost savings by Permittees in their planning of sample events.

The total number of samples events are based on power analysis. Water Board staff utilized a method from Helsel (2020)239 to compute the power of a nonparametric test of differences between geometric means of two distributions. Water Board staff adapted an R script (power.WMW from Chapter 13) provided on a website240 providing supporting material for Helsel (2020). For more information on the method, please see Chapter 13 of Helsel (2020). The existing data were for total copper (combined data from SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Tracker and the International Stormwater BMP Database), TSS (International Stormwater BMP Database), TSS (SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Calculator) and Dissolved Zinc (SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Calculator). No data filtering was performed on these data (which possibly include outliers and instances where input:output is < 1). No transformations of the data were required because the nonparametric method does not require the data to be normally distributed.

The power analysis runs a series of t-tests to estimate how many sample events of the Permittees’ LID BMPs during MRP 3 would need to be collected to determine whether such BMPs – and to the extent that those BMPs are a representative sample of the population of LID BMPs in the region, then this may be extrapolated to that regional population – belong (statistically) to the data population represented by the existing data in the databases of the International Stormwater BMP Database and the SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness calculator.

The null hypothesis is that the geomean of the Permittees’ sample data is the same as the geomean of the population of the databases, and the alternative hypothesis is the converse. A significance level and power level are specified, which are recommended as 5% and 80%, respectively, by the International Stormwater BMP Database’s 2009 239 Helsel, D.R., Hirsch, R.M., Ryberg, K.R., Archfield, S.A., and Gilroy, E.J., 2020, Statistical methods in water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. A3, 458 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/tm4a3.
240 https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5bf30260e4b045bfcae0c205 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 195
monitoring guidance document.241 The significance level is the probability (5%) of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis, and 100% percent minus the power level of 80% is the probability that a significant change will be overlooked (i.e., 20% chance that the null hypothesis will not be rejected when it should have been).

Next, the power analysis explores how many sample events are needed to reject the null hypothesis for a given magnitude of difference in the geomeans, for a given power level, using different combinations of a sample event size and the difference to detect.

For each dataset that is tested, the geomean of the performance ratios (input:output) of each sample event is calculated, which consists of a flow-weighted (or time-weighted) composite event mean concentration (EMC) taken simultaneously at an inlet and outlet of a particular bioretention cell, for a particular storm event.

These are explained in greater detail, including different types of flow-weighted composite EMC methodologies (e.g., volume proportional to flow rate, volume proportional to flow volume increment, and time proportional to flow volume increment), in the International Stormwater BMP Database’s 2009 monitoring guidance document.241 These are the sample collection methodologies used for the data in the two aforementioned databases, and they are as well what the Permittees are required to use pursuant to Provision C.3.d.iii.

After the distributions (principally, the geomean) of the performance ratios of each sample event in a dataset are calculated, the power analysis tests for the differences between that ratio of the geometric mean of the database data to the geometric mean of the future to-be-collected data, where each such geometric mean is the geometric mean of the ratios of input:output ratios for each sample event.

For each number of total sample events to be collected over the five-year permit term (e.g., 10, 15, 20, 25…), this produces a range at 80% power, which if the geomean of future sample events falls within that range, would confirm the null hypothesis. The upper and lower bounds of the range are the ratios of the future geomean (of input:output ratios) to the database geomean (of input:output ratios); geomeans closer to the upper bound represent overperformance relative to the distribution of the database, while geomeans closer to the lower bound represent underperformance relative to the distribution of the database. In the center of the range, where the ratio of future geomean to database geomean = 1, their performance is identical. Each range represents a given number of sample events, and the range constricts incrementally as the number of sample events increases. What that translates to is that, as the number 241 https://bmpdatabase.org/monitoring
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 196
of sample events increases, it is less likely to incorrectly affirm the null hypothesis, though there are diminishing returns, which is discussed next.

The next step in power analysis involves assessing diminishing returns in the constriction of the geomean ranges with increasing numbers of sample events. For example, whereas an increase in sample events from N=10 to N=100 would correspond with a very large constriction in the lower and upper bounds of the geomean ratio (performance) range, an increase in sample events from N=100 to N=110 would correspond with a dramatically lesser constriction.

For the TSS, Copper and Zinc data that were tested, the sweet spot for the number of water quality sample events to be collected during the upcoming Permit term is N=30.

However, N=25 has a significant but relatively acceptable consequence with respect to the size of the geomean range (particularly for the TSS data from the International Stormwater BMP Database) relative to N=30, and therefore it has been used as a modest reduction in effort (from N=30 down to N=25) for the ACCWP, CCCWP, SCVURPPP, and SMCWPPP Permittees. Above N=30, successive constrictions in the geomean range suffer increasingly dramatic diminishing returns. Below N=25, the opposite is true because the geomean range becomes much larger, and therefore the efficacy and utility of the monitoring program drops off dramatically.

Following are the tabular data and visualizations for each of the four datasets that were produced by the power analysis. Diminishing returns can be visualized as the point at which the slope of the rate of change in geomean range (x-axis = number of sample events; y-axis = change in geomean range), starts to flatten out as it approaches a horizontal asymptote.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 197
International Stormwater BMP Database, TSS
N GM ratio Future GM
low high low high
10 0.174 5 0.858864 24.68
15 0.248 4.026 1.224128 19.87234
20 0.302 3.306 1.490672 16.31842
25 0.344 2.905 1.697984 14.33908
30 0.378 2.645 1.865808 13.05572
50 0.468 2.137 2.310048 10.54823
100 0.573 1.743 2.828328 8.603448
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
GM range
N
change in GM range
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
change in GM range
N
rate of change in GM range
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 198
SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Calculator, TSS
N GM ratio Future GM
low high low high
10 0.222 4 4.189584 75.488
15 0.29 3.442 5.47288 64.95742
20 0.334 2.991 6.303248 56.44615
25 0.365 2.735 6.88828 51.61492
30 0.389 2.57 7.341208 48.50104
50 0.445 2.246 8.39804 42.38651
100 0.498 2.005 9.398256 37.83836
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 199
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
GM range
N
Change in GM range
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
change in GM range
N
rate of change of GM range
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 200
SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Calculator, Dissolved Zn N GM ratio Future GM
low high low high
10 0.316 3.165 1.54524 15.47685
15 0.365 2.741 1.78485 13.40349
20 0.392 2.552 1.91688 12.47928
25 0.409 2.445 2.00001 11.95605
30 0.421 2.376 2.05869 11.61864
50 0.446 2.243 2.18094 10.96827
100 0.466 2.146 2.27874 10.49394
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 201
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
GM range
N
change in GM range
-0.5
-0.45
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
change in GM range
N
rate of change of GM range
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 202
International Stormwater BMP Database & SCCWRP California BMP Effectiveness Calculator, Total Copper
N GM ratio Future GM
low high low high
10 0.496 2.014 2.346576 9.528234
15 0.56 1.785 2.64936 8.444835
20 0.597 1.673 2.824407 7.914963
25 0.623 1.606 2.947413 7.597986
30 0.641 1.561 3.032571 7.385091
50 0.681 1.468 3.221811 6.945108
100 0.717 1.394 3.392127 6.595014
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 203
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
GM range
N
Change in GM range
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
change in GM range
N
rate of change of GM range
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 204
C.8.d.v. Implementation Level requires the Permittees to begin implementing their LID Monitoring Plans by no later than October 1, 2023, which is the beginning of the 2024 Water Year, the second Water Year of the Permit term. This start date provides five months from the submittal date of the final LID Monitoring Plans (May 1, 2023) for the Water Board to approve or conditionally approve the final LID Monitoring Plans, and will allow the Permittees sufficient time after that approval or conditional approval to prepare to monitor storm events starting in the 2024 Water Year, including the first storm event of that wet season.

C.8.d.vi. Reporting requires the Permittees to submit their LID Monitoring Plans to the Water Board, subject to Executive Officer approval, by no later than May 1, 2023. This is two months after the March 1, 2023, required submittal date of the LID Monitoring Plans to the TAG, which will provide the Permittees sufficient time to make changes to their LID Monitoring Plans based on feedback from the TAG, prior to the submittal date to the Water Board. As explained for Provision C.8.d.v above, it will also provide five months for the Water Board to approve or conditionally approve the LID Monitoring Plans, and subsequently for the Permittees to incorporate any changes including in any conditional approvals, and to prepare to begin implementing their LID Monitoring Plans, prior to the October 1, 2023, LID Monitoring start date.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 205
C.8.e. Trash Monitoring. Trash monitoring at MS4 outfalls or adjacent receiving waters provides a viable method to determine whether control actions implemented by Permittees (full trash capture systems or the implementation of other management actions equivalent to full trash capture) have been effective in preventing trash from discharging to receiving waters. Additionally, trash monitoring can be used to determine whether additional actions may be necessary and associated with sources within a Permittee’s jurisdiction. Trash monitoring can also inform whether direct (non-MS4) discharges of trash are causing and/or contributing to adverse trash impacts in the receiving water(s).

The purpose of this trash monitoring is to answer the following management questions and monitoring questions:

Management Questions
 Have Permittees’ trash control actions effectively prevented trash within Permittees’ jurisdiction from discharging into receiving waters?
 Are discharges of trash from areas within Trash Management Areas controlled to a low trash generation level causing and/or contributing to adverse trash impacts in receiving waters?
Monitoring Questions
 What is the trash condition and approximate level of trash (volume, type, and size) within and discharging into receiving waters in areas that receive MS4 runoff controlled to a low trash generation via the installation of full trash capture devices, or the implementation of other trash management actions equivalent to full trash capture systems?
 Does the level of trash in the receiving water correlate strongly with the conditions of the tributary drainage area of the MS4?
There are currently no regulatory standard methods and protocols for monitoring trash exiting (or traveling through) MS4 outfalls/pipes or in receiving waters. However, there are numerous examples of trash capture devices attached to the end of MS4 outfall pipes, and “in-line” trash capture devices which are within the MS4 prior to discharge into a receiving water (e.g., hydrodynamic separators), and if such monitoring sites satisfy all other criteria included in Provision C.8.e (namely, that the tributary drainage areas are already controlled to the Low trash generation level), then it is reasonable that such devices can be used to monitor trash loading, simply by cleaning them out prior to the sample event, then performing a maintenance event after the sample event. For example, the vendor Stormwater Systems cites uses of such trash capture (monitoring) systems in Carrolton, Texas at Josey Ranch Lake, St. Louis, Missouri, and the Anacostia River Watershed in Maryland.242 There are many other examples of 242 https://stormwatersystems.com/stormx-netting-trash-trap/ Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 206
implementation of end-of-pipe and in-line systems, such as The Sock in the City of Kwinana, south of Perth, Australia,243 the TrashTrap in Oxnard, CA, and in Narragansett Bay, RI,244 Los Angeles County,245 a large device controlling flows from a pump station prior to discharge into San Francisquito Creek and the Bay in the City of East Palo Alto,246 HDS units in the Cities of Livermore and Vallejo, and others. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership implemented, tested, and monitored 42 high-capacity trash control devices (both end-of-pipe and in-line) in more than 60 Bay Area municipalities, in a project that concluded in November 2013, many of which could be adapted as trash monitoring systems if they satisfy the other criteria included in Provision C.8.e.247 Here is a presentation that includes lessons learned for implementation in Philadelphia, PA (knowing the stormwater outfalls was an important consideration):
https://delawareestuary.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/Summit15/BallA/WO'DayDel_Summit_Monit_Stormwater_Trash.pdf. Regarding in-stream monitoring, as discussed below, methods have been successfully piloted by 5 Gyres.248 Caltrans installed trash capture devices at four trash capture pilot site locations in 2018,249 which are examples of devices that could readily be modified and used as monitoring devices for Provision C.8.e Trash Monitoring.

In March 2017, BASMAA published a final version of a report titled “Tracking CA’s Trash: On-land Visual Assessments17” that was funded in part via a California Proposition 84 grant funded project (Agreement # 12-420-550). The primary objectives of this project were to: test trash trends monitoring methods for a) trash in lowing receiving waters and b) on-land visual trash assessments; evaluate the effectiveness and costs of trash control measures; and develop a web-based portal to disseminate related information. More recently, in December 2020, the San Francisco Estuary Institute published the “California Trash Monitoring Methods and Assessments 243 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-09/drain-sock-kwinana-pollution-solution-takes-world-bystorm/11190266?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment 244 https://stormtrap.com/products/trashtrap/#trashtrap-Projects 245
https://www.pw.lacounty.gov/wmd/irwmp/docs/Prop%2084%20Round%202%20Implementation%20Grant %20Application/Attachment%207%20Technical%20Justification%202%20of%2015.pdf#page=97 246 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendas/2019/February/7b_ssr.pdf 247 https://www.sfestuary.org/trashcapture/
248
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5522e85be4b0b65a7c78ac96/t/58dd932f414fb5663b5a4f79/14909 16184178/TCT+Creek+Monitoring+Report_FINAL.pdf
249 Caltrans Site Identification Number: 4-430, Post Mile: 04-Ala-880-PM 23.73, Interchange: Davis Street, Device Type: StormTrap (FreshCreek), Construction Completion Date: 07/05/2018; Caltrans Site Identification Number: 4-431, Post Mile: 04-Ala-880-PM 16.58, Interchange: Highway 880/State Route 92, Device Type: Old Castle (KriStar), Construction Completion Date: 07/05/2018; Caltrans Site Identification Number: 4-432, Post Mile: 04-Ala-880-PM 7.37, Interchange: Mowry Avenue, Device Type: Modified Old Castle (KriStar), Construction Completion Date: 12/20/2018; Caltrans Site Identification Number: 4-433, Post Mile: 04-Ala-880-PM 6.29, Interchange: Stevenson Boulevard, Device Type: StormTrap (FreshCreek), Construction Completion Date: 12/04/2018.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 207
Playbook.”250 The objective of this report was to create a foundation for developing a consistent, standardized approach to trash monitoring statewide. The project team identified four trash monitoring methods and then performed a method comparison analysis based on two seasons of fieldwork, culminating in numerous conclusions, including the following: some methods are more accurate than others, some methods are more subjective than others, some methods are more laborintensive than others, and some methods are more expensive than others. Water Board staff have reviewed both of these reports and the information presented within them has been used towards developing the trash monitoring requirements of this Order.

Though we do not yet have evidence that those on-land methods are reliable indirect indicators of trash loading through MS4s and receiving waters, we think many of those methods are well-suited for characterizing on-land trash conditions, including on-land areas adjacent to MS4 outfalls and receiving waters. When combined with direct measurements of trash loading in MS4s and receiving waters, these on-land methods may help provide a synoptic view of trash loading within Permittees’ jurisdictions.

Factors such as feasibility, location logistics, types of trash, complexity, and costs, provide a means for Permittees to focus and limit the number of monitoring locations while still providing spatial and temporal representativeness of the impact of implemented trash controls on the receiving water.

The Trash Monitoring program to be implemented by the Permittees during this Permit term essentially constitutes a pilot project, and the Water Board may consider expanding the scope of the program in a future Permit term by increasing the number of sites and/or events.
 C.8.e.i. Monitoring Components calls for the Trash Monitoring program to address the specified management and monitoring questions, and to the extent possible, requests for regional consistency in methods employed to answer those management and monitoring questions. trash monitoring method components demonstrated and implemented in the Statewide Trash Monitoring Methods Project (Trash Monitoring Playbook250) ensure the use of comparable data for each monitoring site. These components entail six steps which include 1) event preparation; 2) gathering standard equipment; 3) setup of the assessment area; 4) recording of site information and assessment area dimensions; 5) recording assessment areas photos; and 6) determining the location of storm drain outfalls, homeless encampments, and illegal dumping hotspots that can impact the assessment area.

The establishment of a technical advisory group (TAG) that includes Water Board staff, Permittees, and impartial science advisors (e.g. SFEI, SCCWRP, etc.) is crucial in order to provide the necessary guidance needed to answer the 250 https://sites.google.com/sfei.org/trash/
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 208
management questions and to provide peer review sufficient to ensure that work is appropriately science-based.
 C.8.e.ii. Monitoring Methods describes the monitoring methods that may be used to address the management and monitoring questions. The methods described provide flexibility with respect to siting and methodology.  C.8.e.ii.(1) calls for the direct monitoring of MS4 outfalls that drain tributary drainage areas that are controlled to the Low level, via full trash capture devices, other actions verified by on-land visual trash assessments, and any combination thereof. Several possible methods are listed.
 C.8.e.ii.(2) calls for direct (in-stream) monitoring of receiving waters. Several possible methods are listed. It also requests (but does not require) that such monitoring be co-located with MS4 outfall sites, which (to the extent possible and realized) would help to distinguish between background levels of trash in the receiving water and the relative contribution of trash discharging through the respective MS4 outfall. This could help answer questions such as:
 Are discharges from MS4 service areas controlled to the Low trash generation level, nevertheless, causing or contributing to adverse impacts in receiving waters?
 Failing an adverse impact definition, how does the loading from the MS4 outfall compare to loading present in the receiving water? Is it greater or lesser by an order of magnitude?
 How does trash loading from the sampled MS4 outfall compare to the estimated contribution of other nearby sources of trash loading to the receiving water, such as other upstream/downstream MS4 outfalls, homeless encampments, and illegal dumping sites, relative to the background level present in the receiving water?
The answers to these questions could help inform/prioritize/trigger management actions. For example, given the loading measured in a given receiving stream, perhaps an upstream MS4 outfall is a greater priority than the sampled MS4 outfall, or vice-versa.

However, recognizing that such questions are not easily answered, that the end-ofpipe/in-line and in-stream trash monitoring methods are relatively new to the Permittees, and that it is difficult to site both MS4 outfall sites and receiving water sites (not to mention the difficulty in siting them close together), co-location is not required in this Permit term.

Permittees may use methods which only partially screen and capture the cross section of a receiving water, such as the methods piloted by 5 Gyres.248 This means they will need to extrapolate the sample to the remainder of the cross section.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 209
Extrapolation may be more appropriate (/accurate) for channels experiencing supercritical flow (which are likely to have good mixing of trash because of the higher turbulence), which is more likely for a hardened channel. Conversely, the opposite is likely the case for natural channels. Natural channels are more likely to have subcritical flows (less turbulence) which means there will be less mixing of trash, more concentration of trash in the thalweg, and samples will be less easily extrapolated to the rest of the cross section.
 C.8.e.ii.(3) recommends, but does not require, the implementation of on-land methods coincident with MS4 outfall and receiving water sites. The purpose of this is to gain a synoptic view of on-land trash conditions adjacent to outfall and/or instream monitoring sites. However, recognizing the cost and level of effort associated with MS4 outfall and receiving water monitoring, this monitoring element is optional, as it is not as high of a priority as MS4 outfall and receiving water monitoring.  C.8.e.ii.(4) requires that all trash monitoring sites additionally characterize flow rates and recommends methods that can be used.
 C.8.e.ii.(5) explains that all methods must include collection of data on material type collected, which is important for assessing the water quality impact caused by different types of trash because different kinds of trash may cause different types of impacts to aquatic life and may create different types of pollution.250,251 This may additionally inform the eventual definition of no adverse impact to receiving waters, as different types of trash are likely to cause different levels of impact. Data collected on material type will also inform the Permittees’ implementation of source controls and other management actions for controlling trash.
 C.8.e.iii. describes the minimum number of sites and monitoring events that Permittees are required to sample (and analyze) on an annual basis, which will be revised based on review by the Technical Advisory Group. Although these trash monitoring methods are not new to the world, they are relatively new to the Permittees, and therefore we do not want to overtask the Permittees while they are learning and piloting these methods. However, it is reasonable that in a future Permit term, the Water Board may consider increasing the Trash Monitoring level of effort, with cause. For example, if statistical analysis (i.e. power analysis) suggests that more sites and samples are needed to be able to assess whether data from a future monitoring program (e.g., a revised Trash Monitoring Provision in MRP 4) belongs to the same distribution as the data collected during MRP 3, MRP 2, or some other dataset, then Water Board staff will make that recommendation. Towards that end, 251 A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region: Trash Measurement in Streams. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, April 2007.

Accessed on September 2, 2021, from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/docs/swampthrashreport.pdf Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 210
Water Board staff may perform power analysis during MRP 3 on the data collected by that time, to inform, support, and justify changes to Provision C.8.e for MRP 4.  There are two required components of monitoring, MS4 outfall monitoring and (direct) in-stream monitoring. Permittees are allotted one year of planning before they must begin MS4 outfall monitoring, and two years before they must begin instream monitoring, to choose monitoring sites, secure permits, and practice/refine sample methodologies. It is appropriate that they are given an additional year for instream monitoring (relative to MS4 outfall monitoring) because that may take more time to find sites and secure permits. The number of sites is also reduced for instream monitoring, because it is a pilot project, and to reduce the overall level of effort for Permittees.
 There is no minimum requirement for number of sites or events for on-land monitoring, as that monitoring component is optional (though recommended).  Pursuant to Provision C.8.e.iii.(8), Permittees are required to use the results of Trash Monitoring to inform and investigate their trash management actions. If Trash Monitoring results indicate that discharges are causing or contributing to adverse trash impacts in receiving waters, Permittees shall implement new or enhanced actions to comply with the trash discharge prohibition and receiving water limitations.

For example, if the amount of trash discharged from an MS4 outfall exceeds 5 gallons/acre/year, then that should trigger an investigation into why trash loading from that MS4 outfall is greater than expected (based on trash generation rates and controls present in the tributary drainage area), be it inadequate/poor O&M, design, and/or construction of FTCDs, short-circuiting of trash controls, or a number of other potential causes/contributors. Other examples of what might trigger Permittee investigations include the discharge of trash items that should be prohibited by credited source control ordinances, and the discharge of trash items greater than 5mm (e.g., cigarette butts) during storm events which are less than or equal to the design storm (i.e., when bypass should not be occurring). Provision C.8.e.iv.(2)(f) requires the Permittees to solicit feedback from the TAG on the implementation of Provision C.8.e.iii.(8), Provision C.8.e.v.(6) requires the Permittees to discuss in the Trash Monitoring Plan their plans for implementation of Provision C.8.e.iii.(8), and Provision C.8.h.iii.(2)(h) requires the Permittees to report on implementation of Provision C.8.e.iii.(8).
 C.8.e.iv. calls for formation of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which includes impartial science advisors (e.g., SFEI, SCCWRP, etc.) and Water Board staff, to review and provide input, feedback, and recommendations on Trash Monitoring, including site selection, methods and analyses, results, and conclusions. The TAG is also critical to determining the adequacy of the methods and minimum storm size, number of sites, events, frequencies, and intervals, and recommendations for alternatives, to answer the management and monitoring questions.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 211
The TAG is required to meet biannually during the development of the Trash Monitoring Plan, to aid in its development. Subsequently, the TAG is required to meet at a minimum annually, which is sufficient for the TAG to – on an ongoing basis – review and provide feedback on the Permittees’ implementation of Provision C.8.e.

However, the TAG should meet more frequently as needed, especially during the beginning of the Permit term when the Permittees’ implementation of the Trash Monitoring program is being carried out for the first time.

Among the tasks assigned to the TAG is to discuss the timing of sampling during storm events; a recent publication by the 5 Gyres Institute recommends that sampling is prioritized during the rising limb of the hydrograph, as that is when most of the trash load is mobilized through the MS4 system.248 Another task is discussion of permitting, which is intended to help the Permittees secure permits; the TAG can strategize how best to secure permits, and can even invite participation and input from permitting agencies such as CDFW and the Corps.
 C.8.e.v. calls for the development and submittal of a Trash Monitoring Plan prior to the inception of trash monitoring.

The Trash Monitoring Plan includes a requirement that the Permittees submit a monitoring schedule that includes the timing, number, and type of monitoring events at each site. Timing encompasses, but is not limited to, decisions such as at which point in the water year that storms are sampled (e.g., whether near in the beginning, middle, or end of a given water year), the time during individual storms that samples are taken (e.g., during the rising limb of the hydrograph, the peak of the hydrograph, or the falling limb of the hydrograph, which decision is influenced by factors such as the delineation of the tributary drainage area to the MS4 outfall and the time of concentration), and consideration of antecedent dry periods (trash accumulation) and timing of sampling relative to cleanup activities in the assessment area and/or in the tributary drainage area to the MS4 outfall.

C.8.f. Pollutants of Concern252 Monitoring. Provision C.8.f. requires monitoring for the following select pollutants of concern (POC): PCBs, mercury, copper, zinc, fecal indicator bacteria and certain emerging contaminants. The emerging contaminants to be monitored have been characterized as moderate concern for the Bay (SF Bay occurrence data suggest a high probability of a low-level effect on wildlife) and are likely transported in stormwater. The monitoring requirements for these emerging contaminants will support RMP efforts to better characterize concentrations in stormwater. The PCBs and mercury TMDLs require monitoring to measure loads reduced and the progress the water body is making toward attaining water quality objectives. The Basin Plan requires Permittees to monitor copper loading to the Bay to track loading. Provision C.8.f. monitoring is intended to assess inputs of select POCs to the Bay from local tributaries and urban runoff; provide information to support 252 See sections C.11, C.12, and C.13 of this Fact Sheet for more information on Pollutants of Concern.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 212
implementation of TMDLs and other pollutant control strategies; assess progress toward achieving wasteload allocations (WLAs) for TMDLs; assess compliance with receiving water limitations (RWLs), and help resolve uncertainties in loading estimates and impairments associated with these pollutants.

In particular, POC monitoring addresses six priority POC management information needs:
(1) Source Identification - identifying which sources or watershed source areas provide the greatest opportunities for reductions of POCs in urban stormwater runoff;
(2) Contributions to Bay Impairment - identifying which watershed source areas contribute most to the impairment of San Francisco Bay beneficial uses (due to source intensity and sensitivity of discharge location); (3) Management Action Effectiveness - providing support for planning future management actions or evaluating the effectiveness or impacts of existing management actions;
(4) Loads and Status/Trends - providing information on POC loads, concentrations, and presence in local tributaries or urban stormwater discharges; and (5) Status/Trends - evaluating trends in POC loading to the Bay and POC concentrations in urban stormwater discharges or local tributaries over time. (6) Compliance with Receiving Water Limitations – providing information to assess whether receiving water limitations (RWLs) are achieved.

The Permit specifies monitoring methods that can be used to address these information needs and which information needs apply to each pollutant of concern. The Permit provides flexibility in the number of samples, or level of effort, but requires minimums to be met annually and over the Permit term. The level of effort (expressed as required number of samples collected and analyzed) is identical to the manner in which the level of sampling and analysis effort for pollutants of concern monitoring was specified in the Previous Permit.

The approach for POC monitoring does not pre-determine specific monitoring locations.

Rather, the Permit requires that monitoring be intelligently and flexibly directed toward answering the management information needs (that apply to a given pollutant), and this flexibility allows the monitoring strategy to be adapted and improved based on information obtained from monitoring conducted early in the Permit term. The flexibility also allows the Permittees to continue collecting useful information even during drought years in which conditions limit some types of data collection (e.g., storm event sampling) but not others (e.g., collection of bed sediment). In fact, bed sediment data collected at all times of the year offers a valuable and efficient means of locating source areas and characterizing contamination in watersheds. During storm events of sufficient Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 213
intensity, the pollutants attached to sediment are mobilized and transported from source areas, but some of this contaminated sediment is often deposited near the source area so there is a “fingerprint” of the source that can be detected through sampling this bed sediment.

It is impractical to sample all of the urban runoff outfalls in the region. Monitoring at outfalls can provide valuable information and be an important component of an overall pollutants of concern monitoring strategy. For example, strategic outfall sampling for pollutants of concern is necessary to identify source areas and contaminated portions of watersheds near the outfalls (to support control measure implementation). However, these outfall data (obtained at great expense) cannot address all management information needs for pollutants of concern. By strategically sampling the sediment and water column, the Permittees can better address the six information needs stated above.

There are two components that address assessing compliance with RWLs (sixth management information need). First, Provision C.8.e requires receiving water monitoring in the San Francisco Estuary, which is conducted through the RMP. The RMP monitoring provides a comprehensive assessment of water quality in the estuary.

San Francisco Bay is the ultimate receiving water for the tributaries in the region. The contaminant concentrations in Bay water, sediment and biota thus represent an integration of all the sources of contaminants (e.g., urban runoff, atmospheric deposition, wastewater treatment). Comparison of RMP data to water quality objectives allows water quality managers to determine if RWLs are achieved in the ultimate receiving water, San Francisco Bay. The RMP monitoring in San Francisco Bay includes both wet season and dry season data collection in water, sediment, fish, shellfish, and birds. The suite of analytes monitored in these media adaptively change over time in response to available information about evolving water quality threats. For example, initial RMP efforts in the early 1990s focused on metals contamination.

Improvements in wastewater treatment and banning lead from gasoline led to sharp declines in Bay metals concentrations. Accordingly, the RMP adapted to focus more attention on mercury, PCBs, organic contaminants and, today, a wide range of emerging contaminants. However, the program continues to monitor for many metals to maintain appropriate surveillance and monitor for trends. Thus, the RMP provides valuable information on a large number of pollutants that can be used to assess compliance with RWLs at the level of San Francisco Bay.

The second component of RWL monitoring is required through Provision C.8.f and C.8.h.iv and is focused on tributaries to the Bay, which are directly influenced by discharges from MS4s.This monitoring will consist of sampling during the wet season (primarily) and dry season to generate water quality data to assess compliance with RWLs. Because it is not possible to sample all waterbodies in the region, waterbodies will be selected to be representative of the range of waterbody types in the region. It is also not possible to collect data at all times and locations in a waterbody so sampling Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 214
locations in this subset of waterbodies will be selected to obtain water quality data spatially and temporally representative of the water bodies being sampled.

It is also not possible to sample for every one of the thousands of possible analytes. It would be an expensive and even impossible undertaking to monitor for all possible analytes, and not a good use of resources. Monitoring should be focused on those pollutants for which there is a reasonable risk of an exceedance of applicable water quality objectives and for which stormwater discharges cause or contribute to such exceedances. Table 8.2 in Provision C.8.f contains a list of candidate pollutants to monitor, but the Water Board, at present, lacks reliable and comprehensive information to determine the suite of analytes for tributary-focused monitoring to assess RWLs.

Accordingly, the waterbodies to sample, the locations in those waterbodies, and the full list of analytes to quantify will be specifically determined, based on criteria set forth in the permit, through a report required by Provision C.8.h.iv(2).a due no later than March 31, 2023. Requiring focused pollutant monitoring based on water quality impacts is consistent with the monitoring approach used in NPDES permits for wastewater. The report required under Provision C.8.h.iv(2).a requires Permittees to use existing information to identify the suite of analytes that have the potential to exceed water quality objectives. Sources of information relevant for identifying candidate analytes include RMP data, monitoring data collected in Bay Area tributaries through the MRP and other programs. If local RMP or tributary monitoring data are not available, Permittees should review monitoring data collected in tributaries in other urban areas as well as relevant information from the literature. Once the report is approved by the Executive Officer for compliance with the requirement and technical adequacy, Permittees will then execute the monitoring specified in the report for the representative waterbodies in a manner to collect temporally and spatially representative data and report these data under Provision C.8.h(ii) (Electronic Reporting) and in the Integrated Monitoring Report required by Provision C.8.h.v.

Pollutants of concern broadly, and PCBs and mercury in particular, present special challenges for the design of an effective management strategy because they are widely distributed in the urban landscape, and they are transported to receiving waters on sediment particles mobilized from watersheds during intermittent precipitation events.

These challenges led to the identification of the first five of six broad management information needs mentioned above that could be addressed through monitoring, and monitoring data can certainly provide useful information to address these questions.

However, it is also important to be aware of the limitations of monitoring data in addressing all management information needs, especially with respect to pollutants like PCBs and mercury. Mercury is distributed widely throughout the urban landscape through a combination of presence in consumer products (lightbulbs and thermometers) and also because it can be deposited from the atmosphere. Therefore, although one does occasionally find elevated concentrations in some locations, one generally finds moderately elevated concentrations spread over a wide geographic area. PCBs are distributed somewhat differently because they were used in industrial activity so one Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 215
finds high concentrations associated with historical land uses (generally old industrial) where PCBs were used intensively.284
Despite the differences in their distribution and chemical properties, both PCBs and mercury tend to be associated with sediment particles (slightly more so for PCBs).253 This means that these contaminants are transported through watersheds to receiving waters attached to sediment particles during precipitation events. However, contaminant transport is a very complicated and highly variable process that depends on the features of the source area, the slope of the watershed where the contamination exists, the soil and other land use features, the intensity of the rainfall event, antecedent soil moisture conditions, and other factors.253
For pollutants like methyl mercury that are transported in the aqueous phase (not attached to particles) and whose aqueous concentrations do not vary substantially across monitoring events during a monitoring season, one can generate reasonable load estimates using a simple method of multiplying runoff volume by the average of the measured aqueous pollutant concentrations. This method requires the average of the concentrations to represent reasonably well the typical pollutant concentration in the flowing stormwater. However, for particle-bound pollutants that have more complex source release and transport processes, more intensive monitoring strategies making use of continuous monitoring of turbidity in conjunction with grab samples (during storm events of sufficient size to mobilize sediment particles containing PCBs and mercury) of suspended sediment along with contaminant concentrations must be employed to accurately measure the amount of PCBs or mercury moving past some monitoring location in a receiving water during a particular time period (e.g., during the months of a single wet season).254 This intensive method of generating load estimates from continuous turbidity and grab sampled concentrations is called the turbidity surrogate method because the continuously-measured turbidity serves as a surrogate for suspended sediment concentrations established through regression relationships with measured suspended sediment collected via grab samples during storms.254 The Bay Area climate is among the most variable of any in the world so the pattern and amounts of rainfall vary substantially from year-to-year because of this variability. Therefore, in order to obtain an estimate of the typical load through monitoring, this intensive continuous monitoring activity would need to be employed over several years.

This measurement difficulty also applies to the scale of an individual control measure or a single watershed where control measures are implemented. For example, if a control measure were put in place to address PCBs or mercury loads in a single watershed, 253 McKee, Lester; Leatherbarrow, Jon; Pearce, Sarah; Davis, Jay (2003) A Review of Urban Runoff Processes in the Bay Area – Existing Knowledge, Conceptual Models, and Monitoring Recommendations. San Francisco Estuary Institute Contribution 66. 254 McKee, Lester et al. (2017). Long-term variation in concentrations and mass loads in a semi-arid watershed influenced by historic mercury mining and urban pollutant sources. Science of the Total Environment Volumes 605-606, pages 482-497.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 216
some portion of the PCBs or mercury load from that site may be reduced. However, there could be other pollutant sources in the watershed and the pollutants from the controlled source may already be distributed somewhat through the watershed awaiting transport to the receiving water. In any case, the actual load reduction effect from any one or group of control measures is likely to be small and the impact on downstream loads would take time to manifest as the residual contamination was transported through the watershed. Individual control measures likely result in small incremental changes in loads.

In order to detect (through monitoring) these small load reductions in a watershed where control measures are implemented, one should attempt to measure all of the pollutant load flowing out of the watershed. This is practically impossible. Instead, the same intensive monitoring procedure (turbidity surrogate method) described above should be employed for several years after implementation in order to attempt to capture enough storm events over several years to account for the climatic variability.

This intensive monitoring procedure can provide a reasonable estimate (with moderate uncertainty) for the amount of sediment moving past the monitoring location through use of continuous turbidity monitoring and establishing the relationship with suspended sediment.254 The PCBs and mercury concentrations, by contrast, are measured through grab samples during storms for which field crews can be mobilized. It is impossible to mobilize field crews for all storms in a single watershed, much less for every storm in every watershed (there are potentially hundreds) where control measures may be implemented. These pollutant concentrations from individual storms are used to develop estimates for the pollutant concentrations (attached to sediment particles since these pollutants move with sediment) for the storms that are not measured. Finally, the estimated PCBs or mercury sediment concentrations (from the grab sample data) are multiplied by the estimate of the suspended sediment (from continuous turbidity versus suspended sediment regressions) to arrive at an estimate for the total mass load of mercury or PCBs that flowed past the site during the storm season.

Because of the way the pollutant concentrations are estimated based on the data collected from a few storms, the calculated mass load has moderate to considerable uncertainty for that storm season. The scale of the uncertainty is likely greater than the scale of the load reduction resulting from any single control action, even if the load reduction occurred immediately upon implementation (which is unlikely because of how pollutants are distributed and transported in watersheds). What is worse, the actual loads can vary from year to year by at least a factor of ten and often more. Therefore, if one wanted to be sure to assess the load reduction effects of control measures through monitoring, one would need to carry out this turbidity surrogate method over several years to arrive at a long-term average mass load. This amount of effort would be needed just to measure the impacts of control measures in a single watershed. There are hundreds of watersheds in the Bay Area where control measures may be implemented. Implementing the turbidity surrogate method on even a single watershed is not a practical means of assessing the impact of control measures on loads. An Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 217
intensive program of continuous monitoring at hundreds of locations upstream and downstream of control measure implementation over several years would be required to correctly measure PCBs and mercury loads. The effort and expense to undertake such a monitoring program would consume all or nearly all available resources that would be better spent on control measure implementation.

Using watershed models to estimate loads and changes in loads offers an alternative, practical approach instead of trying to assess loads through monitoring alone. The general idea is that the watershed model simulates sediment and water movement through watersheds in order to estimate sediment and pollutant mass loading at times and places where data are not available because the model is calibrated against available monitoring data from the turbidity surrogate method and also pollutant concentrations measured from grab samples in multiple watersheds during storm events. The models can therefore predict water, sediment, and contaminant transport to estimate PCBs and mercury loads and changes in loads due to management intervention and land use changes over time. The modeled estimates have uncertainty associated with them so they would also not be able to reliably demonstrate small changes in loading. Because the models are using data collected over several watersheds (over the entire Bay Area) collected over several years, they generally perform better in predicting loads at larger spatial scales. In order to understand why, consider the case of modeling the load for a single watershed. The modeled load estimate for a small watershed area would be highly uncertain because the monitoring data used to calibrate the model may not be available for that watershed. In other words, monitoring data from the entire Bay Area is being used for model calibration, and these data may not be applicable for any single watershed. At the aggregated level of multiple watersheds or the entire Bay Area, these uncertainties (a set of over predictions and under predictions of watershed loads compared to monitoring data) tend to cancel out so the aggregated load estimate from the model at the regional scale is usually more certain than the estimate for any single watershed.

The problems associated with climate variability impacting load variability cannot be entirely avoided by using models, but the models can be used to simulate loading over multiple years to generate an average load over several years where rainfall amounts (and hence loads) may have varied. In this way, the models can smooth out climate variability and generate something like an average loading. The models ultimately rely on monitoring data for their calibration and validation, however. If actual loading changes have not manifested in monitoring data, then the models will not show loading changes either. Because control measures for PCBs and mercury, even if effective, result in relatively small loading changes during any particular year or even five-year period (e.g., about 1.6 kg/yr estimated PCBs load reduction during this permit term), the monitoring data on which the models rely are highly unlikely to detect the impact of these load reduction changes in measured concentrations. Therefore, modeled loading estimates are not likely to be sensitive enough to confirm this level of change. The models will be more useful with longer time scales such that enough land use change Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 218
and concentration change has occurred such that model can detect the change. In other words, the model works best at large spatial and temporal scales.

Both the mercury and PCBs TMDLs anticipated the challenges associated with using either monitoring alone or a combination of modeling and monitoring to assess how loading responds to control measure implementation. The mercury TMDL requires that Permittees “develop and implement a monitoring system to quantify either mercury loads or loads reduced through treatment, source control, and other management efforts”, and the PCBs TMDL requires stormwater Permittees ”to develop and implement a monitoring system to quantify PCBs urban stormwater runoff loads and the load reductions achieved through treatment, source control and other actions.” Consistent with these TMDL requirements and in recognition of the difficulty of assessing control measure loading changes through monitoring or modeling, the Permit employs an accountability strategy known as the programmatic approach to confirm the sufficiency of control measure implementation and provide estimates of the load reductions likely occurring as a result of these control measures. This accountability strategy is described later in this Fact Sheet.

Provisions C.8.g. Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring. Toxicity testing provides a tool for assessing toxic effects (acute and chronic) of all the chemicals in samples of stormwater, receiving waters or sediments and allows the cumulative effect of the pollutants present in the sample to be evaluated, rather than the toxic responses to individual chemicals. Toxicity in water and on sediment also are monitored in order to determine whether the numeric targets of the Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity in Urban Creeks TMDL are being achieved, and to help provide evidence on whether pesticide-related toxicity is decreasing in urban creek waters.

This subprovision combines all the pesticide and toxicity into one place. This format is intended to provide for more thoughtful dry weather and wet weather sampling designs that may provide more meaningful data for the region and potentially for statewide studies. Since the Urban Creeks TMDL was adopted by the Water Board in 2005, it has become more apparent that pesticide related toxicity water quality problems are similar in urban waterways across the State. At this time, efforts have begun to develop a statewide coordinated pesticides and pesticide-related toxicity monitoring program. In addition, pesticide-related water quality issues are subject to change as different pesticide products gain market share and increase in urban usage. For these reasons, Permittees may request the Water Board modify, reduce or eliminate the requirements of this subprovision during the Permit term, provided the resultant change, viewed in context of the statewide program, would result in overall improvement of pesticide monitoring data collection.

This Permit describes type, interval and frequency of pesticides and toxicity monitoring sufficient to yield data which are representative of both dry weather and wet weather urban runoff. Required analytes include toxicity and pesticides that are being found at or near concentrations that cause chronic or acute effects to aquatic organisms. Required Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 219
test methods include the relatively recent Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/013, 2002; Table IA, 40 CFR Part 136) for chronic toxicity. The test species are selected as the most sensitive species to pollutants currently known or suspected to be present in stormwater discharges. All required methods and test species are consistent with those used by SWAMP as well as those required in other California MS4 permits, including the statewide Caltrans permit.

The non-pesticide pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc are included in this subprovision in order to facilitate the synoptic collection of these pollutants in sediment with toxicity in sediment during the dry season.

C.8.h. Reporting. Provision C.8.h. requires Permittees to submit electronic and comprehensive reports on their water quality monitoring activities to (1) determine compliance with monitoring requirements; (2) provide information useful in evaluating compliance with all Permit requirements; (3) enhance public awareness of the water quality in local streams and the Bay; and (4) standardize reporting to better facilitate analyses of the data, including for the CWA section 303(d) listing process.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 220
C.9. – C.14, C.18, C.19. Pollutants of Concern including Total Maximum Daily Loads
Provisions C.9 through C.14, C.18, and C.19.c-f pertain to pollutants of concern, including those for which TMDLs have been adopted.

Legal Authority
The following legal authority applies to provisions C.9 through C.14, C.18, and C.19.c-f:

Broad Legal Authority: CWA sections 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC sections 13377 and 13383, and Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A, B, C, E, and F) and 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv).

Specific Legal Authority: The TMDL-based requirements for pesticides, mercury, methylmercury, PCBs, bacteria, and sediment (in the Pescadero-Butano watershed only) have been imposed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), which requires the effluent limitations in NPDES permits to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available waste load allocation (WLA) for the discharge. Water Code section 13263, subdivision (a), requires that waste discharge requirements implement any relevant water quality control plans (basin plans), including TMDL requirements that have been incorporated into the basin plans. In addition, under CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii), MS4 discharges “shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable . . . and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants” (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).). Under this provision, the Water Board may include requirements for reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges as necessary for compliance with water quality standards (See Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159, 1166.). This includes requirements to meet TMDLs since TMDL targets are an interpretation of water quality standards.

The Water Board may impose WQBELs that are BMPs or numeric effluent limitations (see, e.g., 40 CFR. §122.44(k)(2) and (3)). This is consistent with U.S. EPA’s November 26, 2014, “Revision to the November 22, 2002, Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs’” (2014 U.S. EPA Memo.).

This memorandum, while not binding authority, states “[w]here the TMDL includes WLAs for stormwater sources that provide numeric pollutant loads, the WLA should, where feasible, be translated into effective, measurable WQBELs that will achieve this objective. This could take the form of a numeric limit, or of a measurable, objective BMP-based limit that is projected to achieve the WLA.” The 2014 U.S. EPA Memo further acknowledges that the permitting authority should consider the schedules in the TMDL as it decides whether and how to establish enforceable interim requirement and interim dates in the permit. The interim deadlines in the Provisions are consistent with and in furtherance of the deadlines in the TMDLs.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 221
The Trash Amendments updated the Ocean Plan and the Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan to include a narrative water quality objective for trash, a trash prohibition, and a framework for implementation of the water quality objective and prohibition in municipal stormwater permits. This framework sets up two tracks for permittees to implement the prohibition; the San Francisco Bay Region Permittees are in Track 2, which means that they implement the prohibition through a combination of full-trash capture devices and other control measures deemed equivalent to full-trash capture.

For copper, the Permit requires best management practices and copper control measures to prevent urban runoff discharges from causing or contributing to exceedances of copper site-specific water quality objectives for the Bay, consistent with the Basin Plan. Water Code section 13263 requires that waste discharge requirements implement the Basin Plan.

Basin Plan Requirements:

Section 4.8 of the Region’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) states that NPDES stormwater permits issued to municipalities will include requirements to prevent or reduce discharges of pollutants that cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives. The Water Board has been taking a phased approach of first requiring technically and economically feasible controls to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Where this does not result in attainment of water quality objectives, the Basin Plan states the Water Board will require implementation of additional control measures to meet water quality objectives. The Basin Plan also contains urban stormwater TMDL implementation requirements at sections 7.1.1, 7.2.2,

7.7.1, 7.2.3, 7.4.1, and 7.4.2 for pesticide-related toxicity, mercury, PCBs, bacteria, and sediment. The Basin Plan also requires urban stormwater requirements for copper in section 7.2.1.The Basin Plan Table 4-1 includes Prohibition 7, which prohibits the discharge of “rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.” The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins also contain requirements related to pesticides and methylmercury relevant to Permittees in eastern Contra Costa County.

General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants (Mercury and PCBs):

The control measures for mercury and PCBs are intended to implement the urban runoff requirements stemming from TMDLs for these pollutants. The control measures required for PCBs are intended to implement those that are consistent with control measures in the PCBs TMDL implementation plan. The urban runoff management requirements in the PCBs TMDL implementation plan call for permit-term requirements based on an implementation of controls to reduce PCBs, and that is the intended approach of the required provisions for all pollutants of concern. Control actions addressing PCBs and mercury are expected to reduce loadings of other sediment- Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 222
bound pollutants, including legacy pesticides and PBDEs. Permittees can achieve multiple water quality benefits by strategically siting PCB and mercury controls. The POC strategy also includes a phased approach that provides for pilot scale testing (in MRP 1) and for identifying areas with pollutants of concern other than PCBs and mercury. The overall strategy for addressing sediment bound POCs uses the following framework, which is to implement controls more widely as Permittees test measures and gain confidence in their efficacy:
(1) Pilot-testing in a few specific locations.
(2) Focused implementation in areas where benefits are most likely to accrue. (3) Full-scale implementation throughout the region.
(4) Additional Work. Permittees may also try out experimental control measures and devote resources to research and development, desktop analysis, laboratory studies, and/or literature review.

The logic of such categorization is that, as actions are tested and confidence is gained regarding the control measure’s effectiveness, the control measure may be implemented with a greater scope. For example, an untested control measure for which the effectiveness is uncertain may be implemented as a pilot project in a few locations during a permit term. If benefits result, and the action is deemed effective, it will be implemented in subsequent permit terms in a focused fashion in more locations or perhaps fully implemented throughout the Region, depending upon the nature of the measure. Conversely, the benefits of other control measures may be well known, and these control measures should be implemented in all applicable locations and/or situations. By conducting actions in this way and gathering additional information about effectiveness and cost, we will advance our understanding and be able to perform an updated assessment of the suite of actions.

During the MRP 1 permit term, Permittees focused on gathering necessary information about control measure effectiveness. In effect, most of the control measures were implemented at the pilot scale. During the MRP 2 term, the emphasis shifted toward focused and some full-scale implementation of the most effective control measures, and progress was measured through accounting for specific load reductions. In this Permit term, the mercury and PCBs provisions require specific programmatic control measures deemed effective based on implementation experience and analyses in previous Permit terms (a “programmatic approach”).

Experience implementing PCBs and mercury control measures in the first two versions of the MRP along with monitoring data and other information, including modeling, informs the design of the programmatic approach. Permittees use a load reduction accounting system (see Provisions C.11.a and C.12.a) to estimate mercury and PCBs load reductions for each type of programmatic control measure consistent with an expected level of control measure implementation intensity. Permittees are required to Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 223
track and report on their level of implementation through enforceable control measurespecific performance metrics that are associated with the estimated load reductions. In subsequent permit terms, control measures will be implemented based on what is learned in this term, resulting in even more refined, improved, and effective controls.

Fact Sheet section C.8.f, above, describes the challenge of measuring (through monitoring) PCBs and mercury loads and load reductions due to how these pollutants are distributed in watersheds and transported during storm events and the variability of the Bay Area’s climate. These challenges in measuring load reductions through monitoring data also necessitate a programmatic approach to control measure implementation. Over the past two decades, however, Water Board staff has compiled and analyzed a large quantity of monitoring data and other information to understand the relationship between control measure implementation and load reductions and thereby establish a solid technical foundation for the programmatic approach.

PCBs and mercury data in bedded
sediment (i.e., in storm drains or
street sediment) and flowing
stormwater have been collected
through the RMP and also by the
stormwater programs over the last
two decades. Through the RMP and
Permittee sampling, over 100 Bay
Area watersheds have been
sampled. In these watersheds, over
1,500 sediment samples have been
taken, and samples have been taken
at over 140 locations for flowing
stormwater (see dots on figure,
personal communication Alicia
Gilbreath, San Francisco Estuary
Institute). These monitoring data
provide a clear picture about how
PCBs and mercury are distributed in
Bay Area watersheds and what type
of watersheds contribute more or less
pollutant load. Notice in the figure
that the highest PCBs-yielding watersheds (mass loading of PCBs per unit area) are concentrated largely along the shore of San Francisco Bay. These high yielding watersheds are generally old industrial areas. These yields were estimated through models calibrated and validated with the monitoring information from those dots on the map along with information about hydrology and sediment transport.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 224
The knowledge gained through monitoring and illustrated in this figure is the foundation for the programmatic control measure approach employed in this permit term to reduce PCBs and mercury loads. Because we now know that old bayside industrial lands are generally where we find higher PCBs concentrations, this helps to refine the control measures in the permit. Thus, we have required Permittees to search for contaminated source properties (see Provisions C.11/12.b) in old industrial areas and to focus implementation of control measures in the moderately contaminated portions of old industrial land use (see Provisions C.11/12.c). Finding contaminated properties and addressing ongoing moderate contamination in these formerly old industrial bayside areas is an important element in reducing PCBs loads to the Bay. Moreover, addressing these areas has an environmental justice dimension as well. These old industrial areas are often near where historically disadvantaged communities have been compelled to live because of the unaffordability of less contaminated upland areas. Removing contamination from these areas helps improve the quality of life for these communities.

Additionally, the PCBs and other contaminants from these older industrial areas are transported to the Bay and can cause some popular fish species caught from nearby shoreline fishing locations used by local anglers to be unsafe to consume.

The Water Board also uses the available monitoring data to develop mathematical relationships between a unit of control measure implementation activity (e.g., a referral of a source property or a treatment device installed in old industrial land use) and an estimated load reduction. This accounting program is fully described in work produced and refined by the programs during the MRP 2 permit term.286 These data were also used to calibrate and validate a variety of watershed loading models to generate estimates of the PCBs and mercury load reductions from green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) implementation as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analyses prepared by the Permittees during the MRP 2 permit term.

In addition to monitoring data, the programmatic approach is also informed by other information related to control measure implementation. For example, Permittees (as part of their 2019-2020 Annual Reports) estimated the PCBs and mercury load reductions that will be realized as GSI is implemented through time. In order to do this, Permittees estimated the pace of GSI implementation and used information about GSI performance, concentrations of PCBs and mercury in watersheds (from monitoring data), combined with information about rainfall, hydrology, soil type, slope, amount of impervious area, and other inputs.

Permittees also gathered information that allowed the Water Board to estimate the magnitude of PCBs load reductions by implementing BMPs when buildings containing PCBs (in caulks and sealants) are demolished. There is information on the typical amount of PCBs in such buildings and the effectiveness of control measures and the number of buildings that are demolished in a typical year.290, 286 This information is used to establish factors to estimate the load reduction benefit of this program. It is too difficult, impractical, and time-consuming to implement monitoring efforts in the vicinity Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 225
of these demolition sites to generate these load reduction estimates, as previously described. A similar approach is used to derive a mathematical relationship between the number of bridges whose roadways are replaced and the amount of PCBs load reduction achieved through removal of the PCBs-containing caulk. Permittees developed the relationship by measuring the amount of PCBs in such caulk and calculating how much caulk is removed during a typical bridge refurbishment project.286 The programmatic approach for PCBs and mercury control measures is a practical means of ensuring accountability for control measure implementation. This approach relies on the above-described monitoring data and other information, which are used in a technically sound manner to derive the mathematical relationships between units of control measure implementation activity and load reduction. While it is theoretically possible to assess load reductions through an intensive program of monitoring (see discussion under Provision C.8.f, above) at hundreds of locations upstream and downstream of control measure implementation, the effort and expense to undertake such a monitoring program would consume all or nearly all available resources that would be better spent on control measure implementation, as discussed above in the Fact Sheet for Provision C.8. The Permit’s more practical and resource-efficient approach is to use monitoring data to inform control measure design and accountability metrics, as well as to calibrate and validate quantitative models to estimate loads and changes in loads. In this way, we use models to extrapolate from those places and times for which we have monitoring data to those times and places where we do not.

Background on Specific Provisions:

Pursuant to CWA§ 402(p)(3)(B)(ii)-(iii) and 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), Provisions C.9 through C.14, C.18, and C.19 contain technology-based requirements to control pollutants to the MEP, such other provisions the Water Board has determined appropriate for the control of pollutants under CWA, water quality-based requirements consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any WLAs in the applicable TMDLs, and requirements to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into storm sewers. Provision C.9 contains requirements to implement the TMDL for pesticiderelated toxicity in urban creeks. Provision C.10 contains requirements to implement narrative water quality objectives related to trash in all receiving water and water quality control plan prohibitions on trash discharges. Provision C.11 contains requirements to implement the San Francisco Bay mercury TMDL WLAs and the TMDL WLAs for mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed. Provision C.12 contains requirements to implement the San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL WLAs. Provision C.13 contains requirements to implement the copper site-specific objectives for San Francisco Bay.

Provision C.14 contains requirements to implement the TMDL WLAs for bacteria at San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach; San Francisco Bay Beaches (in the City of San Mateo); and Pillar Point Harbor and Venice Beach. It also contains requirements for the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale for their discharges that are causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards in Stevens Creek (both cities), Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 226
Calabazas Creek (Sunnyvale) and Sunnyvale East Channel/Guadalupe Slough (Sunnyvale) for which there are no TMDLs. These requirements are consistent with these bacteria TMDL WLA implementation requirements. Provision C.18 contains requirements to implement the Pescadero-Butano Watershed Sediment TMDL and the Water Quality Improvement Plan for sediment in the San Gregorio Creek watershed.

Provision C.19 contains requirements to implement the pesticides and methylmercury TMDLs and other requirements in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins applicable to Permittees in eastern Contra Costa County.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 227
C.9. Pesticides Toxicity Control
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.9
C.9-1 This Permit implements the TMDL and Water Quality Attainment Strategy for diazinon and pesticide-related toxicity for all Bay Area urban creeks, as defined in the Basin Plan Amendment adopted by the Water Board on November 16, 2005, and approved by the State Water Board on November 15, 2006. The Water Quality Attainment Strategy requires urban runoff management agencies to minimize their own pesticide use, conduct outreach to others, lead monitoring efforts, and take actions related to pesticide regulatory programs.

Control measures implemented by urban runoff management agencies and other entities (except construction and industrial sites) shall reduce pesticides in urban runoff.

C.9-2 The TMDL is allocated to all urban runoff, including urban runoff associated with MS4s, Caltrans facilities, and industrial, construction, and institutional sites. The allocations are expressed in terms of toxic units and diazinon concentrations.

This provision is consistent with 2014 U.S. EPA Memo 255 providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits. Specifically, this provision establishes clear actions to achieve pesticide load reductions as well as other requirements (see Provision C.9.f) necessary to achieve receiving water limits. The timeline for achieving the TMDL is not a fixed date for the following reasons. Pesticide-related toxicity continues to occur because state and federal pesticide regulatory programs, as currently implemented, allow pesticides to be used in ways that cause or contribute to aquatic toxicity. The TMDL implementation plan recognizes that (1) Permittees must control their own use of pesticides, but Permittees are not solely responsible for attaining the allocations, because their authority to regulate others’ pesticide use is constrained by federal and state law; and (2) because a realistic date for achieving allocations cannot be discerned given the current pesticide regulatory framework. Thus, reviewing the implementation strategy every five years, at permit reissuance, is the appropriate timeline.

Specific Provision C.9 Requirements
Provision C.9 implements the TMDL for Urban Creeks Pesticide Toxicity. All C.9 subprovisions are stated explicitly in the implementation plan for this TMDL. Permittees are encouraged to coordinate activities with other agencies and organizations. The list of urban-use pesticides of concern to water quality includes pesticides for which local 255 U.S. EPA. November 26, 2014. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs”
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 228
area monitoring data exceed or approach benchmarks and pesticides currently linked to toxicity in surface waters.

Pesticides monitoring is specified in Provision C.8.g. Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring.

C.9.a through C.9.d are designed to ensure that integrated pest management (IPM) is adopted and implemented as policy by all municipalities. IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of complementary techniques such as biological control (e.g., natural predators and parasites), habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, use of resistant varieties, various physical techniques, and considers pesticide treatments as a last resort. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. The implementation of IPM will be assured through training of municipal employees and contractor requirements. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms, and the environment. IPM techniques could include biological controls (e.g., ladybugs and other natural enemies or predators); physical or mechanical controls (e.g., hand labor or mowing, caulking entry points to buildings); cultural controls (e.g., mulching, alternative plant type selection, and enhanced cleaning and containment of food sources in buildings); and reduced risk chemical controls (e.g., soaps or oils). IPM is defined broadly by the University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources Statewide IPM Program,256 and an example IPM plan is provided by UC Davis.257 University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources provides guidance to public agencies on the development of IPM policies and programs.258 More resources are provided by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation259 and by the National Pesticide Information Center.260 The Glossary attached to this Permit includes expanded IPM definitions adapted from the UP Provisions.

C.9.e directs the municipalities to conduct outreach to consumers at point of purchase, to residents who contract for pest control, and to pest control professionals. Such targeted outreach is intended to make the public and pest control professionals aware of the water quality impacts of current-use pesticides that are impacting or have potential to negatively impact urban creeks.

C.9.f requires that municipalities (through cooperation or participation with BAMSC and CASQA) track and participate in pesticide regulatory processes like the U.S. EPA pesticide evaluation and registration activities related to surface water quality, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation pesticide evaluation activities. The goal of 256 https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/What-is-IPM/
257 https://ucdavis.app.box.com/v/UCDavisIPMPlan2014PDF 258 https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/Details.aspx?itemNo=8093 259 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/schoolipm/
260 http://npic.orst.edu/pest/ipm.html
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 229
these efforts is to provide pertinent water quality data and encourage both the state and federal pesticide regulatory agencies to fully evaluate aquatic impacts and to mitigate for impacts to urban water bodies within the pesticide regulation or registration process.

Accomplishing this goal would represent the most efficient and effective means to prevent pesticide-related water quality problems in the future.

C.9.g requires Permittees to evaluate the effectiveness of their pesticide source control actions and is critical to the success of municipal efforts to control pesticide-related toxicity. Future permits must be based on an updated assessment of what is working and what is not. With every provision comes the responsibility to assess its effectiveness and report on these findings through the Permit. The particulars of assessment will depend on the nature of the control measure.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 230
C.10. Trash Load Reduction
Legal Authority
The following legal authority applies to section C.10:

Clean Water Act: CWA sections 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) and (iii) require municipal stormwater permits to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges and to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Trash can be considered both a non-stormwater discharge (see 40 CFR 122.26, subd. (b)(2)) and a pollutant.

Accordingly, the Order’s requirements to reduce trash loading are required to implement both the non-stormwater discharge prohibition and the reduction of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

Basin Plan: Trash load reductions are also required to protect beneficial uses and achieve water quality objectives in the receiving water. Basin Plan Prohibition 7 prohibits the discharge of rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters, or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas. The Basin Plan also contains narrative water quality objectives applicable to trash: floating material (waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses); settleable material (waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses); and suspended material (waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses).

Trash Amendments: The trash load reduction provisions of this Order are also consistent with the State Water Board’s 2015 amendments to the Ocean Plan and Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays to control trash (Trash Amendments). The Trash Amendments establish a narrative water quality objective for trash; prohibit “the discharge of Trash to surface waters of the State or the deposition of Trash where it may be discharged into surface waters of the State;” provide implementation requirements for permitted storm water dischargers; set a time schedule for compliance and provide a framework for monitoring and reporting requirements.

Because trash overwhelmingly reaches receiving waters via stormwater, the Trash Amendments anticipate that NPDES stormwater permits will implement the trash prohibitions. NPDES stormwater Permittees have two “tracks,” or alternative pathways, for achieving compliance with this prohibition. Permittees in Track 1 must install, operate, and maintain full capture systems for all storm drains that captures runoff from the priority land uses in their jurisdictions;” while Permittees in Track 2 must install, operate, and maintain any combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, other treatment controls, and/or institutional controls within either the jurisdiction of the MS4 permittee or within the jurisdiction of the MS4 permittee and contiguous MS4 permittees.” The State Water Board determined that the Trash Load Reduction Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 231
requirements of the previous MRP were “substantially equivalent” to Track 2 (Trash Amendments, p. D-5, fn. 2.).

Permittees in Track 2 are required to demonstrate that the combination of methods achieves full capture system equivalency. The C.10 requirements of this Permit are consistent with the Statewide Trash Amendments and the trash controls Permittees are required to implement are designed to achieve full trash equivalency. Permittees are required to implement a trash control plan using a combination of controls, such as full capture systems, or other controls (e.g., street sweeping, on-land pickups) that are equivalent to trash full capture systems and that can be verified through visual assessment as described in Provision C.10.b.iii, below. The Statewide Trash Amendments require Track 2 Permittees to fully comply with the Trash Amendments (trash water quality objective, trash prohibition, and implementation requirements) within ten years of the effective date of the first implementing NPDES MS4 permit. MRP 2 became effective on January 1, 2016, and is the first permit implementing the Trash Amendments. Therefore, MRP Permittees must fully comply with the Trash Amendments no later than December 31, 2025, except the East Contra Costa County Permittees, which were not subject to MRP 2 when it became effective in 2016.

Specific Legal Authority: Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i) requires “a demonstration that the [Permittee] can operate pursuant to legal authority established by statute, ordinance or series of contracts which authorizes or enables the [Permittee] at a minimum to . . . (B) Prohibit through ordinance, order or similar means, illicit discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; (C) Control through ordinance, order or similar means the discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer of spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than storm water . . . .” Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(1) requires “a description of maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants (including floatables) in discharges from municipal separate storm sewers.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B) requires “shall be based on a description of a program, including a schedule, to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the municipal storm sewer to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(2) requires “a description of procedures to conduct on-going field screening activities during the life of the permit, including areas or locations that will be evaluated by such field screens.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(3) requires “a description of procedures to be followed to investigate portions of the separate storm sewer system that, based on the results of the field screen, or other appropriate information, indicate a reasonable potential of containing illicit discharges or other sources of non-storm water.” Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 232
Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(4) requires “a description of procedures to prevent, contain, and respond to spills that may discharge into the municipal separate storm sewer.”
Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(i) requires limitations for pollutants which are or may be discharged at a level which has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality standard, including any narrative criteria for water quality.

Trash is being discharged at levels that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to excursions of these narrative water quality objectives. There are currently 27 waterbodies in the Region impaired by trash on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list; most of these receiving waters receive discharges from Permittees’ municipal storm drain systems. Elsewhere, trash is being discharged at levels that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to excursions of these narrative water quality objectives.

U.S. EPA recommends that for MS4 discharges with reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a water quality excursion, a permitting authority exercises its discretion to include clear, specific, and measurable requirements and, where feasible, numeric effluent limitations as necessary to meet water quality standards.261 In Water Quality Order Nos. 2015-0075, amended by 2021-0052-EXEC, and 2020-0038, the State Water Board affirmed the obligation of stormwater permittees to comply with receiving water limitations, including the requirement that discharges not cause or contribute to water quality standards exceedances. Where a permit allows alternative, or deemed, compliance with receiving water limitations, the alternative compliance pathway must have “appropriate rigor, transparency, and accountability,” and be “designed to ultimately achieve receiving water limitations.”262 More specifically, “any alternative compliance path should ‘encourage watershed-based approaches, address multiple contaminants, . . . incorporate TMDL requirements,’ ‘encourage the use of green infrastructure and the adoption of low impact development principles,’ ‘have rigor and accountability,’ and require Permittees, ‘through a transparent process, to show that they have analyzed the water quality issues in the watershed, prioritized those issues, and proposed appropriate solutions.’”263 The State Water Board also reaffirmed the requirement to require adequate monitoring “to verify assumptions and update the solutions.” This permit’s alternative compliance measures contain the elements required by Order Nos. 2020-0038 and 2015-0075, amended by 2021-0052-EXEC are designed to meet water quality standards as quickly as possible and to implement the trash discharge prohibition by 2025.
261 U.S. EPA, November 26, 2014, “Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load Waste Allocations for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs.’”
262 Order No. 2020-0038, p. 13.
263 Order No. 2020-0038, p. 14, citing Order No. 2015-0075.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 233
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.10
C.10-1 The State Water Board’s Trash Amendments define trash to encompass “all improperly discarded solid material from any production, manufacturing, or processing operation including, but not limited to, products, product packaging, or containers constructed of plastic, steel, aluminum, glass, paper, or other synthetic or natural materials.”
C.10-2 Trash is a pervasive problem within the San Francisco Bay, as well as in creeks and shoreline areas throughout the Bay Area. Controlling trash from municipalities’ jurisdictions continues to be a priority for this Permit reissuance, not only because implementation of the trash discharge prohibition is imminent, but because trash adversely impacts the public’s enjoyment of the Bay, Ocean, and their watersheds and poses a serious threat to aquatic life and habitat.

Plastic has pernicious effects in the ocean environment, where it can persist for hundreds of years, if not longer; can serve as a substrate for organic toxins; and can entangle or be ingested by aquatic life.

C.10-3 The levels of trash in the waters of the San Francisco Bay Region were and are alarmingly high, considering the Basin Plan prohibits discharge of trash and that littering is illegal with potentially large fines. Even during dry weather conditions, a significant quantity of trash, particularly plastic, is making its way into waters and being transported downstream to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Data collected by Water Board staff using the SWAMP Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) Protocol,264 over the 2003–2005 timeframe,265 suggested that then-existing approaches to managing trash in waterbodies were not reducing the adverse impact on beneficial uses. In 85 surveys conducted at 26 sites throughout the Bay Area, staff found an average of 2.93 pieces of trash for every foot of stream. All the trash was removed when it was surveyed, indicating high return rates of trash over the 2003–2005 study period. There did not appear to be one county within the Region with significantly higher trash in waters relative to other counties—the highest wet weather deposition rates were found in western Contra Costa County, and the highest dry weather deposition was found in Sonoma County. Neighborhoods at the bottom of the watershed, which tend to have lower property values, are subject to trash washing off with urban stormwater runoff cumulatively from the entire watershed.

C.10-4 Trash generation in the United States has increased in the years since the SWAMP RTA trash assessments. For instance, figures from the U.S. EPA indicate that overall and per capita municipal solid waste generation have increased between 2005 and 2018, the last year for which data are 264 SWAMP Rapid Trash Assessment Protocol, Version 8
265 SWAMP S.F. Bay Region Trash Report, January 23, 2007 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 234
available.266 Packaging waste generation has increased by 7 percent, while plastic packaging waste generation, specifically, has increased 14 percent, during that same time period.267 Furthermore, the plastic going into the oceans is on course to rise from 11 million tons now to 29 million by 2040, according to a study published in June by Pew Trusts, an independent public interest group.268 It is reasonable to assume that trash generation in the Bay Area has increased in parallel with national trends, and that when overall trash generation is higher, more trash ends up in stormwater.

C.10-5 A number of key conclusions can be made on the basis of the trash measurement in streams:
(1) Lower watershed sites have higher densities of trash. (2) All watersheds studied in the San Francisco Bay Region have high levels of trash.
(3) There are trash source hotspots (usually associated with parks, schools, or poorly kept commercial facilities located near creek channels) that appear to contribute a significant portion of the trash deposition at lower watershed sites.
(4) Homeless encampments and creekside litter from a variety of sources are a significant source of trash directly dumped and placed in the riparian zone where it can be swept into receiving waters by storm flows. (5) Dry season deposition of trash, associated with wind and dry season runoff, contributes measurable levels of trash to downstream locations. (6) Most trash is plastic at lower watershed sites where trash accumulates in the wet season. This is likely the result of several factors, including the increase in use of plastic as a packaging material and the material’s persistence in the environment. The accumulation of plastic in downstream areas indicates that urban runoff is a major source of floatable plastic found in the ocean and on beaches as marine debris.
(7) Parks that have more evident management of trash by city staff and local volunteers, including cleanup within the creek channel, have measurably less trash pieces and higher RTA scores.
266 Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet; accessed at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet_dec_2020_fnl_508.pdf 267 U.S. EPA, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-andrecycling/containers-and-packaging-product-specific-data 268 Verdon, Joan, April 27, 2021. “Global E-Commerce Sales To Hit $4.2 Trillion As Online Surge Continues, Adobe Reports,” Fortune.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 235
C.10-6 The ubiquitous, unacceptable levels of trash in waters of the San Francisco Bay Region warrant a comprehensive and progressive program of education, warning, and enforcement, and certain areas warrant consideration of structural controls and treatment.

C.10-7 Trash in urban waterways of coastal areas can become marine debris, known to harm fish and wildlife and cause adverse economic impacts.269 Trash is a regulated water pollutant that has many characteristics of concern to water quality. It accumulates in streams, rivers, bays, and ocean beaches throughout the San Francisco Bay Region, particularly in urban areas.

C.10-8 Trash adversely affects numerous beneficial uses of waters, particularly recreation, wildlife and estuarine habitats, and rare and endangered species preservation. Besides the obvious negative aesthetic effects, trash can threaten the health and safety of beachgoers or other recreators. Medical waste, pet waste, and discarded diapers can spread disease, while metal and broken glass can cause injury.270 Entanglement in trash and marine debris is a major hazard to marine wildlife,271 affecting at least 115 species of animals in the United States alone.272 Marine species, including turtles and sea birds, are also widely known to ingest marine debris, particularly small pieces of plastic, causing injury, illness, and death,273 In addition, trash can contaminate water and sediments, as some household and industrial wastes contain toxic batteries, pesticide residues, and mercury and other heavy metals. Large trash items, such as discarded appliances, can present physical barriers to natural stream flow, causing physical impacts such as bank erosion. From a management perspective, the persistent accumulation of trash in a waterbody is of particular concern, and signifies a priority for prevention of trash discharges. Also of concern are trash hotspots where illegal dumping, littering, and/or accumulation of trash occur.
269 Moore, S.L., and M.J. Allen. 2000. Distribution of anthropogenic and natural debris on the mainland shelf of the Southern California Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 40:83-88. 270 Sheavly, S.B. 2004. Marine Debris: an Overview of a Critical Issue for our Oceans. 2004 International Coastal Cleanup Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Ocean Conservancy. 271 Laist, D. W. and M. Liffmann. 2000. Impacts of marine debris: research and management needs. Issue papers of the International Marine Debris Conference, Aug. 6-11, 2000. Honolulu, HI, pp. 16–29. 272 Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with and Emphasis on the United States, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/mdp_entanglement.pdf; see also Oceana, Choked, Strangled and Drowned (2020)
https://usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/2020/11/25/report_single_pagesdoi_choked_strangled_drowned _final.pdf
273 McCauley, S.J. and K.A. Bjorndahl. 1998. Conservation implications of dietary dilution from debris ingestion: sublethal effects in post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Conserv. Biol. 13(4):925-929; Gilbert, J.M. et al. 2016. Plastic Ingestion in Marine and Coastal Bird Species of Southeastern Australia, Marine Ornithology. 44: 21-26. https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/44_1_21-26.pdf Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 236
C.10-9 The Water Board, at its February 11, 2009, hearing, adopted a resolution proposing that 26 waterbodies in the region be added to the 303(d) list for the pollutant trash. The adopted Resolution and supporting documents are contained in Attachment E - 303(d) Trash Resolution and Staff Report, February 2009.

C.10-10 The trash control strategies, monitoring requirements, and mandatory deadlines for trash reductions meet the “Maximum Extent Practicable” (MEP) standard contemplated by the CWA and include such other provisions as the Board determines appropriate for control to ultimately meet the narrative water quality objectives for floating material, settleable material, and suspended material (CWA §402(p)(3)(B)(iii)). This Permit builds on the data and information collected in the last permit term and increases expectations of Permittees in this Permit. In particular, this Permit requires that the Permittees make significant progress toward having no trash impact on receiving waters by increasing implementation of full trash capture devices and ensuring that other trash reduction and elimination measures have similar effects to full trash capture. This is consistent with the statewide amendment to the Ocean Plan and the Inland Surface Waters, Bays and Estuaries Plan relating to trash controls. This Permit includes trash generation source identification and control, visual assessment data collection, and development of trash monitoring protocols. These requirements reflect the most current knowledge and data available concerning effectiveness of trash control strategies such as full trash capture, enhanced maintenance methods and current thinking regarding the best methods to assess trash reduction outcomes for the various trash reduction methods.

C.10-11 The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a surge in trash from multiple sources, including discarded personal protective equipment, shipping materials, and takeout containers.274 Some of this trash has made it into waterways,275 and the Coastal Commission found that masks were one of the top 15 discarded items at its coastal cleanups.276
274 See, e.g., 2020 Beach Cleanup Annual Report, Surfrider (July 2021), p. 5; Ford, Don. “COVID In Oakland: Pandemic Sending Additional Trash Into Bay Area Waterways,” CBS San Francisco (Nov. 18, 2020); Kramer, Anna. “Eco-conscious Bay Area reckons with flood of plastic waste as coronavirus wears on,” San Francisco Chronicle (July 20, 2020); Chua, Jasmin Malik. “Online shopping has boomed in the pandemic. But what about all the packaging?” Vox (Jan. 8, 2021). Takeout orders increased 127% from March 2020 through March 2021. NPD, “U.S. Restaurant Carry-Out and Delivery Digital Orders Soar During the Pandemic” (May 11, 2021).
275 See, e.g., 2020 Beach Cleanup Annual Report, Surfrider, supra; “COVID In Oakland: Pandemic Sending Additional Trash Into Bay Area Waterways,” CBS San Francisco (Nov. 18, 2020); Alexander, Curtis. “First rain of season unveils a new pollution problem: masks and gloves - pandemic PPE,” San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 18, 2020).
276 Alexander, Curtis. “First rain of season unveils a new pollution problem: masks and gloves - pandemic PPE,” San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 18, 2020).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 237
Even before the pandemic, the United States was the largest generator, per capita, of plastic packaging waste.277 Americans’ packaging consumption has only grown during the pandemic, 278 as some plastic bag bans, including California’s, were suspended, grocery pickup and delivery soared, and online shopping increased in the United States by approximately 32 percent from 2019 to 2020.279 Shipping materials waste in particular has ballooned.280 Of the 465 million pounds of packaging waste that Amazon, alone, was estimated to have generated worldwide pre-pandemic, approximately 4.8 percent, or 22.4 million pounds, went into waterways.281 In 2020, these figures can be assumed to have grown, as Amazon’s profits soared by 84 percent.282 C.10-12 While some pandemic-related trash increases may subside during this permit term, other sources of increased trash may not. For instance, online shopping is projected to continue growing,283 and the concomitant heaps of shipping waste can be expected to keep growing, too. To accommodate this projected increase in waste, successful implementation of trash controls, particularly fulltrash capture devices, is critical.

Specific Provision C.10 Requirements
C.10.a. Trash Reduction Requirements
C.10.a.i. Trash Reduction Schedule – This provision includes compliance benchmarks of 90 percent trash load reduction by June 30, 2023, and 100 percent trash load reduction by June 30, 2025. The 100 percent deadline represents a three-year extension of the 100 percent trash load reduction (or no adverse trash impact) target in MRP 2 of July 1, 2022. This extension is appropriate because it recognizes the Permittees’ economic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as 277 Parker, Laura. “Plastic Bag Bans Are Spreading. But Are They Truly Effective?” National Geographic (April 17, 2019).
278 Flexible Plastic Packaging Global Market Report 2021: COVID-19 Growth And Change (July 2021) (despite plastic bag bans and growing concern about the environmental impacts of packaging waste, the flexible plastic packaging sector grew 5.7% in 2020 due to the e-commerce boom.); Kickham, Victoria. “Strong Demand, Rising Costs Affect Packaging Strategies.” DC Velocity (July 9, 2021) (shipments of corrugated cardboard reached a record high in 2020, an increase of 3.5 percent over 2019.) 279 Palmer, Annie. “Groceries and sporting goods were big gainers in the Covid e-commerce boom of 2020,” CNBC (Feb. 19, 2021).
280 See Chua (2021), supra; see also Corkery, Michael. With 3 Billion Packages to Go, Online Shopping Faces Tough Holiday Test.” New York Times (Dec. 5, 2020) (estimating that 800 million more holiday packages would be shipped in 2020 versus 2019).
281 Oceana, Amazon’s Plastic Problem Revealed (Dec. 15, 2020), pp.14-15. 282 Kohan, Shelley, “Amazon’s Net Profit Soars 84% With Sales Hitting $386 Billion,” Forbes (Feb. 2, 2021); Thomas, Lauren. “As e-commerce sales proliferate, Amazon holds on to top online retail spot.” CNBC (June 18, 2021).
283 Verdon, Joan. “Global E-Commerce Sales To Hit $4.2 Trillion As Online Surge Continues, Adobe Reports,” Fortune (April 27, 2021).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 238
challenges associated with controlling trash from the Permittees’ remaining uncontrolled areas. Permittees have appropriately prioritized controlling trash from the highest trash generation areas in MRP 1 and MRP 2 and must now address a large area of moderate-level significant trash generating areas from which trash must be controlled.

C.10.a.ii. Trash Generation Area Management – The overarching strategy for reducing trash involves mapping trash generation areas within a Permittee’s jurisdiction, then applying effective trash reduction actions to the areas of trash generation and assessing the effectiveness of those actions in delineated trash generation areas, until trash generation is reduced to the no impact level over a Permittee’s entire jurisdiction.

The Permittees reported these trash generation maps with their Long Term Trash Reduction Plans February, 2014, and these maps provide the 2009 trash generation levels, which were required under MRP 1. Permittees that found inaccuracies in their submitted maps had the opportunity to submit corrected 2009 trash generation maps with their 2016 Annual Reports. Permittees developed their maps by dividing their jurisdiction into Very High, High, Moderate, and Low trash generation areas based on the following ranges of trash generation rates:
 Low = less than 5 gal/acre/yr;
 Moderate = 5-10 gal/acre/yr;
 High = 10-50 gal/acre/yr; and
 Very High = greater than 50 gal/acre/yr.

C.10.a.ii.a. Actual trash loading values, particularly in areas of high and very high trash generation areas, may vary significantly, but these delineated ranges provide a frame of reference for tracking and demonstrating trash load reductions and provide relative trash generation weight of these four categories. Permittees will likely need to reduce trash generation to at least Low to attain the ultimate required water quality-based outcome of no trash loads that cause or contribute to adverse trash impacts in receiving waters by June 30, 2025. Whether attainment of Low trash generation rates will be sufficient will be evaluated and considered in the development of requirements in the next permit. Demonstration that trash management actions reduce trash generation from Very High, High, or Moderate to a Low trash generation rate during this permit term provides a practicable means of demonstrating trash load reduction and attainment of the June 30, 2023, and June 30, 2025, 90 and 100 percent trash load reduction requirements, respectively. Permittees are required to implement trash prevention and control measures, including full trash capture systems (as defined in Provision C.10.a.ii.a), or other trash management actions, or a combination of actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture systems, to meet the required load reductions as described above in section C.10.a.i and to achieve the trash reduction outcomes required by the Trash Amendments.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 239
C.10.a.ii.b. Permittees are responsible for trash discharges from their storm drain systems, including trash generated and discharged from private land areas that are either moderate, high, or very high trash generating and plumbed to the Permittees MS4 system. Permittees have direct control over their properties and right of way, but must also exert control over the private lands described above, such as commercial parking lots, that are plumbed to municipal storm sewer systems, since trash washed into such conveyances by stormwater directly impacts receiving waters without encountering trash controls on public rights of way. Permittees may use a variety of means to ensure that either full trash capture devices are installed at storm drain inlets on private land prior to intersection with the public storm drain system, or that other control actions, equivalent to full trash capture, are implemented on those private lands and such actions are verified through assessment, similar to the on-land visual assessment. Also, if there is a full trash capture device downstream of these lands that is designed, operated, and maintained to control trash discharges from that land area, no other trash control would be necessary.

C.10.b Demonstration of Trash Reduction Outcomes
C.10.b.i.(a-b) Full Trash Capture Systems - Full trash capture systems must be appropriately maintained to be effective. If a full trash capture system enters the wet season clogged with leaves or trash, trash will bypass the device, preventing it from functioning appropriately. During device inspections over the course of the previous permit term, Water Board staff observed roughly 20 percent of the inspected full trash capture devices required cleaning and/or repair or replacement. This Permit maintains the MRP 2 requirement for Permittees to inspect and maintain their full trash capture devices at a minimum frequency of once per year and, sufficient to prevent plugging (including plugging of the 5 mm screen) that could otherwise lead to trash overflow and bypass, flooding, or a full condition of the device's trash reservoir causing bypassing of trash. Within High and Very High trash generation areas, Permittees are expected to inspect (and maintain if necessary) their full trash capture devices at a minimum frequency of twice per year, with the inspections spaced at least three months apart.

Justification for the higher maintenance frequency within High and Very High trash generation areas is due to the increased speed with which full trash capture devices are expected to get plugged with trash and/or debris if not maintained. Permittees are required to maintain adequate maintenance records and report any full trash capture devices found to be not adequately maintained or improperly functioning. Permittees are also required to certify annually that all their full trash capture devices are adequately operated and maintained.

C.10.b.iii. Other Trash Management Actions
C.10.b.iii.a. Implementation Documentation – Documentation of trash management or control actions implemented and areas of implementation is essential to support trash reduction effectiveness and trash condition improvement.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 240
C.10.b.iii.b.((i)-(iv)) Visual Assessment of Outcomes of Other Trash Management Actions – The primary tool currently available for determining trash reduction action success and positive outcomes is visual assessment, with photo documentation of trash generation and conditions in areas that drain to storm drains. Visual assessment involves observing a sufficient portion of each, e.g., sidewalk and curb area, at a frequency that adequately represents the trash management area condition relative to the type(s) of management actions implemented in the area. The frequency of required visual assessments depends on the rate of trash generation, the sources and types of trash, trash management actions deployed, and time of year. During the wet season, October through April, visual assessments in a trash management area must be conducted at a frequency that determines whether there may be trash discharges to the storm drain system from sources or areas of trash accumulations before a trash management action or combination of actions is implemented or between recurring trash management actions. The degree of trash reduction that a Permittee claims may also affect the frequency of visual assessment necessary to make the claim.

Permittees, with justification, may conduct fewer frequent visual assessments for claims that a trash generation area has been reduced from what was a very high trash generation area to a high or moderate trash generation area or from what was a high trash generation area to a moderate trash generation area. Frequency of visual assessments during the dry season, May through September, should be at least once per quarter, including, and preferably, within the month (September) before the wet season begins. Higher frequencies of visual assessments than those illustrated above may be required to demonstrate effectiveness of trash control actions and claimed trash reduction. Lower frequencies than those illustrated above may also be acceptable with justification.

Visual assessment is an effective, simple, and comparatively inexpensive method of monitoring to assure compliance with the Permit’s requirements to implement trash management actions to reduce trash discharges into municipal storm drains (See 40 CFR § 122.44(i).). The required amount, type, interval and frequency of on-land visual trash assessments should yield data that is representative of the monitored activity, as required by 40 CFR § 122.48(b). This graphic demonstrates four trash visual conditions that correspond to the four trash generation categories of Low (A), Moderate (B), High (C), and Very High (D).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 241
It is also possible to assess trash reduction outcome by documenting and verifying that trash management actions in a trash management area are equivalent to trash management actions implemented in an equivalent trash management area, and the actions in the equivalent trash management area have been assessed to be effective in accordance with a specified performance standard and the assessment results are reproducible. In such cases, it may be possible to extrapolate the performance assessment results to the equivalent trash management area with some verification. If this evidence is proposed by Permittees and accepted by the Executive Officer after public review, Permittees may claim a similar trash reduction outcome by demonstrating that they have performed these trash reduction actions within similar trash management areas to the same performance standard.

C.10.b.iv. Percentage Discharge Reduction – Demonstration that trash management actions reduce trash generation from Very High, High, or Moderate to lower trash generation categories and the Low generation status during this permit term provides a practicable means of demonstrating trash load reduction and attainment of the 90 and 100 percent trash load reduction requirements (Provision C.10.a.ii.a). However, trash management actions within Very High and High trash generation areas will result in more trash load reduction than actions within Moderate trash generation areas.

Accordingly, a trash reduction demonstration methodology that provides weighted benefit to actions in Very High and High areas is preferable to one that just considers percentage change in Very High, High, and Moderate trash generation areas. The trash generation rates used by Permittees to delineate and map their 2009 trash generation area maps have been used to provide a weighted benefit to the demonstrated Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 242
reductions in the areas of Very High and High trash generation, even if they are not reduced all the way to Low trash generation.

The delineation of trash generation areas were based on ranges of trash generation rates (Provision C.10.a.ii). Therefore, the ratios of the approximate midpoints of the categorical trash generation ranges provides a means of weighing relative benefit to actions in Very High and High areas compared to actions in Moderate areas. The Moderate range is 5-10 gal/acre/yr, with a midpoint of 7.5 gal/acre/yr. The High range is 10-50 gal/acre/yr with a midpoint of 30 gal/acre/yr. Therefore, the weighed ratio of High to Moderate is 30/7.5 = 4. The Very High range, greater than 50 gal/acre/yr, does not have a specified upper bound that allows calculation of a midpoint. An alternative that provides reasonable weighing of Very High is 90 gal/acre/yr, which is 40 percent higher than the low end of the Very High range. This results in a weighed ratio of Very High to Moderate of 90/7.5 = 12.

The following formula provides a means of calculating the percent trash load reduction achieved (relative to the 2009 baseline conditions) with assigned weighted benefit factors for Very High and High trash generation areas relative to Moderate trash generation areas:

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 243
% Reduction = 100 [(12 AVH(2009) + 4 AH(2009) + AM(2009) ) - (12 AVH + 4 AH + AM)] / (12 AVH2009 + 4 AH2009 + AM2009)
where:

AVH(2009) = total amount of the 2009 very high trash generation category jurisdictional area
AH(2009) = total amount of the 2009 high trash generation category jurisdictional area
AM(2009) = total amount of the 2009 moderate trash generation category jurisdictional area
AVH = total amount of very high trash generation category jurisdictional area in the reporting year
AH = total amount of high trash generation category jurisdictional area in the reporting year
AM = total amount of moderate trash generation category jurisdictional area in the reporting year
12 = Very High to Moderate weighing ratio
4 = High to Moderate weighing ratio
100 = fraction to percentage conversion factor
C.10.b.v. Source Control – Permittee jurisdiction-wide actions to reduce trash at the source, e.g. through ordinances banning or taxing certain waste items, have trash generation and load reduction benefits. beyond what can be accounted for in trash management area specific assessment-based percentage discharge reductions (Provision C.10.b.iii). For example, persistent floating litter and other particularly difficult types of trash that are easily blown by the wind or clog full trash capture devices (such as polystyrene food ware, plastic bags, fragmented plastic, etc.) have been documented to be a significant percentage of the trash collected in full trash capture devices.

Permittees that have implemented source control measures have documented a decrease in such items within their trash management area. Permittees will be allowed to claim up to ten percent load reduction for implementing appropriate source control actions to reduce persistent trash items other than those addressed under previous Permits (foam foods are and single-use plastic bags). The 10 percent credit stems from a study done by Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention (SCVURPP) program in 2015 that looked at pre- and post-ordinance characteristics of trash. The study found that approximately 70 percent fewer single use bags were observed in stormwater after the source control ordinance went into effect. Based on these results, the City estimated that an approximate 70 percent reduction in the number of single use bags in stormwater equates to an offset benefit of up to 10 percent in the overall volume Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 244
of trash discharged through the City’s MS4 system. This is an interim credit (added to the percent Reduction amount calculated by the Provision C.10.b.iv - Percentage Discharge Reduction formula) that will be phased out at the end of the permit term. To claim the ten percent load percentage reduction value, Permittees must provide substantial and credible evidence that the source control actions implemented reduce trash by the claimed value. A Permittee may reference studies in other jurisdictions if it provides credible evidence that the source control actions implemented would achieve comparable trash reduction if implemented in the Permittee’s jurisdiction.

Permittees may no longer claim a jurisdiction-wide source control load reduction value after June 30, 2025, because they must comply with the 100 percent reduction after that date through full trash capture or full trash capture equivalent controls. Furthermore, applying a jurisdiction-wide source control load reduction value to areas managed with full trash capture or full trash capture equivalent controls would result in an unrealistic claim of greater than 100 percent trash load reduction in those areas. However, Permittees may demonstrate and claim full trash capture equivalence of a source control in specific trash generation areas or in combination with other controls in an area if the control or combination of controls are documented, assessed, and verified in accordance with Provision C.10.b.iii.

C.10.b.vi. Partial Trash Reduction – Curb Inlet Screens – During MRP 2, Permittees assessed the benefit of curb inlet screens, in combination with street sweeping, in reducing the amount of trash discharged through MS4s. The study showed that curb inlet screens, when paired with a appropriate street sweeping program, can be effective in blocking larger trash items (such as bottles or plastic bags) from discharging through the MS4 system. However, the study also showcased several drawbacks of curb inlet screens. For instance, the effectiveness of curb inlet screens in preventing larger trash items from discharging through the MS4 was dependent on the presence of horizontal surface grates installed to support the device. In the absence of horizontal surface grates, the study concluded that the increase in hydraulic pressure from stormwater flows could potentially force open the retractable screens and thus allow more trash and/or debris to enter the curb inlet and negate the benefit of the installed device. In addition, the study did not evaluate the use of a 5mm screen, within the horizontal surface grate, to prevent trash items greater than 5 mm in diameter from discharging into the MS4. As a result, smaller persistent trash items (e.g., cigarette butts, straws, fragmented plastic, and polystyrene foodware) could readily enter the MS4 through the unscreened horizontal surface grate despite the installation of a curb inlet screen.

These smaller trash items are more effectively removed from storm drain inlets that have a full trash capture device (due to the 5 mm minimum screen threshold requirement). Finally, the effectiveness of curb inlet screens was contingent upon the proper implementation of a street sweeping program that collected trash items that would otherwise have accumulated in the streets and washed into the curb inlet.

Inadequate street sweeping in areas with high levels of trash generation can lead to Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 245
trash accumulation against the screen and reduce screen performance. However, the study did not evaluate the effects of street sweeping on curb inlet screen performance.

Despite the promise of curb inlet screens for trash control in areas where full trash capture devices cannot be installed, there is a need for further investigation into the deficiencies of curb inlet screens and the complementary actions, such as street sweeping, that can help overcome these deficiencies. The Water Board supports: 1) recognizing the potential benefit curb inlet screens may provide, 2) characterizing that benefit appropriately (e.g., whether it gets Moderate areas all the way to Low, or whether it only gets part of the way there), and 3) better understanding how curb inlet screens can fit into Permittees’ long-term trash control strategies. The requirement in C.10.b.vi. for additional study of the effectiveness of curb inlet screens will help to substantiate their benefits.

C.10.c. Requirements for Flood Management Agencies
Flood management agencies are required to continue implementing trash contol measures such as trash pickups and installation of trash receptacles to control Moderate, High, and Very High trash generation areas within their jurisdiction, as well as the continued implementation of trash capture requirements as specified in Table 10- 1 of Provision C.10.c.

C.10.d. Trash Load Reduction Plans
Similar to the previous permit requirement, Permittees are required to maintain, and provide for inspection and review upon request, a Trash Load Reduction Plan, including an implementation schedule to meet the 90 percent trash load reduction requirement by June 30, 2023 and the 100 percent trash load reduction requirement by June 30, 2025.

A Trash Load Reduction Plan provides a means for Permittees to determine and account for appropriate trash management actions in their trash management areas and their schedule of implementation, and it provides documentation of planned actions that can be referenced if annual performance guidelines are not met. It also provides a basis for justifying and accounting for the types and locations of Permittees’ assessments of trash management actions, and for optional trash load offset opportunities allowed by Provision C.10.f
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 246
C.10.e. Impracticability Report
In some areas within a Permittees’ jurisdiction, engineering constraints such as flood risk, flat pipe grade, and/or safety concerns may make it impracticable to control trash to a Low generation rate via a full trash capture device. This Provision allows Permittees to develop an impracticability report to document the constraints in installing full trash capture devises and focus their efforts on planning for alternative control actions to meet the requirements and deadlines in Provision C.10.a.. Once approved, the trash impracticability report shall be used in developing the updated Trash Load Reduction plan as described in Provision C.10.d. An impracticability report is an optional submittal to assist with compliance.

C.10.f. Optional Trash Load Reduction Offset Opportunities C.10.f.i. Creek and Shoreline Cleanup - Permittees may offset part of their Provision C.10.a trash load percent reduction requirement by conducting cleanup of creek and shoreline areas. These creek and shoreline cleanups are of value in the interim until full trash capture or equivalency is implemented by removing trash from shorelines and creeks or creek banks that are causing or may cause adverse impacts to receiving waters. Permittees conduct some of these additional cleanups with community volunteers, which creates additional public outreach and participation benefits.

One way to recognize the value of these additional cleanups and to account for the short-term benefit (volume) of cleanups compared to ongoing trash load discharges (average volume /time) is to use an offset ratio of ten to one for the mandatory 90 percent compliance benchmark by June 30, 2023. The following formula generates a Permittee-specific trash volume amount, based on its 2009 categorical trash generation areas and a ten to one offset ratio, which may be used to offset one percent of a required percent load reduction value:

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 247
1% Reduction Offset (volume) = (12 AVH(2009) + 4 AH(2009) + AM(2009) ) OF where:

AVH(2009) = total amount of 2009 very high trash generation category jurisdictional area
AH(2009) = total amount of 2009 high trash generation category jurisdictional area
AM(2009) = total amount of 2009 moderate trash generation category jurisdictional area
12 = Very High to Moderate weighing ratio
4 = High to Moderate weighing ratio
OF = offset factor equal to (7.5 x 0.1) for the 2023 mandatory trash load reduction deadline performance guideline, where 7.5 is the conversion from acres to gallons based on trash generation rates and 0.1 is the ten to one offset ratio.

A Permittee can compare the volume of trash collected from additional cleanups to this calculated offset volume and apply one percent offset to a Provision C.10.a.i percent load reduction requirement for each collected volume that equals the 1 percent Reduction Offset (volume). However, the total offset that can be claimed to avoid overcompensation associated with the short-term benefit (volume) of cleanups compared to ongoing trash load discharges (average volume/time) is limited to ten percent.

Furthermore, to justify the offset the associated cleanups must occur more than once per year and preferably at a frequency sufficient to demonstrate sustained improvement of a creek or shoreline area. Offset values for creek and shoreline cleanups will no longer be applicable after June 30, 2025, when compliance with the 100 percent trash load reduction requirement is required through implementation of full trash capture systems or equivalent controls. The State Trash Amendments do not allow offset credit for creek or shoreline cleanups in lieu of implementing MS4 controls to meet the Trash Discharge Prohibition.

C.10.f.ii. Direct Trash Discharge Controls - Some Permittees are faced with the challenge that large amounts of trash are discharged to receiving waters in their jurisdiction from homeless encampments and direct dumping. These trash discharges are separate from and in addition to discharges from Permittee storm drain systems.

Elimination and prevention of adverse water quality impacts due to trash and attainment of water quality standards in receiving waters will require management of these nonstorm drain system discharges in addition to control of storm drain system trash discharges by Permittees. In MRP 2, several Permittees developed Direct Discharge Control Plans (DDCPs), which are comprehensive plans that describe actions the Permittee will implement to control these other sources of trash discharged to receiving Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 248
waters in their jurisdiction. Accordingly, Permittees should be allowed to offset some of their percent load reduction requirements if they control these other sources, both by removing trash after it has already impacted receiving waters, and by taking steps to permanently reduce direct discharges of trash through the provision of housing and services to unsheltered homeless populations (particularly those located near receiving waters) and by abating and implementing controls at illegal dumping sites (particularly those located near receiving waters).

When Permittees meet the needs for housing and associated services of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, they are likely to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness, and the presence of homeless encampments from which direct discharges may occur. Therefore, a key best management practice for mitigating the adverse water quality impacts associated with homelessness is to provide housing and services. If Permittees provide housing, but not services, unsheltered homeless people whose needs for services are not met may leave the provided housing and reestablish homeless encampments. If Permittees provide services, but not housing, it is likely that there will be ongoing direct discharges of trash at homeless encampments, because services provided at homeless encampments have often insufficiently prevented direct discharges. If the needs for both housing and services by people experiencing unsheltered homelessness are satisfied, those people are less likely to reestablish homeless encampments, and therefore they are less likely to directly discharge trash from homeless encampments.

Likewise, providing dumping vouchers and holding free waste drop-off events, especially to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, is likely to avoid and reduce direct discharges at illegal dumping sites.

Examples of sanitary controls include opening restrooms in public buildings, porta potties, hand washing stations and showers that are provided at a sufficient number and provisioned and cleaned at a sufficient rate. Examples of trash controls include trash receptacles that are sufficiently large depending on the homeless encampment, and that are emptied at a sufficient rate.

The Permit’s expectation is that housing and services provided to populations experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and structural and institutional mitigation of illegal dumping sites, will increase over the course of the Permit term. This will be tracked by the reporting required in Provision C.10.g.xi.

Because the criteria for what is an acceptable DDCP have changed from the Previous Permit, and because Permittees may have updated their DDCPs over the course of the Previous Permit, this Permit requires Permittees with existing DDCPs to submit their updated DDCPs for approval before the first new water year during the Permit term, in order to continue claiming trash load percent reduction offsets.

Permittees have and likely will continue to demonstrate the benefit of controlling these additional sources by accounting for the volume of trash collected. As with additional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 249
creek and shoreline cleanups, the volume of trash removed cannot be compared directly with trash load discharge rate (volume/time).The simplest, and possibly only way to account for these additional control actions, until more rigorous assessment and accountability methods are developed, is to allow a Permittee to offset part of its Provision C.10.a trash load percent reduction requirement using the Provision C.10.f.i formula to determine an offset from additional creek and shoreline cleanup. However, since control of these other sources by Permittees will be through implementation of a comprehensive and sustained program, Permittees that implement a comprehensive plan approved by the Executive Officer merit a higher offset cap than that allowed by Provision C.10.f.i for additional creek and shoreline cleanup. A fifteen percent offset-cap based on the Provision C.10.f.i formula provides a balance between incentive and reward for control of these non-storm drain system sources and the uncertainties associated with the simple formula.

This offset will no longer be applicable after June 30, 2025, when compliance with the 100 percent trash load reduction requirement is required through implementation of full trash capture systems or equivalent controls. The State Trash Amendments do not allow offset credit for direct discharge controls in lieu of implementing MS4 controls to meet the Trash Discharge Prohibition.

Permittees that develop and implement DDCPs are generally challenged with greater volumes and areas of trash to control, so it is reasonable to allow those Permittees additional time to reach the 100 percent trash load reduction compliance benchmark as they continue to implement their DDCPs. Those Permittees, other than the East Contra Costa County Permittees, that implement an approved DDCP may be granted additional time until December 31, 2025, which is the latest compliance date allowed by the Statewide Trash Amendments, to attain 100 percent trash load reduction. Permittees that are allowed until December 31, 2025, to attain 100 percent trash load reduction must report compliance status as described in C.10.g.viii. The East Contra Costa County Permittees that implement an approved DDCP may be granted until June 30, 2026, to attain 100 percent trash load reduction, because they are not subject to the same December 31, 2025, deadline under the Trash Amendments. These permittees were subject to MRP 2 after its effective date in 2016.

C.10.g. Reporting - The reporting requirements reflect the minimum amount of information needed to demonstrate compliance with all Provision C.10 requirements.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 250
C.11. Mercury Controls
The purpose of this provision is to implement the urban runoff requirements of the San Francisco Bay and Guadalupe River watershed mercury TMDLs and reduce mercury loads to make substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff mercury wasteload allocations established for the TMDLs.

The C.11 provisions follow the general approach for sediment-bound pollutants discussed above (General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants (Mercury and PCBs)) and accordingly, build on understanding gained from control measure implementations during the previous permit terms. During the Previous Permit, Permittees were required to implement mercury control measures (source control, treatment control and/or pollution prevention strategies) in areas where benefits are most likely to accrue (focused implementation) and to report on the loads reduced through implementation of those control measures.

In this permit term, the mercury control provision requires specific programmatic control measures deemed effective based on implementation experience and analyses in previous permit terms implemented at full-scale (a “programmatic approach”). For mercury, these control measures include: mercury collection and recycling, source property identification and abatement, control measure implementation in old industrial areas, and green stormwater infrastructure implementation.

The “programmatic approach” to mercury control measures means that the Permit provisions estimate anticipated mercury load reductions for each of these programmatic control measures consistent with an expected level of control measure implementation intensity along with trackable implementation performance metrics to be reported consistent with the stipulated load reductions. Load reductions will be calculated based on the technically sound load reduction accounting methods286 developed and refined during previous permit terms. Many of the control measures may be chosen primarily for the purpose of achieving PCBs load reductions, but mercury load reductions will often result as a tangential benefit (because of possible co-located PCBs and mercury contamination) and should be accounted for.

As discussed below, based on information gained during control measure pilot testing and reported during the previous permit term, mercury load reductions on the order of those anticipated (approximately 10 kg mercury/year) through implementation of control measures required by this Permit are achievable and necessary in order to make progress toward achieving the regionwide urban runoff wasteload allocation of 82 kg/yr (representing a load reduction from all urban runoff sources of approximately 80 kg/yr compared to loads estimated using data collected in 2003) within the 20-year TMDL timeframe. In the sections below, the mercury-specific control measures will be described along with estimates of load reductions resulting from each.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 251
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.11
C.11-1 On August 9, 2006, the Water Board adopted a Basin Plan amendment including a revised TMDL for mercury in San Francisco Bay, two new water quality objectives, and an implementation plan to achieve the TMDL. The State Water Board and U.S. EPA have also approved this Basin Plan amendment.

C.11 includes components of the Mercury TMDL implementation plan relevant to implementation through the municipal stormwater permit.

C.11-2 On October 8, 2008, the Water Board adopted a Basin Plan amendment including a TMDL for mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed (GRW) and an implementation plan to achieve the TMDL. The State Water Board and U.S.

EPA have also approved this Basin Plan amendment. The GRW mercury TMDL assigns an urban stormwater runoff allocation proportionally equivalent to the mass allocation in the San Francisco Bay mercury TMDL. Accordingly, the GRW urban stormwater runoff mercury allocation is simply the fraction of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program allocation attributed to the Guadalupe River watershed. The urban stormwater runoff allocation implicitly includes all current and future permitted discharges within the geographic boundaries of municipalities and unincorporated areas including, but not limited to, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) roadways and non-roadway facilities and rights-of-way, atmospheric deposition, public facilities, properties proximate to stream banks, industrial facilities, and construction sites.

C.11-3 The 2003 load of mercury from urban runoff was estimated to be 160 kg/yr, and the aggregate WLAs for urban runoff is 82 kg/yr. The mercury TMDL provides as follows:
“[The WLAs] shall be implemented through the NPDES
stormwater permits issued to urban runoff management
agencies and [Caltrans]. The urban stormwater runoff
allocations implicitly include all current and future
permitted discharges, not otherwise addressed by
another allocation, and unpermitted discharges within the geographic boundaries of urban runoff management
agencies (collectively, ‘source category’) including, but not limited to, Caltrans roadway and non-roadway
facilities and rights-of-way, atmospheric deposition,
public facilities, properties proximate to stream banks, industrial facilities, and construction sites.

The allocations for this source category shall be achieved within 20 years, and, as a way to measure progress, an
interim loading milestone of 120 kg/yr, halfway between Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 252
the current load and the allocation, should be achieved within 10 years. If the interim loading milestone is not achieved, NPDES-permitted entities shall demonstrate
reasonable and measurable progress toward achieving
the 10-year loading milestone.

The NPDES permits for urban runoff management
agencies shall require the implementation of BMPs and
control measures designed to achieve the allocations or accomplish the load reductions derived from the
allocations. In addition to controlling mercury loads,
BMPs or control measures shall include actions to reduce mercury-related risks to humans and wildlife.

Requirements in the permit issued or reissued and
applicable for the term of the permit shall be based on an updated assessment of control measures intended to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff and remain
consistent with the section of the Basin Plan chapter
titled, Surface Water Protection and Management—Point
Source Control—Stormwater Discharges. The following
additional requirements are or shall be incorporated into NPDES permits issued or reissued by the Water Board
for urban runoff management agencies.

Evaluate and report on the spatial extent, magnitude, and cause of contamination for locations where elevated
mercury concentrations exist;
Continue to develop and implement a mercury source
control program;
Implement a monitoring system to quantify either mercury loads or loads reduced through treatment, source control, and other management efforts;
Monitor levels of methylmercury in discharges [Note: this requirement was satisfactorily accomplished during MRP
1 and is not included in the Permit.];
Conduct or cause to be conducted studies aimed at
better understanding mercury fate, transport, and
biological uptake in San Francisco Bay and tidal areas; Develop an equitable allocation-sharing scheme in
consultation with Caltrans to address Caltrans roadway
and non-roadway facilities in the program area, and
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 253
report the details to the Water Board [Note: Caltrans has mercury-related requirements in its draft permit pursuant to this requirement.]);
Prepare an Annual Report that documents compliance
with the above requirements and documents either
mercury loads discharged, or loads reduced through
ongoing pollution prevention and control activities; and Demonstrate progress toward (a) the interim loading
milestone, or (b) attainment of the allocations shown in [individual WLAs (see Table 4-w of the Basin Plan)], by using one of the following methods:

Quantify the annual average mercury load reduced by
implementing
Pollution prevention activities, and
Source and treatment controls. The benefit of efforts to reduce mercury-related risk to wildlife and humans
should also be quantified. The Water Board will
recognize such efforts as progress toward achieving the interim milestone and the mercury-related water quality standards upon which the allocations and corresponding
load reductions are based. Loads reduced as a result of actions implemented after 2001 (or earlier if actions taken are not reflected in the 2001 load estimate) may be used to estimate load reductions.

Quantify the mercury load as a rolling 5-year annual
average using data on flow and water column mercury
concentrations.

Quantitatively demonstrate that the mercury
concentration of suspended sediment that best
represents sediment discharged with urban runoff is
below the suspended sediment target.

Urban runoff management agencies have a responsibility
to oversee various discharges within the agencies’
geographic boundaries. However, if it is determined that a source is substantially contributing to mercury loads to the Bay or is outside the jurisdiction or authority of an agency, the Water Board will consider a request from an urban runoff management agency that may include an
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 254
allocation, load reduction, and/or other regulatory
requirements for the source in question.”
C.11-4 Loading estimates using recently available data suggest that the urban runoff mercury loading to San Francisco Bay is on the order of 115 kg/yr (McKee and Yee 2015284). While this figure is based on environmental data and thus has inherent uncertainty associated with it, it suggests that current mercury loading is approximately equal to the interim TMDL loading milestone (to be reached at the half-way point of TMDL implementation, 2017) of 120 kg/yr. If mercury loads can be reduced by approximately 35 additional kg/yr, urban runoff loading would meet the TMDL wasteload allocation.

C.11-5 Mercury is distributed more uniformly throughout the urban landscape than PCBs. For example, loading from older industrial and other polluted source areas accounts for only 6% of the average annual mercury load, but these areas account for over 50% of the average annual PCBs load (McKee and Yee 2015). The likely stronger role of atmospheric deposition in the case of mercury, which may account for up to 50% of the mercury found in urban runoff, is part of the reason for the more uniform mercury distribution in the landscape (McKee and Yee 2015).

C.11-6 Monitoring data indicate that, while not always the case, watersheds with high PCBs concentrations often contain high or moderately high mercury concentrations (McKee and Yee 2015). Therefore, control strategies focused on finding and managing PCBs-contaminated drainages will often yield mercury load reduction benefits as well.

C.11-7 This provision is consistent with a 2014 U.S. EPA memorandum285 providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits.

Specifically, this provision establishes clear and concrete milestones and deadlines (see Provision C.11.a.iii) for the activities associated with achieving mercury load reductions as well as other requirements (see Provision C.11.bh.), necessary to achieve receiving water limits of this permit term relative to the mercury TMDL WLA.
284 McKee, L.J. and Yee, D., 2015. Sources, Pathways and Loadings: Multi-Year Synthesis. A technical report prepared for the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP), Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup (SPLWG), Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS). San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California.
285 U.S. EPA. November 26, 2014. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs”
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 255
Specific Provision C.11 Requirements
Background: The specific requirements in C.11 require Permittees to implement effective control measures to implement the urban runoff requirements from the San Francisco Bay mercury TMDL and achieve mercury load reductions. Permittees must quantitatively document the estimated load reductions achieved through use of the accounting scheme developed and refined during the Previous Permit.

The largest reductions in mercury loads in the urban environment will come from the collection of and recycling of mercury-containing devices, and these activities are, in fact, required by household hazardous waste and producer responsibility laws. Most of the readily controllable mercury loads one finds in the urban environment originate in these products, and so eliminating these sources of mercury for subsequent transport is an important and effective strategy for mercury load reductions.289 As previously mentioned (in Fact Sheet section C.8), mercury is much more evenly distributed in watersheds than are PCBs so there are fewer opportunities to find and address heavily contaminated (with mercury) sites to achieve substantial, short-term load reductions. Both PCBs and mercury are, however, transported attached to sediment particles so many of the same control measures that capture sediment (e.g., green stormwater infrastructure, other treatment control, trash capture devices, routing stormwater to treatment facilities) will be effective in reducing loads for both contaminants. Consequently, much of the additional benefit to reduce mercury urban runoff loads will come from a combination of proper disposal and management of mercury containing products as well as much more extensive treatment elements (e.g., green infrastructure) incorporated into the stormwater infrastructure.289 Because PCBs are more concentrated in some locations, the choice of where to implement control measures may be more influenced by known areas of PCBs contamination. However, the mercury removal benefit can be an important contribution to overall mercury load reductions, and available data indicate that this strategy of focusing on PCBs will yield mercury load reductions in many circumstances.

Another reason that control measure implementation tends to focus on addressing PCBs is that the scale of urban runoff load reductions required by the PCBs TMDL (about 90 percent) is far greater than that required by the mercury TMDL (about 50 percent). Moreover, recent loading estimates suggest that current mercury loading to the Bay is at or below the interim loading milestone established in the TMDL.

Provision C.11.a requires Permittees to assess mercury load reductions through use of a previously-developed assessment methodology and data collection program286 to quantify mercury loads reduced through implementation of any and all pollution prevention, source control and treatment control efforts required by the provisions of this Permit or load reductions achieved through other relevant efforts not explicitly required 286 Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis (January 2022).

Prepared for Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies by Geosyntec Consultants.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 256
by the provisions of this Permit. As Permittees gain implementation experience and collect information on this implementation, they may request refinement of the accounting system for use in subsequent permit terms.

Permittees are encouraged to build on the loads assessment framework developed in previous permit terms and refine the load assessment methodologies if appropriate.

This could include updating and, in some cases, extending the framework presented in that document, justifying assumptions and selected parameters used for each type of control measure, and indicating what information will be collected and submitted to calculate the load reduction for each implemented control measure. The accounting scheme submitted (if necessary) near the end of the permit term (for use in subsequent permits) must be submitted for Executive Officer approval. For more information, please see the discussion under Provision C.12.a, below.

Provision C.11.a also requires Permittees to submit documentation confirming that that all control measures initiated or implemented during the previous permit term for which ongoing load reduction credit was recognized continue to be implemented at an intensity sufficient to maintain the credited load reduction. Examples of this include the enhanced operation and maintenance activities associated with source property referrals, green stormwater infrastructure implementation, trash collection devices with mercury and PCBs-reduction benefit, and other control measures. Appropriate documentation may include dated photographic evidence, maintenance records, and other types of relevant records showing that the control measures continue to be implemented in a manner consistent with the load reduction credit established when they were initiated.

Provision C.11.b requires Permittees to investigate land areas (general older industrial land use areas) that may contribute mercury to MS4s. For those properties or land areas found to be contributing substantial amounts of mercury or where high mercury concentrations are found (generally areas with sediment concentrations greater than 0.5 mg mercury/kg), this provision element requires Permittees to take actions to abate the mercury sources into their MS4s or refer the properties to the Water Board for follow-up measures. Historical monitoring data suggest that mercury concentrations on or near source properties are similar to those found in urban areas in general so identification of source properties for referral is more likely to be based on presence of high PCBs concentrations (generally 0.5 mg PCBs/kg) alone. Please see the discussion under C.12.b for more information about development of the accountability and load reduction estimate methodology.

A logical performance metric for the source area investigations required by Provision C.11.b is the number of acres of investigated relevant (old industrial) land area. These types of investigations have been performed by the programs for over a decade so there is a basis to establish a reasonable pace for investigations.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 257
In selecting a performance metric for the pace of source property investigations during MRP 3, the following criteria are applied:
 Take into consideration the pace of past investigative efforts. This is consistent with the Basin Plan’s requirement that the permit must include TMDL WLA implementation provisions based on an updated assessment of best management practices and control measures intended to reduce mercury in urban stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
 Endeavor to bring the countywide programs to similar levels of completion (of source property investigation) by the end of the permit term.
 Establish regular, clearly presented, enforceable, non-contingent milestones and deadlines for compliance.

All countywide programs have performed desktop screening of their old industrial land use to remove low-likelihood areas from consideration. Thus, the remaining acres of old industrial land use must be actively investigated, often requiring sampling of sediment or stormwater to find possible source properties. The programs have been, over the last (approximately) 10 years, performing active investigations (Landuse Summary287) at varying paces. These amounts of land area actively screened can be compared to the amount of land area that originally required investigation, and a percent completion can be computed. The percent completion of these active investigations ranges from 11 to 98 percent among the countywide programs.
 Santa Clara: 4,214 acres investigated (of 5,127, 82 percent of total requiring investigation)
 San Mateo: 2,869 acres investigated (of 4,280, 67 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Alameda: 753 acres investigated (of 6,746, 11 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Contra Costa: 976 acres investigated (of 5,005, 20 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Solano: 1,075 acres investigated (of 1,096, 98 percent of total requiring investigation)
From these data, the average of the investigatory pace of the two fastest programs is 1700 acres in a period of five years, and this pace constitutes the baseline pace for source property investigations for MRP 3. Provision C.11.b requires a slightly faster pace for those programs that would not reach at least 50 percent completion by the end 287 Source Property Investigation Summary with Performance Metric Calculation (5-14-21). Data Submitted by BASMAA.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 258
of the permit term if they merely achieved the baseline pace. Therefore, the required pace for source property investigations during MRP 3 is the greater of:
(1) A number of acres such that at least 50 percent of the initial amount of old industrial land use requiring investigation (desktop excluded) will be investigated, OR
(2) a baseline pace of 1,700 acres.

According to this performance metric, the programs will complete the following investigations and have the following percent completion by end of MRP 3.  Santa Clara: 913 acres during MRP 3
o for total of 5,127 acres, 100 percent of total requiring investigation by end of MRP 3
 San Mateo: 1,411 acres
o for total of 4,280 acres, 100 percent of required by end of MRP 3  Alameda: 2,620 acres
o for total of 3,373 acres, 50 percent of required by end of MRP 3 o requires pace above baseline
 Contra Costa: 1,700 acres
o for total of 2,676 acres, 53 percent of required by end of MRP 3  Solano: 21 acres
o for total of 1,096, 100 percent of required by end of MRP 3 Summing the required acreage for source property investigations for the countywide programs results in a total of 5,752 acres to be investigated during MRP 3. Making the conservative assumption that the rate of referral (acres referred:acres investigated) will be one-third of the historical ratio of acres referred:acres investigated for each program during MRP 3, approximately 147 acres of source properties will be referred for followup action during the MRP 3 permit term.

A simple approach for estimating the load reductions associated with certain control measures involves use of a land-use pollutant yield. A land-use yield is an estimate of the mass of a contaminant contributed by an area of a particular land-use per unit time.

Essentially, different types of land uses yield different amounts of pollutants because land use types differ in their degree of contamination resulting from differing intensities of historical or ongoing use of pollutants in those land uses. For example, PCBs were more heavily used in older industrial areas so older industrial land use areas yield a much higher mass of PCBs per unit area than newer urban land use areas where PCBs Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 259
were never intensively used. However, this is generally not the case for mercury, where uses were more widespread. This more widespread use and the greater role of atmospheric deposition for mercury in determining the distribution of contamination reduces the likelihood of finding areas with high concentrations of mercury.

Estimated load reductions for source property referral are based on the expectation that the source property will yield less mercury upon cleanup such that the mercury yield will be more like the yield from older commercial areas rather than older industrial areas.

For example, when contaminated areas are newly or redeveloped, the pollutant yield of the area will be reduced through a variety of mechanisms (i.e., removal, capping, paving of contaminated sediment). There may be some mercury load reduction from source property referral (which is mainly based on PCBs contamination), but this can be determined on a case-by-case basis provided that pre-cleanup sediment concentration data are available and greater than the typical yield in old industrial, old commercial, and old residential areas of about 50 mg mercury/acre/year.286 Contaminated properties often have a “halo” of contamination in the vicinity of the property, and contaminated sediments in this halo can be transported to receiving waters through the stormwater conveyance system. Further, pollutants from the source area may continue to be transported offsite while remediation occurs. Therefore, implementing enhanced O&M both in areas immediately adjacent to the source area and onsite (to prevent offsite migration) while the source property is being remediated is a priority to prevent PCBs or mercury transport to receiving waters. If enhanced O&M measures are not implemented in the immediate vicinity of the referred property, the calculated load reduction will be recognized upon completion of the cleanup project. In order to confirm effective implementation of enhanced O&M plans to address the prevention of pollutants migrating offsite and the “halo” of contamination in the vicinity of the contaminated property, the Permit requires that these plans be submitted to Water Board staff for review and acceptance prior to the referral.

Provision C.11.c requires Permittees to implement control measures (treatment controls, diversion to wastewater treatment plants, or enhanced operation and treatment controls) on 2,580 acres of old industrial land use (see below for more information on this performance metric). Note that this provision is identical to Provision C.12.c, and that the choice of locations for control measures will often be based on PCBs concentrations, and that mercury-related load reduction benefits will, therefore, be largely coincidental. However, there are locations of high mercury concentrations that provide good opportunities for control measure implementation. In choosing locations for treatment controls and diversions, Permittees should focus on public rights-of-way and storm drain infrastructure in catchments containing known or suspected source areas or evidence moderate to high PCBs soil concentrations (generally sediment concentrations greater than 0.3 mg Hg/kg or greater than 0.2 mg PCBs/kg, approximately the 75th percentile concentrations of these pollutants in old industrial areas). These concentrations should not be considered a “bright line” as there are likely Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 260
areas of moderate contamination for these pollutants just under these concentrations that would still be good locations for implementation, especially if these locations have a large reservoir of readily transportable, moderately contaminated sediment. Moreover, the available data have uncertainty so a measured concentration under but near 0.3 mg Hg/kg or 0.2 mg PCBs/kg may indicate an area of moderate contamination such that additional monitoring would reveal concentrations higher than these thresholds.

Permittees have discretion to choose control measures appropriate to the circumstances. The reason that PCBs concentrations will be generally be more useful for selecting locations is that it is easier to find old industrial areas that are highly elevated in PCBs concentrations than it is to find areas highly elevated in mercury. As an illustration, in over 1,200 sediment samples collected in old industrial areas, the 90th percentile PCBs concentration was 22 times higher than the median. In other words, the more contaminated areas are much more contaminated than the typical (median concentration) value. By contrast, the 90th percentile mercury concentration in over 1,000 samples collected in old industrial areas was only five times higher than the median.286 See Fact Sheet section for Provision C.12.c for more information and background on this provision element.

As stated previously, all countywide programs have performed desktop screening of their old industrial land use areas. From this information, we can estimate the extent of old industrial land use that may benefit from treatment or other control measures to address the moderately high PCBs and mercury contamination. In the information submitted by the counties, this area is the amount of old industrial land use in 2002 minus the amount redeveloped since 2002 minus the amount not draining to MS4 (see Landuse Summary287). The sum of these areas for each county is as follows.  Santa Clara: 6,647 acres
 San Mateo: 4,450 acres
 Alameda: 9,374 acres
 Contra Costa: 11,199 acres
 Solano: 1,426 acres
These sum to 33,100 acres for the MRP Permit area. The performance metric for MRP 3 is to implement treatment or other controls on 2,580 acres (which represents just less than 8 percent as currently understood) of this old industrial land use across the entire MRP area. Applying the mercury yield from old industrial area (60 mg mercury/acre/year) to this area and a 70 percent treatment efficiency (efficiency factor for green infrastructure or retrofit treatment control288), the expected mercury load reduction by the end of the permit is 108 grams/year. It is important to note that the 288 Geosyntec Consultants (2017). Interim Accounting Methodology for TMDL Loads Reduced. Prepared for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 261
performance metric is expressed as an amount of old industrial land use to address with control measure implementation or, equivalently, the calculated amount of load reduction from this implementation. With our current understanding of the amount of old industrial land use in the region, the areal performance metric is 2,580 acres of old industrial land use throughout the region. The expected scale of implementation (2,580 acres throughout the region) is very similar to the anticipated level of effort for Caltrans in the SF Bay Region, in which Caltrans will implement treatment controls on approximately 11 percent of their 27,000 acres of right-of-way for a total of more than 2,900 acres (draft Caltrans permit). Permittees may provide updated information concerning the actual amount of old industrial land use, and this amount may differ from the 33,100-acre estimate used here. For example, some of this land use may drain directly to the Bay or may not drain to MS4s. If the amount of old industrial land use is reduced with such new information, it may be the case that the old industrial acreage performance metric may constitute greater than 8 percent of the remaining old industrial land use. The performance metric was designed in part based on the level of effort expected of Caltrans in their draft permit and also to make meaningful progress in addressing old industrial land use, thereby reducing loads of mercury and PCBs. The fact that the acreage represents 8 percent of old industrial land use (as currently understood) is coincidental.

The performance metric (acreage to be addressed by the end of the permit term or corresponding estimated load reduction) can also be shown by county along with the estimated mercury load reductions (for 70 percent control measure efficiency, e.g., retrofit treatment control measures) are as follows:
 Alameda County: 664 acres (28 grams/yr)
 Contra Costa County: 664 acres (28 grams/yr)
 San Mateo County: 445 acres (19 grams/yr)
 Santa Clara County: 664 acres (28 grams/yr)
 Solano County: 142 acres (6 grams/yr)
Compliance with the provision element can be accomplished in one of two ways.

Permittees within the county can implement control measures on the listed amount of old industrial land use (assuming 70 percent control measure efficiency, amounts could vary depending on efficiencies of control measures actually implemented) or account for the mass reduction of mercury shown in parentheses. These are equivalent performance metrics because the mass reductions were calculated using the listed old industrial acreage multiplied by the old industrial mass yield and 70 percent efficiency for control measures. For example, consider a county that must address 1,000 acres of old industrial land use when implementing control measures with an efficiency of 70 percent (for a load reduction of 42 grams of mercury). If this county chose instead to implement only control measures with 20 percent efficiency (e.g., efficiency of Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 262
hydrodynamic separators), the required acreage would be: 1,000 acres x (70% / 20%) = 3,500 acres. However, the load reduction would be calculated as 3,500 acres x 60 mg mercury/acre/year) x 20% treatment efficiency, or 42 grams of mercury.

If treatment control systems are used, they must be designed and sized consistent with Provision C.3.d(2) (Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems).

Because of the higher removal efficiency of wastewater treatment facilities, each acre treated by routing stormwater to wastewater treatment facilities will be credited as 1.3 acres toward satisfying the treatment requirements. This factor is based on the fact295 that wastewater treatment facilities remove well over 90 percent of suspended sediment particles (to which mercury and PCBs are attached), and the ratio of 0.9 to 0.7 is 1.3.

Conversely, if control measures having less than 70 percent efficiency are implemented, the acreage credited will be proportional to the ratio of efficiencies (e.g., acreage credited in the ratio of 0.5/0.7 for control measures with 50 percent efficiency – see example calculation above).

Provision C.11.d requires Permittees to promote, facilitate, and/or participate in collection and recycling of mercury containing consumer products, devices, and equipment (e.g., thermometers, thermostats, switches, bulbs) and report on the amount of material recycled and approximate mass of mercury in this material. The load reduction accounting system286 contains methodologies developed for estimation of such quantities. Collection and recycling of mercury containing devices are vital to reducing urban runoff mercury loads from the urban environment because of the large amount of mercury contained within such devices.

In the Bay Area, households and small businesses use about 1.8 million fluorescent bulbs annually, and large businesses use 10.2 million annually.289 The number of bulbs available for recycling each year ranges from 3 to 16 million. Recycled bulbs are estimated to be largely tube lamps, which have an average amount of mercury per tube of 21.4 mg. If fluorescent bulbs, which contain mercury, are broken, it is possible for some of the mercury to volatilize and enter the environment. Some of the volatilized mercury may later become attached to particulates and be deposited, via wet and dry deposition, onto the ground or directly onto the Bay. During wet weather, some of this sediment containing mercury can be mobilized, enter the stormwater system, and potentially be conveyed to the Bay. If bulbs are properly disposed of and recycled, much less mercury enters the Bay.289 Thermostats are a smaller potential source of mercury in that there is approximately 9.3 kg of mercury contained in the 1,500 thermostats recycled in 2006. However, if these devices are not properly disposed of, the mercury from thermostats can also be transported to receiving waters via the same processes described for fluorescent bulbs. Since 2006, California’s Universal Waste Rule has 289 Geosyntec Consultants (2010). Desktop Evaluation of Controls for Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Mercury Load Reduction. SFEI Contribution 613
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 263
prohibited landfill disposal of mercury-containing products (fluorescent tubes, switches, and thermostats). These waste products must be separated and properly recycled.

The Desktop Evaluation289 estimates that the amount of mercury load reduction (mercury prevented from reaching receiving waters) achieved through recycling fluorescent bulbs increases from about 2.4 kg mercury/yr in 2010 to 13 kg mercury/yr by 2030. The same report estimates that the amount of mercury load reduction from thermometer recycling increases from 0.8 to 2.4 kg mercury/yr between 2010 and 2030.

Interpolating these load reduction estimates, one calculates that, by the end of MRP3, approximately 8.8 kg mercury/yr load reduction will result from fluorescent tube recycling and 1.3 kg mercury/yr load reduction from thermostat recycling.

Provision C.11.e requires Permittees to implement green infrastructure projects during the term of the Permit at a level consistent with the requirements in Provision C.3.j. The Previous Permit required Permittees “to develop RAAs to estimate the amount and characteristics of land area that will be treated through green infrastructure implementation by 2020, 2030, and 2040.” The analysis and resulting estimates for acres treated and mercury load reductions are contained in the Annual Reports for the countywide programs submitted in Fall 2020. Interpolating between the 2020 and 2030 results provides an estimate for the acreage and mercury load reductions resulting from green infrastructure implementation by 2025:
 Alameda County: 1,230 acres 35 g/yr
 Contra Costa County: 950 acres 25 g/yr
 San Mateo County 314 acres 8 g/yr
 Santa Clara County 856 acres 21 g/yr
 Solano County Permittees 821 acres 19 g/yr
The Santa Clara County and San Mateo RAAs did not include green stormwater infrastructure load reduction estimates for mercury. The average mercury load reduction per acre of implemented green infrastructure from Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano was multiplied by the acres of planned green stormwater infrastructure implemented in these two counties to generate an estimated load reduction. Summing these estimated load reductions across countywide programs results in a regionwide total estimated mercury load reduction from green stormwater implementation of about 108 g/yr by the end of the permit term. Please see the discussion under Provision C.12.f for more information how modeling was used to develop the accountability and load reduction estimate methodology for GSI.

Available information suggests that mercury is distributed more uniformly throughout the Bay Area landscape than is the case for PCBs. Therefore, a focus on highly or even moderately contaminated areas (with mercury) may not be enough to achieve the TMDL-required load reductions. A significant component of the overall strategy to Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 264
reduce urban runoff mercury loads will be the implementation of green infrastructure control measures to intercept mercury-containing sediment and stormwater before it is discharged to receiving water. However, the planning, financing and implementation of green infrastructure is going to take a long time, perhaps as much as 25 years or more.

This also means that the load reduction benefits of such implementation will also be realized over an extended time frame.

Provisions C.11.f requires Permittees to update (as needed) the plans and schedules prepared during the previous permit for mercury control measure implementation and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis to quantitatively demonstrate that sufficient control measures will be implemented to attain the mercury TMDL wasteload allocations. The updates should focus on those control measures for which new information is available and for control measures not evaluated in previous efforts. The Permit requires that these plans must: identify all technically and economically feasible mercury control measures (including green infrastructure projects) to be implemented; include a schedule according to which these technically and economically feasible control measures will be fully implemented; and provide an evaluation and quantification of the mercury load reduction of such measures as well as an evaluation of costs, control measure efficiency, and significant environmental impacts resulting from their implementation.

Provision C.11.f also requires Permittees to submit information to inform mercuryrelated requirements in the subsequent permit term. Namely, Permittees must identify all specific control measures to be implemented along with the expected intensity (e.g., acres treated, acres investigated for source areas, types of roadway projects for which protocols applied, etc.) of control measure implementation, and the estimated load reduction benefit from control measures implemented during the subsequent permit term.

The mercury TMDL anticipated the challenge of achieving the urban runoff mercury load reductions required to meet the TMDL allocations within the twenty-year implementation time frame. The TMDL implementation plan states that:

3. “the Water Board will consider modifying the schedule for achievement of the load allocations for a source category or individual discharger provided that they have complied with all applicable permit requirements and all of the following have been accomplished relative to that source category or discharger:
 A diligent effort has been made to quantify mercury loads and the sources of mercury and potential bioavailability of mercury in the discharge;
 Documentation has been prepared that demonstrates
that all technically and economically feasible and cost- Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 265
effective control measures recognized by the Water
Board as applicable for that source category or
discharger have been fully implemented, and evaluates
and quantifies the comprehensive water quality benefit of such measures;
 A demonstration has been made that achievement of the allocation will require more than the remaining 10 years originally envisioned; and
 A plan has been prepared that includes a schedule for evaluating the effectiveness and feasibility of additional control measures and implementing additional controls
as appropriate.”
Provision C.11.f provides the opportunity for Permittees to describe the full suite of actions that will be required to achieve the TMDL along with realistic timelines for this achievement. The load reductions for mercury are difficult and time-consuming to achieve because mercury is distributed relatively uniformly throughout the urban landscape, and there are few areas of substantial contamination to address in an aggressive fashion. Proper recycling and disposal of mercury-containing materials (Provision C.11.d) will continue to play an important role in reducing mercury loads in urban runoff. The RAAs submitted during the previous Permit Term emphasize that expected mercury load reductions will come from long-term implementation of control strategies (like source control, cleanup of contaminated sites, green infrastructure, and others) that extend beyond the current implementation timeframe of the TMDL. The updates to the long-term plans and schedules required by this provision could potentially support an amendment to TMDL implementation timeframe.

Provision C.11.g. There are still uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and nature of mercury reaching the Bay in urban runoff and the ultimate fate of such mercury, including biological uptake. Provision C.11.g requires that Permittees ensure that fate and transport studies of mercury in urban runoff are completed. The specific information needs include understanding the in-Bay transport of mercury discharged in urban runoff, the sediment and food web mercury concentrations in margin areas receiving urban runoff, the influence of urban runoff on the patterns of food web mercury accumulation, especially in Bay margins, and the identification of drainages where urban runoff mercury are particularly important in food web accumulation.

Provision C.11.h requires actions to mitigate human health risk due to mercury and PCBs. These may include efforts to communicate the health risks of eating Bay fish to be aimed at high risk-communities such as subsistence fishers and their families. The risk reduction framework developed in a previous permit term, which funded communitybased organizations to develop and deliver appropriate communications to appropriately targeted individuals and communities, is an appropriate approach.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 266
C.12. PCBs Controls
The purpose of this provision is to implement the urban runoff requirements of the San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL and reduce PCBs loads to make substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocations established for the TMDL. In order to make substantial progress, Permittees must implement PCBs control measures strategically during this permit term. Moreover, aggressive control measure implementation combined with thoughtful planning for the future (see Provision C.12.h) are conditions that must be satisfied before the Water Board can consider an implementation timeframe longer than the 20 years provided in the TMDL.

The C.12 requirements follow the general approach for sediment-bound pollutants discussed above (General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants (Mercury and PCBs)). Accordingly, they build on understanding gained during the Previous Permit term, during which Permittees were required to implement PCBs control measures (source control, treatment control and/or pollution prevention strategies) in areas where benefits are most likely to accrue (focused implementation) and to report on the loads reduced through implementation of those control measures.

In this Permit term, the PCBs provision requires specific programmatic control measures deemed effective based on implementation experience and analyses in previous permit terms implemented at full-scale (a “programmatic approach”). For PCBs, these control measures include: source property identification and abatement, control measure implementation in old industrial areas, controlling PCBs in stormwater infrastructure, controlling PCBs from electrical utilities, green stormwater infrastructure, and managing PCBs-containing material during building demolition.

The programmatic approach to PCBs control measures means that the Permit provisions estimate, based on calculations, anticipated PCBs load reductions for each of these programmatic control measures consistent with an expected level of control measure implementation intensity along with trackable implementation performance metrics to be reported consistent with the estimated load reductions. Load reductions will be calculated based on the technically sound load reduction accounting methods286 developed and refined during previous permit terms.

As discussed below, based on information gained during control measure pilot testing and reported during the Previous Permit term, load reductions on the order of those anticipated (approximately 1.47 kg PCBs/year) through implementation of control measures required by this Permit are achievable and necessary in order to make progress toward achieving the regionwide urban runoff wasteload allocation of 2 kg/yr (representing a load reduction from all urban runoff sources of approximately 18 kg/yr compared to loads estimated using data collected in 2003) within the 20-year TMDL timeframe. Further, load reductions resulting from a variety of PCBs control measures may be feasibly calculated in a straightforward manner (see below) and a clear Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 267
accountability metric against which to evaluate the sufficiency of control measure implementation can be applied.

The area covered by the Permit (permit area) is smaller than the region that discharges to the Bay. The discharges in the permit area have been allocated 1.6 kg/yr of the total 2 kg/yr wasteload allocation and the total load reductions required from Permittees in the permit area during TMDL implementation is 14.4 kg/yr of the 18 kg/yr regionwide total.

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.12
C.12-1 On February 13, 2008, the Water Board adopted a Basin Plan amendment establishing a TMDL for PCBs in San Francisco Bay and an implementation plan to achieve the TMDL. U.S. EPA approved the TMDL on March 29, 2010.

C.12-2 The following excerpts from the TMDL implementation plan are relevant to implementation of the municipal stormwater permit:
“The 2003 load of PCBs from urban runoff is 20 kg/yr,
and the aggregate WLAs for urban runoff total 2 kg/yr.

Stormwater runoff wasteload allocations shall be
achieved within 20 years and shall be implemented
through the NPDES stormwater permits issued to
stormwater runoff management agencies and the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The urban stormwater runoff wasteload allocations implicitly include all current and future permitted discharges, not otherwise addressed by another allocation, and
unpermitted discharges within the geographic boundaries of stormwater runoff management agencies including, but not limited to, Caltrans roadway and non-roadway
facilities and rights-of-way, atmospheric deposition,
public facilities, properties proximate to stream banks, industrial facilities, and construction sites.

Requirements in each NPDES permit issued or reissued
shall be based on an updated assessment of best
management practices and control measures intended to
reduce PCBs in urban stormwater runoff. Control
measures implemented by stormwater runoff
management agencies and other entities … shall reduce
PCBs in stormwater runoff to the maximum extent
practicable….

In the first five-year permit term, stormwater Permittees will be required to implement control measures on a pilot Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 268
scale to determine their effectiveness and technical
feasibility. In the second permit term, stormwater
Permittees will be required to implement effective control measures, that will not cause significant adverse
environmental impacts, in strategic locations, and to
develop a plan to fully implement control measures that will result in attainment of allocations, including an
analysis of costs, efficiency of control measures and an identification of any significant environmental impacts.

Subsequent permits will include requirements and a
schedule to implement technically feasible, effective and cost-efficient control measures to attain allocations. If, as a consequence, allocations cannot be attained, the Water Board will take action to review and revise the allocations and these implementation requirements as part of
adaptive implementation.

In addition, stormwater Permittees will be required to
develop and implement a monitoring system to quantify
PCBs urban stormwater runoff loads and the load
reductions achieved through treatment, source control
and other actions; support actions to reduce the health risks of people who consume PCBs-contaminated San
Francisco Bay fish; and conduct or cause to be
conducted monitoring, and studies to fill critical data needs identified in the adaptive implementation section.” C.12-3 Urban runoff management agencies have a responsibility to oversee various discharges within the agencies’ geographic boundaries. However, if it is determined that a source is substantially contributing to PCBs loads to the Bay or is outside the jurisdiction or authority of an agency, the Water Board will consider a request from an urban runoff management agency that may include an allocation, load reduction, and/or other regulatory requirements for the source in question. If these sources are contributing to urban runoff loads (as opposed to direct Bay discharge), load reductions from these sources will count toward meeting the urban runoff wasteload allocations.

C.12-4 Some PCB congeners have dioxin-like properties. Dioxins are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic compounds that are produced from the combustion of organic materials in the presence of chlorine. Dioxins enter the air through fuel and waste emissions, including diesel and other motor vehicle exhaust fumes and trash incineration, and are carried in rain and contaminate soil. Dioxins bioaccumulate in fat, and most human exposure occurs through the consumption of animal fats, including those from fish. Therefore, the actions Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 269
targeting PCBs will likely have the simultaneous benefit of addressing a portion of the dioxin impairment resulting from dioxin-like PCBs.

C.12-5 Estimates using the latest available data suggest that the urban runoff PCBs loading to San Francisco Bay is on the order of 19 kg/yr (McKee and Yee 2015). While this figure is based on environmental data and thus has inherent uncertainty associated with it, it agrees very well with the regional urban runoff load estimate of 20 kg/yr provided in the TMDL report.

C.12-6 Studies suggest that PCBs load reductions of approximately 6 kg/yr are possible by 2030 through control measures like street sweeping, control of PCBs during building demolition and renovation, drop inlet cleaning, treatment retrofits, redevelopment of contaminated areas, pump station diversion, and street flushing (McKee and Yee 2015284). While there are substantial uncertainties associated with these estimates, these results suggest that a substantial portion of the additional load reductions (~ 12 kg/yr) necessary to achieve the PCBs TMDL may need to come from identification and cleanup of PCBs-contaminated properties.

C.12-7 The distribution of PCBs in the urban landscape is much more variable than it is for mercury. For example, data indicate that PCBs-contaminated land uses yield perhaps 800 times more PCBs per unit area compared to the least contaminated land uses. By contrast, there is a 70-fold difference between the highest and lowest yielding land uses for mercury (McKee and Yee 2015). A large proportion (about 53 percent) of annual average urban runoff PCB loading is likely coming from old industrial or other contaminated areas (McKee and Yee 2015).

C.12-8 A significant recent accomplishment of the Sources, Pathways, and Loadings workgroup (SPLWG) of the Regional Monitoring Program has been the development and refinement of a Regional Watershed Spreadsheet Model (RWSM). This GIS-based model estimates relative land use and source area yields, and integrates them to provide a transparent, mutually accepted, and peer-reviewed analysis of relative watershed scale yield. Outputs from model runs to date suggest yields for the most polluted watershed in excess of 1,000 g/km2 for PCBs and mercury and a variation between watersheds of ~100,000- fold for PCBs and ~200-fold for mercury. To date, modeling results have a large amount of uncertainty in terms of absolute magnitude, but the results are capturing the patterns of contaminant distribution and transport. The model output is generally consistent with what is known about the distribution of these contaminants in the landscape from stormwater and bedded sediment data.

The results are also consistent with what monitoring data tell us about the relative mercury and PCBs loads from land use and source area categories.

The SPLWG is currently developing a more sophisticated dynamic watershed loading model that will provide a much better modeling tool to predict Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 270
watershed scale loads of PCBs and other contaminants under a variety of management scenarios.

C.12-9 Sufficient information is available to establish default factors for PCBs load reduction credit resulting from foreseeable control measures implemented during this permit term (see information under Provision C.12.a, below). For treatment controls, the estimated load reductions can be calculated by multiplying the assumed land-use PCB yearly mass yield by the treated area and by a treatment efficiency factor. The load reduction resulting from cleaning up contaminated properties can be estimated by recognizing that the yield of the contaminated property will be reduced to an assumed background level over the course of site cleanup. The load reduction resulting from controlling PCBs in building materials during demolition can be estimated by estimating the amount of PCBs in the building, the fraction of those PCBs that would enter the storm drain system in the absence of controls, and the efficiency of control measures applied to the demolished building to prevent such PCBs release.

C.12-10 Limited sampling data from Bay Area structures built between 1950 and 1980 suggest that PCB concentrations in caulks here are similar to those in other parts of North America and Europe. Samples collected in about 1,350 buildings in Switzerland constructed between 1950 and 1980 found almost half the buildings contained PCBs in caulk, with most samples containing >100 ppm and 20 percent containing 10,000 ppm or more. In Bay Area samples, 40 percent contained > 50 ppm PCBs and 20 percent contained > 10,000 ppm PCBs. The study estimates that certain types of Bay Area structures built 1950- 1980 contain a mid-range average of 4.7 kg PCBs per building. An estimated 6,300 currently standing non-residential buildings in the MRP area were built between 1954 and1974. The mid-range estimate of the total PCB mass in caulk in these buildings is 10,500 kg.290
C.12-11 During the Previous Permit, Permittees were required to develop and implement protocols for identifying PCBs-containing structures at the time of demolition so that PCBs do not enter municipal storm drains. Some demolition sites, especially high-profile sites such as hospitals, bridges and sports arenas, comply with federal law (Toxic Substances Control Act) and State regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 22) that require a project proponent to determine the presence of PCBs and other hazardous substances and to follow applicable disposal requirements. Soil sampling data from such demolition projects indicate that significant concentrations of PCBs can be present in site soils. Such PCB-laden sediment, particularly at a demolition site without adequate controls, is transported by vehicle tracking, wind erosion or precipitation runoff to the storm drain. PCBs entering the storm drain system 290 Klosterhaus S. and McKee L. et al. 2014. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the exterior caulk of San Francisco Bay Area buildings, California, USA. Environment International 66 (2014) 38–43.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 271
during dry weather are non-stormwater discharges that must be effectively prohibited pursuant to CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(ii). PCBs that are discharged into storm drain systems and waters of the U.S. through stormwater runoff are appropriate for control in order to make progress in achieving the PCBs TMDL wasteload allocations for urban runoff, pursuant to CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(iii).

C.12-12 The protocol for requiring applicable structures to sample for PCBs prior to receiving a demolition permit, developed during the Previous Permit term, allowed for identification of structures that contain PCBs. But the Previous Permit did not allow for collection of information that could demonstrate PCBs were properly disposed so they are not transported to water bodies via the MS4. That shortcoming is addressed in this Permit, for those structures where notification and advance approval from the U.S. EPA is not required. This Permit includes a requirement for Permittees to include in their annual reports verification, such as the hazardous waste manifest prepared for transportation of the material to a disposal facility, that demonstrates proper disposal of the building materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.

C.12-13 U.S. EPA has developed guidelines, available at its “Steps to Safe Renovation and Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk” website, for identifying and removing PCBs in building materials that can help in the effort to manage PCBs so that they do not enter municipal storm drains. In addition, during the MRP 1 term, starting in 2009, the Permittees participated in the grant-funded “PCBs in Caulk Project”, which addressed potential impacts of PCBs released into stormwater runoff during demolition or remodeling projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. This project fulfilled the permit requirement to investigate the costs, effectiveness, and technical feasibility of PCBs control measures to minimize the release of PCBs in caulks and sealants to stormwater runoff during demolition or remodeling projects. Products developed through this grant-funded project include a fact sheet for developers; a fact sheet on sampling methods; BMPs to control PCBs in caulk at demolition or renovation sites; a Model Implementation Process to incorporate a requirement to use BMPs into the municipal demolition permitting process; a training strategy to train and deploy municipal staff, such as hazardous material or building inspectors, to ensure proper implementation of BMPs; and a technical memorandum on relevant regulations and policies.

C.12-14 This provision is consistent with a recent U.S. EPA memorandum291 providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits.

Specifically, this provision establishes clear and concrete accountability metrics and deadlines for the achievement of specific anticipated PCBs load reductions 291 U.S. EPA. November 26, 2014. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs.”
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 272
from effective control measures as well as other requirements, necessary to achieve receiving water limits of this permit term relative to the PCBs TMDL WLAs.

Specific Provision C.12 Requirements
Provision C.12.a requires Permittees to assess PCBs load reductions through use of a previously-developed assessment methodology and data collection program286 to quantify PCBs loads reduced through implementation of any and all pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control efforts required by the provisions of this Permit or load reductions achieved through other relevant efforts not explicitly required by the provisions of this Permit. The load reduction assessment methodology is consistent with the PCBs TMDL requirement that “stormwater Permittees will be required to develop and implement a monitoring system to quantify PCBs urban stormwater runoff loads and the load reductions achieved through treatment, source control and other actions” (there is a similar requirement in the SF Bay mercury TMDL).

As Permittees gain implementation experience and collect information on this implementation, they may request refinement of the accounting system for use in subsequent permit terms.

The goals of the assessment methodology required in this provision element are twofold. First, it establishes a system of accountability for control measure implementation with which to measure the sufficiency of control measure implementation intensity.

Second, it provides an accounting system that relates control measure implementation intensity with estimated PCBs and mercury load reductions. This allows tracking of implementation intensity to assess compliance rather than having to measure actual load reductions to assess compliance, which is impractical. See discussion above under Provision C.8.f on the special challenges of monitoring PCBs and mercury and also in the introduction to pollutants of concern provisions where we describe the for PCBs and mercury control measure implementation. For each provision element, the Fact Sheet describes how data and information are used to develop the trackable accountability metric and load reduction estimate corresponding to the trackable metric.

Permittees are encouraged to build on the loads assessment framework developed in previous permit terms and refine the load assessment methodologies if appropriate.

This could include updating and, in some cases, extending the framework presented in that document, justifying assumptions and selected parameters used for each type of control measure, and indicating what information will be collected and submitted to calculate the load reduction for each implemented control measure. The accounting scheme submitted (if necessary) near the end of the Permit term (for use in subsequent permits) must be submitted for Executive Officer approval.

Provision C.12.a also requires Permittees to submit documentation confirming that that all control measures initiated or implemented during the Previous Permit term for which ongoing load reduction credit was recognized continue to be implemented at an Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 273
intensity sufficient to maintain the credited load reduction. Examples of this include the enhanced operation and maintenance activities associated with source property referrals, GSI implementation, trash collection devices with mercury and PCBsreduction benefit, and other control measures. Appropriate documentation may include dated photographic evidence, maintenance records, and other types of relevant records showing that the control measures continue to be implemented in a manner consistent with the load reduction credit established when they were initiated.

Many of the legacy sources of PCBs are found in Bay margins contaminated by historical industrial activity. These legacy sources may be contributing to storm drain runoff conveyances, but Permittees may have jurisdictional challenges in addressing the sources in private property. In addition, Permittees are responsible for contamination in public rights of way. Permittees are expected to make diligent efforts both to address contamination on public property and to refer source properties to the Water Board for possible cleanup and abatement.

Provision C.12.b requires Permittees to investigate land areas (generally older industrial land use areas) that likely contribute PCBs to MS4s. For those properties or land areas found to be contributing substantial amounts of PCBs or where high PCBs concentrations are found (generally areas with sediment concentrations greater than 0.5 mg PCBs/kg), this provision requires Permittees to take actions to abate the PCB sources into their MS4s or refer the properties to the Water Board for follow-up measures.

Permittees have developed a systematic investigatory process (described in appendix C of the load reduction accounting report286) to identify source properties, and this process includes the following steps:
(1) Identify areas that should be considered for source area investigations (completed);
(2) Conduct screening-level investigations using desktop analyses or monitoring data in the areas identified in (1) to prioritize these areas as high, moderate, or low-likelihood source areas;
(3) Conduct targeted source area investigations (e.g., records review, ROW surveys, site visits, sampling) in areas prioritized as high or moderate likelihood source areas in (2) to identify and confirm source areas; and (4) Determine next steps for confirmed source areas.

A useful performance metric for the source area investigations required by Provision C.12.b is the number of acres of investigated relevant (old industrial) land area. These types of investigations have been performed by the programs for over a decade so there is a basis to establish a reasonable pace for investigations. The reason why the Permit uses the acres investigated rather than the acres referred for follow-up action as Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 274
the performance metric is that it is not known in advance if the investigation is going to reveal a contaminated property suitable for referral.

In selecting a performance metric for the pace of source property investigations during MRP 3, the following criteria are applied:
 Take into consideration the pace of past investigative efforts. This is consistent with the Basin Plan’s requirement that the permit must include TMDL WLA implementation provisions based on an updated assessment of best management practices and control measures intended to reduce PCBs in urban stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable.  Endeavor to bring the countywide programs to similar levels of completion (of source property investigation) by the end of the permit term.  Establish regular, clearly presented, enforceable, non-contingent milestones and deadlines for compliance.

All countywide programs have performed desktop screening of their old industrial land use to remove low-likelihood areas from consideration. Thus, the remaining acres of old industrial land use must be actively investigated, often requiring sampling of sediment or stormwater to find possible source properties. The programs have been, over the last (approximately) 10 years, performing active investigations (Landuse Summary287) at varying paces. These amounts of land area actively screened can be compared to the amount of land area that originally required investigation, and a percent completion can be computed. The percent completion of these active investigations ranges from 11 to 98 percent among the countywide programs.
 Santa Clara: 4,214 acres investigated (of 5,127, 82 percent of total requiring investigation)
 San Mateo: 2,869 acres investigated (of 4,280, 67 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Alameda: 753 acres investigated (of 6,746, 11 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Contra Costa: 976 acres investigated (of 5,005, 20 percent of total requiring investigation)
 Solano: 1,075 acres investigated (of 1,096, 98 percent of total requiring investigation)
From these data, the average of the investigatory pace of the two fastest programs is 1,700 acres in a period of five years, and this pace constitutes the baseline pace for source property investigations for MRP 3. Provision C.12.b requires a slightly faster pace for those programs that would not reach at least 50 percent completion by the end Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 275
of the permit term if they merely achieved the baseline pace. Therefore, the required pace for source property investigations during MRP 3 is the greater of:
 A number of acres such that at least 50 percent of the initial amount of old industrial land use requiring investigation (desktop excluded) will be investigated, OR
 a baseline pace of 1,700 acres.

According to this performance metric, the programs will complete the following investigations and have the following percent completion by end of MRP3.  Santa Clara: 913 acres during MRP 3
o for total of 5,127 acres, 100 percent of total requiring investigation by end of MRP 3
 San Mateo: 1,411 acres
o for total of 4,280 acres, 100 percent of required by end of MRP 3  Alameda: 2,620 acres
o for total of 3,373 acres, 50 percent of required by end of MRP 3 o requires pace above baseline
 Contra Costa: 1,700 acres
o for total of 2,676 acres, 53 percent of required by end of MRP 3  Solano: 21 acres
o for total of 1,096, 100 percent of required by end of MRP 3 Summing the required acreage for source property investigations for the countywide programs results in a total of 5,752 acres to be investigated during MRP 3. Making the conservative assumption that the rate of referral (acres referred:acres investigated) will be one-third of the historical ratio of acres referred:acres investigated for each program during MRP 3, approximately 147 acres of source properties will be referred for followup action during the MRP 3 permit term. The ratio of acres referred:acres investigated was assumed to be one-third the historical ratio to account for the fact that the easier to find source properties may have already been identified. Therefore, the success rate of finding new source properties as old industrial acres are investigated may decline. The outcome of investigations during MRP 3 can confirm this assumption.

Essentially, different types of land uses yield different amounts of pollutants because Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 276
land use types differ in their degree of contamination resulting from differing intensities of historical or ongoing use of pollutants in those land uses. PCBs were more heavily used in older industrial areas so older industrial land use areas yield a much higher mass of PCBs per unit area than newer urban land use areas where PCBs were never intensively used.

The land use-specific yields were developed by matching the predictions of a watershed model against monitoring data.292 The inputs to the model include: 1) GIS layers identifying the composition of various types of land use in Bay Area watersheds (e.g., old industrial, old commercial, old residential, new urban, agriculture/open space), 2) information about the volume of water and sediment transported to receiving waters from these watersheds, and 3) PCBs and mercury monitoring data in a subset of these watersheds. The adjustable parameters in the model are the concentrations of pollutants in stormwater or sediment from the various types of land uses, and the final values for these concentrations are selected through an iterative process where the model predictions are matched against the actual data, and the values of the land usespecific concentrations are modified until a best solution is found for the water and sediment pollutant concentrations from various land uses that results in the best match with the monitoring data. This process is known as calibration. The resulting yields for water and sediment are simply the model-selected concentrations divided by the total volume of water or sediment originating from each land use type during a typical year divided by the total acreage of that land use type, and these yields are shown in Tables A-5 and A-6 below.
292 Wu, J., Gilbreath, A.N., McKee, L.J., 2016. Regional Watershed Spreadsheet Model (RWSM): Year 5 Progress Report. A technical report prepared for the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP), Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup (SPLWG), Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS). Contribution No. 788. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 277
Table A-5. Average PCBs and Mercury Yields by Land Use Category Land Use Category Average PCBs Yield
(mg/ac/yr)
Average Mercury Yield1
(mg/ac/yr)
Old Industrial and Source
Areas
259 53
Old Commercial and Old
Transportation
49 57
Old Residential 2.8 57
New Urban 0.4 4
Agriculture/Open Space 0.4 81
1 The model calibration for PCBs is reasonable but there remains a lower confidence in the calibration for mercury.292
Table A-6. Total PCBs and Mercury by Land Use Category
Land Use Category Total PCBs (mg/ac/yr) Total Mercury1
(mg/ac/yr)
Old Industrial and Source
Areas
204 40
Old Commercial and Old
Transportation
40 63
Old Residential 4 63
New Urban 0.2 3
Agriculture/Open Space 0.2 80
1 The model calibration for PCBs is reasonable but there remains a lower confidence in the calibration for mercury.292
Because source properties represent a small fraction of the total Bay Area land use, the above calibration procedure will not work so a separate procedure was used to estimate the PCBs yield from source properties. There are no mercury source properties from which to develop a yield so the yield value for old industrial/source areas will be used for load reduction accounting. The PCBs source property yield (5,078 mg PCBs/acre*year) was derived as the product of a representative PCBs concentration from over 670 PCBs surface soil samples collected at known source properties multiplied by a representative soil/sediment yield for old industrial areas obtained through watershed modeling.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 278
Estimated load reductions for source property abatement or referral are based on the expectation that the source property will yield less PCBs upon cleanup such that the PCBs yield will be more like the yield from older commercial areas rather than older industrial areas. For example, when contaminated areas are newly or redeveloped, the pollutant yield of the area will be reduced through a variety of mechanisms (i.e., removal, capping, paving of contaminated sediment). Accordingly, the amount of reduction can be calculated as the referred-acres multiplied by the difference between the source property yield (5,078 mg PCBs/acre*year286) minus the old commercial yield (49 mg PCBs/acre*year). Therefore, controlling the load from the expected acreage of abated or referred properties will ultimately result in an estimated load reduction of 740 g/yr, one-half of which (370 g/yr) can be recognized during MRP 3 provided that effective enhanced operation and measurement (O&M) measures are implemented to prevent off-site migration and address the contamination in the vicinity of the property due do historical off-site migration of PCBs.

PCBs-contaminated properties often have a “halo” of contamination in the vicinity of the property, and contaminated sediments in this halo can be transported to receiving waters through the stormwater conveyance system. Further, pollutants from the source area may continue to be transported offsite while remediation occurs. Therefore, implementing enhanced O&M both in areas immediately adjacent to the source area and onsite (to prevent offsite migration) while the source property is being remediated is a priority to prevent PCBs transport to receiving waters. If enhanced O&M measures are not implemented in the immediate vicinity of the referred property, the calculated load reduction will be recognized upon completion of the cleanup project. In order to confirm effective implementation of enhanced O&M plans to address the prevention of PCBs migrating offsite and the halo of contamination in the vicinity of the contaminated property, the Permit requires that these plans be submitted to Water Board staff for review and acceptance prior to the referral.

Provision C.12.c requires Permittees to implement control measures (treatment controls, diversion to wastewater treatment plants, or enhanced operation and treatment controls) on 2,580 acres of old industrial land use (see below). In choosing locations for treatment controls and diversions, Permittees should focus on public rights-of-way and storm drain infrastructure in catchments containing known or suspected source areas or evidence moderate to high PCBs soil concentrations (generally sediment concentrations greater than 0.3 mg Hg/kg or greater than 0.2 mg PCBs/kg, approximately the 75th percentile concentrations in old industrial areas). These concentrations should not be considered a “bright line” as there are likely situations of moderate contamination for these pollutants just under these concentrations that would still be good locations for implementation, especially if these locations have a large reservoir of readily transportable sediment at these moderate concentrations. Moreover, the available data have uncertainty so a measured concentration under but near 0.3 mg Hg/kg or 0.2 mg PCBs/kg may indicate an area of moderate contamination such that additional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 279
monitoring would reveal concentrations higher than these thresholds. Permittees have discretion to choose control measures appropriate to the circumstances.

In addition to finding and remediating source areas, there is also a need to address the moderate contamination that exists now and will remain even if source properties are identified and abated or referred for additional action. Below is a plot of data representing more than 1,500 PCBs samples taken within the street right-of-way, storm drain conveyance system, and private properties from 1999 through 2019.286 These data establish a contextual framework to interpret new monitoring data to determine if the new data represent areas of high or moderately high PCBs concentrations. This helps guide decision making for site selection for control measure implementation, especially in old industrial areas. One can see from the figure that there were about 500 of the 1,500 samples with PCBs concentrations over 0.1mg/kg (approximately 70th percentile of the data) and about 200 samples exceeding 0.5 mg/kg (86th percentile of the data). Areas with moderately high PCBs concentrations (e.g., 0.1-0.5 mg/kg) were found throughout areas where historical industrial activity involved use of PCBs284). In general, Permittees will search for source properties in areas with measured concentrations at or above 0.5 mg/kg and will implement control measures to address residual moderate contamination in areas with measured PCBs concentrations of about

0.2 mg/kg.

Treatment and other control measures focusing on these highly- and moderately contaminated areas form an important element in achieving the PCBs TMDL-required load reductions. It is also important to attend to these old industrial areas because they are generally located near historically disadvantaged communities and reducing PCBs Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 280
and other contamination promotes better health for the residents and helps improve quality of life for these communities. Additionally, PCBs from these old industrial areas are transported to the Bay near many popular shoreline fishing locations so popular fish species caught and consumed by anglers fishing from shoreline fishing locations near these old industrial areas generally have high PCBs concentrations.

As stated previously, all countywide programs have performed “desktop” screening of their old industrial land use areas. From this information, we can estimate the extent of old industrial land use that may benefit from treatment or other control measures to address the moderately high PCBs and mercury contamination. In the information submitted by the Permittees, this area is the amount of old industrial land use in 2002 minus the amount redeveloped since 2002 minus the amount not draining to MS4 (see Landuse Summary287). The sum of these areas for each county is as follows.  Santa Clara: 6,647 acres
 San Mateo: 4,450 acres
 Alameda: 9,374 acres
 Contra Costa: 11,199 acres
 Solano: 1,426 acres
These sum to 33,100 acres for the MRP Permit area. The performance metric for MRP3 is to implement treatment or other controls on 2,580 acres of old industrial land use (which represents slightly less than 8 percent of this old industrial land use area as currently understood) across the entire MRP area. Applying the PCBs yield from old industrial area (259 mg PCBs/acre/year, see discussion under C.12.b for details of derivation) to this area and a 70 percent treatment efficiency (efficiency factor for green infrastructure or retrofit treatment control288), the expected PCBs load reduction by the end of the permit term is 467 g/yr.

It is important to note that the performance metric is expressed as an amount of old industrial land use to address with control measure implementation or, equivalently, the calculated amount of load reduction from this implementation. With our current understanding of the amount of old industrial land use in the region, the areal performance metric is 2,580 acres of old industrial land use throughout the region.

Permittees may provide updated information concerning the amount of old industrial land use, and this amount may differ from the 33,100-acre estimate used for this requirement. For example, some old industrial land use may drain directly to the Bay or may not drain to MS4s and thus not properly counted in the total. If the amount of old industrial land use is reduced with such new information, it may be the case that the old industrial acreage performance metric may constitute greater than 8 percent of the remaining old industrial land use. However, it should be clearly understood that the performance metric was designed to make meaningful progress in addressing old industrial land use in terms of the calculated amount of load reduction. The acreage Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 281
requirement is the performance metric, not the percentage of remaining old industrial land use addressed.

The performance metric of 2,580 acres of old industrial land use throughout the region is very similar to the anticipated level of effort for Caltrans in the SF Bay Region, in which Caltrans will implement treatment controls on approximately 11 percent of their 27,000 acres of right-of-way for a total of more than 2,900 acres (draft Caltrans permit).

The performance metric (acreage to be addressed by the end of the permit term or corresponding estimated load reduction) can also be shown by county along with the estimated PCBs load reductions (for 70 percent control measure efficiency, e.g., retrofit treatment control measures) are as follows:
 Alameda County: 664 acres (121 grams/yr)
 Contra Costa County: 664 acres (121 grams/yr)
 San Mateo County: 445 acres (81 grams/yr)
 Santa Clara County: 664 acres (121 grams/yr)
 Solano County: 142 acres (26 grams/yr)
The performance metrics presented in the draft of this Order resulted in large disparities in required implementation effort among the four major countywide stormwater management programs. The Alameda and Contra Costa county performance metrics were substantially greater than those for Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. In order to reduce these disparities in level of effort, the greater of the performance metrics for San Mateo and Santa Clara 664 acres) was assigned both to Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The performance metrics for Solano, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties remain unchanged. With this change, the four large countywide programs have performance metrics of a similar magnitude.

The reduced performance metrics in this Order represent a substantial amount of control measure implementation and PCBs load reduction. According to McKee et al. (2015284), about 1.5 kg PCBs/yr loading originates from old industrial landuse. The original C.11/12.c performance metric acreage in the draft of this Order (3,300 acres) would have resulted in about 600 g/yr load reductions, which represents about 40% of the total from McKee et al. 2015. The revised performance metric (2580 acres of old industrial landuse for entire MRP area) represents about a 31% reduction.

The RMP has funded special studies in four representative “Priority Margin Units”, or PMUs. A PMU is a high priority margin area for management and monitoring. The four PMUs are San Leandro Bay (SLB), Emeryville Crescent, Steinberger Slough, and Richmond Harbor. The PMU studies develop conceptual and quantitative models of how PCBs is transported into and through these PMUs. These studies also provide analysis of how the PMUs would respond to load reductions. Because the loads to the PMUs enter a relatively isolated (from Bay influence), the trajectory of recovery is Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 282
dominated by what happens to loading directly to the PMU, rather than the overall loading to the Bay as a whole.

The plot below (from the SLB PMU report293) shows the modeled recovery of PCBs mass in the system, which is a useful proxy for the scale of reductions in biota. The plot shows the trajectory in PCBs mass in SLB if loads to the system are perturbed but suspended sediment concentrations and tidal export rate parameters remain unchanged. For this representative PMU, the one-box model shows substantial declines in the mass of PCBs in the subembayment. For SLB, reducing loads by 50% resulted in about a 50% reduction in the PCBs mass in SLB in about five years according to the model. If other San Francisco Bay margin areas receiving loads (from local urban runoff sources) respond similarly to SLB, load reductions of this magnitude should manifest in reductions in total mass (in local embayments) of approximately the same order of magnitude. This would result in substantially less PCBs available in these receiving waters for uptake into biota, including the fish caught by local anglers. For the Emeryville Crescent PMU, the recovery is not as dramatic according to the modeling, but the Emeryville Crescent PMU report suggests that the dynamic transport in Emeryville Crescent may not be as amenable to application of a box model294.  Figure showing modeled PCBs recovery trajectory in SLB as a function of reduced PCBs loading to SLB subembayment293
Compliance with the performance metrics of this provision element can be accomplished in one of two ways. Permittees within the county can implement control measures on the listed amount of old industrial land use (assuming 70 percent control 293 Conceptual Model to Support PCB Management and Monitoring in the San Leandro Bay Priority Margin Unit – Final Report. Prepared by Donald Yee, Alicia N. Gilbreath, Lester J. McKee, and Jay Davis.

San Francisco Estuary Institute. Contribution No. 928. November 2019. 294 Conceptual Model to Support PCB Management and Monitoring in the Emeryville Crescent Priority Margin Unit – Final Report. Prepared by Jay Davis, Donald Yee, Alicia N. Gilbreath, and Lester J. McKee.

San Francisco Estuary Institute. Contribution No. 824. April 2017.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 283
measure efficiency, amounts could vary depending on efficiencies of control measures actually implemented) or account for the mass reduction of PCBs shown in parentheses. Control measure efficiencies are stated in the accounting document along with supporting information for the value. These are equivalent performance metrics because the mass reductions were calculated using the listed old industrial acreage multiplied by the old industrial mass yield and 70 percent efficiency for control measures. For example, consider a county that must address 1,000 acres of old industrial land use when implementing control measures with an efficiency of 70 percent (for a load reduction of 181 grams of PCBs). If this county chose instead to implement only control measures with 20 percent efficiency (e.g., efficiency of hydrodynamic separators), the required acreage would be: 1,000 acres x (70% / 20%) = 3500 acres.

However, the load reduction would be calculated as 3,500 acres x 259 mg PCBs/acre/year x 20% treatment efficiency, or 181 grams of PCBs.

If treatment control systems are used, they must be designed and sized consistent with Provision C.3.d (Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems). Because of the higher removal efficiency of wastewater treatment facilities, each acre treated by routing stormwater to wastewater treatment facilities will be credited as 1.3 acres toward satisfying the treatment requirements. This factor is based on the fact that wastewater treatment facilities remove well over 90 percent295 of suspended sediment particles (to which mercury and PCBs are attached), and the ratio of 0.9 to 0.7 is 1.3. Conversely, as previously stated, if control measures having less than 70 percent efficiency are implemented, the acreage credited will be proportional to the ratio of efficiencies (e.g., acreage credited in the ratio of 0.5/0.7 for control measures with 50 percent efficiency).

As an example, full-trash capture systems will remove some particles (and hence PCBs), and these have an efficiency of about 20 percent so the acreage credited for these systems will be in the ratio of 0.2/0.7). The PCBs in sediment data described above were also analyzed to determine land-use specific sediment concentrations. For example, the average PCBs concentration in old industrial areas was found to be 790 ppb, and the average concentration in new urban areas was just 66 ppb. These average landuse-specific PCBs and mercury concentrations are used in the loads reduction accounting for control measures where the amount of sediment removed can be determined such as in pump station cleanout, storm drain line cleanout, street flushing, and culvert/channel desilting. All of these load reduction accounting methods286 have been reviewed by Water Board staff and approved by the Executive Officer.

Provision C.12.d requires Permittees to ensure proper management of potential PCBscontaining material in bridge and overpass roadway expansion joints when these facilities are replaced or repaired. They will do so through implementation of a Caltrans specification (to be developed through proposed requirement in Caltrans stormwater permit, likely adopted by late 2022). The requirement for Caltrans to develop this 295 TSS Removal data for EBMUD and EBDA facilities from May 2016 through April 2021 (spreadsheet of data).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 284
specification is included in the draft version of the statewide Caltrans permit currently under development. The standard operating procedure (SOP) for dealing with the material will likely be similar to that used for the 2018 demolition of the old eastern span of San Francisco Bay Bridge and will involve the removal and proper disposal of PCBscontaining caulk prior to the rehabilitation of existing roadways containing such material.

The accountability metric is, therefore, demonstration by Permittees that the Caltrans SOP is applied to management of PCBs-containing material when bridge and overpass roadway surfaces are replaced or repaired.

In order to generate data to develop the load reduction estimate resulting from SOP implementation, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) evaluated PCBs in caulk and sealants in public roadways and storm drain infrastructure by sampling caulk and sealant materials from public roadway and storm drain infrastructure around the Bay Area.286 The sample locations were identified primarily based on the time period that the infrastructure was originally constructed and/or repaired, with a focus on the 1970s, the most recent time period PCBs were still in widespread use. This effort resulted in 54 caulk or sealant samples from public infrastructure in these locations. A total of 20 composite samples were then analyzed for PCBs concentrations. Ten of these composites were associated with concrete roadways, sidewalks, or bridges, and these ranged in concentration from non-detect to 5,000 mg PCB/kg. Through a maximum likelihood statistical approach applied to the data after estimating values for non-detects, a technically defensible value for the PCBs concentration was derived as 184 mg PCB/kg. The total amount of PCBs in roadway caulk or sealant was estimated using this concentration along with information about the dimensions of Bay Area bridges. The report estimates that the total amount of PCBs in the roadway caulk and longitudinal seal material on the 1,477 bridges in the MRP area is 39 kg.286
There are no available data in the literature for the rate at which PCBs leach from this caulk and sealing material, so the report authors evaluated a range of scenarios for the rate at which the PCBs in the material would leach from the joint and sealant material over time. The load reduction associated with this control measure occurs when this leaching process is interrupted through the removal of the material. A high (1% per year) and low (0.5 percent per year) leaching rate were evaluated.286 Based on the expected replacement rate of bridges, the expected load reduction ranged from 195 to 390 g PCBs/year, assuming that joints and longitudinal seal material would be removed.

The estimated load reduction resulting from implementation of this provision element assumes an intermediate leaching rate (0.75 percent per year) and is thus 300 g PCBs/year.

The load reduction calculation method involves generating an estimate of the typical concentration of PCBs in roadway caulking and multiplying this by an estimate for the amount of material removed each year and an estimate for the PCBs leach rate is a sound and practical method for estimating the load reduction. As previously discussed, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 285
attempts to use monitoring data or even modeling to estimate the load reduction resulting from removal of this PCBs-containing caulk would involve great expense and effort and would, despite these efforts, still yield a load reduction estimate with considerable uncertainty. The Water Board has reviewed the data collected, the statistical approach used to generate the typical PCBs concentration, as well as the analytical approach used to generate the load reduction estimate from the concentration data. These data are reliable and the statistical and calculation methodologies are logically consistent and technically sound.

Provision C.12.e requires Permittees to develop and implement a program to manage PCBs in oil-filled electrical equipment (OFEE) for municipally owned electrical utilities and collaborate with the Water Board to determine PCBs loadings in OFEE from nonmunicipally owned electrical utilities. The Water Board is committed to collaborating with Permittees to request and obtain the needed information from these non-municipally owned electrical utilities. The reporting requirements are contingent upon the Water Board formally transmitting the requested information from the non-municipally owned electrical utilities to the Permittees.

Due to past leaks or spills of PCBs oil from electrical equipment, properties owned and operated by electrical utilities may have elevated concentrations of PCBs in surface soils that can be released to the MS4. The cumulative releases of PCBs-laden soils from these properties was investigated by McKee et al. (2006296), and McKee estimated the net mass input of PCBs to MS4s in the Bay Area in 2005 was approximately 28 kg per year. Of this total, roughly 29 percent (8 kg/yr) was estimated to have originated from controlled closed systems (transformers and large capacitors). This estimate suggests that because of both current and past use, transformers and large capacitors, which are both electrical utility applications, may continue to contribute nearly one-third of the net PCBs mass to MS4s in the Bay Area. Therefore, this potential source warrants further investigation and control.

BASMAA286 estimates the annual load reductions from removing OFEE as the estimated annual load of PCBs that entered the MS4 from OFEE at the start of the PCBs TMDL (1.1 kg in 2005) multiplied by the estimated annual percentage of remaining OFEE equipment removed. In other words, all existing OFEE in 2005 were, combined, contributing 1.1 kg PCBs/yr loading to MS4s. Further, a permanent yearly load reduction is realized when a unit of OFEE is removed. The report provides a low, medium, and high estimate for the annual load reduction based on low, medium, and high estimates for the annual removal rate of OFEE (the percentage of remaining equipment removed each year since the start of the PCBs TMDL (in 2005). Using the starting point of 1.1 kg PCBs per year from OFEE in 2005 along with the medium estimate (2.3 percent per year) for the equipment removal rate, there would be 758 296 McKee, L., Mangarella, P., Williamson, B., Hayworth, J., and Austin, L., 2006. Review of methods used to reduce urban stormwater loads: Task 3.4. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program: SFEI Contribution #429. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 286
grams PCB/year mass loading from OFEE entering the MS4 at the start of MRP 3.

Using this same 2.3 percent per year removal rate, the estimated cumulative load reduction by the end of MRP 3 is 90 g PCBs/year in consideration of the development of improved standard operating procedures to address spill response and reporting required by the Permit.

The load reduction calculation method for OFEE involves relying on a technically sound PCBs mass loading estimate from 2005 and applying reasonable factors for the removal rate of such equipment. As for other control measures, attempts to use monitoring data or even modeling to estimate the load reduction resulting from OFEE removal would involve great expense and effort and would, despite these efforts, still yield a load reduction estimate with considerable uncertainty. Water Board staff concurs with the calculation method used to generate the load reduction estimate and accept it as logically consistent and technically sound.

Provision C.12.f requires Permittees to implement green infrastructure projects during the term of the Permit at a level consistent with the requirements in Provision C.3.j.

Provisions C.11.c and C.12.c of MRP 2 required Permittees “to develop RAAs to estimate the amount and characteristics of land area that will be treated through green infrastructure implementation by 2020, 2030, and 2040.” The analysis and resulting estimates for acres treated and PCBs load reductions are contained in the Annual Reports for the countywide programs submitted in Fall 2020.

The Permittees developed a variety of approaches (using models) to estimate the future PCBs and mercury load reductions resulting from future GSI implementation. The approaches were all consistent with guidance developed for the RAA modeling.297 In addition, all countywide programs’ modeling approaches were peer reviewed, and the peer review packages and final Reasonable Assurance Analysis modeling reports are contained in the FY 2019-2020 Annual Reports. There were some differences in the modeling approaches among the countywide programs, but the approach used by Alameda County and Contra Costa County illustrates the general concepts.

Baseline pollutant loading (prior to the application of land use changes or GSI implementation) was accomplished through a continuous simulation hydrology model combined with pollutant loading inputs to obtain the average annual loading of mercury and PCBs across a county during the TMDL baseline period (i.e., 2003 – 2005).297 The baseline model depends on a hydrology model component that produces average annual runoff across an area (e.g., Alameda County) for the period of record using a hydrologic response unit (HRU) approach. The HRU approach involves modeling various combinations of land surface features (e.g., imperviousness, underlying soil characteristics, slope) present within each county for a unit area drainage catchment.

The hydrology output is combined with average annual concentrations estimated by the 297 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA, June 2017). Bay Area Reasonable Assurance Analysis Guidance Document. Prepared for BASMAA by Geosyntec Consultants.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 287
Regional Monitoring Program’s Regional Watershed Spreadsheet Model (RWSM292) developed by SFEI to produce average annual PCBs and mercury loading for the period of record. To obtain pollutant loading, average annual concentrations estimated by the RWSM, for each land use category (i.e., Old Industrial, Old Urban Commercial/Transportation, Old Urban Residential, New Urban, and Open Space) are multiplied by the calibrated average annual runoff volume estimated using the HRU approach. The average annual PCBs and mercury loading for the baseline period of record was validated using available in-stream concentration data, as described in Appendix E.

After baseline modeling, future load reduction modeling scenarios were developed to predict how future land use changes and control measure implementation would reduce pollutant loading. Future land use changes resulting from new development and redevelopment often reduce pollutant loading through use of newer building materials and improved runoff management practices. The POC load reductions through GSI implementation were developed through a combination of hydraulic modeling of GSI facilities combined with empirically derived effluent concentration estimates. Loads reduced from baseline are estimated based on projected land use changes and control measure implementation. To calculate pollutant load reductions associated with land use changes and GSI and source control implementation for future scenarios, the difference between the pollutant loading in the baseline scenario and the total pollutant loading associated with each future implementation scenario were calculated. Future scenarios included implementation in years 2030, 2040, and beyond 2040.

Interpolating between the 2020 and 2030 results presented in the RAA GSI modeling documentation for each countywide program (contained in RAA documentation in the FY 2019-20 Annual Reports) provides an estimate for the acreage and PCBs load reductions resulting from green infrastructure implementation by 2025:
 Alameda County: 1,230 acres 75 g/yr
 Contra Costa County: 950 acres 20 g/yr
 San Mateo County 314 acres 20 g/yr
 Santa Clara County 856 acres 13.5 g/yr
 Solano County Permittees 821 acres 76 g/yr
Summing these estimated load reductions across countywide programs results in a regionwide total estimated load reduction from green stormwater implementation of about 200 g/yr by the end of the permit term.

GSI are often watershed-based approaches that can be effective at reducing loads of PCBs and mercury. Because GSI uses a variety of physical removal mechanisms to filter water and remove particles, these control measures will also be effective at reducing loads of most other contaminants in urban stormwater. Thus, GSI implementation provides an effective multi-contaminant benefit in addition to the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 288
benefits of reducing peak runoff and ameliorating the effects of hydromodification. The load reduction credit for GSI implementation will encourage watershed-based approaches, address multiple contaminants encourage the use of green infrastructure and the adoption of low impact development principles.

Some Bay Area drainages contain notably elevated PCBs concentrations in suspended or bedded sediment (e.g., > 500 ppb in bedded sediment). A recent analysis of soil PCBs and mercury data collected in the Bay Area identifies 15 sites where maximum concentrations exceed 3.8 mg/kg for PCBs and 1.6 mg/kg for total mercury. Areas with moderately high PCBs concentrations (e.g., 100-500 ppb) were found throughout areas where historical industrial activity involved use of PCBs (McKee and Yee 2015).

Decisions guiding placement of green stormwater infrastructure depend on many factors involving opportunity and feasibility. Contaminant concentrations represent one factor among many and, thus, may not be the chief consideration in many circumstances. Nevertheless, placing green infrastructure in highly- and moderately contaminated areas may form an important element in achieving the PCBs TMDLrequired load reductions. However, green infrastructure implementation is a long-term proposition and there is also value in placing green infrastructure across the broader landscape to intercept PCBs before they are discharged to receiving water.

Provision C.12.g requires Permittees to require applicable structures to sample for PCBs prior to receiving a demolition permit, inspect demolition projects during demolition activities, enhance their construction site controls for demolition projects, and for those cases where notification and advance approval from the U.S. EPA is not required, submit a copy of the hazardous waste manifest prepared for transportation of the material to a disposal facility.

After a year of requiring applicable structures to sample for PCBs in five priority building materials (caulk, fiberglass insulation, thermal insulation, adhesive mastic, and rubber window gasket or bulk product waste) prior to issuing a demolition permit, the Permittees’ 2019-2020 Annual Reports show that 18 applicable structures had bulk product waste with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. As of January 2022, U.S.

EPA’s database indicated that eight of those applicable structures have submitted hazardous wastes manifest to U.S. EPA, thus demonstrating that the bulk wastes with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater were disposed appropriately. U.S. EPA was overseeing the demolition and site remediation for all eight structures. For the remaining 10 sites that are undergoing demolition without U.S. EPA oversight, we have no information on whether bulk product wastes with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater were handled and disposed appropriately. This Provision requires the Permittees to submit a copy of the hazardous waste manifest to document that the PCBs-containing materials were disposed consistent with federal and state regulations, thus ensuring the PCBs in the bulk product waste will not be available to be discharged into the MS4. The hazardous waste manifests can be used as supporting data for the effectiveness of the protocol for controlling PCBs during building demolition.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 289
PCBs can readily migrate to storm drains through vehicle track out of contaminated soils, airborne releases, soil erosion or stormwater runoff during or after demolition.

Provision C.6 requires monthly inspections of construction sites, through all phases of construction, during the rainy season to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in preventing the discharge of pollutants into the MS4. Demolition is a phase of construction. This Provision requires the Permittees to enhance their construction site control programs to minimize the migration of PCBs from demolition sites into the MS4.

Enhancement of construction site control programs could include dry season monthly inspections, street sweeping during active work hours at demolition sites, postdemolition of surrounding streets after any airborne releases are likely to have settled, and use of street sweepers that are designed to effectively remove sediment and dust from paved surfaces.

Soil and sediment characterizations at demolition sites with bulk product waste, including the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Oakland Legacy Tower Demolition Project in Oakland, show that soils up to 10 feet from the building and up to 4 feet deep, and sediment in storm drains can have PCBs concentrations between 0.24 ppm and 50 ppm. If an applicable structure does not require notification and advance approval from U.S. EPA for disposal, soil and storm drain sediments may not be tested for PCBs.

Contaminated soils and sediment in the storm drains may not be removed and properly disposed during the demolition of the applicable structure. As such, they will continue to be sources of PCBs to the MS4. For this Permit term, the requirement to demonstrate proper disposal of PCB-containing wastes is a proxy to demonstrate that the entire demolition project, including surrounding soils, is managed properly. However, the Permittees are encouraged to take additional steps as needed to prevent PCBscontaining soils from demolition sites from entering the MS4.may want to consider a special project designed to characterize, at demolition projects, the concentration of PCBs in soils near the applicable structures and in the sediment in the storm drains.

Klosterhaus et al.(2014)290 estimated that 10,500 kg of PCBs remain in interior and exterior caulk in buildings located in the permit area, which equates to an average of 4.7 kg PCBs per building with PCBs. The 2013 Integrated Monitoring Report (IMR)298 presents estimates of the mass of PCBs per building (constructed or renovated prior to 1979) ranging from 0.6-16 kg and contribution to stormwater ranging from 0.8 to 4000 grams/year. PCBs from building materials is one of the largest known sources of PCBs and it is distributed throughout the region. For a building containing the average amount of 4.7 kg of PCBs and control measures of medium effectiveness, there may be 280 grams of PCBs released to stormwater during demolition, assuming control measures are only moderately effective. If only control measures of low effectiveness were in place, such a building would release 560 grams PCBs during demolition.298 298 Integrated Monitoring Report Part B: PCB and Mercury Loads Avoided and Reduced via Stormwater (IMR). Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. 2013.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 290
The PCBs load reductions expected through this control measure will be the same as those estimated for MRP2 because the same control measures are in place, and the method for calculating the load reductions remains the same. In other words, no additional load reductions are expected. The PCBs load reductions resulting from implementing control measures to prevent discharge to storm drains of PCBs in building materials during demolition can be computed as: the mass of PCBs contained in applicable buildings multiplied by the fraction of PCBs entering stormwater conveyances in the absence of controls multiplied by the effectiveness of controls preventing PCBs from entering stormwater conveyances. Each term in this calculation can be represented by a range of values, and information is limited on some of these terms (particularly the fraction of PCBs entering storm drains). However, reasonable values, derived from information available from Klosterhaus,290 are:
 Mass of PCBs per building = 5 kg
 Number of regulated buildings demolished/year = 50
 Average fraction of PCBs in building material that enters MS4s during demolition without controls = 1 percent
 Average effectiveness of controls at preventing PCBs from entering storm drains = 80 percent
Multiplying these parameters suggests that about 2 kg/yr of PCBs loads can be reduced by effectively controlling PCBs-containing material during demolition. The actual number of demolitions will vary, but 2 kg represents a reasonable estimate for the load reduction in the Bay Area during a typical year and is the basis for establishing the yearly estimated load reduction for controlling the release of PCBs to storm drains from such demolitions.

As previously discussed, using monitoring data or even modeling to estimate the load reduction resulting from controlling the PCBs-containing demolition debris would be a complex and expensive undertaking. Despite these efforts, the monitoring data would still yield a load reduction estimate with considerable uncertainty. The Water Board has reviewed and approved the method to estimate the PCBs load reduction using information from the Klosterhaus technical paper. The calculation methodology is logically consistent and technically sound.

The Previous Permit allowed Permittees to seek exemption from implementing Provision C.12.f – Manage PCB-Containing Materials and Wastes During Building Demolition Activities So That PCBs Do Not Enter Municipal Storm Drains (Provision C.12.f). For this exemption, Permittees were required to provide documentation acceptable to the Executive Officer in their 2017 Annual Reports that the only structures that existed pre-1980 within their jurisdiction are single-family residential and/or woodframe structures. Only the Town of Clayton requested and received exemption form Provision C.12.f. This Permit extends the deadline for requesting and receiving this Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 291
exemption to the 2023 Annual Report, because there are a few Permittees who were unable to gather the needed documentation by the exemption deadline. The Water Board does not anticipate another extension of this exemption deadline.

Provision C.12.h requires Permittees to update (as needed) the plans and schedules prepared during MRP2 for PCBs control measure implementation and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis to quantitatively demonstrate that sufficient control measures will be implemented to attain the PCBs TMDL wasteload allocations. The updates should focus on those control measures for which new information is available and for control measures not evaluated in previous efforts. The Permit requires that these plans must: identify all technically and economically feasible PCBs control measures (including green infrastructure projects) to be implemented; include a schedule according to which these technically and economically feasible control measures will be fully implemented; and provide an evaluation and quantification of the PCBs load reduction of such measures as well as an evaluation of costs, control measure efficiency, and significant environmental impacts resulting from their implementation.

Provision C.12.h also requires Permittees to submit information to inform PCBs-related requirements in the subsequent permit term. Namely, Permittees must identify all specific control measures to be implemented along with the expected intensity (e.g., acres treated, acres investigated for source areas, types of roadway projects for which protocols applied, etc.) of control measure implementation, and the estimated load reduction benefit from control measures implemented during the subsequent permit term.

The PCBs TMDL anticipated the challenge of achieving the urban runoff load reductions required to meet the TMDL allocations within the twenty-year implementation time frame. The TMDL implementation plan states that

4. “... achievement of the allocations for stormwater runoff, which is projected to take 20 years, will be challenging.

Consequently, the Water Board will consider modifying the schedule for achievement of the load allocations for
stormwater runoff provided that dischargers have complied with all applicable permit requirements and accomplished all of the following:
 A diligent effort has been made to quantify PCBs loads and the sources of PCBs in the discharge;
 Documentation has been prepared that demonstrates
that all technically and economically feasible and costeffective control measures recognized by the Water Board have been fully implemented, and evaluates and
quantifies the PCBs load reduction of such measures;
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 292
 A demonstration has been made that achievement of the allocation will require more than the remaining 10 years originally envisioned; and
 A plan has been prepared that includes a schedule for evaluating the effectiveness and feasibility of additional control measures and implementing additional controls
as appropriate.”
Provision C.12.h provides the opportunity for Permittees to describe the full suite of actions that will be required to achieve the TMDL along with realistic timelines for this achievement. The load reductions for PCBs are difficult and time-consuming to achieve because of the distribution of sources in the landscape; challenges associated with finding and reducing these existing sources; and unpredictability related to demolition of PCBs containing structures. The RAAs submitted during MRP 2 emphasize that expected PCB load reductions will come from long-term implementation of control strategies (like source control, cleanup of contaminated sites, green infrastructure, and others) that extend beyond the current implementation timeframe of the TMDL. The updates to the long-term plans and schedules required by this provision could potentially support an amendment to the TMDL implementation timeframe.

Provision C.12.i. There are still uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and nature of PCBs reaching the Bay in urban runoff and the ultimate fate of such PCBs, including biological uptake. Provision C.12.g requires that Permittees ensure that fate and transport studies of PCBs in urban runoff are completed. The specific information needs include understanding the in-Bay transport of PCBs discharged in urban runoff, the sediment and food web PCBs concentrations in margin areas receiving urban runoff, the influence of urban runoff on the patterns of food web PCBs accumulation, especially in Bay margins, and the identification of drainages where urban runoff PCBs are particularly important in food web accumulation.

Provision C.12.j requires actions to mitigate human health risk due to mercury and PCBs. These may include efforts to communicate the health risks of eating Bay fish to be aimed at high risk-communities such as subsistence fishers and their families. The risk reduction framework developed in a previous permit term, which funded communitybased organizations to develop and deliver appropriate communications to appropriately targeted individuals and communities, is an appropriate approach.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 293
C.13. Copper Controls
Chronic and acute site-specific objectives (SSOs) for dissolved copper have been established in all segments of San Francisco Bay. The plan to implement the SSOs and ensure the achievement and ongoing maintenance of the SSOs in the entire Bay includes three types of actions for urban runoff management agencies. These actions are implemented through this Permit as provisions to control urban runoff sources of copper.

The control measures for urban runoff target significant sources of copper identified in a report produced in 2004 for the Clean Estuary Partnership.299 This report updated information on sources of copper in urban runoff, loading estimates and associated level of uncertainty, and summarized feasible control measures and priorities for further investigation. Accordingly, the Permit provisions target major sources of copper including architectural copper, copper pesticides, and industrial copper use.

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.13.

C.13-1 Urban runoff is a conveyance mechanism by which copper reaches San Francisco Bay.

C.13-2 Copper has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of copper water quality standards in San Francisco Bay.

C.13-3 SSOs for dissolved copper have been adopted for all segments of San Francisco Bay.

C.13-4 The Permit requirements to control copper to the MEP are necessary to implement and support ongoing achievement of the SSOs.

C.13-5 One of the major sources of copper to urban runoff has been addressed through passage of Senate Bill 346 in 2010, which requires brake pad manufacturers to reduce the use of copper in brake pads sold in California to no more than 5 percent by weight by 2021, and no more than 0.5 percent by 2025. The law also provides an objective process to ensure that any new brake materials meet all applicable safety and performance standards. To make sure that new materials will not cause future environmental problems, the law requires brake manufacturers to screen potential alternatives for their impacts on human health and the environment using the Toxic Information Clearinghouse, and to select less hazardous options.

C.13-6 A scientific uncertainty regarding sediment toxicity was identified during the development of SSOs for copper. Bay sediment copper concentrations are somewhat elevated above the natural background (from native soils). Local 299 TDC (TDC Environmental), 2004. Copper Sources in Urban Runoff and Shoreline Activities. Prepared for the Clean Estuary Partnership.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 294
soils contain 30- 35 ppm (DW, dry weight) based on deep (> 2 meter) sediment core results for SF Bay. The copper ERL (effects range low) is 34 ppm (DW) and the ERM (effect range median) is 240 ppm (DW). Thus, the natural concentration of local soils is very close to the ERL. There has never been an exceedance of the ERM in the 975 samples collected and analyzed through RMP data. The maximum copper sediment concentration ever recorded in RMP samples (94 ppm DW) is well below the LC50 (concentration that kills 50 percent of test organisms) of the amphipod Eohaustorius estaurius (534 ppm) or the amphipod crustacean Hyalella azteca (260 ppm). Surface sediment copper concentrations have trended lower over the last 25 years according to monitoring in the Bay. The median surface concentration of copper was 40 ppm (DW) during the period 1993-2004 and dropped to 36 ppm in 2009-2018 (data from SFEI’s Contaminant Data Download and Display system, https://cd3.sfei.org/). This reduced concentration occurred despite significant population increases in the Bay Area and increased sampling in the shallower parts of the Bay (where copper concentrations would be expected to be higher due to human activities and urban sources) during the latter period because of a re-design of RMP sampling strategies. There was some evidence of possible copper-related toxicity in the late 1990s, but there has not been additional evidence of this phenomenon. Possible sediment toxicity occurred in the northern portions of San Francisco Bay (Suisun Bay and San Pablo Bay) where sediment copper concentrations are higher. However, the decrease in median sediment copper concentrations in the northern estuary from the time period 1993-2004 (52 ppm DW) to 2009-2018 (43 ppm DW) has been even more pronounced than the reduction for the Bay as a whole. Because there has not been additional evidence of copper sediment toxicity and copper concentrations in surface sediments appear to be decreasing over time, Permit requirements to further investigate copper sediment toxicity in San Francisco Bay were satisfied by information collected under MRP 1.0 and are no longer needed. If more evidence of such toxicity does appear, this requirement may be reinstated.

C.13-7 Scientific uncertainty regarding the olfactory impairment of salmonids was identified during development of SSOs for copper. Exposure to dissolved copper has been shown to cause olfactory impairment at relatively low concentrations in freshwater fish, resulting in an impaired avoidance response to predators. When the SSOs were established, studies were planned to address whether or not this phenomenon occurred in estuarine water. The studies300 were supported in part through requirements under MRP 1 and were conducted by David Baldwin of NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 300 David Baldwin, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2015. Impact of dissolved copper on the olfactory system of juvenile salmon, Phase II: Effect of estuarine salinity on olfactory toxicity.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 295
Dr. Baldwin measured the firing of neurons in response to exposure to odorant chemicals. The studies indicate that salmon in saline or moderately saline water are much less sensitive than salmon in freshwater, and that the potential effect of copper on salmon olfaction is not a concern in the Bay.

Specific Provision C.13. Requirements
Provision C.13.a. Copper is used as an architectural feature in roofs, gutters and downspouts. When these roofs are cleaned with aggressive cleaning solutions, substantial amounts of copper can be liberated. Provision C.13.a for architectural copper involves a variety of strategies ranging from BMPs to prohibition against discharge of these cleaning wastes to the storm drain.

Provision C.13.b. Copper is commonly used as an algaecide in pools, spas, and fountains. Provision C.13.b prohibits discharge to the storm drain of copper-containing wastewater from such amenities.

Provision C.13.c. Some industrial facilities likely use copper or have sources of copper (e.g., plating facilities, metal finishers, and auto dismantlers). This control measure requires municipalities to include these facilities in their inspection program plans.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 296
C.14. Bacteria Controls
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.14
C.14-1 This Permit Provision implements the urban runoff requirements of TMDLs that contain wasteload allocations for MS4 discharges of bacteria. Each subprovision references applicable TMDL approval and effective dates. A separate subprovision (C.14.a) requires actions Permittees must take when MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable bacteria water quality objectives in a receiving water for which a TMDL has not been established.

Specific Provision C.14 Requirements
C.14.a. Enhanced Bacteria Control
The provision applies to the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View (referred to as the Cities in C.14.a), which may be causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable bacteria water quality objectives in a receiving water (hereafter referred to as waters with elevated bacteria densities). The provision calls for strategic and enhanced implementation of BMPs that are required in other provisions of this Permit; thus, the authorities for Provision C.14.a. are stated in the fact sheet for Provisions C.2, C.4, C.7, C.10, and C.15. This Provision also requires the Cities to conduct additional water quality monitoring to identify sources of bacteria to the receiving water and to determine whether the applicable bacteria objectives have been achieved after implementation of BMPs. The monitoring and reporting requirements of Provision C.14.a. are authorized under Clean Water Act § 308, 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(d)(2), 122.41(h), (j) and (l), 122.42(c), 122.44(i) and 122.48, and Water Code § 13383.

The pollution control and reporting requirements of this provision are consistent with the phased implementation strategies of the bacteria TMDLs adopted in the San Francisco Bay Region. This Provision requires implementation of the source control actions required in phase one of adopted TMDLs. The Cities are expected to meet Receiving Water Limitations B.2 for applicable bacteria water quality objectives by the June 30, 2027. If receiving water limitations are not met, despite a diligent effort to quantify levels and the sources of bacteria in MS4 discharges and documentation of completion of controls required by C.14.a.i-vii, then the Cities must submit a plan for additional actions to attain the receiving water limitations as soon as possible.

This Provision applies to the City of Mountain View for discharges to Stevens Creek and the City of Sunnyvale for discharges to Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Sunnyvale East Channel/Guadalupe Slough. Data collected by San Francisco Baykeeper indicated that discharges from these cities’ MS4s may have caused or contributed to exceedances of the bacteria water quality objectives, and both Mountain View and Sunnyvale have submitted to the Water Board notification and a report of proposed actions as set forth in Provision C.1. The enhanced bacteria controls required Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 297
by this Provision are based on controls proposed by the Cities and phase one bacteria controls required of municipalities with bacteria wasteload allocations in adopted TMDLs. They are also consistent with management strategies for bacteria in stormwater described in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

Other Permittees that find their MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable bacteria water quality objectives in a receiving water, in accordance with Provision C.1.a. of this Permit, must notify the Water Board and submit a report that describes controls or BMPs currently being implemented and the current level of implementation, and proposes additional controls or BMPs and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce exceedances of bacteria water quality objectives. If such controls and BMPs are consistent with Provision C.1.a requirements, the Water Board will consider amending this Permit to require implementation of the controls and BMPs.

Path to Compliance with Bacteria Receiving Water Limitations Provision C.14.a provides a directed path, with enforceable requirements, that allow the Cities appropriate time to come into compliance with receiving water limitations without being in violation of bacteria receiving water limitations during full implementation of the directed path to compliance. This directed path to compliance is consistent and conforms with State Board Orders WQ 2015-0075, as amended by Order WQ 2021- 0052-EXEC, and WQ 2020-0038.

WQ 2015-0075, as amended, directs regional water boards to consider and allow a path to compliance with receiving water limitations guided by a set of principles unless a regional water board makes a specific showing that application of a given principle is not appropriate for region-specific or permit-specific reasons. The path to compliance directed by Provision C.14.a meets each of the applicable principles (see further detail below).

In WQ 2020-0038, the State Water reiterated WQ 2015-0075’s standards for rigor, transparency, and accountability for alternate compliance, and further emphasized that regional water boards must ensure any approved alternative compliance plans regional water boards using alternative compliance approaches to ensure plans approved clearly explain their development process and identify enforceable milestones. However, the State Water Board recognized WQ 2020-0038 is not intended to curtail the flexibility of the regional water boards to adopt alternative compliance approaches that best fit their particular regions or to restrain the evolution of the regional water boards’ approaches to alternative compliance. The path to compliance directed by Provision C.14.a is based on rigorous and transparent consideration of the state of science and understanding of sources of fecal indicator bacteria and options to control them and includes enforceable requirements. However, rather than approval of compliance plans submitted by the Cities, Provision C.14.a directly specifies actions that must be implemented by the Cities that are consistent with bacteria TMDLs requirements in the region and informed Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 298
by the Water Board’s knowledge and expertise regulating bacteria and the plans submitted by the Cities. These required actions are clear, transparent, and directly enforceable rather than reliance on a plan.

The path to compliance directed by Provision C.14.a is based on the following points that describe state of science and understanding of sources of fecal indicator bacteria and options to control them.
 Fecal indicator bacteria, E. coli and enterococci, are bacteria that are normally prevalent in the intestines and feces of warm-blooded animals.  Levels of bacteria are measured as number of colony forming units (cfu) of bacteria in a 100 mL of sample. Maximum level (statistical threshold value) water quality objectives are 320 cfu/mL for E. coli and 100 cfu/100 mL for enterococci. Levels in the parts of the Cities’ receiving waters have periodically been as high as about 4,000 cfu/mL during dry weather and 17,000 cfu/100mL, but they are substantially lower—about a billion times less—than levels of these bacteria in raw sewage (trillions of cfu/100mL). Accordingly, the levels in receiving waters are likely not associated with discrete ongoing discharges of untreated raw sewage.  Bacteria sources and discharges in municipal stormwater runoff and dry weather discharges are episodic, not constant, except where there is an illicit connection from a sanitary sewer or other ongoing discharge of sewage.  It is not possible to model sources and loading of bacteria in MS4s using watershed pollutant loading models due to the episodic and variable nature of bacteria sources.

Some quantitative analysis of loading may be possible through monitoring; however, since bacteria discharge volumes are highly variable both spatially and temporally and difficult to measure, the analysis would inevitably involve a great deal of uncertainty and be unreliable for purposes of quantifying loads from drainage areas.

However, mapping of potential sources areas and targeting of control efforts can be tracked and analyzed using geographic information systems.  Controllable sources to the Cities’ MS4s or surface waters located within the Cities’ boundaries include the following:
 Direct sources of human fecal matter (e.g., homeless encampments, recreational vehicle discharges, illegal dumping of human waste/diapers);  Sanitary sewer sources of human fecal matter (e.g., sanitary sewer overflows, exfiltration, illicit connections);
 Pet waste (e.g., dogs, domestic and feral cats, backyard chickens, livestock);  Trash receptacle leachate. Trash bins may also contain discarded pet waste or diapers; and
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 299
 Wildlife waste (e.g., birds, rodents, deer, raccoons, coyotes) if associated with human activities, such as littering and exposed trash receptacles, which can attract wildlife by creating scavenging areas. Some wildlife waste may be moderately controllable; however, most is uncontrollable.  Uncontrollable sources to the Cities’ MS4s or surface waters located within the Cities’ boundaries include:
 Wildlife waste (e.g., birds, rodents, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, skunks, opossums, coyotes, wild turkey, bobcats, mountain lions) from wildlife in open space, creek corridors, and in creeks and stormwater conveyance systems.

Given these are predominantly natural corridors, elimination of natural wildlife from creeks would not be desirable; and
 Bacteria naturally present in the environment, such as biofilms, organic matter, soils, and sediments in the watershed, and creeks.
 Effective control of bacteria sources and discharges requires a comprehensive surveillance and source identification and control program in drainages to creeks experiencing elevated bacteria.
 Existing efforts may or may not be sufficient. After initial source identification and control of the most likely or possible sources that contribute to segments of creeks experiencing elevated bacteria, there must be ongoing surveillance and discharge response and control actions, including outreach and enforcement, to maintain existing controls, and if necessary to identify additional sources and enhanced or additional controls.
 Treatment of runoff to reduce fecal indicator bacteria levels below water quality objectives is not feasible. While some treatment systems that provide biofiltration and bioretention and/or capture runoff will reduce levels of bacteria in runoff discharges, reduction to levels below water quality objectives requires disinfection, as in municipal wastewater treatment systems. Disinfection of stormwater runoff is not feasible with episodic and variable runoff discharges, and if chlorine were to be used for disinfection, due to its high toxicity, a system would also have to include dichlorination, which is also not feasible for episodic and variable runoff discharges.

Strategic routing of contaminated runoff to the sanitary system may have some viability.
 Basin Plan Section 4-8 - Stormwater Discharges provides a phased approach towards attainment of water quality objectives in MS4 receiving waters, wherein if a first phase of actions does not result in attainment of water quality objectives, the Water Board will consider subsequent permit conditions that require implementation of additional control measures. In such circumstances, the Water Board may consider dischargers' proposed schedules for identification and implementation of additional control measures designed to attain water quality objectives. Such Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 300
schedules shall be as short as practicable and will only be considered for inclusion in permits when a discharger has demonstrated the following:
(a) A diligent effort to quantify pollutant levels and the sources of the pollutant in stormwater discharges; and
(b) Documentation of completion of implementation of all technically and economically reasonable control measures.
 The Water Board has adopted numerous TMDLs for bacteria and pathogens for select impaired waters. The TMDLs and wasteload allocations are based on rigorous analyses of the problems associated with these pollutants and the solutions to address them. Their implementation plans to achieve the MS4 wasteload allocations rely on source identification and control for MS4 discharges and a phased approach toward achieving water quality objectives, namely implementing source-specific controls and monitoring to find sources and determine effectiveness of controls.

Where wasteload allocations are not met after the first phase of actions, additional and enhanced actions and monitoring are required.

Based on these points, the Order provides time for the Cities to comprehensively evaluate their existing bacteria control actions, systematically conduct surveillance and monitoring to identify sources, implement existing or appropriate new or enhanced controls where necessary, and monitor effectiveness of those controls to comply with bacteria receiving water limitations by the end of the permit term. The source identification and source control requirements are practical and robust and represent a logical first phase that could or should result in elimination of bacteria sources that result in MS4 discharges that cause or may cause or contribute to exceedances of bacteria water quality objectives in receiving waters. Given the completeness and thoroughness of what is required to find and control bacteria sources, the Water Board expects compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations by the end of the Permit term.

However, due to impossibilities or limitations of modeling or conducting quantitative analysis for bacteria MS4 discharges and known and unknown uncertainties associated with identifying and controlling possible sources, it is impossible to assert with certainty at the onset of the Permit term that source identification and control actions will result in compliance by the end of the Permit term. For this reason, the expectation to comply with receiving water limitations by June 30, 2027, is not expressed in the Permit as an enforceable final deadline.

Given the challenges and uncertainties with bacteria source identification and control actions, there is the possibility that phase one actions will not result in compliance by the end of the permit term. As such, the Order calls for a mid-term report to document progress and communicate adaptation of efforts based on initial successes and challenges, and an end of Permit term report to either document compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations or if necessary, a plan and schedule of new or enhanced controls to attain compliance as soon as possible in the next permit term.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 301
Phase two actions, if necessary, will depend on the actions taken during the permit term (phase one), and, therefore, cannot yet be specified. This adaptive phased implementation approach is consistent with bacteria TMDL wasteload allocation implementation requirements for municipal stormwater dischargers adopted by the Regional Water Board and approved by the State Water Board and is the most effective way to achieve compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations in a timely manner.

The path to compliance directed by Provision C.14.a meets each of the applicable principles in State Water Board WQ Order 2015-0075, as amended by Order 2021- 0052-EXEC.
 In accordance with principle 1, this Order continues to use the receiving water limitations provisions as directed by State Water Board Order WQ 99-05 and does not deem good faith engagement in the iterative process to constitute compliance with receiving water limitations. Rather, it includes prescriptive requirements (Provision C.14.a) with deliverables and deadlines for the Cities to implement actions and controls to comply with receiving water limitations for bacteria, which are based on best available science and knowledge of bacteria sources and controls.  Principle 2, that permits should include a provision stating that, for water bodypollutant combinations with a TMDL, full compliance with the requirements of the TMDL constitutes compliance with the receiving water limitations for that water bodypollutant combination, is not applicable. There is not a bacteria TMDL for any of the Cities’ receiving waters; however, the requirements in Provision C.14.a are based on the requirements of adopted and approved bacteria TMDLs for other waterbodies.

The requirements reflect the Water Board’s determination in these TMDLs of the most effective way to resolve bacteria impairments in the region.  In accordance with principle 3, this Order incorporates an ambitious, rigorous, and transparent alternative compliance path that allows the Cities appropriate time to come into compliance with receiving water limitations without being in violation of the receiving water limitations during full implementation of the compliance alternative. It includes requirements to implement a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance program and source control actions to identify all controllable sources of bacteria and to control them in a timely manner. The requirements necessarily involve planning and studying because it is unknown where the bacteria sources are.301 As discussed previously, due to impossibilities or limitations of modeling or conducting quantitative analysis for bacteria MS4 discharges, at the onset of the Permit term, it 301 The State Water Board has held that the “safe harbor” in the planning phase is appropriate if it is clearly constrained in a manner that sustains incentives to move on from planning to approval of plans in the case of the Los Angeles Regional Water Board’s MS4 permit and is structured with clear, enforceable provisions. (WQ Order 2021-0052-EXEC, p. 62.) The evaluations that must be done here are clear and have enforceable deadlines. (See, e.g., Provision C.14.a.viii(2).) In addition, the requirements have builtin source control actions informed by the evaluations, such that progress can be made and compliance achieved.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 302
is impossible to assert with certainty that specific water quality improvement milestones can be achieved during the Permit term. Furthermore, given the challenges and uncertainties with bacteria source identification and control actions, there is the possibility that phase one actions will not result in compliance by the end of the Permit term. The Order calls for a mid-Permit term report to adapt efforts based on initial successes and challenges, and an end of Permit report to either document compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations or if necessary, a plan and schedule of new or enhanced controls to attain compliance as soon as possible in the next permit term. The State Water Board supports this kind of adaptive management where compliance is not achieved. (WQ Order 2021-0052-EXEC, p. 65-66.)
 In accordance with principle 4, this Order calls for a watershed-based approach to identify and control likely or potential sources of bacteria in storm drain drainage areas that discharge to receiving waters. This Order partly conforms to the part of principle 4 to address multiple contaminants to the extent that source controls for other contaminants or pollutants, such as trash, may also control bacteria. The Provision C.14.a compliance path does not incorporate TMDL requirements as called for in principle 4, because there is not a bacteria TMDL for the affected receiving waters. However, the requirements are consistent with implementation requirements for other bacteria TMDLs.
 Partially in accordance with principle 5 and principal 6, this Order calls for use of green infrastructure and the adoption of low impact development principles and encourage multi-benefit regional projects that capture, infiltrate, and reuse stormwater and support a local sustainable water supply. The Provision C.3 New and Redevelopment requirements call for use of green infrastructure and low impact development principles, including multi-benefit regional projects that capture, infiltrate, and reuse stormwater, on projects and plans for implementing green infrastructure over time with a mandatory minimum during the permit term. These actions will result in some bacteria reduction. However, there are no current available and viable treatment controls, including green infrastructure, that can reduce concentrations of fecal bacteria to low levels consistent with applicable water quality objectives.
 Consistent with principle 7, the Provision C.14.a compliance path has rigor and accountability. The compliance path provided by this provision is based on the rigorous analyses done for other bacteria TMDLs and thus reflect the most effective way to address bacteria in MS4 discharges. The requirements also reflect rigor, accountability, and transparency in that the Cities are required to conduct a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance program based on watershed and drainage area characteristics to systematically identify bacteria sources and implement and assess control actions in a timely manner, and subsequently conduct further monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of controls. This includes geographic Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 303
information analysis of potential sources and existing bacteria control action locations to optimize additional controls, which analysis is a form of quantitative analysis for bacteria (modeling and quantitative analyses of bacteria loading is infeasible or unreliable, as explained above). The Order calls for annual reporting on completed and planned actions and monitoring results, a mid-Permit term report to adapt efforts based on initial successes and challenges, and an end of Permit term report to either document compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations or if necessary, a plan and schedule of new or enhanced controls to attain compliance as soon as possible in the next permit term. Again, as discussed previously, due to impossibilities or limitations of modeling or conducting quantitative analysis for bacteria MS4 discharges, at the onset of the Permit term, it is impossible to assert with certainty that specific water quality improvement milestones can be achieved during the Permit term. Provision C.14.a.I. requires the Cities to evaluate the potential for municipal operations to generate bacteria that can be discharged in runoff and, where needed, to enhance existing BMPs to minimize the transport of bacteria. In this subprovision, “municipal operations” refers to street, sidewalk, and plaza cleaning; maintenance of parks and open spaces; and cleaning of catch basins, pump stations, and other storm sewer system components. Examples of enhanced maintenance activities that help to reduce bacteria loading include (Geosyntec Consultants 2012):
 Street Cleaning. Street Cleaning Measurements of fecal coliform bacteria on sediment collected during street cleaning have ranged up to 108 colonies per pound of sediment (Bannerman 1993, Snyder 2012). Street and parking lot cleaning reduces sediment, trash, and other pollutant loading to urban storm drains. High efficiency street sweepers, such as regenerative air sweepers and vacuum assisted sweepers, remove more sediment from roadways, and capture the fine particles with which bacteria are typically associated (UWRRC 2014).
 Storm Sewer Cleaning: Cleaning by jet spraying and vacuuming of wash water removes accumulated trash, sediment, organic matter and animal waste, thereby reducing both fecal indicator bacteria and other pollutants. Features and locations to be cleaned can be prioritized based on proximity to receiving waters, magnitude of threat, and similar considerations.
 Catch Basin Cleaning: The dark, humid environment and presence of wildlife (e.g., raccoons and rats in storm drain catch basins) provide conditions favorable to the persistence of bacteria in storm drain systems. A San Diego study found that commercial catch basins had significantly higher bacteria than residential catch basins (Weston Solutions 2010b); thus, prioritizing catch basin cleaning in commercial areas is expected to yield more significant bacteria reductions.

Provision C.14.a.ii. requires the Cities to enhance industrial and commercial site stormwater inspections such that illicit discharges and other bacteria sources are identified and controlled. Bacteria sources at these sites may include connection of Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 304
sanitary sewer lines to the stormwater system (indicated by evidence of dry weather flows); leaking or poorly maintained porta-potties; outdoor washing of floor mats; and overflowing garbage and recycle bins.

Provision C.14.a.iii. requires the Cities to evaluate the potential for bacteria transport to surface waters from areas inhabited by unsheltered homeless persons, and to implement BMPs to minimize such transport. This Provision is intended to require Permittees to implement or enhance BMPs described in the Fact Sheet and Permit for Provision C.17 in areas with unsheltered homeless populations that discharge to water bodies with elevated bacteria densities.

Provision C.14.a.iv. requires the Cities to evaluate the potential for bacteria transport from areas where domestic animals are present to surface waters with elevated bacteria densities. The waste from dogs, cats, horses, and other domestic animals can contain bacteria and parasites like E. coli, Salmonella, Giardia, and tape worms, which can infect and cause illness in humans, as well as wildlife and domestic animals. Pet waste left on the ground either passes through storm sewers untreated or washes directly into water bodies. Appropriate BMPs include inspections of pet and horse boarding facilities and installation and maintenance of pet waste stations.

Provision C.14.a.v. requires the Cities to enhance public outreach where it is likely to improve human behavior regarding bacteria pollution prevention practices. Such practices include cleaning up pet waste and litter, eliminating outdoor restaurant floor mat washdown, using proper BMPs for sidewalk cleaning, covering trash areas, and maintaining porta-potties properly.

Pet waste is a significant contributor to bacteria in runoff; in a study of the Patapsco River in Maryland, for instance, pet waste was estimated to contribute approximately 26% of bacteria pollution.302 The degree of behavior change resulting from pet waste outreach campaigns has been measured in association with bacteria TMDLs in southern California and other places. A report on the Dog Waste Management Plan for Dog Beach and Ocean Beach found that public compliance with the “scoop the poop” policy was highly dependent on awareness of the policy and availability of waste disposal bags and trash cans (Weston 2004). In Bellingham, Washington, public outreach over two years increased respondents’ awareness of bacteria impacts from dog waste and was correlated with a 6% increase in the number of respondents who cleaned up their dogs’ waste at home.303 Scoop the poop pledges can be successful; for instance, in Kirkland, Washington, a follow up survey of several hundred people who signed a pledge to scoop their pet waste indicated that 94% of them scooped their pets’ 302 Maryland Dept. of the Environment, Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the Patapsco River Lower North Branch Basin in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, and Howard Counties, and Baltimore City, Maryland (Aug. 2009) Fig. C-2, p. C14.
303 Squalicum Residential Dog Waste Post-Program Survey Findings (2015) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 305
poop all the time.304 The City of Austin, Texas, conducted public surveys and found their educational campaign resulted in a 9% improvement in the number of pet owners who claim to regularly pick up waste (UWRRC 2014), and its twenty-year-old program of deploying poop bag dispensers and trash cans throughout the city has reduced bacteria levels in receiving waters. (Austin Statesman 2019305).Studies in San Diego have shown that installation of pet waste stations with trash cans and disposal bags has resulted in a 37% reduction in the total amount of pet waste in city parks (UWRRC 2014).

Where controllable wildfowl may be contributing to elevated bacteria densities in water bodies, control strategies have been developed by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (Cleary 1994, Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management 2015) and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture APHIS (Preusser 2008), and some of these strategies are appropriate for waterfowl in general. In Alaska, a lake was delisted for bacteria after the state implemented goose management practices, including egg harvesting, habitat alteration, and hunting, and a pet waste campaign that included outreach and installation of pet waste stations.306
Provision C.14.a.vi. requires the Cities to collaborate with entities responsible for maintenance and repair of the sanitary sewerage system to minimize the transport of sanitary sewer overflows to surface waters with elevated bacteria densities. Sewer line backups, overflows and leaks commonly occur during periods of wet weather, creating a potential source of bacteria on land surface that may be transported to surface water via urban runoff. The Cities should work with sanitary sewerage system entities to prioritize maintenance and repair in areas contributing to bacteria loads in surface waters with elevated bacteria densities; ensure rapid response to cleaning up overflows; and developing sewer lateral maintenance and replacement programs for consideration by the appropriate local authority.

Provision C.14.a.vii requires the Cities to evaluate the potential bacteria-reduction benefit of prioritizing trash control efforts in areas discharging to waters with elevated bacteria densities. This Provision is intended to require Permittees to implement or enhance BMPs described in the Fact Sheet and Permit for Provision C.10 in areas that discharge to surface waters with elevated bacteria.

Provision C.14.a.viii. requires the Cities to monitor their receiving waters, outfalls, and stormwater catchments to identify sources of bacteria, i.e., through microbial source testing, observations, and fecal indicator bacteria measurements, and to evaluate effectiveness of controls and determine whether the bacteria water quality objectives 304 City of Kirkland, Pet Waste Bacteria, Monitoring, Outreach and Education (2020), p. 11. Available at:
https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/2020-kcd-pet-waste-final-report.pdf) 305 https://www.statesman.com/news/20190813/scoop-poop-dog-waste-on-greenbelts-affecting-morethan-bottom-of-your-shoes 306 U.S. EPA, Reducing Animal Sources of Bacteria Restores Water Quality (2011).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 306
and/or bacteria receiving water limitations are achieved. For the latter, it may be possible to show that bacteria water quality objectives exceedances occur but MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to them. The regulatory authority and supporting information for monitoring are provided in the Fact Sheet for Provision C.8.

Identification of sources, evaluation of effectiveness of controls, and determination of compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations can be demonstrating through a monitor program designed to answer the following logical questions:
 What is the spatial and temporal extent of dry weather flows in the MS4?  Are indicators of human fecal material present in both dry and wet weather flows observed in the MS4?
 If so, in which stormwater catchments are sources most prominent?  Where are the likely locations of these sources in the catchments?  What measures can be implemented to control these sources?  Are water quality objectives being achieved during dry weather?  Are water quality objectives being achieved during wet weather? The required levels of implementation to answer these questions, e.g., location and number of sites, sampling events, frequencies, and methods are based on the monitoring program and information provided by the Cities in their Fecal Indicator Bacteria Monitoring and Source Identification Program (April 2022). The required monitoring provides an initial comprehensive and robust means to identify sources, evaluate effectiveness of controls, and determine compliance or progress towards compliance with bacteria receiving water limitations. Monitoring at the required numbers of monitoring sites, events, and frequencies may be sufficient to answer some of the questions for some areas in the Cities’ jurisdictions. It is likely that the monitoring will have to be adapted to respond to the results of the required surveillance and monitoring. For example, the results could show that the bacteria exceedances in the receiving waters have been resolved or are worse and more extensive than is currently understood. In either case, different monitoring will be needed to respond to the new information. Since it is not possible to prescribe new monitoring requirements until the results of the required monitoring are known, the Cities are required to include proposed monitoring in the Mid-Permit Interpretive Report to be conducted through the remainder of the Permit term to answer the questions in C.14.a.viii.(1). The proposed monitoring must be as comprehensive, systematic, and robust as what is currently required while being commensurate with the need to address and resolve bacteria exceedances in the receiving waters. The Water Board will subsequently amend the Permit to include approved second phase monitoring requirements.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 307
Provision C.14.a.ix. requires the Cities to conduct a comprehensive assessment of their bacteria source identification and control actions and determine whether discharges from their MS4s are causing or contributing to exceedances of bacteria water quality objectives in receiving waters after implementation of control measures required by C.14.a.i-vii. It is possible that implementation of these requirements in conjunction with C.14.a.viii monitoring requirements will result in compliance with bacteria receiving water limitation requirements, as discussed above in this Fact Sheet under Path to Compliance with Bacteria Receiving Water Limitations, but it is not possible to justify a date by which compliance must be achieved due to the modeling or quantitative analysis limitations discussed above and known and unknown uncertainties associated with identifying and controlling possible sources. Accordingly, C.14.a.xi sets an expectation to achieve compliance by the end of the permit term, June 30, 2022, but if compliance will not be achieved despite diligent efforts to identify and control sources and compliance with C.14.a.i-viii, those efforts, successes, and lessons learned should inform determination of additional or enhanced efforts and a schedule to implement additional or enhanced efforts to achieve receiving water limitations as soon as possible.

The required Mid-Permit Interpretive Report and Final Interpretive Report provide a means to demonstrate progress towards answering the monitoring program questions and achieving bacteria receiving water limitations, based on monitoring results and description of source identification and control efforts, to provide justification for monitoring program revisions, and to either provide documentation that bacteria receiving water limitations have been or will be achieved by the end of the Permit term, or if not, documentation and justification for new or enhanced efforts to achieve compliance in a timely manner and a proposed monitoring program to further inform and evaluate those efforts.

C.14.b. City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Bacteria Controls This Permit Provision implements the San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL adopted by the Water Board on November 14, 2012, and approved by the U.S. EPA on August 1, 2013, which is the effective date of the TMDL. The water quality attainment strategy included in this TMDL requires urban runoff management agencies to implement controls and take other actions to reduce bacteria loads in urban runoff.

The TMDL contains allocations for urban runoff, including urban runoff associated with MS4s and Caltrans facilities. The allocations are the same as the Numeric Targets and are expressed in terms of allowable exceedances of single-sample objectives.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 308
This provision is consistent with 2014 U.S. EPA Memo307 providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits. Specifically, this provision establishes clear actions to achieve bacteria reductions necessary to achieve receiving water limits. The timeline for achieving wasteload allocations for Pacifica State Beach is by August 1, 2021 (8 years from the TMDL effective date) and by August 1, 2028 for San Pedro Creek (15 years from the TMDL effective date).

Provision C.14.b.i requires the Pacifica and San Mateo Permittees to implement control measures and education and outreach activities to achieve bacteria load reductions, such as: prohibit potential illicit discharges to the storm drain from the sanitary sewer collection system; repair the fence along the Crespi Canal and clean up trash from the Canal; address bacteria discharges from horse facilities; maintain dog waste-clean-up signs, waste bag dispensers, and trash receptacles; implement a visual inspection and clean-up plan for high dog waste accumulation areas; and implement an enhanced public outreach and education campaign for managing pet waste. This provision is critical to the successful implementation of the urban runoff requirements for the TMDL. The accountability mechanism for control measure implementation consists of three parts: 1) the identification of control measures and associated watersheds or locations, 2) a commitment to an implementation schedule, and 3) the quantification of the benefit resulting from control measure implementation.

Provision C.14.b.ii requires the Pacifica and San Mateo Permittees to monitor water quality to assess attainment of wasteload allocations. To comply with this requirement, the Pacifica and San Mateo Permittees are required to monitor bacteria levels in San Pedro Creek and at Pacifica State Beach and report the results to the Water Board.

Further, they must provide an annual report of the quantitative analysis of trends in bacteria densities and exceedances of applicable water quality objectives. This provision is necessary to determine whether wasteload allocations are being attained, so additional or enhanced measures are implemented, if necessary.

Provision C.14.b.iii requires the Pacifica and San Mateo Permittees to conduct a water quality monitoring program to 1) better characterize bacteria sources and 2) evaluate the effectiveness of the bacteria control measures. The results of the monitoring shall be reported to the Water Board on an annual basis. The findings from these assessments will be used throughout this and future Permit terms to revise, refocus, and enhance bacteria control measures to make them as effective and efficient as possible. Future permits will be based on an updated assessment of bacteria sources and control measure effectiveness. This provision is necessary to allow the Pacifica and San Mateo Permittees to identify and implement effective BMPs in an efficient manner.

C.14.c. City of San Mateo Marina Lagoon Beaches Bacteria Controls 307 U.S. EPA. November 26, 2014. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs”
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 309
This Permit Provision implements the San Francisco Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL adopted by the Water Board April 13, 2016 and approved by the U.S. EPA on February 23, 2017. The State Office of Administrative Law approved the TMDL on December 13, 2016, which is the effective date of the TMDL. The implementation plan included in this TMDL requires urban runoff management agencies to implement controls and take other actions to reduce bacteria loads in urban runoff.

The TMDL contains allocations for urban runoff associated with MS4s in the City of San Mateo (City). The allocations are the same as the Numeric Targets and are expressed in terms of a geometric mean for Enterococcus. The Numeric Targets must be achieved in Parkside Aquatic and Lakeshore beaches on Marina Lagoon.

This provision is consistent with 2014 U.S. EPA Memo (see C.14.b) providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits. Specifically, this provision establishes clear actions to achieve bacteria reductions necessary to achieve receiving water limits. The TMDL requires the City to attain its wasteload allocation by taking a phased approach in which additional or enhanced actions are required if initial implementation actions do not result in attainment of the TMDL within five years.

Provision C.14.c.i. requires the City to implement control measures and education and outreach activities to achieve bacteria load reductions. The City is also required to report on the control measures on an annual basis. This provision is critical to the successful implementation of the urban runoff requirements for the TMDL. This provision requires the actions described above in this Fact Sheet for Provisions:
 C.14.a.1 and C.14.a.2, to control potential bacteria discharges from the sources as described above for these Provisions.
 C.14.a.4 and C.14.a.5, because pets and controllable wildlife were found to be significant sources to Parkside Aquatic and Lakeshore beaches.  C.14.a.6, because sanitary sewer overflows were found to be the greatest potential source of bacteria to Parkside Aquatic and Lakeshore beaches.  C.14.a.8, to monitor as describe in the Fact Sheet above.

Provision C.14.c.ii. requires the City to implement additional BMPs to reduce bacteria loads if the wasteload allocation is not met by December 13, 2021. The TMDL calls for a phased approach to achieving the wasteload allocation, wherein additional BMPs must be implemented if targets are not achieved after implementing Phase 1 actions within five years of the TMDL effective date. This provision calls for Phase 2 actions and is critical to the successful implementation of the urban runoff requirements for the TMDL.

Provision C.14.c.iii. requires the City to prepare a plan of additional actions to take if wasteload allocations are not met by December 13, 2026, six months before the end of the Permit Term. The plan shall include an assessment of bacteria sources with a schedule and description of additional control measures or increased levels of existing Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 310
control measures that will be implemented to attain bacteria water quality objectives.

Additional monitoring studies to identify sources, track, and/or quantify the risk of bacteria in the receiving water may be included in this effort.

C.14.d. City of Half Moon Bay and San Mateo County Bacteria Controls This Permit Provision implements the TMDL for Bacteria in Beaches in Pillar Point Harbor and Venice Beach adopted by the Water Board February 10, 2021. The implementation plan included in this TMDL requires urban runoff management agencies to implement controls and take other actions to reduce bacteria loads in urban runoff.

The TMDL contains wasteload allocations for urban runoff, including urban runoff associated with MS4s in the City of Half Moon Bay (City) and San Mateo County (County). The wasteload allocations are the same as the Numeric Targets and are expressed in terms of a geometric mean for Enterococcus. The Numeric Targets must be achieved in Venice Beach in the City and in the following beaches in Pillar Point Harbor (County): Inner Harbor Beach, Mavericks Beach, Pillar Point Marsh Beach, Yacht Club Beach, Capistrano Beach and Beach House Beach.

This provision is consistent with 2014 U.S. EPA Memo308 providing guidance on implementing TMDL WLAs in NPDES stormwater permits. Specifically, this provision establishes clear actions to achieve bacteria reductions necessary to achieve receiving water limits. The TMDL requires the City and County to attain wasteload allocations by taking a phased approach in which additional or enhanced actions are required if initial implementation actions do not result in attainment of the TMDL within five years.

Provision C.14.d.i. requires the City of Half Moon Bay (City) and County of San Mateo (County) to submit a written plan for and to implement control measures and education and outreach activities to achieve bacteria load reductions, including the elements described in the Fact Sheet above for Provisions C.14.a.1 through C.14.a.8. The City and County are required to report on the control measures on an annual basis. This provision is critical to the successful implementation of the urban runoff requirements for the TMDL.

Provision C.14.d.ii. requires the City and County to obtain and evaluate water quality monitoring data for bacteria at the beaches included in this TMDL, and to submit a report on the data annually. The monitoring and reporting requirements of Provision C.14 are authorized under Clean Water Act § 308, 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(d)(2), 122.41(h), (j) and (l), 122.42(c), 122.44(i) and 122.48, and Water Code § 13383.

Provision C.14.d.iii. requires the City and County to prepare a plan of additional actions to take if wasteload allocations are not met within five years of the TMDL effective date, as called for in the TMDL. The plan shall include an assessment of 308 U.S. EPA. November 26, 2014. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs”
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 311
bacteria sources; a summary of control actions taken; and a schedule and description of additional control measures or increased levels of existing control measures that will be implemented to attain bacteria water quality objectives. Additional monitoring studies to identify sources, track, and/or quantify the risk of bacteria in the receiving water may be included in this effort.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 312
C.15. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges
Legal Authority
Broad Legal Authority: CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC sections 13377 and 13263, 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i)(B, C, D, E, and F), and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv).

Specific Legal Authority: Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B) requires MS4 operators “to detect and remove (or require the discharger to the municipal separate storm sewer to obtain a separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the storm sewer.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1) provides that the Permittees shall prevent all types of illicit discharges into the MS4 except for certain nonstormwater discharges. Illicit discharge means “any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(2)).

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.15.

C.15-1 Prohibition A.1 effectively prohibits the discharge of non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewer system. However, certain types of non-stormwater discharges may be exempted from this prohibition if they are unpolluted and do not violate water quality standards. Other types of non-stormwater discharges may be conditionally exempted from Prohibition A.1 if the discharger employs appropriate control measures and BMPs prior to discharge, and monitors and reports on the discharge.

C.15-2 Removal of Conditional Exemption for Planned and Unplanned Discharges of the Potable Water System
MRP 1 contained requirements for planned and unplanned discharges from the potable water systems owned and/or operated by Permittees who are water purveyors. The discharges were conditionally exempted provided the Permittees complied with the BMP, monitoring, and reporting requirements in the Previous Permit. The requirements were necessary because potable water discharges contain chlorine and chloramines, two very toxic chemicals to aquatic life, and can cause erosion, scouring of stream and creek banks, and sedimentation. The conditional exemption and requirements were included as an interim measure until such time an NPDES permit regulating potable water discharges was adopted. The State Water Board adopted the statewide General NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States, Order WQ 2014-0194-DWQ (Potable Water General Permit) on Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 313
November 18, 2014.309 Therefore, the conditional exemption and requirements for planned and unplanned discharges from the Permittees’ potable water systems is no longer necessary. The Permittees should seek coverage under the Potable Water General Permit for their potable water system discharges.

NPDES-permitted discharges, such as those permitted by the Potable Water General Permit, are exempt from Discharge Prohibition A.1.

Specific Provision C.15. Requirements
Provision C.15.a. Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges. This section of the Permit identifies the types of non-stormwater discharges that are exempted from Discharge Prohibition A.1 if such discharges are unpolluted and do not violate water quality standards. If any exempted non-stormwater discharge is identified as a source of pollutants to receiving waters, the discharge shall be addressed as a conditionally exempted discharge and must meet the requirements of Provision C.15.b.

Provision C.15.b. Conditionally Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges. This section of the Permit identifies the types of non-stormwater discharges that are conditionally exempted from Discharge Prohibition A.1 if they are identified by Permittees or the Executive Officer as not being sources of pollutants to receiving waters. To eliminate adverse impacts from such discharges, project proponents shall implement appropriate pollutant control measures and BMPs, and where applicable, shall monitor and report on the discharges in accordance with the requirements specified in Provision C.15.b. The intent of Provision C.15.b’s requirements is to facilitate Permittees in regulating these non-stormwater discharges to the storm drains since the Permittees have ultimate responsibility for what flows in those storm drains to receiving waters. For all planned discharges, the nature and characteristic of the discharge must be verified prior to the discharge so that effective pollution control measures are implemented, if deemed necessary. Such preventative measures are cheaper by far than post-discharge cleanup efforts.
 Provision C.15.b.i.(1). Pumped Groundwater from Non-Drinking Water Aquifers. These aquifers tend to be shallower than drinking water aquifers and more subject to contamination. The wells must be purged prior to sample collection.

Since wells are purged regularly, this section of the Permit requires twice a year monitoring of these aquifers. Discharges of pumped groundwater from nondrinking water aquifers, which are owned and/or operated by Permittees who pump groundwater as drinking water, are conditionally exempted as long as the discharges meet the requirements in this section of the Permit. U.S. EPA Method 8260B and 8270C for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds have been replaced with U.S. UPA Method 624.1 and 625.1, respectively, to be consistent with 40 C.F.R.

Part 136 (p. 4).
309 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/general_permits.html Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 314
 Provision C.15.b.i.(2). Pumped Groundwater, Foundation Drains, and Water from Crawl Space Pumps and Footing Drains. This section of the Permit encourages these types of discharges to be directed to landscaped areas or bioretention units, when feasible. If the discharges cannot be directed to vegetated areas, it requires testing to determine if the discharge is uncontaminated.

Uncontaminated discharges shall be treated, if necessary, to meet specified discharge limits for turbidity and pH.

Updates have been made to the Provision C.15.b.i.(2)(b)(ii). U.S. EPA Method 8260B and 8270C for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds have been replaced with U.S. EPA Method 624.1 and 625.1, respectively, to be consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 136 (p. 4). Several of the reporting limits in the Provision C.15.b.i.(2)(b)(ii) Constituent Reporting Limit table have been updated or modified, to reflect the latest reissuance of the VOC and Fuel General Permit, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002 (Order No. R2-2017-0048, as amended by Order No. R2-2018- 0050), which covers discharges from groundwater treatment facilities that extract or treat groundwater polluted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fuel leaks, fuel additives, or other related wastes (e.g., semi-volatile organic compounds [SVOCs], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], and metals).
 Provision C.15.b.ii. Air Conditioning Condensate. Small air conditioning units are usually operated during the warm weather months. The condensate from these units is uncontaminated and unlikely to reach a storm drain or waters of the State because it tends to be low in volume and tends to evaporate or percolate readily.

Therefore, condensate from small air conditioning units should be discharged to landscaped areas or the ground. Commercial and industrial air conditioning units tend to produce year-round continuous flows of condensate. It may be difficult to direct a continuous flow to a landscaped area large enough to accommodate the volume. While the condensate tends to be uncontaminated, it picks up contaminants on its way to the storm drain and/or waters of the State and can contribute to unnecessary dry weather flows. Therefore, discharges from new commercial and industrial air conditioning units should be discharged to landscaped areas, if they can accommodate the continuous volume, or to the sanitary sewer, with the local sanitary sewer agency’s approval. If none of these options are feasible, air conditioning condensate can be directly discharged into the storm drain. If descaling or anti-algal agents are used to treat the air conditioning units, residues from these agents must be properly disposed of.
 Provision C.15.b.iii. Emergency Discharges of Firefighting Water and Foam.

According to 40 C.F.R §122.26, MS4 Permits may address discharges or flows from firefighting only where such discharges or flows are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States. Discharges from firefighting activities are excluded from the definition of illicit discharges, but may be regulated where they are Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 315
significant contributors to water pollution.310 This is consistent with U.S. EPA’s treatment of firefighting discharges to small MS4s.311 U.S. EPA envisions that significance is determined with reference to the category of discharges, not individual fires.312
At the same time, water quality impacts from individual fires illustrate the significance of the category of discharges. For instance, in April 2019, the discharge of firefighting foam through the storm drain to Codornices Creek in Berkeley caused a fish kill of at least 60 fish, including steelhead.313
Potable water is also used to fight fires. In the Bay Area, chloramines are typically used to control pathogens in potable water, and they are toxic to aquatic life.314 Discharges of chloraminated potable water to Bay Area receiving waters have caused fish kills.315 As a result, discharges of chloraminated potable water used for firefighting have the potential to impact aquatic life, including by causing fish kills.

The Water Board observes the following: fish kills from potable water discharges almost every year; small volumes of potable water discharges (between 4,000 and 10,000 gallons) kill fish; and many species of fish (steelhead, rainbow trout, threespine stickleback, Sacramento suckers, hitch, California roach, mosquitofish, green sunfish, bluegill, fathead minnows, sculpin, golden shiners) and crayfish have been killed by potable water discharges.

There are several recent examples of potable water discharges that resulted in fish kills (and fines) in the Bay Area, listed below. It is important to note that this list is inexhaustive. It includes all fines since 2007, but not all fish kills since 2007. That is because it excludes potable water discharges (resulting in fish kills) between 2018 310 40 C.F.R. 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1)
311 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68756: “[D]ischarges or flows from fire fighting activities are excluded from the definition of illicit discharge and only need to be addressed where they are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States.”
312 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68758: “If an MS4 is concerned that flows from firefighting are, as a category, contributing substantial amounts of pollutants to their system, they could develop a program to address those flows prospectively. The program may include an analysis of the flow from several sources, steps to minimize the pollutant contribution, and a plan to work with the sources of the discharge to minimize any adverse impact on water quality. During the development of such a program, the MS4 may determine that only certain types of flows within a particular category are a concern, for example, fire fighting flows at industrial sites where large quantities of chemicals are present.” 313 McKenney, Hope. Fire Retardant Linked to Fish Deaths in Berkeley Creek Identified by State Fish and Wildlife, KQED April 12, 2019; accessed at https://www.kqed.org/news/11739651/fire-retardant-linked-tofish-deaths-in-berkeley-creek-identified-by-state-fish-and-wildlife. 314 SFPUC, September, 2010. Questions and Answers Regarding Chloramine. Accessed on August 30, 2020, from:
https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/ehsWaterdocs/Chloramine/SFDPH_Chloramine_in_Drinking_W ater_Document_Collection.pdf
315 Aaron Kinney, November 18, 2014. “Cal Water hit with $3 million penalty for fish-killing San Mateo pipe leak.” San Jose Mercury News.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 316
and 2022 which normally would have resulted in fines, because the Water Board chose not to enforce; review of the Water Board’s Enforcement Policy resulted in coordination with water purveyors to improve their asset management programs in lieu of penalties.
(1) Cal Water Service Company, $200,000 ACL, 137,640 gallon discharge to Polhemus Creek in September 2007, killed 21 steelhead + 2 stickleback (R2- 2009-0006);
(2) EBMUD, $72,000 ACL, 4,200 gallon discharge to Sausal Creek in August 2010 killed 25+ rainbow trout and 23,400 gallon discharge to Reliez Valley Creek in January 2010 with unknown impact. (R2-2012-0008);
(3) CalTrans, $31,250 ACL, 8,250 gallon discharge to Bear Gulch Creek in May 2011, resulted in fish kill (R2-2012-0009);
(4) SFPUC, $608,310 ACL for 4 violations, including a 37,500 gallon discharge to San Mateo Creek in Jan 2011 killing 5 rainbow trout and 16,500 gallon discharge to San Mateo Creek in October 2012 killing 64 fish including 28 steelhead. (R2-2014-1003);
(5) CA Water Service Company, $1,020,000 ACL for 8,207,560-gallon discharge to Polhemus Creek and San Mateo Creek in October 2013 killing 231 fish including rainbow trout and 1 crayfish (R2-2016-1012);
(6) Town Hillsborough, $221,030 ACL for 153,000-gallon discharge to San Mateo Creek in September 2015 killing 505 fish including threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (R2-2017-1028);
(7) EBMUD, $893,190 ACL for 3 discharges: (1) a 72,000-gallon discharge to San Ramon Creek in October 2015 killing 104 fish including mosquitofish, Sacramento suckers, hitch, and California roach; (2) 2,200,000-gallon discharge to Las Trampas Creek in November 2015 killing 17 California roach and 2 Sacramento suckers; and (3) 191,400-gallon discharge to San Ramon Creek killing 140 California roach, 100 three-spined stickleback, 75 mosquitofish, 6 green sunfish, 4 bluegill, and 2 fathead minnows (R2-2017-1031); (8) Marin Municipal Water District, $129,250 ACL for 105,000-gallon discharge to San Anselmo Creek in July 2016 killing an unquantified number of fish that included sculpin, California roach, and rainbow trout or steelhead (R2-2018- 1004);
(9) Dublin-San Ramon Services District, $129,250 ACL for 61,000-gallon discharge to Alamo Creek in September 2017 killing 130 golden shiners and 1 bluegill (R2- 2018-1006);
(10) San Jose Water Company, $75,000 ACL for 111,250-gallon discharge to Babb Creek in September 2017 killing 565 fish (R2-2018-1011); and Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 317
(11) City of San Mateo, $73,700 ACL for 7,720-gallon discharge to San Mateo Creek in May 2021 killing 44 steelhead, 26 prickly sulpin, 19 Sacramento suckers, 8 threespine stickleback, and 1 crayfish (R2-2022-1001).

The Berkeley incident and the use of chloraminated potable water for firefighting demonstrate that flows from firefighting activities can contribute substantial amounts of pollutants to receiving waters if not managed. As a result, the Water Board has determined that firefighting discharges can contribute significant pollution to receiving waters and require management by Permittees.

This Provision addresses discharges of firefighting water and foam associated with emergency firefighting activities. Discharges of firefighting water and foam associated with non-emergency firefighting activities such as training are neither exempted nor conditionally exempted by this Provision; they are prohibited pursuant to Discharge Prohibition A.1. If there are discharges to storm drain systems or watercourses of firefighting water and/or foam (or other non-stormwater) associated with non-emergency (e.g., training) firefighting activities, which would violate Discharge Prohibition A.1, then Permittees must comply with the reporting specified in Provision C.23.c.

This Provision acknowledges that in cases of emergency discharge, such as from firefighting and disasters, priority of efforts shall be directed toward life, property, and the environment, in that order. Therefore, Permittees are required to implement BMPs only when they do not interfere with immediate emergency response operations or impact public health and safety.

The requirements in Provision C.15.b.iii ensure that Permittees reduce or eliminate the significant pollution from firefighting foam and water discharged during firefighting emergencies, without compromising the ability of firefighting personnel to protect lives and property. Permittees are required to evaluate and improve the efficacy of their BMPs and SOPs for the containment and cleanup of firefighting water and foam discharged during firefighting emergencies. These discharges are significant contributors to pollution in waters of the U.S., for the following reasons:
(1) Potable water is used in emergency firefighting situations, often in combination with firefighting foams. Potable water discharges contribute pollution to water quality in receiving waters because they contain chlorine or chloramines, two chemicals that are toxic to aquatic life. Such discharges can also cause erosion and scouring of stream and creek banks and can result in sedimentation if effective BMPs are not implemented.
(2) Discharges of Class A firefighting foams contribute pollution to water quality in receiving waters, because they contain constituents that are acutely toxic to Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 318
aquatic species.316,317,318,319 In April 2019, a vehicle fire in the City of Berkeley resulted in the discharge of 4,500-12,000 gallons of potable water and 20 gallons of a Class A firefighting foam (for which the primary/active ingredient is a hydrocarbon surfactant; 96-hr LC50 Rainbow Trout = 16.8 mg/L) into the City’s MS4, which discharged to Codornices Creek and resulted in the deaths of at least 63 Central Coast California Steelhead Trout and 1 sculpin. Similar discharges of other Class A foams with comparable acute aquatic toxicity316 are likely to cause similar impacts.
(3) Class B firefighting foams are generally divided into two types, fluorinated and fluorine-free. Discharges of both types of Class B firefighting foams320 contribute pollution to water quality in receiving waters, because they contain constituents that are toxic to aquatic species. Fluorine-free Class B foams do not contain PFAS, but are still acutely toxic to aquatic species321 because their primary active ingredient is typically a hydrocarbon surfactant.322 Fluorinated Class B foams typically contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are environmentally persistent and toxic to both human health and aquatic species.323,324,325
(4) California Senate Bill 1044,326 approved by the Governor on September 29, 2020, and effective January 1, 2022, prohibits the sale and use of Class B firefighting foams that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals, with phaseouts for certain continued applications of such foams. This Provision requires the Permittees to recommend reporting requirements (for example, 316 https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/sds.php
317 https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/NONCONFIDENTIAL-EcoRAFoams%20June2020draft.pdf 318https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/307b_Wildland%20Foam_Master%20Draft%20(for%20P ublic%20release).pdf
319 https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/rotenone/appendix-f.pdf 320 Class B firefighting foams are commercial surfactant solutions that are used for fire suppression (in particular, of flammable liquids like gasoline, oil and jet fuel) and flammable vapor suppression at military installations and civilian facilities and airports, as well as at petroleum refineries and bulk storage facilities, and chemical manufacturing plants and storage facilities. Municipal fire departments also use Class B firefighting foams for emergency response. Accessed on August 2, 2021, from:
https://www4.des.state.nh.us/nh-pfas-investigation/?page_id=148 321 https://store.danko.net/files/documents/SDS_PC-1-Fluorine-Free-OSHA-WHMIS-GHS_2019-09- 13_EN-23.pdf. Web. Viewed <August 2, 2021>
322 https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-andTreatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2738/WP-2738. Web. Viewed <August 2, 2021> 323 https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas
324 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1044 325 https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-andpolyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas 326https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1044 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 319
reporting if any of the exemptions in Senate Bill 1044 are invoked by parties acting within Permittees’ jurisdictions, such that firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals are used during firefighting emergencies) then implement those recommendations. Reporting on discharges of PFAS and other foams is necessary to ensure transparency about continued PFAS use within the Permit region, and transparency about discharges of other firefighting foams which also have adverse environmental impacts.

Provision C.15.b.iii.(2), Regional Coordination, requires the Permittees to convene a regionwide Firefighting Discharges Working Group (Working Group) together with Water Board staff, to identify and evaluate opportunities to reduce the impacts of emergency discharges to the MS4 associated with firefighting activities. The Permittees will collectively (e.g., through the Working Group) evaluate the adequacy of existing BMPs, SOPs and resources used for the containment and cleanup of firefighting foam discharged during firefighting emergencies, culminating in a Firefighting Discharges Report by September 30, 2025, containing recommendations to the Permittees regarding the implementation of BMPs, SOPs, and resources used for the containment and cleanup of firefighting water and foam discharged during firefighting emergencies. A footnote in the Provision clarifies that the Working Group does not have to review every single Permittee’s BMPs/SOPs/resources, but that the Working Group can review a representative subset of them. Regarding resources used to determine if and how firefighting water and foam discharged during emergencies will impact receiving waters (e.g., maps), the intent is not to task firefighting personnel with developing/providing/utilizing those resources at each emergency on the spot, but instead, to preemptively consider the availability, need, and utility of the resources, then incorporate the resources that will be helpful (i.e., helpful for mitigating adverse environmental impacts) into the collective municipality’s BMPs and SOPs. The Fact Sheet, below, gives examples of BMPs and SOPs that the Working Group should consider. In addition, the Working Group should consider identifying areas where more information or effective BMPs and SOPs may be needed or desirable, if it or they are not yet otherwise available, and as noted above the Group is expected to include reporting recommendations associated with firefighting discharges, and particularly firefighting foams. The requirement for a region-wide Working Group and for the report will help to create administrative efficiencies by allowing Permittees to pool resources and avoid the duplication of work that might occur if they studied these issues individually. The Water Board may consider requiring the Working Group to continue to convene on an ongoing basis in subsequent permit terms, to update the recommendations in the Firefighting Discharges Report as needed.

The Permittees estimate that a portion of fires are responded to (for containment and cleanup) not with municipal resources, but by private contractors. Therefore, Provision C.15.b.iii.(2) additionally requires the Permittees to collectively (e.g., through the Working Group): 1) develop (and revise on an ongoing basis, as- Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 320
needed) outreach materials regarding BMPs and SOPs for the containment and cleanup of discharges of firefighting water and foam, for private contractors hired by either Permittees or by private parties to conduct firefighting, containment and cleanup within Permittees’ jurisdictions, because a significant portion of fires on private properties are responded to (for containment and cleanup) by private contractors hired by the owners of those private properties. Separately, it is also true that there are some private firefighting crews within the region, such as at large industrial sites like the Chevron refinery in Richmond; the Working Group is encouraged to discuss coordination with these private firefighting crews, as needed (for example, if it is likely that there are emergency discharges from such sites to Permittees’ MS4s).

This provision also requires the Permittees to collectively (e.g., through the Working Group) evaluate the environmental impacts of foams and make recommendations about which foams are least environmentally harmful while still performing well.

Certain firefighting foams appear to be less environmentally harmful than others (within and between Class A and Class B foams).327 Then the Permittees are instructed to collectively (e.g., through the Working Group) develop SOPs for the use of those foams, and coordinate with relevant federal, state and local entities, such as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, because those entities may be undergoing similar exercises and may be able to share information that could inform these and other tasks required by Provision C.15.b.iii.(2).

The Working Group could consider addressing reasonably related issues that are beyond the scope of this Provision, such as addressing prohibited (not conditionallyexempted) discharges associated with non-emergency firefighting activities, such as training.

Provision C.15.b.iii.(3), Ongoing Implementation Practices, requires the Permittees to implement the recommendations, to the extent they apply to Permittees’ individual firefighting programs, that are included in the Firefighting Discharges Report developed pursuant to Provision C.15.b.iii.(2)(b).

Provision C.15.b.iii.(4), Required BMPs, requires Permittees to implement BMPs and SOPs for the containment and cleanup of discharges of firefighting water and foam associated with emergency firefighting activities, only to the extent that the implementation of such BMPs and SOPs does not jeopardize the ability of firefighting personnel to protect public health and safety. If and when the recommended BMPs and SOPs are implemented, they are likely to prevent or 327 Fluorine-free foams have been on the market for approximately twenty years, though even these foams have toxic effects, as the fish kill in Berkeley shows. Clean Production Action, a nonprofit based in Somerville, Massachusetts, has developed an environmental screening tool for firefighting foams, which could be a starting point for the Working Group. See Thorpe, Bev. “GreenScreen Certified for Fire Fighting Foam Launched” (Sept. 2020) (accessible at:
https://www.cleanproduction.org/resources/entry/fff-launched).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 321
reduce impacts to receiving waters that would otherwise be caused by the discharges associated with the emergency firefighting activities.

BMPs and SOPs may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Plugging of the storm drain collection system for temporary storage; (2) Dechlorination prior to discharge to the MS4 and receiving waters; (3) Proper disposal of water and foam according to jurisdictional requirements; (4) Use of the least environmentally harmful firefighting foams; (5) Avoiding the use of firefighting foam when it is not necessary; (6) Use of the proper firefighting foam depending on the type of fire; (7) When firefighting foam is used, limiting the amount used; (8) Communication and coordination between both municipal responding departments (e.g., fire, public works, environmental services) and external responding agencies (e.g., CalFire, special district fire departments); (9) Categorizing fire types and establishing expectations for BMP and SOP implementation based on that categorization; and
(10) Discouraging the use of firefighting foam where it may discharge to receiving waters, particularly receiving waters that may have sensitive habitat, such as habitat for special status species, including certain salmonids.

These recommended BMPs and SOPs will be discussed in the Firefighting Discharges Working Group, including which scenarios they are appropriate for.

Provision C.15.b.iii.(5) requires the Permittees to implement the reporting that is recommended by the Firefighting Discharges Working Group in the Firefighting Discharges Report. Provision C.15.b.iii.(2)(a)(vii) specifies the reporting requirements that Permittees must consider, including what type of information will be reported, as well as how reporting will be triggered, such as: in the case that any amount of any firefighting foam discharges to a receiving water,328 in the case that five or more gallons of any firefighting foam concentrate discharges to the MS4, regardless of whether or not it impacts a receiving water,329 and in the case that any amount of PFAS-containing firefighting foam concentrate is used during an emergency, regardless of whether it discharges to the MS4 or a receiving water. The purpose of these additional reporting requirements is to increase transparency about 328 Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code, Section 5650, there is no minimum reportable quantity for discharges of firefighting foam to waters of the state. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&sectionNum=5650 329 For firefighting personnel, the reportable quantity of HAZMAT released to the environment is five gallons. Additionally, five gallons of firefighting foam is the size of a typical concentrated foam container.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 322
the use of and discharges of non-stormwater to MS4s and receiving waters, as well as to provide direct feedback on the Permittees’ implementation of Provision C.15.b.iii.

The Working Group should also discuss notification of the California State Warning Center and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, for discharges to marine waters (pursuant to CGC 8670.25.5 and 8670.26, FWPCA 311, 33 CFR 153.203, and 40 CFR 302.6), and for discharges to non-marine waters (pursuant to 23 CCR 2250(a), HSC 5411, CWC 13271(a)).

The Water Board may consider including more specific reporting requirements in a future Permit term, based on the reporting recommendations (and the Permittees’ implementation of those recommendations) in the Firefighting Discharges Report.  Provision C.15.b.iv. Individual Residential Car Washing. Soaps and automotive pollutants such as oil and metals can be discharged into storm drains and waterbodies from individual residential car washing activities. However, it is not feasible to prohibit individual residential car washing because it would require too much resources for the Permittees to regulate the prohibition. This section of the Permit requires Permittees to encourage residents to implement BMPs such as directing car washwaters to landscaped areas, using as little detergent as possible, and washing cars at commercial car washing facilities.
 Provision C.15.b.v. Swimming Pool, Hot tub, Spa, and Fountain Water Discharges. These types of discharges can contain high levels of chlorine and copper. Permittees shall prohibit the discharge of such waters that contain chlorine residual, copper algaecide, filter backwash, or other pollutants to the storm drains or to waterbodies. High flow rates into the storm drain or a waterbody could cause erosion and scouring of the stream or creek banks. These types of discharges should be directed to landscaped areas large enough to accommodate the volume or to the sanitary sewer, with the local sanitary sewer’s approval. If these discharge options are not feasible and the swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or fountain water discharges must enter the storm drain, they must be dechlorinated to non-detectable levels of chlorine and they must not contain copper algaecide. Flow rate should be regulated to minimize downstream erosion and scouring. We strongly encourage local sanitary sewer agencies to accept these types of non-stormwater discharges, especially for new and rebuilt ones where a connection could be achieved with marginal effort. This provision also requires Permittees to coordinate with local sanitary agencies in these efforts.
 Provision C.15.b.v.i. Irrigation Water, Landscape Irrigation, and Lawn or Garden Watering. Fertilizers and pesticides can be washed off of landscaping and discharged into storm drains and waterbodies. However, it is not feasible to prohibit excessive irrigation because it would require too much resource for the Permittees to regulate such a prohibition. It is also not feasible for individual Permittees to ban the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 323
use of fertilizers and pesticides. This section of the Permit requires Permittees to promote and/or work with potable water purveyors to promote measures that minimize runoff and pollutant loading from excess irrigation, such as conservation programs, outreach regarding overwatering and less toxic options for pest control and landscape management, the use of drought tolerant and native vegetation, and to implement appropriate illicit discharge response and enforcement for ongoing, large-volume landscape irrigation runoff to the storm drains.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 324
C.16. Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance Legal Authority
Broad Legal Authority: CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC sections 13377 and 13263, 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i)(B, C, D, E, and F), and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv).

Specific Legal Authority: In 1972, the State Water Board adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan). The State Water Board adopted the most recent amendment to the Ocean Plan on October 16, 2012, and the plan was subsequently approved by the State Office of Administrative Law and U.S. EPA. The State Water Board is responsible for reviewing the Ocean Plan water quality standards and for modifying and adopting standards in accordance with CWA section 303(c)(1) and CWC section 13170.2. Pursuant to CWA sections 13263 and 13377, this Permit implements the Ocean Plan. In accordance with the Ocean Plan, the State Water Board granted an exception to the prohibition of stormwater discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs), as discussed further below.

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.16.

C.16-1 The Ocean Plan prohibits the discharge of waste to designated ASBSs. ASBSs are designated by the State Water Board as ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that alteration of natural water quality is undesirable. On March 20, 2012, the State Water Board approved Resolution No. 2012-0012, approving a general exception to the Ocean Plan prohibition against discharges to ASBSs for certain nonpoint source discharges and NPDES-permitted municipal storm water discharges (ASBS Exception), as long as those discharges are covered under an appropriate authorization to discharge, such as this Order and comply with the Special Protections contained in Attachment B (Special Protections) to that resolution, among other requirements. The ASBS Exception was subsequently amended by State Water Board Resolution No. 2012-0031, which required pollutant reductions to be achieved within six years, in accordance with ASBS Compliance Plans.

C.16-2 This provision applies to discharges from the County of San Mateo into the James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve ASBS. The provision authorizes the County of San Mateo’s stormwater discharge as set forth in the provision and implements the Ocean Plan and the exceptions granted under it by the State Water Board to allow the County of San Mateo to discharge stormwater into the ASBS. The requirements of the Provision are from the ASBS Exception and its Special Protections, which are incorporated into the Order as Attachment F.

C.16-3 The County of San Mateo began development of the Fitzgerald ASBS Pollution Reduction Program in 2011 to comply with the ASBS Exception. The program Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 325
is led by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works in collaboration with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District and the San Francisco Estuary Institute. The project includes implementation of targeted stormwater BMPs, water quality studies, BMP effectiveness monitoring, and education and outreach.

C.16-4 In addition to these efforts, the Water Board has developed a Water Quality Improvement Plan for Bacteria in San Vicente Creek,330 which is tributary to the Fitzgerald ASBS. In 2016, the Water Board also delisted the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Beach for bacteria from the 303(d) List based on water quality improvements from BMP implementation, identification and removal of illicit septic system connections, and education and outreach activities. 330 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, “Supporting Implementing a Water Quality Improvement Plan to Achieve Water Quality Objectives for Bacteria in San Vicente Creek, and Recommending Delisting of the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve for Bacteria Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act,” Resolution No. R2-2016-0024.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 326
C.17. Discharges Associated with Unsheltered Homeless Populations Legal Authority
Broad and Specific Legal Authority: CWA §§ 308(a), 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii); CWC §§ 13377, 13263, and 13383; 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(1)(v)(B); 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(B, C, D, E, and F); and 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv); Basin Plan Discharge Prohibitions 7, 8, and 15; and Statewide Prohibition on Trash: “The discharge of trash to surface waters of the State or the deposition of trash where it may be discharged into surface waters of the State is prohibited.”
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.17.

Driven in part by a lack of affordable housing and the high cost of living, a significant number of Bay Area residents are experiencing homelessness. That number increased markedly during MRP 2. For example, according to the latest Point-in-Time counts, between 2017 and 2019, the South Bay, East Bay, and the San Francisco Peninsula saw an approximate 25 percent increase (with individual increases of 17 to 43 percent) in their unsheltered homeless populations. Discharges associated with people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, including human waste and trash, are unauthorized discharges that are prohibited under the MRP. Such discharges are a significant water quality concern because they adversely impact water quality and public health (through the spread of disease). At the same time, these water quality and sanitation issues can be difficult to address because sanitation services can be challenging to provide and homeless populations may not always be receptive to the services being provided. In addition, while longer-term measures to address unsheltered homelessness, such as the provision of housing and supportive services may over time reduce problematic discharges, they do not effectively reduce ongoing discharges over the short term. Thus, actions to reduce and/or eliminate MS4 discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness are necessary to prevent and minimize impacts to water quality and public health. Such actions also can improve overall water quality and sanitary conditions for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

In 2015, the Water Board adopted Resolution No. R2-2015-0024, which identified discharges of trash and human waste from homeless encampments as significant water quality and public health concern. The resolution encouraged municipalities to consider water quality issues while addressing the broader social issue of homelessness and undertake efforts to prevent or eliminate discharges from homeless encampments. The resolution further recommended that municipal efforts “…include clear and measurable goals for preventing trash and human waste from discharging” to receiving waters. The resolution also affirmed the Board’s authority to issue cleanup and abatement Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 327
orders or waste discharge requirements to regulate discharges associated with homeless encampments.

Since adoption of the resolution, some Bay Area municipalities have made progress towards controlling discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness under the Provision C.10 Direct Discharge Control Program.

Although efforts under that program have provided benefit with respect to reducing discharges of trash and certain other pollutants, they have not fully addressed discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness that impact water quality. Furthermore, only five Permittees have an approved Direct Discharge Control Plan.

A number of Permittees are taking actions that help address problematic discharges. For example, East Palo Alto and Mountain View have established formalized RV encampments or RV safe parking areas where RV waste can be appropriately collected and disposed using mobile services. In Oakland, where the unsheltered homeless population increased to about 4,000 in 2020, an increase of about 63 percent from 2017,331 the city has established formalized encampments and is directing resources into affordable housing with the aim of getting those who are willing into housing. In 2020, Oakland adopted a new ordinance regarding where homeless encampments could be located, and is also working to provide sanitary services and manage sites for RVs, and has been targeting services to encampments that are within 500 feet of waterways.332 Similarly, San Jose has a dedicated outreach team that provides emergency shelter, meals, showers, and other basic needs while working to match individuals experiencing homelessness with an appropriate housing program. The City of San Jose also coordinates with Santa Clara Valley Water District to address discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness in and around creeks.

As noted above, the Bay Area population of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness has continued to grow, and is expected to grow further as eviction moratoria implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic expire.

Meanwhile, outbreaks of Shigella and Hepatitis A, both spread through fecaloral contact, among homeless people in California underscore the risks posed by unregulated discharges, particularly of untreated human waste, from encampments.333 To encourage Permittees’ efforts, gain a better understanding of populations experiencing unsheltered homelessness, the location of encampments in relation to storm drain inlets and receiving waters, 331 Rodriguez, October 21, 2020. Oakland Approves Rules to Restrict Homeless Encampments. U.S.

News.
332 Ibid.
333 Liu, et al. Communicable Disease Among People Experiencing Homelessness in California, in Epidemiology and Infection (2020).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 328
water quality related impacts, and associated sanitation-related needs, and to better understand the portion of discharges that are being addressed by Permittee efforts, and the extent to which practices may be effective, Provision C.17 requires that Permittees use results from biennial point-in-time census surveys and related information (e.g., databases, complaint logs) to review and update municipalities’ implementation practices.

To encourage regional coordination between cities, Caltrans, sanitary sewer agencies, flood control districts, and other agencies (e.g., railroads, nongovernmental organizations), Provision C.17 requires that Permittees collectively develop a BMP report that identifies effective practices to address MS4 discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness that impact water quality. The clearing and abating of homeless encampments, in response to public complaints, can often result in the encampment simply moving to a different location and continuing the discharges in the new location. The intent of this BMP report is therefore to foster (and prioritize) regional collaboration that takes into account the transient nature of unsheltered homeless populations, and the inherent benefit to Permittees sharing knowledge and resources on proven and effective strategies to managing the associated discharges from homeless encampments that impact water quality. The three main components of this report include:
(1) Identifying practices (e.g., outreach, cleanup, sanitation) that could be implemented by Permittees to address discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness that are impacting water quality; (2) Identifying regional and/or countywide efforts and implementation actions towards addressing discharges associated with unsheltered homelessness. Permittees should include recommendations for engaging in such efforts that aim to provide clean water and sanitation needs for the homeless population; and
(3) Identifying practices implemented by municipalities during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce the spread of the virus in homeless populations (such as providing temporary housing, etc.) that may have contributed towards a water quality benefit.

The tasks identified above are intended to assist Permittees in developing a framework for controlling and eliminating MS4 discharges associated with homeless encampments, and refining individual and collaborative best management practices (associated with unsheltered homelessness) to ensure the protection of water quality and public health. Practices that harm or criminalize unsheltered homeless residents, such as encampment sweeps, are discouraged under this provision. To evaluate BMP effectiveness, Provision C.17 requires that Permittees report on the control measures being Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 329
implemented, the approximate portion and locations of the unsheltered homeless population being served by those measures, and the portion (number of people) and location not reached, or not fully served by those measures. Examples of control measures include, but are not limited to, access to emergency shelters; the provision of social services, clean drinking water, and sanitation services; voucher programs for proper disposal of RV sanitary sewage; establishment of designated RV “safe parking” areas or formalized encampments with appropriate services; provision of mobile pumpout services; establishing and updating sidewalk/street/plaza cleaning standards for the cleanup and appropriate disposal of human waste; and establishing various cleanup or pickup programs within the Permittees jurisdiction, or at the countywide or regional level.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 330
C.18. Control of Sediment Discharges from Coastal San Mateo County Roads
Legal Authority
This is a TMDL-derived Provision, for which the legal authority is cited in the Fact Sheet section on Provisions C.9-C.14.

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.18
C.18-1 This Permit Provision implements the Pescadero and Butano Creeks Watershed Sediment TMDL adopted by the Water Board June 13, 2018 and approved by the U.S. EPA on June 24, 2019. The implementation plan included in this TMDL requires San Mateo County to complete a roads assessment, including a prioritized list of road repair projects, stormproof unpaved roads, and implement other BMPs to reduce sediment in runoff from County roads in the Pescadero Creek and Butano Creek watersheds. A similar strategy is being developed for the San Gregorio watershed to address sediment impairment; thus, this Permit Provision includes the San Gregorio watershed as well. For the San Gregorio Creek watershed, the Water Quality Improvement Plan calls for San Mateo County to complete twenty percent of the sediment reductions actions described above by June 30, 2029, and fifty percent by 2032.

C.18-2 The TMDL contains allocations for sediment loading from County road runoff expressed in tons per year and as a percentage of the natural background sediment load. Attainment of this allocation is required to achieve the Numeric Targets for the Pescadero and Butano Creek Watershed. Consequently, this provision is critical to the successful implementation of the sediment reduction requirements of the TMDL.

Specific Provision C.18 Requirements
Provision C.18.a Road Erosion Inventory requires the County to prepare a road erosion inventory to identify and prioritize actions to reduce road-related erosion from hydrologically connected County roads. Hydrologic connectivity refers to the length or proportion of a road that drains runoff directly to streams or other water bodies. The County is required to report on the road erosion inventory as part of the 2023 Annual Report.

Provision C.18.b Prioritized List and Schedule of Actions requires the County to develop a prioritized list and schedule of actions, such as culvert repair or replacement, to reduce road related sediment delivery to stream channels, based on the results of the Road Erosion Inventory conducted in Provision C.18.a. The County is required to submit the prioritized list and schedule of actions as part of the 2023 Annual Report.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 331
Provision C.18.c Implement Control Measures to Attain Performance Standards requires the County to implement control measures and pollution prevention strategies to reduce road related sediment delivery from County roads to stream channels, based on the Prioritized List and Schedule of Actions completed in Provision C.16.b. The County is required to implement and complete at least twenty percent (20%) of the control measures identified in the Prioritized List and Schedule of Actions by 2027. The County is required to report on the status of completed control measures in the Annual Report each year starting the first year of project implementation.

Provision C.18.d. Monitoring requires the County to conduct implementation, effectiveness and forensic monitoring to assess the performance of implemented control measures. The County is required to provide a monitoring report as part of the Annual Report each year starting in the first year of project implementation. The monitoring and reporting requirements of Provision C.18 are authorized under CWA § 308, 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(d)(2), 122.41(h), (j) and (l), 122.42(c), 122.44(i) and 122.48, and CWC § 13383.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 332
C.19. Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, Unincorporated Contra Costa County, and the Contra Costa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District Requirements
Findings in Support of Provision C.19
C.19-1 Contra Costa County watersheds are under two Regional Water Quality Control Boards’ jurisdiction, the San Francisco Bay Water Board and the Central Valley Water Board. The cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, and portions of Unincorporated Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) (the East County Permittees) in Contra Costa County are in the Central Valley Water Board’s jurisdiction.

C.19-2 The East County Permittees are member agencies of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP). CCCWP assists its member agencies – most of whom are within the San Francisco Bay Water Board’s jurisdictional boundaries – with tasks that can be done consistently throughout the County.

C.19-3 In 1992, the San Francisco Bay Water Board issued the first NPDES permit with requirements for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Contra Costa County cities and towns, and the portions of the County and CCCFCWCD located in its jurisdiction. In 1993, the Central Valley Water Board used the permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Water Board as a model and issued an NPDES permit with waste discharge requirements for stormwater discharges from MS4s within the East County Permittees’ jurisdictions. In subsequent permit reissuance cycles, each Regional Water Board adopted stormwater permits for Contra Costa County with similar provisions, exercising an inter-regional, collaborative approach for the East County Permittees.

C.19-4 On October 14, 2009, the San Francisco Bay Water Board issued its first region-wide NPDES permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008, for stormwater discharges from MS4s in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo, and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. The Central Valley Water Board used Order No. R2-2009-0074 as a model and adopted Order No. R5-2010-0102, reissuing NPDES Permit No. CAS083313 for the East County Permittees to discharge stormwater from MS4s in their jurisdictions on September 23, 2010. Where Order No. R2-2009-0074 provisions were sufficient to meet the requirements of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Central Valley Basin Plan) and other Central Valley Water Board policies, the provisions in Order No. R5-2010-0102 were the same as those in Order No.

R2-2009-0074. Where different or additional provisions were required to meet Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 333
the requirements of the Central Valley Basin Plan or other Central Valley Water Board policies, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Methylmercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), those different or additional provisions were included in Order No. R2-2009-0074.

C.19-5 On November 19, 2015, the San Francisco Bay Water Board adopted Order No. R2-2015- 0049, updating and reissuing waste discharge requirements for stormwater discharges from MS4s in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo, and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District.

C.19-6 The East County Permittees submitted to the Central Valley Water Board a report of waste discharge, dated March 4, 2015, for reissuance of their waste discharge requirements under NPDES permit to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains and watercourses within their jurisdictions. The East County Permittees anticipated that the Central Valley Water Board would reissue their stormwater permit with requirements consistent with the San Francisco Bay Water Board ’s Order No. R2-2015-0049. However, the Central Valley Water Board was already preparing a region-wide General Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from MS4s (General Permit) within the Central Valley region.

C.19-7 The Central Valley Water Board did not support adopting separate waste discharge requirements for stormwater discharges from the East County Permittees, which would be consistent with the San Francisco Bay Water Board’s Order No. R2-2015-0049. The General Permit is significantly different from Order No. R2-2015-0049 and thus would not allow the East County Permittees to continue the collaborative approach through CCCWP. The Central Valley Water Board offered the East County Permittees two options:
request a transfer of jurisdiction for stormwater permitting to the San Francisco Bay Water Board or obtain coverage under the General Permit.

C.19-8 In the fall of 2016, the East County Permittees asked the Central Valley Water Board to designate the San Francisco Bay Water Board as the permitting entity for stormwater discharges from their MS4s.

C.19-9 In a letter dated January 6, 2017, the San Francisco Bay Water Board and the Central Valley Water Board designated the San Francisco Bay Water Board to regulate MS4 discharges from the East County Permittees. The designation set forth the following conditions:
(1) The designation is only for MS4 permitting
(2) Each Regional Water Board reserves the right to take enforcement actions authorized by law against an East County Permittee for violations of an MS4 permit provision that affects that Regional Water Board’s watershed Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 334
(3) The San Francisco Bay Water Board will consult and coordinate with the Central Valley Water Board in the development of MS4 permit provisions to ensure they adequately reflect and implement the Central Valley Water Board’s Basin Plan and policies; and
(4) The Central Valley Water Board will approve any plans and/or studies required for compliance with the Central Valley Water Board’s Basin Plan and policies.

C.19-10 Order No. R2-2019-0004 amended Order No. R2-2015-0049 to add the East County Permittees. It also allowed them extended timelines to come into compliance with specific Order No. R2-2015-0049 provisions and identified and exempted those Order No. R2-2015-0049 provisions that do not apply to the East County Permittees, and incorporated requirements for the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta Estuary Methylmercury TMDL and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL.

Specific C.19 requirements
Provision C.19.a (Mercury Controls) exempts the East County Permittees from Provision C.11, Mercury Controls, because the East County Permittees are not subject to the San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL. Therefore, they do not have San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL wasteload allocations (WLAs) for mercury (See Provision 19.d concerning compliance with the Delta Methylmercury TMDL).

Provision C.19.b (Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Controls) exempts the East County Permittees from Provision C.12, PCBs Controls, because the East County Permittees are not subject to the San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL. Therefore, they do not have San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL WLAs.

Provision C.19.c (Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Controls) implements the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL. The Central Valley Water Board adopted a basin plan amendment including a TMDL for diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waterways (Delta Waterways)334 on June 23, 2006.

The State Water Board and U.S. EPA both approved the basin plan amendment. The TMDL includes WLAs for diazinon and chlorpyrifos applicable to the East County Permittees.
(1) The TMDL states that levels of diazinon and chlorpyrifos shall not exceed the sum (S) of one (1) as defined below:
334 The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin Appendix 42 lists the Delta Waterways to which the site-specific diazinon and chlorpyrifos water quality objectives and implementation and monitoring provisions apply.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 335
where:

CD = diazinon concentration in ug/L of point source discharge CC = chlorpyrifos concentration in ug/L of point source discharge WQOD = acute or chronic diazinon water quality criterion (0.160 and

0.100 ug/L, respectively)
WQOC = acute or chronic chlorpyrifos water quality criterion (0.025 and 0.015 ug/L, respectively)
For the purpose of calculating the sum (S) above, non-detectable concentrations are considered to be zero.

The East County Permittees’ previous permit included requirements for the Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL. The final compliance deadline for the TMDL was December 1, 2011.

The East County Permittees submitted a letter dated September 13, 2018, demonstrating their discharge has not exceeded the TMDL WLAs or water quality objective concentrations for diazinon and chlorpyrifos since 2008. The letter summarizes the results of diazinon and chlorpyrifos monitoring from 2012 - 2014 under the CCCWP’s Pollutants of Concern Load Monitoring at Lower Marsh Creek. This sampling location is directly downstream from one of the largest continuous urbanized areas in East County and samples characterized critical storm runoff events.

In addition, the letter includes diazinon and chlorpyrifos summary monitoring data from other County locations, in areas with both urban and agricultural lands from 2001-2017 by three programs: the State of California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Statewide Pesticide Monitoring Program, and the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) Small Tributaries Loading Strategy. The SWAMP monitoring data includes 16 chlorpyrifos samples with no detections or exceedances, and 16 diazinon samples with 9 detections and 9 exceedances from 2001 - 2005. The DPR monitoring data includes 13 chlorpyrifos samples with 1 detection and 1 exceedance, and 13 diazinon samples with 1 detection and 1 exceedance from 2008 - 2009 and 2017. The chlorpyrifos and diazinon exceedances occurred in 2009 and could have been from agricultural sources. The SFEI monitoring data includes 5 chlorpyrifos samples with no detections or exceedances, and 5 diazinon samples with no detections or exceedances from 2013 - Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 336
2014. The monitoring data from SWAMP, DPR, and SFEI show that water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos have not been exceeded since 2009, providing additional data to reflect the trend of reduced diazinon and chlorpyrifos concentrations in urban runoff.

The decline in concentrations of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the waters to which the East County Permittees discharge is consistent with observations of declines in urban runoff concentrations in the Central Valley Watershed following cancellation of urban uses of these chemicals. U.S. EPA cancelled the sale of nearly all non-agricultural diazinon and chlorpyrifos products by 2004. However, residents could still be storing diazinon and chlorpyrifos products, and old supplies remain legal to use. Because use of these products is still allowed and out of the direct control of the East County Permittees, there still is potential that such use could make consistent attainment of numeric effluent limits infeasible. The implementation of Provision C.9 by the East County permittees is consistent with the requirements of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL. Provision C.9 requirements are in the implementation plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL. The existing monitoring for toxicity and pesticides in Provision C.8. will be sufficient to demonstrate continued compliance with the diazinon and chlorpyrifos TMDL.

Provision C.19.d (Methylmercury Control Measure Plan and Monitoring) requires the East County Permittees to submit a methylmercury control plan and conduct a corresponding reasonable assurance analysis. The East County Permittees proposed completing these documents as part of their Delta Mercury Control Study Final Report that was submitted to meet Phase 1 of the Central Valley Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basin’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Mercury Control Program and associated Methylmercury TMDL (see Fact Sheet for Provision C.19.e, below). Provision C.19.d requires methylmercury monitoring intended to assess inputs of methylmercury to the Delta from Marsh Creek and urban runoff; provide information to support implementation of pollutant control strategies; and assess progress toward achieving WLAs for the TMDL; and help resolve uncertainties in loading estimates and impairments associated with methylmercury. In particular, methylmercury monitoring addresses the management questions proposed by the CCCWP and set forth in Provision C.19.d.ii.(1)(f) CWA section 402 (a)(2); 40 CFR sections 122.42(c)(4), 122.44(i), and 122.48(b); and CWC section 13383 provide authority for the Water Board to require monitoring and technical water quality reports. Provision C.19.d. requires Permittees to submit electronic and comprehensive reports on their water quality monitoring activities to (1) determine compliance with monitoring requirements and (2) provide information useful in evaluating compliance with all Permit requirements.

Provision C.19.e (Delta Mercury Control Program) implements the Delta Methylmercury TMDL in. the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 337
San Joaquin River Basins to address the mercury impairments (See Resolution No. R5- 2010-0043.). The Delta Methylmercury TMDL was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Office of Administrative Law. Final approval by the U.S. EPA occurred on October 20, 2011.

The Delta is impaired because of elevated levels of methylmercury in fish. The Delta is on the CWA 303(d) list for mercury and the State Water Resources Control Board has designated the Delta as a toxic hot spot under the Bay Protection and Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Program. Mercury problems are evident throughout the Central Valley watershed. The main concern with inorganic mercury is that it can develop into methylmercury, a powerful neurotoxin that bioaccumulates in the aquatic food chain to harmful levels. Health advisories have been issued which recommend limiting consumption of fish from the Bay/Delta, tributaries to the Delta, and many lakes and reservoirs in the Central Valley. Concentrations of mercury in fish in other water bodies approach or exceed National Academy of Science (NAS), U.S. EPA, and/or U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for wildlife and human protection. Mercury levels also exceed water quality objectives for the Delta and elsewhere. In addition to these concerns, fish-eating birds taken from some bodies of water in the basins have levels of mercury that can be expected to cause toxic effects. Bird-kills from mercury also have been documented in Lake Berryessa.

Components of the Delta Methylmercury TMDL relevant to municipal stormwater that are implemented through Provisions C.19.d and C.19.e are as follows:
(1) The methylmercury wasteload allocations for the East County Permittees, by Delta subarea, are:
(a) Central Delta 0.75 grams/year;
(b) Marsh Creek 0.30 grams/year; and
(c) West Delta 3.2 grams/year
(2) Compliance with the methylmercury waste load allocations are required to be met as soon as possible, but no later than January 1, 2030, unless the Central Valley Regional Water Board modifies the TMDL implementation schedule and final compliance date. The wasteload allocations for the Central and West Delta subareas are associated with a 0% reduction requirement while the wasteload allocation for the Marsh Creek subarea is associated with a 73% reduction requirement.
(3) The NPDES permits for urban runoff management agencies shall require pollution prevention measures and the implementation of BMPs to minimize total mercury discharges, as well BMPs to control erosion and sediment discharges with the goal of reducing mercury discharges. In addition to controlling mercury loads, BMPs or control measures shall include actions to reduce mercury-related risks to human health and wildlife. Requirements in the permit issued or reissued Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 338
and applicable for the term of the permit shall be based on an updated assessment of pollution prevention measures and BMPs to minimize total (inorganic) mercury discharges.
(4) Annual methylmercury loads in urban runoff in MS4 service area within the Delta and Yolo Bypass may be calculated by the following method or by an alternate method approved the Central Valley Water Board Executive Officer. The annual methylmercury load in urban runoff for a given MS4 service area during a given year may be calculated by the sum of wet weather and dry weather methylmercury loads. To estimate wet weather methylmercury loads discharged by MS4 urban areas, the average of wet weather methylmercury concentrations observed at the MS4’s compliance locations maybe multiplied by the wet weather runoff volume estimated for all urban areas within the MS4 service area within the Delta and Yolo Bypass. To estimate dry weather methylmercury loads, the average dry weather methylmercury concentrations observed at the MS4’s compliance locations may be multiplied by the estimated dry weather urban runoff volume in the MS4 service area within the Delta and Yolo Bypass. This method is consistent with that used to develop load estimates in the Delta Methylmercury TMDL.
(5) Urban runoff management agencies have a responsibility to oversee various discharges within the agencies’ geographic boundaries. However, if it is determined that a source is substantially contributing to mercury or methylmercury loads to the Delta or is outside the jurisdiction authority of any agency, the Central Valley Water Board may consider issuing additional allocations and regulatory requirements for the source in question.

Since a methylmercury reduction was not required for the West or Central subareas, the Delta Mercury Control Study Final Report did not identify any new mercury control measures beyond implementing green infrastructure in new and retrofitted urban developments and continuing to implement the control measures consistent with the Delta Methylmercury TMDL. The Delta Mercury Control Study Final Report states that additional information is required to determine if elevated methylmercury in Marsh Creek can be controlled as part of the actions to also prevent eutrophication conditions.

This study will be completed as part of the methylmercury control plan and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis.

Provision C.19.e requires the East County Permittees to implement the following pollution prevention measures, BMPs, and risk reduction measures.

Mercury Collection and Recycling – Mercury is found in a wide variety of consumer products (e.g., fluorescent bulbs, thermometers) that are subject to recycling requirements. These recycling efforts are already happening throughout the Region, and this Provision requires continued implementation of collection and recycling of Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 339
mercury containing devices and waste products and alternative procedures to improve proper handling, disposal, and recycling of mercury-containing products.

Enhanced Municipal Management Practices to Reduce Sediment Discharges – Unless appropriate BMPs are implemented, municipal operations and maintenance activities are potential sources of sediment discharges. Sediment accumulated on sidewalks, corporation yards, roads, parking lots, and landscaping, is a major source of point source pollutants found in urban runoff. The enhanced municipal management practices to reduce sediment discharges are intended to minimize total (inorganic) mercury discharges required by the Delta Methlymercury TMDL. Thus, Provision C.19.e requires the East County permittees to implement minimum BMPs for municipal facilities and activities as part of their ongoing pollution prevention efforts. Such prevention measures include, but are not limited to, storm drain drop inlet and pipeline cleaning, landscaping, road construction, road repair, and pump station cleaning. The work of municipal maintenance personnel vital to minimize stormwater pollution because personnel work directly on municipal storm drains and other municipal facilities. Through work such as inspecting, and cleaning storm drain drop inlets and pipes and conducting municipal construction and maintenance activities upstream of the storm drain, municipal maintenance personnel are directly responsible for preventing and removing pollutants from the storm drain.

Public Education and Risk Reduction – An informed and knowledgeable community is critical to the success of a stormwater program since it helps ensure greater support for the program as the public gains a greater understanding of stormwater pollution issues and its importance and influences positive stormwater pollution prevention behavior.

The East County Permittees have been implementing public outreach campaigns to educate their community on mercury pollution prevention. This Permit requires the East County Permittees to continue implementing a public education, outreach and participation program that is designed to reach residential, commercial, and industrial sources of mercury-containing products or emissions. The East County Permittees can utilize various electronic and print media and paid and free media to best reach the different various target audiences. Additionally, the East County Permittees need to continue communicating with a broad spectrum of citizens with stormwater pollution prevention information through long-established outreach mechanisms such as staffing tables or booths at fairs, street fairs, and other community events. An informed community ensures greater compliance with the stormwater program as the public becomes aware of the personal responsibilities expected of them and others in the community, including the individual actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of local waters.

Methylmercury is a toxicant that is harmful to the brain and nervous system of infants, children, and the developing fetus. Nearly all fish caught in the Delta contain traces of methylmercury, the methylated form of mercury. However, larger fish that have lived longer have the highest levels of methylmercury because they have had more time to Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 340
accumulate it. These large fish pose the greatest risk to children and pregnant women who eat them regularly. This Provision requires continual actions to manage human health risk due to mercury in Delta fish. This includes effort to communicate the health risks of eating Delta fish to high risk-communities.

Methylmercury Controls - In a previous permit (Order No. R5-2010-0102), the East County Permittees were required to implement Phase 1 of the Delta Methylmercury TMDL. Phase 1 required them to conduct methylmercury control studies to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of existing BMPs to control methylmercury and to develop and evaluate additional BMPs effectiveness to control methylmercury. In October 2018, the East County Permittees submitted the Delta Methylmercury Control Study Final Report to the Central Valley Water Board documenting the results of their control studies. As was shown in bioretention cell LAU3, construction of bioretention cells with an underdrain in areas allowing tidal inundation of the media may lead to an increase in mercury methylation. Therefore, this Provision requires the Permittees to implement control measures that reduce mercury methylation potential and retrofit existing BMPs that show an increased potential for mercury methylation. This Provision is also intended to require the Permittees to implement any other methylmercury controls identified in the methylmercury control plan and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis.

The Central Valley Regional Water Board will use the results of the control studies to conduct a Phase 1 Delta Methylmercury TMDL Review that considers:
 Modification of methylmercury goals, objectives, allocations and/or the final compliance date;
 Implementation of management practices and schedules for methylmercury controls; and
 Adoption of a mercury offset program for dischargers who cannot meet their load and waste load allocations after implementing all reasonable load reduction strategies.

The findings of the control studies and other information will also be used to re-evaluate the fish tissue objectives, the linkage analysis between objectives and sources, and the attainability of the allocations. The linkage analysis, fish tissue objectives, allocations, and time schedules may also be adjusted. In addition, the Central Valley Water Board will use the Phase 1 Control Studies’ results and other information to consider amendments to the Delta Methylmercury TMDL during the Phase 1 Delta Methylmercury TMDL Review.

Phase 2 of the Delta Methylmercury TMDL begins after the Phase 1 Delta Methylmercury TMDL Review. If Phase 2 begins during this Permit term, this Permit may be amended to include additional requirements.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 341
C.19.f (Pyrethroid Control Program) implements the Central Valley Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins’ conditional prohibition of the discharges of pyrethroid pesticides as well as monitoring and reporting requirements (adopted through Resolution No. R5-2017-0057). On August 31, 2020, the East Contra Costa Permittees submitted for approval as a pyrethroid management plan the actions required under Provision C.9. On December 30, 2020, the Central Valley Water Quality Board sent a letter to the East County Permittees stating that the elements of the Pesticide Control Program in Provision C.9 were consistent with the Pyrethroid Basin Plan Amendment requirements for a pyrethroid management plan and included all the management practices required to be considered for inclusion in a pyrethroid management plan. Additionally, this provision implements the requirement to submit a baseline monitoring report to the Central Valley Water Board as required in the Pyrethroid Basin Plan Amendment of municipal dischargers discharging to non-pyrethroid TMDL waters.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 342
C.20. Cost Reporting
Legal Authority
The following legal authority applies to Provision C.20:

Broad Legal Authority: CWA sections 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC sections 13377 and 13263, and Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR 122.26(d).

Specific Legal Authority: Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(1)(vi) requires “[for] each fiscal year to be covered by the permit, a description of the financial resources currently available to the municipality to complete part 2 of the permit application. A description of the municipality's budget for existing storm water programs, including an overview of the municipality's financial resources and budget, including overall indebtedness and assets, and sources of funds for storm water programs.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(vi) requires “[for] each fiscal year to be covered by the permit, a fiscal analysis of the necessary capital and operation and maintenance expenditures necessary to accomplish the activities of the programs under paragraphs (d)(2) (iii) and (iv) of this section. Such analysis shall include a description of the source of funds that are proposed to meet the necessary expenditures, including legal restrictions on the use of such funds.”
Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.20
C.20-1 Fiscal analysis and cost reporting provide a useful tool to evaluate program implementation and effectiveness. U.S. EPA has found that “examining the levels of proposed spending and funding allows the permitting authority to gauge the ability of the applicant to implement the program and predict its effectiveness. The fiscal analysis also will help determine whether the applicant has met the statutory requirement of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the estimates help the applicant evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of its program.”335 C.20-2 Standardization and comparison of cost reporting is supported by the State Water Board-funded NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey, which finds that “standards for reporting costs and stormwater activities are needed to allow accurate cost comparisons to be made between stormwater activities.”336 335 “Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part II of the NPDES Permit Applications for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems,” U.S. EPA 833-B-92-002, November 1992. 336 “NPDES Storm Water Cost Survey Final Report. Office of Water Programs,” California State University, Currier, Brian K., et al. 2005.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 343
C.20-3 The State Water Board’s Office of Research, Planning, and Performance (ORPP) has also developed guidance337 for Water Board staff on obtaining MS4 Permit implementation costs from permittees. This guidance describes the benefits from greater detail and more standardization in cost reporting because stormwater issues vary from system to system, often making it difficult to compare compliance costs for individual MS4 permits. Collecting standardized data on what permittees spend to comply with their MS4 permits will allow the Water Boards and stakeholders to broadly compare across regions and systems and to identify trends over time.

C.20-4 The City of Salinas MS4 Permit provides another example of standardized cost reporting data being used to evaluate the effectiveness of program implementation.338 It finds that “consistent and reliable cost information is critical for the Permittee to manage its assets, programs, funding strategies, and potential future credit programs and stormwater utility fees.” C.20-5 The cost reporting categories were developed considering the ORPP guidance, as well as the cost reporting requirements of the City of Salinas MS4 Permit and the Regional MS4 Permit for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.339 C.20-6 To provide additional flexibility to Permittees in developing a reporting methodology that considers the unique aspects of each program, while also allowing for broad comparisons between program components and costs, the Permit allows Permittees to engage in a collaborative approach to developing a consistent framework.
337 “Guidance for Staff on Obtaining MS4 Permit Implementation Costs from Permittees and Factors Permittees Could Consider When Reporting to the Water Boards,” State Water Board Office of Research, Planning, and Performance (ORPP), April 16, 2019.
338 Central Coast Regional Water Board, NPDES Permit and WDR for the City of Salinas Municipal Stormwater Discharges, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981, Order No. R3-2019-0073, adoption date:

September 20, 2019, effective date: October 1, 2019.
339 Los Angeles Regional Water Board, NPDES Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura County, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004, Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 344
C.21. Asset Management
Legal Authority
The following legal authority applies to Provision C.21:

Broad Legal Authority: CWA sections 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC sections 13377 and 13263, and Federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR section 122.26(d).

Specific Legal Authority: Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.41(e) requires a permittee to properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with its permit.

Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(1)(v) requires permittees to supply information on implementation and operation and maintenance measures for structural controls.

Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(1)(iii)(B)(5) requires permittees to provide, “the location of major structural controls for stormwater discharge (retention basins, detention basins, major infiltration devices, etc.).” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(iv) requires permittees to provide, “a description of structural control measures to reduce pollutants in runoff from commercial and residential areas.” It also requires permittees to “describe priorities for implementing controls.”
Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(1)(vi) requires permittees to provide, “A description of the municipality’s budget for existing storm water programs, including an overview of the municipality’s financial resources and budget, including overall indebtedness and assets, and sources of funds for storm water programs.” Federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(vi) requires an annual fiscal analysis of the necessary capital and operation and maintenance expenditures necessary to accomplish the activities of the programs under 40 CFR sections 122.26(d)(2)(iii) and (iv).

Fact Sheet Findings in Support of Provision C.21
C.21-1 This Order requires each Permittee to develop and implement an Asset Management Plan to ensure the satisfactory condition of all hard assets constructed during this and previous permit terms, by continuing to improve its understanding of its stormwater infrastructure condition and performance, by accounting for additional stressors on those assets, such as those related to climate change, and by identifying cost factors to support more accurate forecasting and budget development.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 345
C.21-2 Asset management has been defined as an integrated optimization process of “managing infrastructure assets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them, while continuously delivering the service levels customers desire, at an acceptable level of risk.”340
C.21-3 Asset management is important to ensure proper operation and maintenance of all facilities and controls used to comply with an NPDES permit. U.S. EPA has also recognized the importance of incorporating asset management provisions into permits to ensure permittees implement sound system operation and maintenance practices, properly plan for needed system replacements and upgrades, and meet water quality protection requirements.341
C.21-4 An MS4 permittee must establish appropriate quality assurance procedures to ensure that its discharge meets MEP and water-quality based requirements.

Asset management plans provide a framework for setting and operating these quality assurance procedures and ensure that the MS4 permittee has sufficient financial and technical resources to continually maintain a minimum performance level of its hard assets, in compliance with 40 CFR § 122.41(e).

C.21-5 40 CFR sections 122.26(d)(1)(iii)(B)(5) and 122.26(d)(2)(iv) support the inclusion of structural controls in the asset inventory.

C.21-6 The fiscal requirements at 40 CFR sections 122.26(d)(1)(vi) and 122.26(d)(2)(vi) are integral components of the Asset Management Plan required by this Order. They support the requirement to evaluate or forecast costs necessary for the implementation of the Operation, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Replacement plan, as well as the overall concept of the asset management program to identify assets and describe the financial plan to manage those assets.

C.21-7 U.S. EPA Support for Asset Management and Available Guidance and Examples: U.S. EPA has emphasized the development of asset management programs in recent years as a useful tool for ensuring consistent performance of water infrastructure systems while minimizing the costs associated with the operation of these systems. U.S. EPA has required stormwater utilities to develop and implement asset management plans to provide the tracking and planning framework needed to meet these requirements in their permitting.342 The growing concern for aging infrastructure among entities responsible for 340 Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), et al. 2002. 341 “Asset Management: Incorporating Asset Management Planning Provisions into NPDES Permits,” December 2014, U.S. EPA, Region 9.
342 U.S. EPA issued NPDES Permit No. GUS040001, authorizing the Guam Department of Public Works to discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, issuance date: December 20, 2018. Provisions requiring an Asset Management Plan are found on page 38 of the Guam Permit.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 346
operating, maintaining, and improving stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water systems has led to development and implementation of formal asset management programs to reduce unexpected and expensive repairs and increase overall system performance. The CWA specifies that NPDES permits must include requirements for discharging facilities to develop and implement operation and maintenance procedures and financial plans sufficient to ensure their future operational integrity and help them comply with permit discharge conditions. U.S. EPA has encouraged stormwater utilities to develop and implement asset management planning tools to provide the tracking and planning framework needed to meet these requirements. U.S. EPA has also encouraged water utilities to use modern analytical planning tools to support deployment of greener, more sustainable, better integrated water infrastructure improvements to help implement NPDES permit requirements. U.S. EPA anticipates formal asset management requirements in NPDES permits increasing in the future, as the benefits of asset management plans are realized.343
C.21-8 The City of San Diego (San Diego) provides an example of asset management planning for stormwater. San Diego developed an integrated Watershed Asset Management Plan for its stormwater management system in order to anticipate and justify current and projected costs of complying with federal, state, and local stormwater regulations.344 San Diego took approximately five years to complete its Watershed Asset Management Plan. San Diego’s Watershed Asset Management Plan identifies and prioritizes potential water quality and flood risk management. San Diego is currently developing the database capabilities to support its plan.

C.21-9 U.S. EPA’s Water Finance Clearinghouse and the California State University Sacramento Office of Water Program’s Environmental Finance Center (Region 9 U.S. EPA Environmental Finance Center) are conducting work to support stormwater asset management. For example, the U.S. EPA Region 9 Environmental Finance Center has developed draft stormwater finance and asset management guidance and toolkits, including resources for estimating stormwater costs, and is supporting a few California municipal stormwater programs to test out and refine the toolkit with the intent of using the asset management results to support the development of stormwater utilities to fund stormwater programs. Additionally, Region 9 U.S. EPA Environmental Finance Center is disseminating information through asset management forums, developing an asset management mobile assistance app, has supported the State Water Board’s Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm 343 “Asset Management Programs for Stormwater and Wastewater Systems: Overcoming Barriers to Development and Implementation,” March 6, 2017, p. ii. Prepared for U.S. EPA by PG Environmental. 344 “Case Study: City of San Diego Watershed Asset Management Planning,” p. 1, U.S. EPA, Region 9.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 347
Water (STORMS) Stormwater Funding Report,345 and is supporting other asset management-related tools and resources.346
C.21-10 The Order’s asset management requirements are consistent with: U.S. EPA’s asset management plan requirements in Guam’s municipal stormwater Permit;347 U.S. EPA, Region 9’s 2014 guidance for incorporating asset management planning requirements into NPDES permits, which includes suggestions for an inventory of MS4 assets, an identification of the required performance, a plan for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of assets, cost projections, and an assessment of climate change impacts;348 San Diego’s Watershed Asset Management Plan;349 and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region’s asset management plan requirements in the City of Salinas’ municipal stormwater permit.350 C.21-11 Many of the provisions in the Previous Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049, as amended) required the Permittees to develop and maintain effective information management systems to track hard assets. It required, and this Order continues to require, Permittees to implement various measures which support the development and implementation of the Asset Management Plan.

For example, in both this Order and the Previous Permit, Provision C.3.b requires Permittees to track and report on hard assets built pursuant to the requirements for Regulated Projects and Provision C.3.h requires Permittees to implement an Operation and Maintenance Verification Program, which compels, for example, inspections by Permittees or their agents. In both the current and Previous Permit, Provision C.10.b requires Permittees to maintain Full Trash Capture Systems within their jurisdictions, maintain records of those systems, and certify annually that those systems are operated and maintained to meet the requirements for Full Trash Capture Systems, and Provision C.10.f requires Permittees to retain and update trash generation maps depicting the location and tributary drainage area of all Full Trash Capture Systems within 345 “Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water (STORMS): Project 4b: Eliminate Barriers to Funding Stormwater Programs and Identify Funding for Stormwater Capture and Use Projects,” May 31, 2018.
346 “Asset Management Storm Water Roundtable Presentation,” by Bola Odusoga, U.S. EPA Region 9, March 28, 2019, slide 28.
347 U.S. EPA issued NPDES Permit No. GUS040001, authorizing the Guam Department of Public Works to discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, issuance date: December 20, 2018.
348 “Asset Management: Incorporating Asset Management Planning Provisions into NPDES Permits,” December 2014, U.S. EPA, Region 9.
349 “Transportation and Storm Water Department Storm Water Division: Watershed Asset Management Plan,” July 19, 2013, Prepared for City of San Diego by URS Corporation. 350 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, NPDES Permit and WDR for the City of Salinas Municipal Stormwater Discharges, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981, Order No. R3-2019-0073, adoption date: September 20, 2019, effective date: October 1, 2019.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 348
their jurisdictions which they are receiving credit for towards their Trash Reduction Requirements.

C.21-12 This Order includes requirements in other provisions that support components of the Asset Management Plan. For example, Provision C.5.f requires Permittees to identify information missing from their current MS4 maps and develop a plan and schedule to compile additional storm sewer system information, including component locations, size or specifications, materials of construction, and condition, which will be used to update Permittee maps and databases. The Permittees’ implementation of Provision C.5.f will support the Permittees’ implementation of Provision C.21 because it will help them understand where and how their hard assets are connected to their MS4s.

C.21-13 Provision C.20 requires Permittees to undertake a fiscal analysis of the capital and operation and maintenance costs incurred to comply with this Order’s requirements listed in Provision C.20.b.(iv), which includes the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of hard assets. Therefore, some of the information generated by the Permittees’ implementation of Provision C.20 is likely to directly inform the Permittees’ implementation of and reporting on Provision C.21. This is further discussed below under the Specific Provision C.21 Requirements for Provision C.21.b, Implementation level.

Specific Provision C.21 Requirements
Provision C.21. Asset Management requires Permittees to develop, implement, and report on asset management programs. Each component of the asset management provision is necessary to address the objectives, information needs, and questions listed in findings C.21-1 through C.21-12, above.

Provision C.21.a. Task Description. Provision C.21.a requires Permittees to develop and implement an Asset Management Plan in order to ensure the satisfactory condition of all hard assets constructed during this and previous permit terms pursuant to Provisions C.2. Municipal Operations, C.3. New Development and Redevelopment, C.10. Trash Load Reduction, C.11. Mercury Controls, C.12. PCBs Controls, C.13.

Copper Controls, C.14. Bacteria Control for Impaired Water Bodies, C.17. Discharges Associated with Unsheltered Homeless Populations, C.18. San Mateo County Sediment Controls, and C.19. Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, Unincorporated Contra Costa County, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Requirements. These Provisions contain requirements to implement, track, operate and maintain hard assets (structural controls). The inclusion of the development and implementation of the Asset Management Plans in this Order is necessary to comply with the federal regulations cited above.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 349
Provision C.21.b. Implementation Level. Provision C.21.b describes the Asset Management Plans, which Permittees must develop by June 30, 2025.351 An integral component of the Asset Management Plan is the development of an Operation, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Plan (Asset Management O&M Plan), which is prescribed in Provision C.21.b.i.(3), to effectuate sound asset management. The evaluation or forecasting of costs necessary for the implementation of the Asset Management O&M Plan is likewise necessary for this purpose. Such evaluation may supplement Permittees’ compliance with Provision C.20. Cost Reporting, because Provision C.20 includes requirements for Permittees to report on the costs associated with their hard assets; however, it does not include the level of detail specified in Provision C.21.b.(i)(3)(c). Therefore, although the implementation of Provision C.21 may inform the cost reporting required in Provision C.20, the information that will be generated by the two Provisions is distinct.

Provision C.21.b further requires the Permittees to begin implementation of the Asset Management Plans no later than July 1, 2025,352 to reassess and update the Asset Management Plans on an as-needed basis to address changing conditions and resources, to provide the latest version of the Asset Management Plans to Water Board staff during inspections and audits or otherwise upon request, and to complete a Climate Change Adaptation Report to identify potential climate change-related threats to assets and appropriate adaptation strategies. In subsequent permits, Permittees will likely be expected to reassess and update their Asset Management Plans at least once per permit term, likely by no later than the end of the fourth year of the Permit terms.

The purpose of the Climate Change Adaptation Report is to ensure that in the long term, as climate change impacts increase, Permittees are able to make any necessary adjustments to the design, operation, and maintenance of their hard assets to ensure their satisfactory condition and performance, in response to impacts to those assets associated with climate change. U.S. EPA, Region 9’s 2014 guidance for incorporating asset management planning requirements into NPDES permits includes a requirement for the assessment of climate change impacts.348
Provision C.21.c. Reporting. Provision C.21.c requires Permittees to submit their individual Asset Management Plans with their 2025 Annual Reports, to report individually on the implementation of their Asset Management Plans starting with the 2026 Annual Reports,353 as detailed in Provision C.21.c.ii, and to submit their Climate Change Adaptation Report(s) with the 2027 Annual Reports (on an all-Permittee scale or countywide scale). This schedule provides Permittees three years from the start of the Permit term to develop and ultimately submit the Asset Management Plans, an 351 This date is the last day of the third fiscal year of the permit term. 352 This date is the first day of the fourth fiscal year of the Permit term. 353 By this reporting date, the Permittees will have had a full year of implementation of their Asset Management Plans, pursuant to Provision C.21.b.ii.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 350
additional year after that submittal before they must implement the Asset Management Plans, and five years from the start of the Permit term to complete their Climate Change Adaptation Report(s). This timing is sufficient and necessary for the Permittees to develop robust Asset Management Plans, and will allow the Water Board and stakeholders enough time prior to the Permit’s subsequent reissuance to consider necessary changes to Provision C.21.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment A: Fact Sheet
Attachment A - 351
VII. Attachment G: Standard NPDES Stormwater Permit
Provisions
The following legal authority applies to Attachment G:

Broad Legal Authority: CWA sections 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii), CWC section 13377, and federal NPDES regulations 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i)(B, C, D, E, and F) and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv).

Specific Legal Authority: Standard provisions, reporting requirements, and notifications are consistent to all NPDES permits and are generally found in federal NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.41.

Attachment G includes Standard Provisions. These Standard Provisions ensure that NPDES stormwater permits are consistent and compatible with U.S. EPA’s federal regulations. Some Standard Provision sections specific to publicly owned sewage treatment works are not included in Attachment G.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B - 1

ATTACHMENT B
Provision C.3.b.

Sample Reporting Table
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B-2
Provision C.3.b. Sample Reporting Table
Regulated Projects Approved During the Reporting Period 07/15 to 06/16 City of Eden Annual Report FY 2015-16
Project Name,
Project Number,
Location,
Street Address,
Name of
Developer,
Project Phase
No.,1
Project Type &
Description
Project
Watershed2
Total Site
Area,
Total Area of
Land
Disturbed
Total New
and/or
Replaced
Impervious
Surface Area3
Total Preand PostProject
Impervious
Surface
Area4
Status of
Project5
Source
Control
Measures
Site Design
Measures
Treatment
Systems
Installed6
Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
Mechanism
Hydraulic
Sizing
Criteria
Alternative
Compliance
Measures7,8
HM
Controls9,10
Private Projects
Nirvana Estates;
Project #05-122;
Property bounded
by Paradise
Lane, Serenity
Drive, and
Eternity Circle;
Eden, CA
Heavenly
Homes;
Phase 1;
Construction of
156 single-family
homes and 45
townhomes with
commercial
shops and
underground
parking.

Runoff from
site drains to
Babbling
Brook
25 acres site
area,
21 acres
disturbed
20 acres new 20 acres
post-project
Application
submitted
12/29/14,
Application
deemed
complete
1/30/15,
Project
approved
7/16/15
Stenciled
inlets, street
sweeping,
covered
parking, car
wash pad
drains to
sanitary
sewer
Pervious
pavement
for all
driveways,
sidewalks,
and
commercial
plaza
vegetated
swales,
detention
basins,
Conditions of
Approval
require
Homeowners
Association to
perform regular
maintenance.

Written record
will be made
available to City
inspectors.

WEF
Method n/a
Contra
Costa sizing
charts used
to design
detention
basin at
Peace Park.

Also
contributed
to in-stream
projects in
Babbling
Brook
Barter Heaven;
Project #05-345;
Shoppers Lane &
Bargain Avenue;
14578 Shoppers
Lane, Eden, CA
Deals Galore
Development
Co.;
Demolition of
strip mall and
parking lot and
construction of
500-unit 5-story
shopping mall
with
underground
parking and
limited outdoor
parking.

Runoff from
site drains to
Bargain River
5 acres site
area,
3 acres
disturbed
1 acre new,
2 acres
replaced

3.5 acres
pre-project,

4.5 acres
post-project
Application
submitted
7/9/15,
Application
deemed
complete
8/2/15,
Project
approved
12/12/15
Stenciled
inlets, trash
enclosures,
underground
parking, street
sweeping
One-way
aisles to
minimize
outdoor
parking
footprint;
roof drains
to planter
boxes
tree wells with
bioretention;
planter boxes
with
bioretention
Conditions of
Approval
require property
owner
(landlord) to
perform regular
maintenance.

Written record
will be made
available to City
inspectors.

BMP
Handbook
Method
$ 250,000 paid
to Renew
Regional
Project
sponsored by
Riverworks
Foundation,
243 Water
Way, Eden,
CA 408-345-
6789
Renew
Project
includes
treatment
and HM
Controls
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B-3
Provision C.3.b. Sample Reporting Table
Regulated Projects Approved During the Reporting Period 07/15 to 06/16 City of Eden Annual Report FY 2015-16
Project Name,
Project Number,
Location,
Street Address,
Name of
Developer,
Project Phase
No.,1
Project Type &
Description
Project
Watershed2
Total Site
Area,
Total Area of
Land
Disturbed
Total New
and/or
Replaced
Impervious
Surface Area3
Total Preand PostProject
Impervious
Surface
Area4
Status of
Project5
Source
Control
Measures
Site Design
Measures
Treatment
Systems
Installed6
Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
Mechanism
Hydraulic
Sizing
Criteria
Alternative
Compliance
Measures7,8
HM
Controls9,10
New Beginnings;
Project No. #05-
456;
Hope Street &
Chance Road;
567 Hope
Boulevard, Eden,
CA
Fresh Start
Corporation;
Demolition of
abandoned
warehouse and
construction of a
5-story building
with 250 lowincome rental
housing units.

Runoff from
site drains to
Poor Man
Creek
5 acres site
area,
100,000 ft2
disturbed
1 acre
replaced
2 acres preproject,
1 acre postproject
Application
submitted
2/9/16,
Application
deemed
complete
4/10/16;
Project
approved
6/30/16;
estimated
completion
date 9/30/17
Trash
enclosures,
underground
parking, street
sweeping, car
wash pad
drains to
sanitary
sewer
roof drains
to
landscaping
parking runoff
flows to six
bioretention
units/gardens
Conditions of
Approval
require property
owner
(landlord) to
perform regular
maintenance.

Written record
will be made
available to City
inspectors.

BMP
Handbook
Method n/a n/a
Public Projects
Gridlock Relief,
Project No. #05-
99,
ABC Blvd
between Main
and Huett
Streets,
Eden, CA
City of Eden.

Widening of
ABC Blvd from 4
to 6 lanes
Runoff from
site drains to
Congestion
River
6 acres site
area,
3 acres
disturbed
2 acres new,
1 acre
replaced
4 acres preproject,
6 acres
post-project
Application
submitted
7/9/15,
Application
deemed
complete
10/6/15,
Project
approved
12/9/15,
Construction
scheduled to
begin
2/10/16 and
estimated to
none
ABC Blvd
sloped to
drain runoff
into
landscaped
areas in
median
Runoff leaving
underdrain
system of
landscaped
median is
pumped to
bioretention
gardens along
either side of
ABC Blvd
Signed
statement from
City of Eden
assuming postconstruction
responsibility
for treatment
BMP
maintenance.

WEF
Method n/a
BAHM used
to design
and size
stormwater
treatment
units so that
increased
runoff is
detained.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B-4
Provision C.3.b. Sample Reporting Table
Regulated Projects Approved During the Reporting Period 07/15 to 06/16 City of Eden Annual Report FY 2015-16
Project Name,
Project Number,
Location,
Street Address,
Name of
Developer,
Project Phase
No.,1
Project Type &
Description
Project
Watershed2
Total Site
Area,
Total Area of
Land
Disturbed
Total New
and/or
Replaced
Impervious
Surface Area3
Total Preand PostProject
Impervious
Surface
Area4
Status of
Project5
Source
Control
Measures
Site Design
Measures
Treatment
Systems
Installed6
Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
Mechanism
Hydraulic
Sizing
Criteria
Alternative
Compliance
Measures7,8
HM
Controls9,10
complete by
9/30/16
Sample Reporting Table C.3.b. Footnotes

1. If a project is being constructed in Phases, use a separate row entry for each Phase.

2. State the watershed(s) that the Regulated Project drains to. Optional but recommended: Also state the downstream watershed(s).

3. State both the total new impervious surface area and the total replaced impervious surface area, as applicable.

4. For redevelopment projects state both the pre-project impervious surface area and the post-project impervious surface area.

5. State project application date; application deemed complete date; and final, major, staff-level discretionary review and approval date.

6. List stormwater treatment system(s) installed onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment system facility.

7. For Alternative Compliance at an offsite location in accordance with Provision C.3.e.i.(1), on a separate page, give a discussion of the alternative compliance site including the information specified in Provision C.3.b.iv.(2)(m)(i) for the offsite project.

8. For Alternative Compliance by paying in-lieu fees in accordance with Provision C.3.e.i.(2), on a separate page, provide the information specified in Provision C.3.b.iv.(2)(m)(ii) for the Regional Project.

9. If HM control is not required, state why not.

10. If HM control is required, state control method used (e.g., method to design and size device(s) or method(s) used to meet the HM Standard, and description of device(s) or method(s) used, such as detention basin(s), biodetention unit(s), regional detention basin, or in-stream control).

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B-5
Instructions for Provision C.3.b. Sample Reporting Table

1. Project Name, Number, Location, and Street Address – Include the following information:
 Name of the project
 Number of the project (if applicable)
 Location of the project with cross streets
 Street address of the project (if available)

2. Name of Developer, Project Phase Number, Project Type, and Project Description – Include the following information:
 Name of the developer
 Project phase name and/or number (only if the project is being developed in phases) – each phase should have a separate row entry
 Type of development (i.e., new and/or redevelopment)
 Description of development (e.g., 5-story office building, residential with 160 single-family homes with five 4-story buildings to contain 200 condominiums, 100 unit 2-story shopping mall, mixed use retail and residential development (apartments), industrial warehouse)

3. Project Watershed
 State the watershed(s) that the Project drains into
 Optional but recommended: Also state the downstream watershed(s)

4. Total Site Area and Total Area of Land Disturbed – State the total site area and the total area of land disturbed.

5. Total New and/or Replaced Impervious Surface Area
 State the total new impervious surface area
 State the total replaced impervious surface area, as applicable

6. Total Pre- and Post-Project Impervious Surface Area – For redevelopment projects, state both the pre-project impervious surface area and the post-project impervious surface area.

7. Status of Project – Include the following information:
 Project application submittal date
 Project application deemed complete date
 Final, major, staff-level discretionary review and approval date  Whether the project has been completed. If not, the estimated project completion date.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment B
Attachment B-6

8. Source Control Measures – List all source control measures that have been or will be included in the project.

9. Site Design Measures – List all site design measures that have been or will be included in the project.

10. Treatment Systems Installed – List all post-construction stormwater treatment system(s) installed onsite and/or at a joint stormwater treatment system facility.

11. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility Mechanism – List the legal mechanism(s) that have been or will be used to assign responsibility for the maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment systems.

12. Hydraulic Sizing Criteria Used – List the hydraulic sizing criteria used for the Project.

13. Alternative Compliance Measures
 Option 1: LID Treatment at an Offsite Location (Provision C.3.e.i.(1)) – On a separate page, give a discussion of the alternative compliance project including the information specified in Provision C.3.b.v.(1)(m)(i) for the offsite project.
 Option 2: Payment of In-Lieu Fees (Provision C.3.e.i.(2)) – On a separate page, provide the information specified in Provision C.3.b.v.(1)(m)(ii).

14. HM Controls
 If HM control is not required, state why not
 If HM control is required, state control method used (e.g., method to design and size device(s), method(s) used to meet the HM Standard, and description of device(s) or method(s) used, such as detention basin(s), biodetention unit(s), regional detention basins, or in-stream control)
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment C
Attachment C - 1

ATTACHMENT C
Provision C.3.g.

Hydromodification Applicability Maps
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
San Joaquin County
Alameda County
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
1 : (
6 0LOHV
Data sources:

Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; ACCWP; Zone 7 Water Agency; U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Geological Survey; William Lettis Associates (Oakland Museum creek and watershed mapping project); Balance Hydrologics and EIP Associates (Proposed test of the approach for the ACCWP HMM Preliminary Map, July 2003)
/(*(1'
VHHWH[WDOVR

$WWDFKPHQW$

+03VXVFHSWLELOLW\PDS
Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program
November 13, 2006
1RWLQFOXGHGLQ+03
7LGDOO\LQIOXHQFHGGHSRVLWLRQDOH[HPSW
+LOORUKLJKVORSHUHJLRQ

VXVFHSWLEOH

6SHFLDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQ&RGRUQLFHV&UHHN
6SHFLDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQ6DQ/RUHQ]R $ODPHGD&UHHNV
6WUHHWV
&RXQW\ERXQGDU\
(QFORVHGSLSHRUFXOYHUW
(QJLQHHUHGFKDQQHOFRQFUHWH
(QJLQHHUHGFKDQQHOPDWHULDOVXQNQRZQ
(DUWKHQFKDQQHORUFRQQHFWRU
1DWXUDOFUHHNRUVWUHDP

VXVFHSWLEOH

0DMRUZDWHUVKHGV
0DMRUKLJKZD\V
&KDQQHOW\SH

6287+
6$1)5$1&,6&2
6$1%5812
'$/<
&,7<
3$&,),&$
%5,6%$1(
&2/0$
0,//%5$(
+,//6%2528*+ )267(5&,7<
+,*+/$1'6
$7+(5721
0(1/2
3$5.
($67
3$/2$/72
:22'6,'(
+$/)0221%$<
0217$5$
$/ 9$5$'2 $9(
(/ &$0,12 5($/
%(51$/ $9( & $5 0(/, 7$$9(
3XOJDV &UHHN
(/ &$0,12 5($/
6$1 &$5/26 $9(
($721 $9(
&('$567
67 $9(
6(/ &$0 ,12 5($/
$/ $0( '$ '( /$638/*$6
9 ,5 * ,1 ,$ $
9 (
+$5 9$5' 5'9 ,5 * ,1, $ 9 (
: 7 +$ 9
(
6 (/ &$ 0,1 25
( $/
5 $ <' 5
48 6( $' $: $ <
0 , /:2 2
' '
%
5 $5 & (/ 2
1 $' 5
/$8 5
( /$ 9(
& 5 <6 7$/ 6 35 , 1*6 $9 (
& 81 1
, 1* +
$ 0:
$ <
6+ $ 53 3 $5 .
+
5 '
:<
&/ $5 (1 ' 21 5 '
86
(/ &$0,12 5($/
$/$0('$ '( /$6 38/*$6
+:< (/*5$1$'$
5(':22'
&,7<
%85/,1*$0(
6$10$7(2
%(/0217
6$1&$5/26
,
6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\ 3DFLILF2FHDQ
+0&RQWURO$UHD0DS
5HYLVHG0DUFK

$UHD6XEMHFWWR+03
+DUGHQHG&KDQQHOV
([HPSWHG$UHDV
,PSHUYLRXV$UHDV
!

/RZ*UDGLHQW$UHDV
6WUHHWV
-XULVGLFWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\
&KDQQHO7\SH
8QKDUGHQHG
+DUGHQHG
0DMRU5RDGVDQG+LJKZD\V
/HJHQG
0LOHV
1 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment D
Attachment D - 1

ATTACHMENT D
Provision C.8.

Standard Monitoring Provisions
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment D
Attachment D - 2
All monitoring activities shall meet the following requirements:

1. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. [40 CFR 122.41(j)(1)]

2. Permittees shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance of monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by this Order for a period of at least five (5) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period may be extended by request of the Water Board or USEPA at any time and shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding this discharge. [40 CFR 122.41(j)(2), CWC section 13383(a)]

3. Records of monitoring information shall include [40 CFR 122.41(j)(3)]:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and,
f. The results of such analyses.

4. The CWA provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Order shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or both. [40 CFR 122.41(j)(5)]

5. Calculations for all limitations that require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in the monitoring Provisions. [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(iii)]

6. All chemical, bacteriological, and toxicity analyses shall be conducted at a laboratory certified for such analyses by the California Department of Health Services or a laboratory approved by the Executive Officer.

7. For priority toxic pollutants that are identified in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) (65 Fed. Reg. 31682), the Permittees shall instruct their laboratories to establish calibration standards that are equivalent to or lower than the Minimum Levels (MLs) published in Appendix 4 of the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (SIP). If a Permittee can demonstrate that a particular ML is not attainable, in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 136, the lowest quantifiable concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed by a specific analytical procedure (assuming that all the method specified sample weights, volumes, and processing steps have been followed) may be used instead of the ML listed in Appendix 4 of the SIP. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment D
Attachment D - 3
Permittee must submit documentation from the laboratory to the Water Board for approval prior to raising the ML for any priority toxic pollutant.

8. The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non-compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both. [40 CFR 122.41(k)(2)]

9. If a Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the Permit, unless otherwise specified in the Order, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the reports requested by the Water Board. [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(ii)] Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Attachment E - 1

ATTACHMENT E
Supporting Information for Provision C.10.

Example Trash Generation Rate Map
303(d) Trash Resolution and Staff Report
February 2009
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Attachment E - 2
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
RESOLUTION NO. R2-2009-0008

RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE LIST OF WATER BODIES AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 303(d) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board), finds that:

1. Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act requires the State to prepare a biennial update of an assessment of the waters within the State; and

2. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires the State to identify waters within the State for which water quality standards are not attained; and

3. The Water Board actively solicited water quality information from the public on December 4, 2006, and received 16 data and information submittals; and

4. Water Board staff assembled and considered all readily available data to assess water quality conditions and prepared fact sheets supporting recommendations for additions, deletions and changes to the existing list of impaired water bodies consistent with the Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (Listing Policy); and

5. Water Board staff provided advanced notice and opportunity for public comment on the draft recommendations for public review during a 45-day public comment period commencing on October 30, 2008; and

6. Water Board staff developed written responses to all public comments received and revised the supporting staff report and water body fact sheets for the Water Board’s consideration; and

7. The Listing Policy requires that the Water Board consider and approve each proposed list change as documented in a water body fact sheet; and

8. On January 14, 2009, the Water Board held a public hearing to consider the recommendations to change the 303(d) list; and

9. On February 11, 2009, the Water Board held a second public hearing to consider all testimony and comments, both oral and written, regarding the 2008 Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list for the San Francisco Bay Region.

Attachment E - 3
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Water Board approves each proposed 303(d) list addition, deletion or change as documented in the attached Staff Report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Water Board, in fulfillment of the requirements described in Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, hereby authorizes the Executive Officer to transmit the Water Board’s assessment, including recommended modifications to the section 303(d) list, as detailed in the attached Staff Report dated February 11, 2009, and associated water body Fact Sheets to the State Water Resources Control Board for approval of the 303(d) list and inclusion in the 2008 California Integrated Report on Water Quality.

I, Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Water Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on February 11, 2009.

Digitally signed
by Bruce Wolfe
Date: 2009.02.13
16:42:14 -08'00'
BRUCE H. WOLFE
Executive Officer
Attachment: Staff Report dated February 11, 2009, Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions for the San Francisco Bay Region - Proposed Revisions to Section 303(d) List Attachment E - 4
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

STAFF REPORT

EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS

FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SECTION 303(d) LIST
February 2009
San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Attachment E - 5
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
[Page intentionally left blank]
Attachment E - 6
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 LISTING POLICY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 2
3 INFORMATION RECEIVED AND ANALYZED 2

3.1 Data solicitation 2

3.2 Data analysis and recommendations 3

3.2.1 SWAMP data evaluation 4

3.2.2 Trash 8
Relevant Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives 8 Evaluation of Trash Assessment Results 9
Evaluation of Photographic Evidence for Trash 11
Spatial and Temporal Representativeness of Trash Impairment 12

3.3 Fact sheet development 12
4 LISTING DECISIONS 14

4.1 Proposed additions to the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies 14

4.2 Proposed delisting and status change 18

4.3 TMDL schedule 18

4.4 Do-Not-List recommendations 19

4.5 Editorial revisions to the 2006 303(d) list 21
5 303(d)/305(b) INTEGRATED REPORT 21
6 REFERENCES 22
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report i
February 2009
Attachment E - 7
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Tables
TABLE 1: WATER QUALITY THRESHOLDS FOR 303(d) DATA SCREENING OF FRESHWATER CREEKS FOR SELECTED

BENEFICIAL USES INCLUDING AQUATIC LIFE, MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC SUPPLY (MUN), AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY (AGR) AND WATER CONTACT RECREATION (REC1) 5 TABLE 2: FRESHWATER SEDIMENT QUALITY POLLUTANT THRESHOLDS FOR 303(d) DATA SCREENING 7 TABLE 3: LIST OF WATER BODIES WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TRASH IMPAIRMENT 9 TABLE 4: PROPOSED 2008 ADDITIONS TO 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATER BODIES 14 TABLE 5: DO NOT LIST RECOMMENDATIONS: SOME BENEFICIAL USES SUPPORTED 19 TABLE 6: DO NOT LIST RECOMMENDATIONS: INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE IF BENEFICIAL USES ARE ATTAINED 20
Figures
FIGURE 1: FACT SHEET TEMPLATE FOR THE 303(d) LIST 13
FIGURE 2: PROPOSED 2008 NEW 303(d) LISTINGS FOR TOXICANTS AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 16 FIGURE 3: PROPOSED 2008 303(d) LISTINGS FOR TRASH 17
Appendices
APPENDIX A PUBLIC SOLICITATION FOR WATER QUALITY INFORMATION – available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF DATA RECEIVED AND DATA QUALITY EVALUATION APPENDIX C WATER BODY FACT SHEETS – available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml 2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009 ii
Attachment E - 8
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
1 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
1 Introduction
One of the San Francisco Bay Water Board’s functions is to evaluate the water quality condition of waters in the San Francisco Bay Region. To accomplish this goal, staff gathers and evaluates data that are the basis of its water quality assessments. This staff report presents the results of staff’s review and consideration of the available water quality data for the Region, including data submitted by the public. One important outcome of the assessment process is the identification of water bodies that are being proposed for inclusion on the list of impaired water bodies. Under federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations, the State is required every two years to report to the U.S. EPA on the status of water quality in the State (Section 305(b) water quality assessment), and provide a list of impaired water bodies (Section 303(d) list). Impaired water bodies are those where water quality standards are not met or expected to be met after implementation of technology based requirements of the CWA.

The 303(d) list of impaired waters must include a description of the pollutants causing the violation of water quality standards. As defined in CWA and federal regulations, water quality standards include the designated uses of a water body, the adopted water quality criteria, and the State’s antidegradation policy. For water quality limited segments included on the 303(d) list, the State is required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address the impairment. A TMDL is defined as the “sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for non-point sources and natural background” (40 CFR130.2) such that the capacity of the water body to assimilate pollutant loadings (the loading capacity) is not exceeded. The federal requirement for setting priorities on which TMDLs will be developed is addressed in the State Board’s 2004 Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (Listing Policy) by the establishment of schedules for TMDL development.

The last review of the 303(d) list and update occurred in 2006. The review was based on the Listing Policy developed in 2004. For the 2008 update, the Water Board is considering for approval, recommendations on the conditions of waters in the Region, applying the Listing Policy in the process.

This staff report presents the current status of water quality in the San Francisco Bay Region for water bodies with readily available data, and identifies the methods and data used to evaluate water quality status. The report identifies the proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the 2006 303(d) list. The water quality assessments also result in the identification of water bodies where water quality standards are met or where not enough information is available to accurately assess water quality. The results of the water quality assessments are compiled into a statewide integrated report referred to as the 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report (Integrated Report) by the State Board.

The State Board will include the Water Boards’ listing/delisting recommendations in its preparation of the statewide 303(d) list for submission to the U.S. EPA. The statewide 303(d) list will be part of the Integrated Report. The State Board’s deliberative process will be conducted in 2009.

Attachment E - 9
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
2 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Appendix A of this staff report includes the public solicitation letters requesting that the public submit any and all available data to support the assessment of water quality in the Region.

Appendix B provides a summary of the data received from the public and an assessment of data quality. Appendix C refers to the Fact Sheets supporting the 303(d) list change recommendations The Fact Sheets are available online at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml Fact Sheets showing water bodies that support at least some beneficial uses, water bodies not listed due to insufficient information and revisions to the 2006 303(d) list are also available for viewing by following the link above.
2 Listing Policy and Evaluation Criteria
The proposed 2008 303(d) list of impaired water bodies in the San Francisco Bay Region was developed in accordance with the Listing Policy (SWRCB 2004). The Listing Policy establishes a standardized approach for developing California’s section 303(d) list. It outlines an approach that provides the rules for making listing decisions based upon different kinds of data and establishes a systematic framework for statistical analysis of water quality data. The Listing Policy also establishes requirements for data quality, data quantity, and administration of the listing process. Decision rules for listing and delisting are provided for: chemical-specific water quality standards; bacterial water quality standards; health advisories; bioaccumulation of chemicals in aquatic life tissues; nuisances such as trash, odor, and foam; nutrients; water and sediment toxicity; adverse biological response; and degradation of aquatic life populations and communities.

Listing and delisting decisions were made in accordance with the Listing Policy, using all applicable narrative and numeric water quality criteria contained in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan and in the California and National Toxic Rules. The Listing Policy specifies the frequency of exceedance of applicable water quality objectives that is necessary to make a determination that the water is impaired. When applying narrative water quality criteria, staff used guidelines developed by the U.S. EPA and other government agencies together with findings published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature to interpret data and evaluate the water quality conditions.
3 Information Received and Analyzed

3.1 Data solicitation
Federal regulation [(40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5)] states that “Each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information” when developing the 303(d) list. In December 2006, Water Board staff solicited the public to submit any and all water quality data to be considered in preparation of the 2008 303(d) list and 305(b) report.

Attachment E - 10
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
3 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
This solicitation established a data submittal deadline of February 28, 2007. On January 30, 2007, staff transmitted a notice clarifying that there were no limits on the type or format of data and information that the public could provide to the Water Boards for their assessment. The notices provided to the public can be found in Appendix A of this report.

Appendix B contains a summary of the data and information submitted to the Water Board for consideration in the 2008 303(d) listing process. We received 15 submissions in response to the data solicitation, including multiple requests to list water bodies, two requests to delist and/or not to list water bodies as well as data sets without any accompanying request to list or delist.

Water Board staff evaluated the submitted data in accordance with the Listing Policy, taking into account spatial and temporal representativeness and quality (Appendix B). The submissions and listing requests covered four major categories of pollutants and stressors including (1) trash; (2) general water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen and temperature; (3) nutrients and biostimulatory substances; and (4) suspended solids, sedimentation /siltation.

3.2 Data analysis and recommendations
The assessment process began by identifying and compiling all readily available water quality data as described above. Then, staff systematically reviewed these data sets. Due to the relatively limited number of data sets identified through the solicitation process, much of the effort focused on reviewing the available data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). Staff also developed an approach for interpreting the photographic and narrative documentation for trash relative to applicable water quality standards, consistent with the Listing Policy. In addition, beach water quality data collected by county health departments and stored in the State Board Beach Water Quality Database were evaluated to determine whether the most recently collected data would result in new listing or de-listing decisions for our Region. No changes to the 2006 303(d) list were identified.

The SWAMP data include field surveys of water column chemistry, sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, and water toxicity data as well as ancillary data on factors such as flows, biological community and physical habitat indicators. SWAMP was designed to provide information necessary to effectively manage the State’s water resources and, subsequently, facilitate assessment of water quality under sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Objectives of SWAMP include: (1) assessing the physical, chemical, and biological condition of water bodies in each region in order to determine if water bodies are impaired and beneficial uses are being protected; (2) generating data and information during different seasonal conditions; and (3) generating data and information that is somewhat evenly distributed across a water body to provide a screening level assessment of water quality. These objectives ensure that the SWAMP data meet all quality requirements of the Listing Policy.

For the purpose of analyzing the data and developing the proposed revisions to the 303(d) list, the Listing Policy recommends a “line of evidence” approach to establish both whether a water Attachment E - 11
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
4 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
body is impaired and what pollutant is causing the impairment. The lines of evidence in support of listing and/or delisting decisions for each affected water body are summarized in a water body-specific fact sheet. Fact sheets were developed for each water body for which sufficient data were available to evaluate during the review.

3.2.1 SWAMP data evaluation
Over the 5-year period (2001 – 2005) SWAMP conducted water quality monitoring in 37 watersheds in the Region (SFBRWQCB 2007c, 2007d). Data were collected at multiple locations within each water body over three hydrologic cycles including the wet season (January through March), the spring/decreasing flow season (April through May) and the dry season (June through October). Altogether data from over 190 sampling locations were evaluated. Selected sites in each water body were sampled to determine benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, trace metals, trace organic compounds, toxicity, and coliforms. Temporal variability in basic water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and specific conductance) was determined by continuous deployment of field measurement devices. These continuous deployments typically lasted one to two weeks and were conducted three to four times per year. Water, sediment and tissue samples that were collected were analyzed to determine concentrations of more than 230 constituents.

The first step of the water quality assessment involved screening all the data against the available water quality criteria and guidelines. For pollutants with applicable numeric water quality criteria, the impairment status was evaluated by comparing the concentration data with existing water and sediment objectives and standards contained chiefly in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, California and National Toxic Rules and U.S. EPA guidelines. When only narrative water quality objectives existed, staff identified evaluation guidelines protective of the beneficial use and specified the conditions above which impacts were minimal. Table 1 and Table 2 show a complete list of numeric criteria and evaluation guidelines used in this assessment.

Attachment E - 12
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
5 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Table 1: Water quality thresholds for 303(d) data screening of freshwater creeks for selected beneficial uses including aquatic life, municipal and domestic supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR) and water contact recreation (REC1)
Analyte Description of Standard
Numeric
Limit Units Reference
Field measures
Maximum, salmonid 24 ° C USEPA, 1977
Temperature 7-day mean, coho 14.8 ° C Sullivan et al., 2000 7-day mean, steelhead 17 ° C Sullivan et al., 2000
Oxygen, dissolved Minimum, warmwater
Minimum, coldwater
5 7
mg/L
mg/L
Basin Plan, 2007b
Basin Plan, 2007b
pH Range 6.5 to 8.5 S.U. Basin Plan, 2007b
Min for AGR 200 μS Basin Plan, 2007b
Specific conductance Max for AGR 3000 μS Basin Plan, 2007b Max for MUN 900 μS Basin Plan, 2007b
Salts – AGR only Salt thresholds apply only to waters with AGR beneficial use assigned.

Boron Maximum 0.5 mg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
Chloride Maximum 142 mg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
Metals
Cadmium, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc values assume a hardness of 100 mg/L CaCO3. Values at other hardness levels must be calculated using formulas in the Basin Plan.

Arsenic, dissolved 1-hour average WQO 340 μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b Metals -- MUN only
These Metals thresholds apply only to waters with MUN beneficial use assigned.

Manganese, total Maximum 50 μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
Mercury, total Maximum 2 μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
Organics
PCBs
Freshwater Criterion
Continuous Concentration 0.014 μg/L CTR
Chlorpyrifos 4-day average (chronic) 0.015 μg/L CVRWQCB, 2006 Dacthal (DCPA)
Instantaneous maximum
AWQC 14300 μg/L CVRWQCB, 2008
Diazinon 1-hour average 0.1 μg/L SFBRWQCB, 2005
Disulfoton (Disyston) Instantaneous maximum 0.05 μg/L CVRWQCB, 2008 4-day average WQO 150
Cadmium total 1-hour average WQO 3.9
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 1.1
Chromium VI, dissolved 1-hour average WQO 16
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 11
Copper dissolved 1-hour average WQO 13
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 9
Lead dissolved 1-hour average WQO 65
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 2.5
Mercury total 1-hour average WQO 2.4
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 0.025
Nickel dissolved 1-hour average WQO 470
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 52
Selenium total 4-day average WQO 5
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
1-hour average WQO 20
Silver, dissolved 1-hour average WQO 3.4 μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b Zinc dissolved 1-hour average WQO 120
μg/L Basin Plan, 2007b
4-day average WQO 120
Attachment E - 13
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
6 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Analyte Description of Standard
Field measures
Numeric
Limit Units Reference
AWQC
Endosulfan Continuous 4-day average 0.056 μg/L CTR
Instantaneous maximum 0.22 CTR
HCH, gamma- (gamma-BHC,
Lindane) Maximum 1-hour average 0.95 μg/L CTR
Instantaneous maximum
Parathion, methyl AWQC 0.08 μg/L CDFG
Instantaneous maximum
Thiobencarb AWQC 3.1 μg/L CDFG
Pathogens – Water Contact
Recreation (REC1)
E. coli (freshwater)
Steady state (all areas) 126 MPN
/100 US EPA, 1986
Designated beach (max) 235 mL
Fecal coliform
Geometric mean 200 MPN
/100 Basin Plan, 2007b
90th percentile 400 mL
Total coliform
Median 240 MPN
/100 Basin Plan, 2007b
Maximum 10000 mL
Coliforms – MUN only
MUN thresholds are DOHS recommendations for surface water that serves as drinking water source.

Fecal coliform Geometric mean <20
Total coliform Geometric mean <100
MPN
/100
mL
Basin Plan, 2007b
Toxicity -- Basin Plan
Two-sample t-tests (one-tailed, alpha = 0.05) were performed on station data versus control data.

For Ceriodaphnia and Pimephales, the null hypothesis tested was that the station response was less than (less growth, survival, etc) the control response.

For Selenastrum, where we are testing that station responses are greater than (more growth) or less than (less growth) the control, these two-sample tests have an alpha of 0.10.
80 %
80 %
Basin Plan (2007b) -
"There shall be no
chronic/acute toxicity in
ambient waters." (3.3.18)
CTR - (Federal Register, Part III; EPA; 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. May 18, 2000) CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Emergency Response, Hazard Assessment and Water Quality Criteria documents for pesticides (various dates), http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/sw/hazasm.htm
Attachment E - 14
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
7 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Table 2: Freshwater sediment quality pollutant thresholds for 303(d) data screening SQG type:

Probable effect
concentration Reference
Analyte mg/kg μg/kg
Metals
Arsenic 33
MacDonald et al. 2000
Cadmium 4.98
Chromium 111
Copper 149
Lead 128
Mercury 1.06
Nickel 48.6
Zinc 459
Organics MacDonald et al. 2000
Anthracene 845
Fluorene 536
Naphthalene 561
Phenanthrene 1170
Benz(a)anthracene 1050
Benzo(a)pyrene 1450
Chrysene 1290
Fluoranthene 2230
Pyrene 1520
PAH (total) 22800
PCB (total) 676
Chlordane 17.6
Dieldrin 61.8
DDD (sum op + pp) 28
DDE (sum op + pp) 31.3
DDT (sum op + pp) 62.9
DDT (total) 572
Endrin 207
Heptachlor epoxide 16
HCH, gamma 4.99
Toxicity Two-sample t-tests (one-tailed, alpha = 0.05) were performed on station data versus control data.

For Hyalella, the null hypothesis tested was that the
station response was less than (less growth,
survival, etc) the control response. 80% of the
control group was the threshold for sediment toxicity.

Basin Plan (2007b) - "There shall be no
chronic/acute toxicity in ambient waters."
(3.3.18)
Attachment E - 15
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
8 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

3.2.2 Trash
Trash is not a new problem for the Bay Region, but it is a continuing problem both as an aesthetic nuisance, as a serious threat to aquatic life in tributaries, and as a threat to marine life in estuaries and oceans. Data suggest that plastic from trash persists for hundreds of years in the environment and can pose a threat to wildlife through ingestion, entrapment and entanglement, and this plastic can leach potentially harmful chemicals to the aquatic environment. During the 2002 303(d) listing update effort, Staff discussed the water quality impacts associated with trash at some length (SFRWQCB 2001). Water Board staff found that trash threatened water quality in all urban creeks, lakes, and shorelines. Rather than listing all urban creeks at that time, the Water Board urged municipalities to implement trash control measures, assess trash impairments in their jurisdictions and document these assessments in annual reports submitted to the Board. Since 2002, Water Board staff has developed, refined, and implemented (2002 through 2005) a rapid trash assessment method as part of SWAMP (SFBRWQCB 2007a).

Other local entities, e.g., the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), also collected trash assessment data. The water quality assessments for trash conducted for this 303(d) update are based on the results of the rapid trash assessment method and interpretation of data submitted by the public using a similar approach.

The data solicitation for this update resulted in the submission of a large quantity of trashrelated data and accompanying requests for 303(d) listings. These data consisted mainly of photographs and narrative documentation on the status of trash levels for specific water bodies.

In addition to these data, staff compiled and considered rapid trash assessment data collected by SWAMP as well as similar trash assessment data collected by SCVURPPP. The two types of trash data, photographs and trash assessment results, required distinct evaluation methodologies described below. Because there are no numeric water quality criteria for trash, the trash data were reviewed according to the “weight of evidence” guidelines established in section 3.11 of the Listing Policy. After reviewing these data in accordance with the Listing Policy, there were several water bodies for which we did not have compelling evidence to place them on the 303(d) list. These water bodies are identified in Table 3 below. The water bodies recommended for placement on the 303(d) list for trash impairment are identified in Table 4 below, and the lines of evidence are described in detail in the Fact Sheets (Appendix C).

Relevant Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives
Several beneficial uses may be adversely impacted by trash, including recreation, aquatic life, wildlife habitat, and navigation. However, data were not readily available to allow staff to evaluate all beneficial uses possibly impaired by trash. Instead, we focused our review on evaluating impairment of the non-contact water recreation (REC-2) and wildlife habitat (WILD) beneficial uses, because these uses can be most easily evaluated through review of available trash data. Impairment of REC-2 can be readily evaluated based on the level of trash present. Impairment of WILD can be evaluated based on the level of certain types of trash associated with threat to wildlife, a beneficial use that implicitly includes aquatic life.

Beneficial uses adversely impacted by trash are, in turn, supported by the following set of narrative water quality objectives and Basin Plan prohibitions. The Basin Plan (Table 4-1, Attachment E - 16
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
9 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Prohibition Number 7) prohibits discharge of “rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.” The Basin Plan (Section 3.3.6) also has a narrative objective for floating material, “waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.” Last, the Basin Plan (Section 3.3.13) has a narrative objective for settleable material, “waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.”
Table 3: List of water bodies with insufficient evidence to establish trash impairment Water Body Designated/Potential Uses Supporting Data
Adobe Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA 1, Photos Alamitos Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Alhambra Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Arroyo Corte Madera del
Presidio
Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos
Arroyo Los Positas Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Arroyo Mocho Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Arroyo Seco Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Barron Basin Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Berryessa Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Calabazas Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Corte Madera Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Lagunitas Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Las Trampas Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Lafayette Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Ledgewood Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Los Gatos Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA, Photos McCoy Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Pacheco Slough Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Randall Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Rodeo Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA San Gregorio Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA San Ramon Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Sulphur Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Thompson Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Upper Penitencia Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Vista Grande Canal Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Walnut Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Photos Attachment E - 17
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
10 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Wildcat Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA Yerba Buena Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat RTA 1 RTA – Rapid Trash Assessment
Attachment E - 18
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
11 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Evaluation of Trash Assessment Results
The Water Board’s rapid trash assessment method generates site-specific scores on a scale from 0 to 120, with higher scores indicating cleaner sites. The method also documents the number of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline, and the rate of return of trash under different hydrologic conditions. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. When repeated several times throughout a year, this procedure allows for the assessment of temporal changes in impairment, usage patterns, and trash deposition rates under wet and dry weather conditions (SFBRWQCB 2007a).

The Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) method evaluates six parameters of trash impacts (level of trash, number of items found, threat to wildlife, threat to human health, illegal dumping, and trash accumulation). For purposes of determining impairment status, Water Board staff evaluated the magnitudes of the “level of trash” and “threat to aquatic life” parameters. If the “level of trash” parameter score fell in the ‘poor condition category’ (scores 0-5), REC-2 is deemed not supported. According to the RTA, the “poor condition” score corresponds to a level of trash that “distracts the eye on first glance. Stream, bank surfaces, and immediate riparian zone contain substantial levels of litter and debris (>100 pieces). This score suggests that the site is being used frequently by people: many cans, bottles, and food wrappers, blankets, clothing.” SCVURPPP developed a similar “level of trash” parameter that can be interpreted similarly. Water Board staff reason that if there is sufficient trash to “distract the eye on first glance” and there are substantial levels of litter and debris, then the non-contact beneficial use would be impaired.

The second RTA parameter considered is the “threat to aquatic life” category. If this parameter score fell in the ‘poor condition’ category (scores 0-5), then WILD is deemed not supported.

According to the RTA, the ‘poor condition’ score corresponds to a “large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter (such as hard or soft plastics, balloons, styrofoam, cigarette butts); toxic items (such as batteries, lighters, or spray cans); large clumps of yard waste or dumped leaf litter; or large amount (>50 pieces) of settleable glass or metal.” Water Board staff used the “threat to aquatic life” parameter to assess impairment to wildlife habitat beneficial uses (WILD) because the type of trash measured by this parameter is particularly problematic for wildlife (including aquatic life). The two primary problems that trash poses to wildlife are entanglement and ingestion. Mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and crustaceans all have been affected by entanglement in or ingestion of floatable debris. Many of the species most vulnerable to the problems of floatable debris are endangered or threatened.

Entanglement is harmful to wildlife because it can cause wounds that can lead to infections or loss of limbs and also cause strangulation, suffocation, drowning, or limited escape from predators (EPA 2002). Ingestion of trash can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the ingested items block the intestinal tract, preventing digestion, or accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel "full" and lessening its desire to feed. Ingestion of sharp objects can damage the mouth, digestive tract and/or stomach lining and cause infection or pain. Ingested items can also block air passages and prevent breathing, thereby causing death (EPA 2002).

Attachment E - 19
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
12 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
The Urban Rapid Trash Assessment (URTA) developed by SCVURPPP is a very slightly modified version of the original SWAMP RTA. It was modified to make it easier to apply in urban creeks, and the way in which category scores are interpreted was also modified.

However, the URTA has an identical parameter assessing threat to aquatic life (wildlife) by characterizing the amount of “Transportable, Persistent, Buoyant Litter.” If the raw score for this parameter fell in the marginal urban or poor condition category (scores 0-10, corresponding to a count of 76-200 pieces of such litter), then WILD is deemed not supported.

Although Water Board staff only considered the “level of trash” and “threat to aquatic life” parameters for determining impairment status, the SWAMP and SCVURPPP trash assessment methods have four additional parameters that can provide additional information about both the condition and cause of the trash encountered during assessment (SFBRWQCB 2007a). The assessments include a parameter indicating the total number of trash items counted on the 100- foot stream reach, both above and below the high water line. This is an efficient parameter to use to obtain a rough comparison of the trash impacts between sites, but it can be misleading because sometimes trash items are broken into many pieces, thus inflating the count.

The “threat to human health” parameter accounts for the number of items that are dangerous to humans who wade or swim in the water, and the presence of pollutants that could accumulate in fish in the downstream environment, such as mercury. The worst conditions for this parameter have the potential for the presence of dangerous bacteria or viruses, such as with medical waste, diapers, and human or pet waste. The “illegal dumping and littering” parameter relates to direct placement of trash items at a site, with “poor” conditions assigned to sites that appear to be dumping or littering locations based on adjacent land use practices or site accessibility. Finally, the “accumulation of trash” parameter can be used to distinguish trash that is transported from upstream locations from dumped trash. This is accomplished by noting indications of age and transport. Faded colors, silt marks, trash wrapped around roots, and signs of decay suggest downstream transport, indicating that the local drainage system facilitates conveyance of trash to water bodies.

Evaluation of Photographic Evidence for Trash
Nearly 900 photos of trash impacts were submitted and evaluated to make impairment determinations. These photos presented a fundamental impairment assessment challenge: how to interpret what can be seen in the photos relative to beneficial use impairment? The method we employed was to view the photos as if the water body was being assessed according to the RTA procedure. One of the co-authors of the RTA inspected every photograph and attempted to establish the RTA score for the “level of trash” and “threat to aquatic life” parameters, which relates to impairment of REC-2 and WILD, respectively. One of the first objectives of this photo inspection was to determine if the quantity and quality of the photos were sufficient to establish these parameter scores. Some photos were not clear enough to accomplish this.

In order to establish that the “Level of Trash” parameter was in the poor condition category, we required that reach-scale (i.e., showing most or all of the reach of the creek being photographed) and close-up photos of stream reaches must demonstrate a similar level of Attachment E - 20
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
13 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
trashiness as the ‘poor condition’ category of the RTA assessment parameter. In other words, we determined if the visual impression of the photos was consistent with the visual impression the evaluator might have experienced during actual RTA assessments for locations scoring in the ‘poor condition” category. A similar determination was made for each photo relative to the “threat to aquatic life” parameter.

Spatial and Temporal Representativeness of Trash Impairment As a general rule, water bodies recommended for inclusion on the 303(d) list for trash are those for which there is evidence of trash problems persisting through space and time. We applied this rule to trash assessment data and photographic data. In order to recommend listing, we typically required both that the water body contain two or more sites that show evidence of trash impairment (according to assessment or photo documentation) and that evidence of trash impairment existed on two or more occasions. There were instances in which a listing recommendation was made based on data for multiple occasions but only at one location if there were no other data available, but these were very rare exceptions. For San Francisco Bay listings, if shoreline or creek mouth sites satisfied these data sufficiency requirements, we recommended that the applicable bay segment be listed. In fact, for the bay segments recommended for listing (Central and Lower), there were at least two shoreline or creek mouth locations with unacceptably high levels of trash.

3.3 Fact sheet development
Water Board staff developed a Fact Sheet for each water body - pollutant combination that resulted in a listing or delisting recommendation, summarizing the data used to make the decision, the criteria used, and the basic water body characteristics. Figure 1 shows a template provided by the State Board and lists all categories of information required to develop a fact sheet and characterize the cause of impairment.

Attachment E - 21
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
14 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Region:

Water Body Segment:

Pollutant:

Decision: List/De-List
Weight of Evidence
RWQCB Staff Recommendation
Line of Evidence:

Fraction: Options for this field are none, not recorded, total, dissolved (does not include suspended), and total dissolved.

Matrix: Options for this field are tissue, water, sediment, N/A. This is the monitoring data sample medium.

Beneficial use(s): Find appropriate beneficial use in your Region’s Basin Plan.

Water Quality Objective/Criteria: Find in Basin Plan or use CTR or other appropriate water quality objective or criterion and completely cite it here and reference where you found it.

Evaluation Guideline: If the objective is narrative, use the appropriate evaluation guideline and completely cite it here and reference where you found it.

Data Used to Assess Water
Quality:

Summarize data assessed here. What is the total number
of samples? How many of these samples exceed the
objective/criterion/guideline?
Data References: Cite the data reference used for this assessment.

Spatial Representation: Where were the samples collected? How many stations, etc?
Temporal Representation: When were the samples collected? What was the sampling timeframe, etc?
Water Body Specific Information: Environmental conditions or factors that might effect data used in assessment [e.g. Fire/Flood/Dry Year event, etc.] Data Quality Assessment Excellent, good, fair, poor, unknown, and none QAPP Information: Clearly describe the quality assurance plan or document that applies to the data used for this assessment.

Reference the QA plan that was used. For example:
“Quality Control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with Standard
Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995).”
Figure 1: Fact sheet template for the 303(d) List
Attachment E - 22
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
15 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
4 Listing Decisions

4.1 Proposed additions to the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies Table 4 shows all proposed additions to the 303(d) list. Much more comprehensive information is available regarding these new proposed listings in the Fact Sheets (Appendix C). Locations of the water bodies evaluated as impaired during the 2008 listing period are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Table 4: Proposed 2008 additions to 303(d) list of impaired water bodies Water Body Beneficial Uses Pollutant/ Cause of
impairment
Almaden Lake Commercial and Recreational Collection
of Fish, Shellfish, or organisms
Mercury (tissue)1
Almaden Reservoir Commercial and Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or organisms
Mercury (tissue)1
Arroyo Las Positas Creek Warm Freshwater Habitat Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
Arroyo Mocho Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat (potential) Temperature Codornices Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat Temperature
Kirker Creek Warm Freshwater Habitat Pyrethroids2
Water Toxicity
Mount Diablo Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat Water Toxicity Permanente Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat Selenium
Water Toxicity
San Mateo Creek Lower Wildlife Habitat Sediment Toxicity Stevens Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat Temperature
Suisun Creek Cold Freshwater Habitat Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Old Alameda Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Baxter Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Cerrito Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
1 The Guadalupe River Watershed TMDL is expected to address this impairment 2 San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity TMDL approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 will address pyrethroids impairment in Kirker Creek.

Attachment E - 23
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
16 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Water Body Beneficial Uses Pollutant/ Cause of
impairment
Codornices Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Colma Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Coyote Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Damon Slough Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Grayson Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Guadalupe River Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Kirker Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Matadero Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Permanente Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Petaluma River Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Rindler Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
San Francisco Bay (Central)
shoreline
Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
San Francisco Bay (Lower)
shoreline
Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
San Francisquito Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat
Trash
San Leandro Creek Lower Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife Habitat
Trash
San Mateo Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
San Pablo Creek Non-Contact Recreation Trash
San Tomas Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Saratoga Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Sausal Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Silver Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Stevens Creek Wildlife Habitat Trash
Strawberry Creek Non-Contact Recreation and Wildlife
Habitat
Trash
Attachment E - 24
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
17 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Figure 2: Proposed 2008 new 303(d) listings for toxicants and conventional pollutants Attachment E - 25
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
18 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Old Alameda Creek
Figure 3: Proposed 2008 303(d) listings for trash
Attachment E - 26
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
19 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

4.2 Proposed delisting and status change
Delist nickel in Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay Based on the readily available data and information, there is strong justification for removing these water segment-pollutant combinations from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. The Basin Plan contains nickel water quality objectives of 8.2ȝg/L as a 4-day average and 74ȝg/L as a 1-hour average. Data collected by the Regional Monitoring Program and Special Copper/Nickel study from 1993 through 2005 showed that none of the 59 analyzed water samples from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta exceeded the water quality objectives, none of the 107 analyzed water samples from San Pablo Bay exceeded the water quality objectives, and none of the 96 analyzed water samples from Suisun Bay exceeded the objectives.

Change listing status: Castro Cove, Richmond (San Pablo Basin) - addressed by action other than TMDL
This water body was listed in 2006. Since that time a cleanup and abatement order (Order No.

R2-2006-0078) requiring remediation of sediment contamination in the listed portion of Castro Cove was issued. The cleanup action involves removal of contaminated sediment and supports other abatement measures in place, such as the mercury TMDL approved by USEPA on February 12, 2008. Cleanup is underway and, upon its completion, it is expected that this water body will meet applicable water quality standards.

In November 2007, the Water Board received a Monitoring and Risk Management Plan that includes post-dredging confirmation monitoring to demonstrate that chemical contamination in the sediment has been reduced to levels that no longer pose unacceptable ecological risk. The cleanup completion is scheduled for 2010, and it is expected that this action will attain beneficial uses. Therefore, we recommend that Castro Cove be moved from the 303(d) list requiring a TMDL to the 303(d) list of water bodies being addressed by an action other than a TMDL.

4.3 TMDL schedule
All water body-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list are assigned with a proposed TMDL completion date. The maximum time that can elapse between 303(d) listing and TMDL completion is 13 years. Accordingly, we have assigned all new listings a TMDL completion date of 2021. This does not suggest that all new listings have the same priority, but rather that the factors determining TMDL priorities have not yet been evaluated as part of this listing process. These factors will be considered through our continuing planning process and with input from our Board and stakeholders. These factors include:
 Water body significance;
 Severity of pollution;
 Degree of impairment;
Attachment E - 27
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
20 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
 Potential threat to human health and the environment;  Water quality benefits of ongoing activities in the watershed;  Potential for beneficial use protection and recovery;  Degree of public concern;
 Availability of funding; and
 Availability of data and information to address the water quality problem.

4.4 Do-Not-List recommendations
This section presents two categories of water bodies for which a “do not list” decision was made. Table 5 lists good quality waters. For these waters there are sufficient data to determine that at least some beneficial uses are supported, and no data are available that suggest nonattainment of beneficial uses. Fact sheets for each of these recommendations are available online (Appendix C).

Table 5: Do Not List recommendations: Some beneficial uses supported Water Body Designated/Potential Uses Supporting Data
Easkoot Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Pine Gulch Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Redwood Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Rodeo Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Tennessee Valley Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Webb Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Table 6 lists water body-pollutant combinations, for which there was insufficient information Attachment E - 28
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
21 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
to determine whether or not water quality standards are being attained. In some cases, there are a small number of water quality standard exceedances, but they are insufficient to demonstrate impairment in accordance with the Listing Policy. Thus, for these water bodypollutant combinations, more data should be collected to allow for a definitive determination in a subsequent listing cycle. The Fact Sheets for these water body-pollutant combinations, other than for trash assessment, are provided in Appendix C, online.

Table 6: Do Not List recommendations: Insufficient information to determine if beneficial uses are attained
Water Body Designated/Potential Uses Supporting Data
Arroyo Viejo Creek Aquatic Life/
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity sediment
Cr , Cu, As, Ni – sediment
Audubon Canyon Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Nitrate
Codornices Creek Aquatic Life /
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Dissolved oxygen
Glen Echo Creek Aquatic Life/
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity sediment
As, Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg,
Ni – sediment
Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn – water
Lion Creek Aquatic Life/
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Dissolved oxygen
Lobos Creek Aquatic Life/
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity water
Toxicity sediment
Morses Gulch Creek Aquatic Life/
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Nitrate
Mt Diablo Creek Aquatic Life /
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Dissolved oxygen
Toxicity sediment
Peralta Creek Aquatic Life /
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity sediment
Pyrethroids
Diazinon
Permanente Creek Aquatic Life /
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity sediment
San Leandro Creek, Lower Aquatic Life /
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Chromium
Stevens Creek Aquatic Life /
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Dissolved oxygen
Temescal Creek Aquatic Life/
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Toxicity water
Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn – water
Walker Creek Aquatic Life /
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Temperature
Attachment E - 29
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
22 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

4.5 Editorial revisions to the 2006 303(d) list
In addition to the proposed status changing actions, we reviewed and clarified the decision language for water bodies on the 303(d) list adopted in 2006. In particular, careful consideration was given to updating the expected schedules for TMDL completion. In addition, the updated list reflects U.S. EPA approval of TMDLs adopted since the 2006 303(d) list was approved. All of these revisions are editorial in nature and do not change the listing status of any water body. These revisions to the 2006 303(d) list of impaired water bodies are shown in Appendix C, online.
5 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report
The 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report will be prepared by State Board based on the information submitted in this report and similar information prepared by all the other Regions. The Integrated Report will then be submitted to the U.S. EPA. All of the assessments reflected in the Fact Sheets included in this report will be used to determine which category to assign to the evaluated water bodies. Additional Fact Sheets may be prepared for non-303(d) listed water bodies for inclusion in the Integrated Report.

The US EPA defines five non-overlapping categories for use in the integrated assessment (USEPA 2005). These categories include:

Category 1: All designated uses are supported, no use is threatened; Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all of the designated uses are supported (see Table 5 above);
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to make a use support determination (see Table 6 above);
Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not needed; and Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed (Table 4 above).

The 2008 Integrated Report adopted by State Board will include the 303(d) listing changes approved by each Regional Water Board. Categories 4 and 5 reflect those water bodies placed on the 303(d) list.

Attachment E - 30
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
23 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
6 References
CVRWQCB. 2006. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin Rivers Basins for the Control of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos. June 2006. Final Staff Report:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/delta_op _pesticide/final_staff_report/delta_dc_bpa_staff_rpt.pdf CVRWQCB. 2008. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals. Report prepared by J.B. Marshack. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/water_quality_standards_limits/water_quality_go als/index.shtml
MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G. and T.A. Berger. 2000. “Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems”. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39:20-31.

SFBRWQCB. 2001. Draft Staff Report: Proposed Revisions to Section 303(d) List and Priorities for Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the San Francisco Bay Region. August 2001.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/available_documents/draft303dr b2.pdf
SFBRWQCB. 2005. Diazinon and pesticide-related toxicity in San Francisco Bay Area urban creeks Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Staff Report, November 9, 2005. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/urbancrksdiaz inontmdl.shtml
SFBRWQCB. 2007a. A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region: Trash Measurement in Streams. April 2007. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/surface monitoring/rb2swamptrashrpt06152007.pdf
SFBRWQCB. 2007b. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). January 18, 2007.

SFBRWQCB. 2007c. Water quality monitoring and bioassessment in nine San Francisco Bay Region watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

SFBRWQCB. 2007d. Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Attachment E - 31
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
24 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Mateo Creek. Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

SWRCB. 2004. Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Section 303(d) List.

Resolution No. 2004-0063. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board. California Environmental Protection Agency.

Sullivan, K., D.J. Martin, R.D. Cardwell, J.E. Toll and S. Duke. 2000. An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute.

U.S. EPA. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-061 (NTIS PB270032). Prepared by W.A. Brungs and B.R.

Jones. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA 440/5-84-002. Office of Water, Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Draft: Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. EPA-842-B-02-002.

U.S. EPA. 2005. Guidance for 2006 assessment, listing and reporting requirements pursuant to sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act. July 29, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/report/2006irg-report.pdf Attachment E - 32
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
25 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
[Page intentionally left blank]
Attachment E - 33
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC SOLICITATION
for Water Quality Information
available online at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml Attachment E - 34
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
[Page intentionally left blank]
Attachment E - 35
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF DATA RECEIVED AND

DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
Attachment E - 36
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
[Page intentionally left blank]
Attachment E - 37
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 1
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Summary of Data Received
as a Result of Solicitation Process in February 2007
Water Body Pollutant/
Water quality
Data Source Spatial
Representation
Temporal
Representation
Data Quality
parameter
Guadalupe River, Los Gatos
Creek, Richmond Marsh, San
Rafael Creek, Wildcat Creek,
Stevens Creek
Trash Save the Bay
Photographic
documentation and
estimates of trash loads
1-4 locations on each
water body
Data collected in January
and February 2007
Medium –
photographic
documentation
Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek Trash GCRCD: GuadalupeCoyote Resource Conservation District
Photographic and narrative
documentation of trash,
debris, channel blockages,
encampments and dumping
5 locations on Coyote
Creek and 1 location on
Guadalupe River
Data collected in March
2002, May 2005, and
May 2006
Medium –
photographic
documentation
Bay area storm drain channels,
creeks, wetlands and San
Francisco Bay
Damon Slough, Eastshore Park,
Strawberry Creek, Temescal
Creek, Adobe Creek, Alameda
Creek, Alhambra Creek, Arroyo
Seco, Coyote Creek, Richardson
Bay shoreline, Aquatic Park
Lagoon, Calabazas Creek, Colma
Creek, Corte Madera Creek,
Middle Harbor Park shoreline,
Frontage Road Beach, Grayson
Creek, Guadalupe River,
Lafayette Creek, Lake Merritt,
Trash/Gross
pollutants
Roger B. James &
Lawrence P. Kolb
Photographic and narrative
documentation over a 10-
year period
1-5 locations on each
water body
Data collected mainly in
winter months from 1997-
2007, majority in 2006
and 2007
Medium –
photographic
documentation

REQUESTS TO LIST
Attachment E - 38
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 2
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Water Body Pollutant/
Water quality
parameter
Data Source Spatial
Representation
Temporal
Representation
Data Quality
Las Trampas Creek, Ledgewood
Creek, Matadero Creek, McCoy
Creek, Pacheco Slough, Rindler
Creek, San Leandro Creek, San
Mateo Creek, San Rafael Creek,
San Pablo Creek, San Ramon
Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek,
Sausal Creek, Stevens Creek,
Sulphur Creek, Vista Grande
Canal, Walnut Creek, 54th Ave.

Creek (tidal near Oakport)
Rodeo Creek Sediment Muir Heritage Land
Trust
No quantitative data,
geomorphic assessment
and creek analysis
(Geomorphic and
Hydrologic Assessment of
Fernandez Ranch prepared
by Watershed Sciences
N/A N/A No data submitted
Willow Creek (tributary of
Wildcat Creek near Saratoga)
Sediment Margaret Giberson of Los
Gatos
Willow Creek 1985-1991, 2002 Law – old (1985-
1991, 2002)
photographic
documentation of
sediment runoff
San Francisco Bay – areas
adjacent to dredge material
disposal sites
Suspended
sediment
Fred Krieger of Berkeley
Narrative evidence and
references to USGS
mapping, SFEI assessments
of sediment loadings, RMP
data and a White Paper on
San Francisco Bay N/A No data submitted

REQUESTS TO LIST
Attachment E - 39
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 3
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Water Body Pollutant/
Water quality
parameter
Data Source Spatial
Representation
Herring
Temporal
Representation
Data Quality
Abbotts Lagoon and associated
tributaries in Point Reyes National
Park
Biostimulatory
substances,
dissolved
oxygen, unionized
ammonia
Fred Krieger of Berkeley
Link to the USGS report
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/20
05/5261/sir_2005-
5261.pdf
Assessment of Hydrologic
and Water Quality Data
Collected in Abbotts
Lagoon Watershed, Point
Reyes National Seashore,
California, during Water
Years 1999 and 2000
Eleven monitoring
locations including 3
locations in Abbotts
Lagoon and 8 locations
in unnamed tributaries
draining into Abbotts
Lagoon
Old data collected from
November 1998 through
August 1999. Quarterly
sampling at the 3 lagoon
sites and one perennial
tributary and sampling of
two storm events at
several tributary sites
Old data. Medium
quality – limited
quality control
procedures
Lake Chabot and its tributary
Rindler Creek (Solano County)
Trash,
dissolved
oxygen,
sediment
Friends of Lake Chabot
Data not submitted,
reference made to the data
collected by the Vallejo
Sanitation and Flood
Control District
N/A N/A No data submitted
California Ocean Waters Carbon dioxide Center for Biological Diversity
No data submitted.

Scientific papers and
supporting documentation
on acidification of ocean
waters
N/A N/A No numerical data
submitted

REQUESTS TO LIST
Attachment E - 40
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 4
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
Water Body Pollutant/
Water quality
Data Source Spatial
Representation
Temporal
Representation
Data Quality
parameter
Urban Creeks – Santa Clara
Basin
Adobe Creek, Alamitos Creek,
Barron Creek, Berryessa Creek,
Calabazas Creek, Coyote
Creek, El Camino Storm Drain
Channel, Guadalupe River, Los
Gatos Creek, Silver Creek,
Matadero Creek, Penitencia
Creek, Permanente Creek,
Randall Creek, Rodeo Creek,
San Francisquito Creek, San
Tomas Creek, Saratoga Creek,
Stevens Creek, Thompson
Creek
Trash and water
quality data
SCVURPPP: Santa Clara
Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention
Program
Photographic and narrative
documentation of creeks
impacted by trash including
additional physical,
chemical and biological
data
1-3 locations on each
water body
Data collected 1 to 3
times per location from
2004 through 2006
High
Quantitative Trash
Assessment
Methodology
documented in
separate report
Lake Merced Dissolved oxygen,
pH
Lake Del Valle Reservoir Basic water quality,
conventional
chemistry, E. coli,
Total coliform,
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission
Data submitted in support
of not listing Lake Merced
on the 303(d) list
Alameda Food Control
and Water Conservation
District
Data submitted to
document good quality of
the drinking water supply.

Request to modify the
current 303(d) listing of the
Four monitoring
locations in Lake
Merced including 2
locations in South Lake
Merced and 1 location
in North and 1 in North
East section of the lake.

Seven monitoring
locations at 3 water
bodies - including 3
locations at the Lake
Del Valle and 4
locations at major
inputs to the South Bay
Aqueduct
DO and pH measured
from 4 to 8 times a year
over a period from
05/27/2004 to 12/20/2006
Samples collected from
December 2005 through
March 2006
Quality control
procedures unknown
Description of the
QA/QC protocols not
included

REQUESTS NOT TO LIST / DE-LIST / OTHER
Attachment E - 41
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 5
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

REQUESTS NOT TO LIST / DE-LIST / OTHER
Water Body Pollutant/
Water quality
parameter
Data Source Spatial
Representation
Temporal
Representation
Data Quality
reservoir for Hg and PCBs
to state that there is no
threat to treated drinking
water supply.

San Francisco Bay Selenium Western State Petroleum
Association
N/A N/A RMP data available –
high quality
Request to de-list
Literature review and
interpretation of selenium
concentration data in San
Francisco Bay and the
likely toxicological effects
of selenium.

Mount Diablo Creek Temperature,
dissolved oxygen,
Friends of Mount Diablo
Creek
Six sampling locations
(3 sites on the main
Physico-chemical
parameters measured
QA/QC protocols
included
pH, conductivity,
bacteria
Data provided for ongoing
assessment of Mount
Diablo Ck.
stem of Mount Diablo
Ck and 3 sites on the
local tributaries)
monthly from March
2006 through February
2007.

E coli and total coliforms
measured at 3 sites in July
and August 2006
N/A Pesticides DPR1
: Department of
Pesticide Regulation - links
to the Surface Water
Database containing
pesticides data for
California waterways. No
specific data submitted.

Contra Costa, San
Mateo, Solano and
Santa Clara County,
Old data (1992-1998) High
1 The database comprises a limited amount of pesticide data (diazinon, chloropyrifos, diuron, metha diuron) collected more than 10 years ago from 12 creeks within Region 2 boundaries.

Attachment E - 42
2008 303(d) List - Staff Report
February 2009
Appendix B - 6
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E
[Page intentionally left blank.]
Attachment E - 43
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment E

APPENDIX C

WATER BODY FACT SHEETS
available online at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml Attachment E - 44
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 1

ATTACHMENT F
State Water Resources Control Board
Resolution No. 2012-0031, Attachment B
Special Protections for Areas of Biological Significance Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 2
State Water Resources Control Board
Resolution No. 2012-0031
Attachment B - Special Protections for Areas of Special Biological Significance, Governing Point Source Discharges of Storm Water and Nonpoint Source Waste Discharges
I. PROVISIONS FOR POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES OF STORM WATER AND NONPOINT

SOURCE WASTE DISCHARGES
The following terms, prohibitions, and special conditions (hereafter collectively referred to as special conditions) are established as limitations on point source storm water and nonpoint source discharges. These special conditions provide Special Protections for marine aquatic life and natural water quality in Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), as required for State Water Quality Protection Areas pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 36700(f) and 36710(f). These Special Protections are adopted by the State Water Board as part of the California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) General Exception.

The special conditions are organized by category of discharge. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) will determine categories and the means of regulation for those categories [e.g., Point Source Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or Nonpoint Source].

A. PERMITTED POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES OF STORM WATER

1. General Provisions for Permitted Point Source Discharges of Storm Water a. Existing storm water discharges into an ASBS are allowed only under the following conditions:
(1) The discharges are authorized by an NPDES permit issued by the State Water Board or Regional Water Board;
(2) The discharges comply with all of the applicable terms, prohibitions, and special conditions contained in these Special Protections; and
(3) The discharges:
(i) Are essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road, and parking lot drainage;
(ii) Are designed to prevent soil erosion;
(iii) Occur only during wet weather;
(iv) Are composed of only storm water runoff.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 3
b. Discharges composed of storm water runoff shall not alter natural ocean water quality in an ASBS.
c. The discharge of trash is prohibited.
d. Only discharges from existing storm water outfalls are allowed. Any proposed or new storm water runoff discharge shall be routed to existing storm water discharge outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to an ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading). “Existing storm water outfalls” are those that were constructed or under construction prior to January 1, 2005. “New contribution of waste” is defined as any addition of waste beyond what would have occurred as of January 1, 2005. A change to an existing storm water outfall, in terms of re-location or alteration, in order to comply with these special conditions, is allowed and does not constitute a new discharge.
e. Non-storm water discharges are prohibited except as provided below:
(1) The term “non-storm water discharges” means any waste discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or other NPDES permitted storm drain system to an ASBS that are not composed entirely of storm water. (2) (i) The following non-storm water discharges are allowed, provided that the discharges are essential for emergency response purposes, structural stability, slope stability or occur naturally:
(a) Discharges associated with emergency fire fighting operations. (b) Foundation and footing drains.
(c) Water from crawl space or basement pumps.
(d) Hillside dewatering.
(e) Naturally occurring groundwater seepage via a storm drain. (f) Non-anthropogenic flows from a naturally occurring stream via a culvert or storm drain, as long as there are no contributions of anthropogenic runoff. (ii) An NPDES permitting authority may authorize non-storm water discharges to an MS4 with a direct discharge to an ASBS only to the extent the NPDES permitting authority finds that the discharge does not alter natural ocean water quality in the ASBS.
(3) Authorized non-storm water discharges shall not cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality objectives in Chapter II of the Ocean Plan nor alter natural ocean water quality in an ASBS.

2. Compliance Plans for Inclusion in Storm Water Management Plans (SWMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP).

The discharger shall specifically address the prohibition of non-storm water runoff and the requirement to maintain natural water quality for storm water discharges to an ASBS in an Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 4
ASBS Compliance Plan to be included in its SWMP or a SWPPP, as appropriate to permit type.

If a statewide permit includes a SWMP, then the discharger shall prepare a stand-alone compliance plan for ASBS discharges. The ASBS Compliance Plan is subject to approval by the Executive Director of the State Water Board (statewide permits) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (for permits issued by Regional Water Boards). a. The Compliance Plan shall include a map of surface drainage of storm water runoff, showing areas of sheet runoff, prioritize discharges, and describe any structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) already employed and/or BMPs to be employed in the future. Priority discharges are those that pose the greatest water quality threat and which are identified to require installation of structural BMPs. The map shall also show the storm water conveyances in relation to other features such as service areas, sewage conveyances and treatment facilities, landslides, areas prone to erosion, and waste and hazardous material storage areas, if applicable. The SWMP or SWPPP shall also include a procedure for updating the map and plan when changes are made to the storm water conveyance facilities.
b. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall describe the measures by which all non-authorized non-storm water runoff (e.g., dry weather flows) has been eliminated, how these measures will be maintained over time, and how these measures are monitored and documented.
c. For Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s), the ASBS Compliance Plan shall require minimum inspection frequencies as follows:
(1) The minimum inspection frequency for construction sites shall be weekly during rainy season;
(2) The minimum inspection frequency for industrial facilities shall be monthly during the rainy season;
(3) The minimum inspection frequency for commercial facilities (e.g., restaurants) shall be twice during the rainy season; and
(4) Storm water outfall drains equal to or greater than 18 inches (457 mm) in diameter or width shall be inspected once prior to the beginning of the rainy season and once during the rainy season and maintained to remove trash and other anthropogenic debris.
d. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall address storm water discharges (wet weather flows) and, in particular, describe how pollutant reductions in storm water runoff, that are necessary to comply with these special conditions, will be achieved through BMPs.

Structural BMPs need not be installed if the discharger can document to the satisfaction of the State Water Board Executive Director (statewide permits) or Regional Water Board Executive Officer (Regional Water Board permits) that such installation would pose a threat to health or safety. BMPs to control storm water runoff discharges (at the end-of-pipe) during a design storm shall be designed to achieve on average the following target levels:
(1) Table B Instantaneous Maximum Water Quality Objectives in Chapter II of the Ocean Plan; or
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 5
(2) A 90% reduction in pollutant loading during storm events, for the applicant’s total discharges.

The baseline for these determinations is the effective date of the Exception, except for those structural BMPs installed between January 1, 2005 and adoption of these Special Protections, and the reductions must be achieved and documented within six (6) years of the effective date.
e. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall address erosion control and the prevention of anthropogenic sedimentation in ASBS. The natural habitat conditions in the ASBS shall not be altered as a result of anthropogenic sedimentation. f. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall describe the non-structural BMPs currently employed and planned in the future (including those for construction activities), and include an implementation schedule. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall include non-structural BMPs that address public education and outreach. Education and outreach efforts must adequately inform the public that direct discharges of pollutants from private property not entering an MS4 are prohibited. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall also describe the structural BMPs, including any low impact development (LID) measures, currently employed and planned for higher threat discharges and include an implementation schedule. To control storm water runoff discharges (at the end-of-pipe) during a design storm, permittees must first consider, and use where feasible, LID practices to infiltrate, use, or evapotranspirate storm water runoff on-site, if LID practices would be the most effective at reducing pollutants from entering the ASBS. g. The BMPs and implementation schedule shall be designed to ensure that natural water quality conditions in the receiving water are achieved and maintained by either reducing flows from impervious surfaces or reducing pollutant loading, or some combination thereof.
h. If the results of the receiving water monitoring described in IV.B. of these special conditions indicate that the storm water runoff is causing or contributing to an alteration of natural ocean water quality in the ASBS, the discharger shall submit a report to the State Water Board and Regional Water Board within 30 days of receiving the results. (1) The report shall identify the constituents in storm water runoff that alter natural ocean water quality and the sources of these constituents.
(2) The report shall describe BMPs that are currently being implemented, BMPs that are identified in the SWMP or SWPPP for future implementation, and any additional BMPs that may be added to the SWMP or SWPPP to address the alteration of natural water quality. The report shall include a new or modified implementation schedule for the BMPs.
(3) Within 30 days of the approval of the report by the State Water Board Executive Director (statewide permits) or Regional Water Board Executive Officer (Regional Water Board permits), the discharger shall revise its ASBS Compliance Plan to incorporate any new or modified BMPs that have been or will be implemented, the implementation schedule, and any additional monitoring required.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 6
(4) As long as the discharger has complied with the procedures described above and is implementing the revised SWMP or SWPPP, the discharger does not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of natural ocean water quality conditions due to the same constituent.
(5) The requirements of this section are in addition to the terms, prohibitions, and conditions contained in these Special Protections.

3. Compliance Schedule
a. On the effective date of the Exception, all non-authorized non-storm water discharges (e.g., dry weather flow) are effectively prohibited.
b. Within eighteen (18) months from the effective date of the Exception, the discharger shall submit a draft written ASBS Compliance Plan to the State Water Board Executive Director (statewide permits) or Regional Water Board Executive Officer (Regional Water Board permits) that describes its strategy to comply with these special conditions, including the requirement to maintain natural water quality in the affected ASBS. The ASBS Compliance Plan shall include a description of appropriate non-structural controls and a time schedule to implement structural controls (implementation schedule) to comply with these special conditions for inclusion in the discharger’s SWMP or SWPPP, as appropriate to permit type. The final ASBS Compliance Plan, including a description and final schedule for structural controls based on the results of runoff and receiving water monitoring, must be submitted within thirty (30) months from the effective date of the Exception.
c. Within 18 months of the effective date of the Exception, any non-structural controls that are necessary to comply with these special conditions shall be implemented. d. Within six (6) years of the effective date of the Exception, any structural controls identified in the ASBS Compliance Plan that are necessary to comply with these special conditions shall be operational.
e. Within six (6) years of the effective date of the Exception, all dischargers must comply with the requirement that their discharges into the affected ASBS maintain natural ocean water quality. If the initial results of post-storm receiving water quality testing indicate levels higher than the 85th percentile threshold of reference water quality data and the pre-storm receiving water levels, then the discharger must re-sample the receiving water, pre- and post-storm. If after re-sampling the post-storm levels are still higher than the 85th percentile threshold of reference water quality data, and the pre-storm receiving water levels, for any constituent, then natural ocean water quality is exceeded. See attached Flowchart.
f. The Executive Director of the State Water Board (statewide permits) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board permits) may only authorize additional time to comply with the special conditions d. and e., above if good cause exists to do so. Good cause means a physical impossibility or lack of funding.

If a discharger claims physical impossibility, it shall notify the Board in writing within thirty (30) days of the date that the discharger first knew of the event or circumstance that caused or would cause it to fail to meet the deadline in d. or e. The notice shall describe Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 7
the reason for the noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance and specifically refer to this Section of this Exception. It shall describe the anticipated length of time the delay in compliance may persist, the cause or causes of the delay as well as measures to minimize the impact of the delay on water quality, the measures taken or to be taken by the discharger to prevent or minimize the delay, the schedule by which the measures will be implemented, and the anticipated date of compliance. The discharger shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such delays and their impact on water quality.

The discharger may request an extension of time for compliance based on lack of funding. The request for an extension shall require:

1. for municipalities, a demonstration of significant hardship to discharger ratepayers, by showing the relationship of storm water fees to annual household income for residents within the discharger's jurisdictional area, and the discharger has made timely and complete applications for all available bond and grant funding, and either no bond or grant funding is available, or bond and/or grant funding is inadequate; or

2. for other governmental agencies, a demonstration and documentation of a good faith effort to acquire funding through that agency’s budgetary process, and a demonstration that funding was unavailable or inadequate.

B. NONPOINT SOURCE DISCHARGES

1. General Provisions for Nonpoint Sources
a. Existing nonpoint source waste discharges are allowed into an ASBS only under the following conditions:
(1) The discharges are authorized under waste discharge requirements, a conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements, or a conditional prohibition issued by the State Water Board or a Regional Water Board.
(2) The discharges are in compliance with the applicable terms, prohibitions, and special conditions contained in these Special Protections.
(3) The discharges:
(i) Are essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road, and parking lot drainage;
(ii) Are designed to prevent soil erosion;
(iii) Occur only during wet weather;
(iv) Are composed of only storm water runoff.
b. Discharges composed of storm water runoff shall not alter natural ocean water quality in an ASBS.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 8
c. The discharge of trash is prohibited.
d. Only existing nonpoint source waste discharges are allowed. “Existing nonpoint source waste discharges” are discharges that were ongoing prior to January 1, 2005. “New nonpoint source discharges” are defined as those that commenced on or after January 1, 2005. A change to an existing nonpoint source discharge, in terms of relocation or alteration, in order to comply with these special conditions, is allowed and does not constitute a new discharge.
e. Non-storm water discharges from nonpoint sources (those not subject to an NPDES Permit) are prohibited except as provided below:
(1) The term “non-storm water discharges” means any waste discharges that are not composed entirely of storm water.
(2) The following non-storm water discharges are allowed, provided that the discharges are essential for emergency response purposes, structural stability, slope stability, or occur naturally:
(i) Discharges associated with emergency fire fighting operations. (ii) Foundation and footing drains.
(iii) Water from crawl space or basement pumps.
(iv) Hillside dewatering.
(v) Naturally occurring groundwater seepage via a storm drain. (vi) Non-anthropogenic flows from a naturally occurring stream via a culvert or storm drain, as long as there are no contributions of anthropogenic runoff. (3) Authorized non-storm water discharges shall not cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality objectives in Chapter II of the Ocean Plan nor alter natural ocean water quality in an ASBS.
f. At the San Clemente Island ASBS, discharges incidental to military training and research, development, test, and evaluation operations are allowed. Discharges incidental to underwater demolition and other in-water explosions are not allowed in the two military closure areas in the vicinity of Wilson Cove and Castle Rock. Discharges must not result in a violation of the water quality objectives, including the protection of the marine aquatic life beneficial use, anywhere in the ASBS. g. At the San Nicolas Island and Begg Rock ASBS, discharges incidental to military research, development, testing, and evaluation of, and training with, guided missile and other weapons systems, fleet training exercises, small-scale amphibious warfare training, and special warfare training are allowed. Discharges incidental to underwater demolition and other in-water explosions are not allowed. Discharges must not result in a violation of the water quality objectives, including the protection of the marine aquatic life beneficial use, anywhere in the ASBS.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 9
h. All other nonpoint source discharges not specifically authorized above are prohibited.

2. Planning and Reporting
a. The nonpoint source discharger shall develop an ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan, including an implementation schedule, to address storm water runoff and any other nonpoint source discharges from its facilities. The ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan must be equivalent in contents to an ASBS Compliance Plan as described in I (A)(2) in this document. The ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan is subject to approval by the Executive Director of the State Water Board (statewide waivers or waste discharge requirements) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board waivers or waste discharge requirements).
b. The ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan shall address storm water discharges (wet weather flows) and, in particular, describe how pollutant reductions in storm water runoff that are necessary to comply with these special conditions, will be achieved through Management Measures and associated Management Practices (Management Measures/Practices). Structural BMPs need not be installed if the discharger can document to the satisfaction of the State Water Board Executive Director or Regional Water Board Executive Officer that such installation would pose a threat to health or safety. Management Measures to control storm water runoff during a design storm shall achieve on average the following target levels:
(1) Table B Instantaneous Maximum Water Quality Objectives in Chapter II of the Ocean Plan; or
(2) A 90% reduction in pollutant loading during storm events, for the applicant’s total discharges.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 10
(3) Within 30 days of the approval of the report by the State Water Board Executive Director (statewide waivers or waste discharge requirements) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board waivers or waste discharge requirements), the discharger shall revise its ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan to incorporate any new or modified Management Measures/Practices that have been or will be implemented, the implementation schedule, and any additional monitoring required.
(4) As long as the discharger has complied with the procedures described above and is implementing the revised ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan, the discharger does not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of natural water quality conditions due to the same constituent. (5) The requirements of this section are in addition to the terms, prohibitions, and conditions contained in these Special Protections.

The Pollution Prevention Plan shall include a description of appropriate non-structural controls and a time schedule to implement structural controls to comply with these special conditions for inclusion in the discharger’s Pollution Prevention Plan. The final ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan, including a description and final schedule for structural controls based on the results of runoff and receiving water monitoring, must be submitted within thirty (30) months from the effective date of the Exception. c. Within 18 months of the effective date of the Exception, any non-structural controls that are necessary to comply with these Special Protections shall be implemented. d. Within six (6) years of the effective date of the Exception, any structural controls identified in the ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan that are necessary to comply with these special conditions shall be operational.
e. Within six (6) years of the effective date of the Exception, all dischargers must comply with the requirement that their discharges into the affected ASBS maintain natural ocean water quality. If the initial results of post-storm receiving water quality testing indicate levels higher than the 85th percentile threshold of reference water quality data and the pre-storm receiving water levels, then the discharger must re-sample the receiving water pre- and post-storm. If after re-sampling the post-storm levels are still higher than the 85th percentile threshold of reference water quality data and the pre-storm receiving water levels, for any constituent, then natural ocean water quality is exceeded. See attached Flowchart.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 11
f. The Executive Director of the State Water Board (statewide waivers or waste discharge requirements) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board waivers or waste discharge requirements) may only authorize additional time to comply with the special conditions d. and e., above if good cause exists to do so. Good cause means a physical impossibility or lack of funding.

If a discharger claims physical impossibility, it shall notify the Board in writing within thirty (30) days of the date that the discharger first knew of the event or circumstance that caused or would cause it to fail to meet the deadline in d. or e. The notice shall describe the reason for the noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance and specifically refer to this Section of this Exception. It shall describe the anticipated length of time the delay in compliance may persist, the cause or causes of the delay as well as measures to minimize the impact of the delay on water quality, the measures taken or to be taken by the discharger to prevent or minimize the delay, the schedule by which the measures will be implemented, and the anticipated date of compliance. The discharger shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such delays and their impact on water quality.

The discharger may request an extension of time for compliance based on lack of funding. The request for an extension shall require:

1. a demonstration that the discharger has made timely and complete applications for all available bond and grant funding, and either no bond or grant funding is available, or bond and/or grant funding is inadequate; or

2. for governmental agencies, a demonstration and documentation of a good faith effort to acquire funding through that agency’s budgetary process, and a demonstration that funding was unavailable or inadequate.

II. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES In addition to the provisions in Section I (A) or I (B), respectively, a discharger with parks and recreation facilities shall comply with the following:

A. The discharger shall include a section in an ASBS Compliance Plan (for NPDES dischargers) or an ASBS Pollution Prevention Plan (for nonpoint source dischargers) to address storm water runoff from parks and recreation facilities.

1. The plan shall identify all pollutant sources, including sediment sources, which may result in waste entering storm water runoff. Pollutant sources include, but are not limited to, roadside rest areas and vistas, picnic areas, campgrounds, trash receptacles, maintenance facilities, park personnel housing, portable toilets, leach fields, fuel tanks, roads, piers, and boat launch facilities.

2. The plan shall describe BMPs or Management Measures/Practices that will be implemented to control soil erosion (both temporary and permanent erosion controls) and reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water runoff in order to achieve and maintain natural water quality conditions in the affected ASBS. The plan shall include BMPs or Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 12
Management Measures/Practices to ensure that trails and culverts are maintained to prevent erosion and minimize waste discharges to ASBS.

3. The plan shall include BMPs or Management Measures/Practices to prevent the discharge of pesticides or other chemicals, including agricultural chemicals, in storm water runoff to the affected ASBS.

4. The plan shall include BMPs or Management Measures/Practices that address public education and outreach. The goal of these BMPs or Management Measures/Practices is to ensure that the public is adequately informed that waste discharges to the affected ASBS are prohibited or limited by special conditions in these Special Protections. The BMPs or Management Measures/Practices shall include signage at camping, picnicking, beach and roadside parking areas, and visitor centers, or other appropriate measures, which notify the public of any applicable requirements of these Special Protections and identify the ASBS boundaries.

5. The plan shall include BMPs or Management Measures/Practices that address the prohibition against the discharge of trash to ASBS. The BMPs or Management Measures/Practices shall include measures to ensure that adequate trash receptacles are available for public use at visitor facilities, including parking areas, and that the receptacles are adequately maintained to prevent trash discharges into the ASBS.

Appropriate measures include covering trash receptacles to prevent trash from being wind blown and periodically emptying the receptacles to prevent overflows.

6. The plan shall include BMPs or Management Measures/Practices to address runoff from parking areas and other developed features to ensure that the runoff does not alter natural water quality in the affected ASBS. BMPs or Management Measures/Practices shall include measures to reduce pollutant loading in runoff to the ASBS through installation of natural area buffers (LID), treatment, or other appropriate measures.

B. Maintenance and repair of park and recreation facilities must not result in waste discharges to the ASBS. The practice of road oiling must be minimized or eliminated, and must not result in waste discharges to the ASBS.

III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS – WATERFRONT AND MARINE OPERATIONS In addition to the provisions in Section I (A) or I (B), respectively, a discharger with waterfront and marine operations shall comply with the following:

A. For discharges related to waterfront and marine operations, the discharger shall develop a Waterfront and Marine Operations Management Plan (Waterfront Plan). This plan shall contain appropriate Management Measures/Practices to address nonpoint source pollutant discharges to the affected ASBS.

1. The Waterfront Plan shall contain appropriate Management Measures/Practices for any waste discharges associated with the operation and maintenance of vessels, moorings, piers, launch ramps, and cleaning stations in order to ensure that beneficial uses are protected and natural water quality is maintained in the affected ASBS.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 13

2. For discharges from marinas and recreational boating activities, the Waterfront Plan shall include appropriate Management Measures, described in The Plan for California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, for marinas and recreational boating, or equivalent practices, to ensure that nonpoint source pollutant discharges do not alter natural water quality in the affected ASBS.

3. The Waterfront Plan shall include Management Practices to address public education and outreach to ensure that the public is adequately informed that waste discharges to the affected ASBS are prohibited or limited by special conditions in these Special Protections. The management practices shall include appropriate signage, or similar measures, to inform the public of the ASBS restrictions and to identify the ASBS boundaries.

4. The Waterfront Plan shall include Management Practices to address the prohibition against trash discharges to ASBS. The Management Practices shall include the provision of adequate trash receptacles for marine recreation areas, including parking areas, launch ramps, and docks. The plan shall also include appropriate Management Practices to ensure that the receptacles are adequately maintained and secured in order to prevent trash discharges into the ASBS. Appropriate Management Practices include covering the trash receptacles to prevent trash from being windblown, staking or securing the trash receptacles so they don’t tip over, and periodically emptying the receptacles to prevent overflow.

5. The discharger shall submit its Waterfront Plan to the by the State Water Board Executive Director (statewide waivers or waste discharge requirements) or Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board waivers or waste discharge requirements) within six months of the effective date of these special conditions. The Waterfront Plan is subject to approval by the State Water Board Executive Director or the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, as appropriate. The plan must be fully implemented within 18 months of the effective date of the Exception.

B. The discharge of chlorine, soaps, petroleum, other chemical contaminants, trash, fish offal, or human sewage to ASBS is prohibited. Sinks and fish cleaning stations are point source discharges of wastes and are prohibited from discharging into ASBS. Anthropogenic accumulations of discarded fouling organisms on the sea floor must be minimized.

C. Limited-term activities, such as the repair, renovation, or maintenance of waterfront facilities, including, but not limited to, piers, docks, moorings, and breakwaters, are authorized only in accordance with Chapter III.E.2 of the Ocean Plan.

D. If the discharger anticipates that the discharger will fail to fully implement the approved Waterfront Plan within the 18 month deadline, the discharger shall submit a technical report as soon as practicable to the State Water Board Executive Director or the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, as appropriate. The technical report shall contain reasons for failing to meet the deadline and propose a revised schedule to fully implement the plan.

E. The State Water Board or the Regional Water Board may, for good cause, authorize additional time to comply with the Waterfront Plan. Good cause means a physical impossibility or lack of funding.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 14
If a discharger claims physical impossibility, it shall notify the Board in writing within thirty (30) days of the date that the discharger first knew of the event or circumstance that caused or would cause it to fail to meet the deadline in Section III.A.5. The notice shall describe the reason for the noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance and specifically refer to this Section of this Exception. It shall describe the anticipated length of time the delay in compliance may persist, the cause or causes of the delay as well as measures to minimize the impact of the delay on water quality, the measures taken or to be taken by the discharger to prevent or minimize the delay, the schedule by which the measures will be implemented, and the anticipated date of compliance. The discharger shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such delays and their impact on water quality.

The discharger may request an extension of time for compliance based on lack of funding.

The request for an extension shall require:

1. a demonstration of significant hardship by showing that the discharger has made timely and complete applications for all available bond and grant funding, and either no bond or grant funding is available, or bond and/or grant funding is inadequate.

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring is mandatory for all dischargers to assure compliance with the Ocean Plan.

Monitoring requirements include both: (A) core discharge monitoring, and (B) ocean receiving water monitoring. The State and Regional Water Boards must approve sampling site locations and any adjustments to the monitoring programs. All ocean receiving water and reference area monitoring must be comparable with the Water Boards’ Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP).

Safety concerns: Sample locations and sampling periods must be determined considering safety issues. Sampling may be postponed upon notification to the State and Regional Water Boards if hazardous conditions prevail.

Analytical Chemistry Methods: All constituents must be analyzed using the lowest minimum detection limits comparable to the Ocean Plan water quality objectives. For metal analysis, all samples, including storm water effluent, reference samples, and ocean receiving water samples, must be analyzed by the approved analytical method with the lowest minimum detection limits (currently Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry) described in the Ocean Plan.

A. CORE DISCHARGE MONITORING PROGRAM

1. General sampling requirements for timing and storm size:

Runoff must be collected during a storm event that is greater than 0.1 inch and generates runoff, and at least 72 hours from the previously measurable storm event. Runoff samples shall be collected during the same storm and at approximately the same time when post- Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 15
storm receiving water is sampled, and analyzed for the same constituents as receiving water and reference site samples (see section IV B) as described below.

2. Runoff flow measurements
a. For municipal/industrial storm water outfalls in existence as of December 31, 2007, 18 inches (457mm) or greater in diameter/width (including multiple outfall pipes in combination having a width of 18 inches, runoff flows must be measured or calculated, using a method acceptable to and approved by the State and Regional Water Boards. b. This will be reported annually for each precipitation season to the State and Regional Water Boards.

3. Runoff samples – storm events
a. For outfalls equal to or greater than 18 inches (0.46m) in diameter or width:
(1) samples of storm water runoff shall be collected during the same storm as receiving water samples and analyzed for oil and grease, total suspended solids, and, within the range of the southern sea otter indicator bacteria or some other measure of fecal contamination; and
(2) samples of storm water runoff shall be collected and analyzed for critical life stage chronic toxicity (one invertebrate or algal species) at least once during each storm season when receiving water is sampled in the ASBS.
(3) If an applicant has no outfall greater than 36 inches, then storm water runoff from the applicant’s largest outfall shall be further collected during the same storm as receiving water samples and analyzed for Ocean Plan Table B metals for protection of marine life, Ocean Plan polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), current use pesticides (pyrethroids and OP pesticides), and nutrients (ammonia, nitrate and phosphates).
b. For outfalls equal to or greater than 36 inches (0.91m) in diameter or width:
(1) samples of storm water runoff shall be collected during the same storm as receiving water samples and analyzed for oil and grease, total suspended solids, and, within the range of the southern sea otter indicator bacteria or some other measure of fecal contamination; and
(2) samples of storm water runoff shall be further collected during the same storm as receiving water samples and analyzed for Ocean Plan Table B metals for protection of marine life, Ocean Plan polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), current use pesticides (pyrethroids and OP pesticides), and nutrients (ammonia, nitrate and phosphates); and
(3) samples of storm water runoff shall be collected and analyzed for critical life stage chronic toxicity (one invertebrate or algal species) at least once during each storm season when receiving water is sampled in the ASBS.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 Order No. R2-2022-0018 Attachment F
Attachment F - 16
c. For an applicant not participating in a regional monitoring program [see below in Section IV (B)] in addition to (a.) and (b.) above, a minimum of the two largest outfalls or 20 percent of the larger outfalls, whichever is greater, shall be sampled (flow weighted composite samples) at least three times annually during wet weather (storm event) and analyzed for all Ocean Plan Table A constituents, Table B constituents for marine aquatic life protection (except for toxicity, only chronic toxicity for three species shall be required), DDT, PCBs, Ocean Plan PAHs, OP pesticides, pyrethroids, nitrates, phosphates, and Ocean Plan indicator bacteria. For parties discharging to ASBS in more than one Regional Water Board region, at a minimum, one (the largest) such discharge shall be sampled annually in each Region.

Newark City CouncilApril 23, 2026

Newark City Council
April 23, 2026