HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02262008 - D.3 � . � J, 3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND —�
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Costa,
,- '�y•, ti4
DATE: February 26, 2008 County
4 COUTt�
SUBJECT: Report on the Impacts of the Proposed Municipal Regional Permit,-Countywide. (Stormwater Utility Area
17)(All Districts)Project No. 7517-6W7091
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ACCEPT the following report on the Municipal Regional Pen-nit(MRP):
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to sign.a comment letter on the MRP addressed to'the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board(RWQCB).
AUTHORIZE a Board member to testify before the RWQCB at the March 11, 2008, hearing to describe the impacts of the
MRP on County government.
DIRECT the County Administrator and the Public Works Director to work with other affected departments to determine the
impacts on their budget and their departments operation,and to seek appropriate revenue sources to offset the additional costs of
compliance, and to include the MRP in this year's budget discussion.
a
SIGNATURE:
�Superviso/Gayle d L416ema
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x❑
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF1 BARD ON Q Y��„C�JtD 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED >G OTHER X
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT �'. ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
--y� AYES: NOES: DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Greg Connaughton(925)313-2271 /
RLJ
G:\F1dCtl\Board Orders 2005 Onward\2008 BO\WP MRP Impacts 2-26-08.doc ATTESTED
JOHN CUdLEN,CLEItKOF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
cc: John Cullen,County Administrator
Dennis Barry,Community Development Dept.
Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Dept. -
Silvano Marchesi,County Counsel -
Jim Kennedy,RedevelopmentBY ,DEPUTY
Public Works:
J
Mitch Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director -
Geg Connaughton,Flood Control'
Don Freitas,Contra Costa Clean Water Program
Rich Lierly,Flood Control—County Watershed Program ,
David Swartz,Flood Control—County Watershed Program
SUBJECT: Report on the Impacts of the;Proposed Municipal Regional Permit,Countywide.(Stormwater Utility Area 17)
(All Districts)Project No. 7517-6W7091
BATE: February 26, 2008
PAGE: 2 of 5
FISCAL IMPACT:
When the MRP is approved by the RWQCB and the County is required to comply, the requirements of the MRP will cause
substantial fiscal impacts to the County. Although the Public Works Department will bear the brunt of the fiscal impacts,other
departments will be significantly impacted.
Currently,the Public Works Department's direct annual costs to implement the NPDES permit are approximately$3 million
(excluding certain substantial costs and indirect costs—see Attachment A). The estimated total additional direct cost for the
five year NPDES permit period is $60 million. Indirect costs, including the costs associated with increased deferred
maintenance of public infrastructure, is in addition to this direct cost and is much harder to quantify but will likely be greater.
Attachments A and B contain more detail 'regarding the costs to implement the MRP.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND:
The County supports the RWQCB's overarching goal to improve water quality. The County also supports overall principles of
environmental sustainability. Water quality goals, however, must be reviewed in the context of the County's total
responsibilities, such as smart growth, affordable housing, and other environmental and social programs..
History:
In an effort to-stop pollution of the"'Waters of the United States,"the Federal Government passed the Clean Water Act .
(CWA) in 1972. Initially, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) implementation of the CWA
emphasized control of pollution from Point Sources(e.g.Industry,sewage'treatment plants,etc.).In 1987,the scope of
the CWA was expanded to regulate Non-Point Source Pollution(pollution primarily conveyed by stormwater runoff
from urban,suburban and agricultural lands).For Contra Costa County,this is generally the stormwater(originating on
both public and private property)that is carried in the public drainage system(underground pipes,drainage channels,
etc.)to the"Waters of the U.S."(San Francisco Bay and the Delta).
In 1993,the RWQCB,acting for the USEPA,issued Contra Costa County its first NPDES permit.The NPDES permit
required the County, its cities and the Flood Control District to act jointly to implement the permit conditions. The
responsibility for(unincorporated)County compliance with the permit was assigned to the Public Works Department
(PWD),which created the County Watershed Program(CWP)to manage the overall implementation and administration
of NPDES compliance. Since 1993,our NPDES permit has been reissued once(1999),and one major revision has been
made to the permit (adding Provision C.3in 2003). The MRP represents the third NPDES permit for Contra Costa
County and is scheduled to be adopted and enforced starting July 1,2008;the MRP will be in effect until June 30,2013
(or until the next NPDES permit rei:ssuance).
Permit"Approach":
With each new NPDES permit the:requirements have grown more stringent and the related costs have increased. In
addition,the overall approach of the permits has changed.The first NPDES permit focused primarily on educating the
public on ways to reduce pollution of our stormwater—the approach was: "we are here to educate you about how to
reduce pollution and help the environment". The second permit expanded this education focus and added some
enforcement of violations,increased the regulation of municipal operations and new development.The approach was:
"we will continue to educate you, but we are also going to regulate you into reducing pollution." The MRP permit
includes much more enforcement and regulation and represents a further change in the overall philosophy to: "you
should already know the right thing to do(to protect the environment)so now we are going to force you(by regulations
and fines)to protect the environment." .
The MRP expands County requirements to such an extent that many departments will be impacted. Since the MRP
affects virtually all of our business practices (from the way the County offices are maintained to the way we issue
SUBJECT: Report on the Impacts of the Proposed Municipal Regional Permit,Countywide.(Stormwater Utility Area 17)
-(All Districts)Project No. 7517=6W7091
DATE: February 26, 2008
PAGE: 3 of 5
business licenses),the County will benefit from a"team approach"to complying with the permit. The Public Works
Department(CWP)will continue to over the County's NPDES compliance, but the challenges of complying with
the new permit will involve a substantially higher level of day to day cooperation with other County Departments.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
If the County is found to be out of compliance with our NPDES MRP permit,the penalties can be as high as$35,000
per day per violation (each area of non compliance could be viewed as a separate violation), plus $10 per gallon of
stormwater discharged into the"Walsers of the United States". In addition(and potentially more costly),if found to-be
out of compliance with the permit, the County would be vulnerable to 3rd party lawsuits from environmental and
"watchdog"groups. The results of these lawsuits could far exceed the penalties that may be imposed by the RWQCB or
the USEPA.
MRP Regulatory Area
The MRP differs from the County's current NPDES permit in that the MRP will uniformly regulate most of the Bay Area. In
addition to Contra Costa County,our incorporated cities and special districts,this MRP also regulates Alameda, Santa Clara,
and San Mateo Counties,and several cities and agencies in Solano County. Given the regulatory reach of the new permit,we
expect increased potential for cooperation among agencies to find regional solutions to our common regulatory requirements.
MRP Timing
The final draft of the MRP was issued by the RWQCB on December 14,2007.Written comments regarding the MRP must be
submitted to the RWQCB by February 29,2008. The RWQCB will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed MRP at 9:00
a.m. on March 11,2008 at 1515 Clay St.,in Oakland.A second hearing,which mayinclude actions to adopt the MRP,will be
scheduled in the spring of 2008,and maylead to implementation beginning on July 1,2008. Under this schedule,the MRP will
be in effect until June 30, 2013 (or until the next reissuance of the NPDES permit).
It should be noted that some components of the MRP will be phased in,becoming more comprehensive over the five year permit
period. Other provisions require immediate implementation upon adoption of the permit by the RWQCB, and will remain
consistent over tiilie. Some MRP provisions do not require additional.action by the County until the second,third,fourth or fifth
year of the permit.We have provided both the anticipated costs and the implications/challenges associated with each phase of
provision implementation.
Highlights of Maior Areas of Imoact to Countv Government
The MRP will affect many County operations. The permit impacts may be as minimal as sweeping County facilities' parking
lots with high efficiency regenerative air sweepers. On the other hand,the County may be required to increase its police power
to abate nuisances. Business practices,program definitions and areas of responsibility may need to be expanded and modified.
For example, it may be necessary for the definition of public health to be expanded to include the "health" of the natural
environment,thereby enabling the areas of responsibility of some departments to expand to include environmental protection..
The permit will also require extremely costly programs and infrastructure retrofit projects to reduce and capture litter and other.
pollutants.
The MRP will also require a number of changes to County policy. These changes range from regulating property uses,such as
swimming pools (construction of pools and discharges), to requiring heightened enforcement.activities by the County (by
requiring the.County to issue citations for water quality infractions). The County will be required to develop the authority to
regulate water districts (potable water discharges)and fire districts(emergency discharges). The costs associated with the
requirement to install C.3 facilities for County projects may require the County to reduce the number of public construction
projects, and require the County to prioritize road maintenance projects based on potential water quality impacts.
SUBJECT: Report on the Impacts of the Proposed Municipal Regional Permit,Countywide.(Stonnwater Utility Area 17)
(All Districts)Project No. 7517-6W7091
DATE: February 26, 2008
PAGE: 4 of 5
The departments anticipated,to be significantly impacted by the MRP include:
1. Public Works Department
2. Community Development Department
3. Building Inspection Department
4. General Services Department
5. Health Services Department
6. County Counsel's Office
7. District Attorney's Office
8. Department of Agriculture
Comparison of MRP Requirements with our Existing NPDES Permit
Our current NPDES permit has five major provisions,(for example C.2"Municipal Operations"is one provision with several
components. An example of a component is C.2a "Street Sweeping"). The proposed MRP expands each of these five
provisions and also adds nine new provisions. The keynew/modified requirements include trash capture, increased scope of
Provision C.3("New Development and Redevelopment"),developing the authority to regulate and enforce additional uses and
entities,increased monitoring and reporting, and development of TMDLs(total maximum daily loads)for pollutants.
In order to provide a better understanding of the differences between this proposed MRP and our'current NPDES permit,we
have developed a spreadsheet(see Attachment A),that lays out the major permit provisions by section,identifies where each
provision can be found in the permit itself,describes significant components of each provision,and compares how the current
permit's requirements relate to the requirements of the proposed MRP. The document evaluates both the policy ramifications
and the financial impacts that the MRP is anticipated to have on County government,businesses, and residents.
Three things should be noted about this spreadsheet:
1) The costs reported are rough estimates and are intended to provide the scales of budget impacts or"ball.park"
numbers. Important assumptions are listed both throughout the document and in the"Notes" section at the
bottom of the spreadsheet. Since many of these provisions contain vague and unclear language,and others are
entirely new, more accurate estimates will need to be developed once the provisions are better defined.
2) The MRP has many provisions. Only the major provision changes(ones that will,have the greatest impact on
our business practices)are included.
3) Increased County costs associated with private developments will likely be passed on to the developer/builder
in the form of higher permit(pay for services) fees.
In addition to this spreadsheet, we have also provided a bar graph (Attachment B). The bar graph shows the relationship
between annual costs for NPDES compliance activities (for our existing NPDES permit) and estimated costs (based on the
proposed MRP)for each year of the MRP permit period. .
SUBJECT: Report on the Impacts of the:Proposed MunicipalRegional Permit,Countywide.(Stormwater Utility Area 17)
(All Districts)Project No. 7517-6W7091
DATE: February 26, 2008
PAGE: 5 of 5
Current Actions to Address Proposed MRP
The PWD-County Watershed Program has solicited comments on the MRP from all departments that have been identified as
likely to be significantly affected by the permit. The CWP is currently working with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program
(the 19 incorporated cities within the:Cbunty,and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District)to
develop a unified response to the RWQCB 'regarding the cost and policy challenges created by the new permit. In addition,the
Contra Costa Clean Water Program is collaborating on a joint+response to the RWQCB with,the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), which includes representatives from the Clean Water programs of all the
affected Bay Area Counties. Our overriding current goal is to convey the County's concerns to the RWQCB to seek
modifications that will render the MRP as user-friendly and implementable as possible.
After receiving comments from many of the affected County departments, we have developed a Contra Costa County's
comment letter to the RWQCB regarding feasibility issues and challenges associated with implementing the proposed MRP:
However,in other regions of the State,the R:WQCBs have not considered costs associated with implementation to be a valid
argument for relaxing permit requirements. Court cases,some decided by the California State Supreme court,have upheld the
RWQCBs' position on these cost issues.In addition, lack of current legal authority(as long as legal authority can be obtained
and is not unconstitutional) is not considered to be a valid argument for relaxing NPDES permit provisions. In addition to
addressing cost, policy and legal issues,the County's comment fetter will suggest edits to unclear permit language, and will
recommend changes intended to ensure that permitprovisions are implementable and actually provide a basis for improving
water quality. It is recommended that the Board approve the comment letter and authorize the Chair of the Board to sign the
letter and submit it to the RWQCB. t
Finally,the Contra Costa Clean Water Program has been conducting outreach to discuss the impacts of the MRP with various
key elected officials, city managers, and stakeholders including the Public Managers Association, the Contra Costa County
Mayors Conference, the Home Builders Association and the Contra Costa Council.
Potential Future Actions n .
Due to the comprehensive scope of�the proposed MRP, it will only be possible to reach full compliance by addressing the
1�
challenges from many different angles;and by seeking cooperation from many different partners.The County Administrator and
the Public Works Department should meet with other affected departments to identify appropriate sources of revenue to fund
implementation of the MRP and reduce the potential liability to the General Fund.
ii
The Contra Costa Clean Water Program has been conducting preliminary actions for placement of a ballot measure to develop
additional funding for clean water purposes(pursuant to Proposition 218). The Clean Water Program has been conducting
public outreach and opinion polls,and pis setting aside$300,000 per year toward the approximately$1.2 million cost associated
with putting a measure on the ballot.'However,given the current state of the economy and housing market,a ballot measure of
this sort is unlikely to succeed in the immediate future. '
CONSEOUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:.
Without the comment of this Board,the RWQCB may not consider�the effects of the MRP on Contra Costa County and may not
revise the permit into a form that is more in-line with the County's business practices and feasible to implement. As a result,the
.MRP may have an even greater negative impact on our budget and our ability to provide other vital public services:
r
i
ADDENDUM
February 26,2008 Agenda Item D.3
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a report on the impacts of the
proposed Municipal Regional Permit and authorizing the Chair, Board of Supervisors, or
designee, to sign a comment letter addressed to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
authorizing a member of the Board to testify before the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board on the proposed Municipal Regional Permit, as recommended by the Transportation,
Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC).
Supervisor Uilkema, TWIC member, introduced the item. She suggested amending the item to
include a referral to the California State Association of Counties (CSAC).
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, added that one of the members of TWIC could attend
the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Hearing on the proposed Municipal Regional
Permit.
Supervisor Gioia suggest that rather than just having the County attend, it could be useful to
work through the Clean Water Program to have the cities attend the hearing.
Supervisor Glover noted that the issue will be going before the Mayor's Conference at the next
meeting. He added that hopefully a member of the Mayor's Conference will be on hand to testify
at the hearing.
Supervisor Piepho introduced the item and said she wanted to clarify that the proposed ordinance
Maurice Shiu, Director ofPublic Works, noted that the letter before the Board requests a second
hearing, a request that he said is no longer necessary. He noted that the letter will be revised
accordingly. R
By a unanimous vote with;none absent; the Board of Supervisors took the following,action:
ACCEPTED the report on the Municipal Regional Permit; AUTHORIZED Supervisor Uilkema
to go before the Regional';Water Quality Control Board at the March 11, 2008 hearing to
describe the impacts of the Municipal Regional Permit on County government; DIRECTED the
,County Administrator and the Public Works',Director to work with other affected departments to
determine impacts on budgets and operations, and seek appropriate revenue sources to offset the
additional costs of compliance and include the Municipal Regional Permit in this year's budget
discussion; REFERRED the issue of impacts of the Municipal Regional Permit to the California
State Association of Counties (CSAC).
The Board of Supervisors ------Contra 4 \
John Cullen
County Administration BuildingCosta
O�t^a f Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street,Room 106 v County administrator
and
Martinez,California 94553 1293 CO U my
] � (925)335-1900
John Gioia,lst District '
Gayle B.Ullkema,2nd District .
SEAL
Mary N.Plepho,3rd District
Susan A.Bonilla,4th District
Federal D.Glover,5th District
February 26, 2008
John Muller, Chair
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1.400
Oakland, California 94612
Re: Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Tentative Order Comments
Dear Mr. Muller:
This letter is written in response to the draft Municipal Regional Permit Tentative Order (MRP)
released by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control .Board (RWQCB) on.
December 4, 2007, and then revised on December 14, 2007. The purpose of this letter is to
convey comments and concerns that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has with
regards to the MRP, and how it may adversely affect the citizens, businesses and government
of Contra Costa County.
The County strongly supports. the RWQCB's overarching goal to improve water quality and
embraces overall principles of environmental sustainability. Achieving water quality goals in
the MRP must be reviewed in the context of meeting the County's total responsibilities, such
as smart growth, affordable housing, and protecting the health and safety of our citizens. The
County must be able to protect and improve the natural environment in a sustainable fashion
that does not jeopardize our other responsibilities and goals. We would like to work with the
Regional Board to meet water quality.goals in the most cost effective manner.
We estimate the cost to implement the MRP in our unincorporated communities to be $75
million over the next five years (our current revenue source for the County's NPDES program
generates about $3 million per year). For Fiscal Year 08/09, the State is facing a $14 billion
-budget shortfall and the County shortfall.is projected. to be $60 million. Given our limited
ability to generate funding', the high cost of implementing the MRP will result in an even more
drastic reduction of services to our. citizens.
Mr. Muller
February 26, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The Regional Board should not be promulgating such costly ,regulation without providing
offsetting funds. Without additional funding, local government will be forced to reduce safety,
health and other programs; which will not be acceptable alternatives for our citizens. We are
sure this is not what the RWQCB intends. 'We request the Regional Board lead the effort to
develop the funding sources necessary to implement the MRP and work collaboratively with us
on an implementation schedule as funding is developed.
Some provisions in the MRP are in conflict with public safety,standards. One example of this is
the required design or redesign of rural roads. The MRP requires that rural road standards be
revised to specify that stormwater discharges uniformly across -the road and not be
concentrated in roadside ditches; and cross-culverts. This sounds innocuous. However, this
redesign puts the traveling public 'at .risk by encouraging road designs that would cause
vehicles to hydroplane on the resulting layer of stormwater. This provision of the MRP also
requires that roads be "regraded to slope outward". This design would result in a centrifugal
force (as a vehicle roundsla corner) that could "push" the vehicle off the road. Good road
engineering would instead use super-elevation (cross-slope roads towards the inside .of curves)
to counteract centrifugal forces and drain water. off the roadway helping to keep the vehicle
safely on the road. This is,'one example'of how these regulations do.not take into account all
ramifications, including public safety, and conflicts with accepted standards (in this instance
CALTRANS).
We want to work together!with the Regional Board to meet water quality goals with the most
cost effective expenditure of public funds. Give us the water quality goals and allow us to
work with you to develop the most effective implementation measures. In the example above,
if the goal is to reduce sediment loading and reduce flow velocities, this could be accomplished
by installing asphalt berms to direct the flows to flat broad ditches where the sediment can
drop out, or building roadside ditches with small check dams to.create "steps" for the silt to
settle, or.directing the flows to stilling basins prior to discharge into the creek, or a myriad of
other possibilities depending on the circumstances in the field.
The county and cities of Contra Costa are deeply concerned about the MRP as it is currently
written and will be commenting to the Regional Board through various organizations. We are
encouraged, however, that this MRP will be administered on. a regional basis. By applying the
same regulations to all the`Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is hoped that
we may tackle some of these issues on a regional basis with regional solutions, regulations
and legislation.
Contra Costa County is supportive of the water quality improvement goals of the RWQCB and
the MRP and looks forward to working with the RWQCB to refine the MRP to meet its water
quality goals in a manner' that facilitates permit implementation. Contra Costa County will
continue to protect and enhance our natural -environment, while sustaining the health and well
being of our communities, to the maximum extent our resources allow.
i,
Mr. Muller
February 26, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Thank you for the opportun ity to comment on the MRP. Please see attachments A and B for
more.detailed comments.
Sincerely,
S pervis0r Federal Glover, Chair
ontra Costa County Board of Supervisors
RL:jj:lz
G:\FldCtl\NPDES\PERMIT\MRP Letter BOS to SFRWQCB\MRP comment letter BOS to SFRWQCB 2-26-08.doc
Attachments: General Comments(Attachment A)
Specific Comments by Provision(Attachment B)
c: Dale Bowyer RWQCB
John Cullen,County Administrator ,
Carlos Baltodano, Building Inspection Director
Dennis Barry,Community Development Director
Silvano Marchesi,County Counsel
Robert Kochly, District Attorney
Michael Lango,General Services Director
Dr. William Walker, Health Services Director
Edward Meyer,Agriculture Department Commissioner/Director
M. Shiu,Public Works Director;'
I Bueren,Chief Deputy Public Works Director
M.Avalon, Deputy Public Works Director
P. McNamee, Deputy Public Works Director
S. Kowalewski, Deputy Public Works Director
B. Balbas, Deputy Public Works Director
M.Carlson,Transportation/Engineering
G.Connaughton, Flood Control
K. Emigh,Construction
K. Freitas,Airport
M. Hollingsworth, Design
G. Huisingh, Engineering Services
K. Law, Real Property
J.Yee, Maintenance
Don Freitas,Clean Water Program
Tom Dalziel,Clean Water Program
Rich Lierly,CWP
Charmaine Bernard,CWP
David Swartz,CWP
Michele Wara,Administration
i
Contra Costa County Comments on the Municipal Regional Permit
Attachment A
General Comments
The County is required to function in an environment.of ever-increasing and frequently
conflicting regulations. 'Ve are often faced with situations in which government
regulations are drafted with a very narrow focus, and conflict with other regulations.
Our current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit contains
"safe harbor" language,,which provides that the County will not be held responsible for
non-compliance if that non-compliance is a result of aclheringi,to competing regulations.
We are very concerned1hat this MRP does not include similar "safe harbor" language,
and request that such aprovision be included in the MRP.
The draft MRP requires! the County to conduct many scientific studies that go beyond
the County's core mission, and the experience and expertise of municipal staff. This
includes the required Source Control Evaluation Study, PCB Sampling and Analysis Plan,
Fate and Transport Studies, Brake Pad/Desktop Study, Copper Toxicity Study, PBDE
Legacy Pesticides and Seleniuim Regional Study, and many others. These are in addition
to the overwhelming +,requirements of the Urban CreeksMonitoring Report and
Integrated Monitoring Report. * The County has neither the'
staffing capacity nor the
funding to conduct all of these specialized studies. In addition, many of these studies
appear to be precursors to development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which
have historically (and more appropriately) been functions of the RWQCBs
The County objects to` the degree to which the MRP's "tabular annual report" will
increase the effort required for reporting and documentation, without a corresponding
benefit to water quality. Under our current NPDES permit, approximately 20% of our
available funds are spent in reporting and administering the provisions of the permit.
County environmental, staff spends two months each year 'preparing the voluminous
annual report required by the permit. This MRP expands the reporting and
documentation requirement substantially, and requires an overly-prescriptive format
that will require wholesale changes to County record-keeping, and will cause the County
to incur additional costs that; are unlikely to improve water quality in any way. This
time and money could be better put to use Improving our environment, rather than on
complex documentation processes.
Businesses ,in the County already find it extremely expensive and burdensome to
comply with the many levels of governmental regulation, (Federal, State and local)
imposed on them. As a result of these often confusing, 'conflicting, and expensive
governmental regulations, many businesses leave our County, the State, and even the
Nation. This MRP will add yet another set of regulations (some in conflict with existing
regulations). We are concerned the increased burden on local businesses that will
result from the MRP will cause more businesses to leave our County.
With this MRP in place, the County will be required to significantly increase its oversight
of the business community even though multiple agencies ''are already mandated to
perform regular environmental. inspections (Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality,Control Boards, Air Quality Management District's) and public
safety inspections (Fire Districts, Health Department). Currently, the responsibility (and
established fees) for iinspection of businesses that are issued waste discharge
requirements lies with.the RWQCBs. The MRP proposes to shift the responsibility to_for
inspecting these businesses to local government, but does not make any of the
RWQCB's fee revenue available to offset the costs. The County anticipates problems
recovering inspection costs through imposition of additional fees on businesses that
already pay inspection fees to the RWQCB.
In 2003, the RWQCB revised the County's NPDES permit to amend provision C.3.
These C.3 requirements' went into effect in February of 2004. Due to the nature of the
development process, the first: batch of developments being built in compliance with C.3
is just being completed;; The implementation of the amended C.3-provision is still in its
infancy, and has yet to be thoroughly evaluated. The MRP should not expand upon
those regulations until their efficacy is demonstrated.
The draft MRP has a multitude of new requirements for the County. Aside from several
extensive and problematic provisions, many provisions by themselves are manageable.
However, when all of these individual manageable provisions are put together, the
cumulative effort becomes unreasonable. The County only has so .much .capacity for
performing work within each given year; protecting and improving water quality is only
one facet of the County's functions. The RWQCB must prioritize and require the County
to perform only the most important provisions, and eliminate or take on the lower
priority provisions themselves„
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The MRP should provide over-riding language that allows the County the
flexibility to propose alternative methods of meeting the intent of any particular
provision, as long as RWQCB staff approves the alternative means of compliance.
• The RWQCB must prioritize provisions of the MRP and require the County to
perform only the most important provisions. and the RWQCB should either
eliminate the lower-priority provisions or the RWQCB should take them on
themselves.
• The RWQCB, not the County, is the appropriate agency to develop TMDLs. The
RWQCB should continue to use its staff's expertise to,do this work, and continue
to coordinate such work with other appropriate State agencies.
2
4
• The MRP should include the "Safe Harbor" language that exists in the.current
permit to protect the County from any non-compliance that may result from
conflicting and/or confusing regulations.
• Since the cost to comply with this MRP. could have significant negative impacts
on the County's 'budget, the RWQCB should allow the County to develop the
.necessary funding before requiring the County to comply with the significantly
enhanced and costly requirements. The RWQCB may also assist the County with
development of this funding.
• Since the California State government (and, as a result, the County) is in a
budget crisis, implementation of this MRP should be delayed until both the State
and the County are able to absorb the significant new costs that will result from
the MRP.
• We request the RWQCB direct their staff to meet with County and city staff to
understand how some MRP provisions may conflict with public safety standards
and how the regulations can be crafted to allow cost effective implementation.
• We request the RWQCB consider the more detailed comments in Attachment B,
regarding specific provisions (in addition to these general comments).
RMA:Iz
G:\F1dCtl\NPDES\PERMIT\MRP Letter BOS to SFRWQCB\MRP Attachment A-2-26-08.doc
. 3
Contra Costa County Comments on the Municipal Regional Permit
Attachment B
Specific Comments by Provision
C.2 - MUNICIPAL OPER',ATIONS
C.2.a STREET AND ROAD SWEEPING AND CLEANING
The County currently sweeps all publicly-maintained curbed streets once a month. The
MRP ,will require a significant increase in sweeping area and frequency. The MRP
requires that all public streets (curbed or not) and public parking lots (libraries,
hospitals, offices, etc.) be swept. Due to the designs of many of these parking lots, our
current trash collection services (including hand sweeping) performed by our General
Services Department and Probation Department's Juvenile Work Program provide more
effective pollution prevention, but would not meet the requirements of the MRP. As with
many sections of the MRP, there needs to be flexibility that allows alternative means of
accomplishing the overall purpose.
The 'MRP requires other increased activities such as manual litter collection, where
street sweeping is infeasible. Due to the remote and disconnected nature of many high
litter areas in the County, such as Vasco Road, a implementation date of August 1,
2009 is requested in order to ramp up our existing sweeping/litter clean-up operations.
The County is extremely concerned that the MRP may require sweeping of private
streets and parking lots(which are not explicitly excepted by the permit language). This
is unacceptable - the, County may not have the legal authority to conduct such
activities. County road repairs and public health and safety services should not be
scaled back in order to fund the expansion expand street sweeping service to private
property areas. (and assume related liabilities); moreover, sweeping of private. roads
with public funds may not be legally permissible, as it would constitute a gift of public
funds.
C.2.g STORMWATER PUMP STATIONS
It may not be possible,to comply with the. requirement to eliminate all non-stormwater,
discharges from the pump station. This provision (in conjunction with C.11.f) appears
to imply that eliminating discharges of non-stormwater is to be accomplished by
pumping to the sanitary sewer, which may not be accepted by the local Sanitary
'District.
C.2.h RURAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The new section of the MRP poses substantial problems for the County,.especially since
we have hundreds of miles of rural roads (much of which is isolated or non-contiguous).
Unless significant additional sources of funding are developed, this will result in a
reduction of road maintenance projects (which will cause an increase in deferred
maintenance and a reduction in public safety).' At current funding levels, it is estimated
that this provision will result in an approximately 25% decrease in the total scope of
rural road maintenance projects.
Since human health and safety will always remain the highest priority for the County,
portions of this section' are unacceptable. For example, C.2h.ii(3)(a) requires that
roads be "re-graded to slope outward". In many instances this is contrary to road
engineering safety standards and in conflict with State and Federal Highway standards.
The County will not redesign roads to prioritize water quality over human safety. The
parenthetical statement "(where consistent with road engineering safety standards)"
should be added to the end of this provision.
Some of the language of this provision isunclear and requires further clarification
including the pre-rainy` season inspection program for rural roads (C.2.h.ii(2)(f)),
increased maintenance on . rural roads adjacent to streams and riparian habitat
(C.2.h.ii(3)(a)), and the'.requirement for rehabilitation of existing culverts and bridge
crossings(C.2.h.H(3)(b)).
C.2.i . CORPORATION YARD BMP IMPLEMENTATION
As stated in this section "The requirements in this provision shall apply only to facilities
that are not already covered under the State Board's Statewide Industrial Stormwater
NPDES General Permit." This language implies that the County's three Corporation
Yards (in Martinez, Richmond and Brentwood) do not have to comply with the
requirements of this section, since they are already covered under the General
Industrial NPDES Permit (due to their Motor Freight and Transportation Warehousing
NAIC code). If the above-noted inference is correct, than this.provision is acceptable.
C.3 -'NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
Although the County generally embraces the C.3 requirements in the draft Tentative
Order MRP, several specific changes are recommended. Also, several areas are
unacceptable or require clarification.
C.3.a.i(8)/C.3.a.ii: The timetable . for .requiring General Plan amendments is
unrealistic. Change implementation date (C.3.a.ii ) to July 1, 2009.
C.3.b.i(1 .and 3): Compliance with the "50%. rule," which requires projects
redeveloping more than 501% of the existing impervious surface to treat 100% of
stormwater runoff (including runoff from existing impervious surface that are not
affected by the project) is not feasible for all redevelopment projects. .Some of these
projects would be effectively prevented by this language, as for some sites the existing
topography. (or other site conditions) would render treatment of existing impervious
surfaces to be cost prohibitive. Language should be added allowing projects to exclude
the requirement for runoff from existing impervious surfaces (that are not redeveloped
as part of the project) from treatment, where infeasibility of treatment is demonstrated.
2
This would not exacerbate impacts to water quality impairment, as excluding such areas
would have no effect .on water quality, and the existing language might prevent
projects from being completed.that would otherwise provide water quality benefits.
C.3.b.i(1 and 4): Unacceptable to change benchmark for"grandfathering" compliance
under old permit from "deer Tied complete". to "received final discretionary approval."
The "deemed complete"'benchmark should be retained. Changing this distinction to.
"received final discretionary approval" would negatively affect projects that have yet to
receive final discretionary approval, but have been deemed complete prior to the
effective date of C.3 (existing permit), as well as projects that have been working
toward being deemed complete. This would require the County to modify
recommended conditions of approval for projects that have already received final
recommended conditions but have not been granted final discretionary approval, and to
require compliance for projects that had been "grandfathered" under the .current_
permit. This may not be consistent with the Permit Streamlining Act. It is likely that
this change would cause projects to be withdrawn that have merit and are consistent
with the provisions of `the current permit, and would cause unnecessary redesigns,
delays, and expense to developers.
Also, the change in the "grandfathering" benchmark for public projects from "funding
committed and scheduled by" to "funding committed and scheduled to begin by" will
dramatically increase the cost: of projects that are designed, funded and scheduled, but
fall between these two distinctions. It may result in a reduction in road projects that
are necessary for public safety, or cause severe delays and cost increases; it is
therefore contrary to the best interests of the public. The current language should be
retained (excluding the words "to begin").-
C.3.b.i(4): Requiring runoff from bicycle lanes and trails to be treated by permanent
stormwater management facilities seems inconsistent with some goals of the NPDES
permit. Encouraging these alternative modes of transportation (bicycle and pedestrian)
reduces the need for paving elsewhere, and eliminates introduction of pollutants
associated with automobiles. This requirement is likely to result in a reduction in the
development of trails 'and bicycle lanes. A requirement for these amenities to be
developed with materials more pervious than concrete/asphalt would be a more
appropriate requirement (with a proviso: "where the trail/bicycle lane is not contiguous
with road pavement, and more pervious materials . are consistent with ADA
regulations").
C.3.b.i(5): It is not entirely clear that intent is to reduce the threshold for requiring
road expansion and rehabilitation projects to install permanent stormwater
management facilities from 10,000 to 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. There
are differences between the language in the "effective date" paragraph in this section
and the analogous paragraph in section C.3.b.i(1) that imply that this is not the intent.
If this is not the intention, this reference (to 5,000 square feet) should be removed. If
3
the intention is to reduce this threshold, than this is not appropriate, and should be
removed. These types !,of retrofits are extremely costly, will reduce road maintenance
projects (which do not exacerbate water quality impairment), and offer far less "bang
for the buck" than. other types of ,projects. It is not always feasible to provide
treatment for these projects, especially where there is existing development on'both
sides of the right-of-way. It does not make sense to reduce the threshold for this type
of project. The existing threshold should be retained, and permit language should
facilitate providing equivalent off-site treatment (or regional facilities) for this type of
project.
C.3.b.i(5)(a): This language is .not clear. It is assumed that "from the gravel base
up" is inclusive of removal and replacement of the gravel base.
C.3.c.ii(2)(b): The requirement to minimize impervious surface should add the,
language: "consistent with zoning and building regulations, and consistent with good
planning practices". While minimizing imperviousness is a, legitimate that is embraced
by the County, the degree to which this can be required varies. Other provisions
require runoff from impervious areas to be mitigated, so a strict requirement to
minimize imperviousness is not necessary.
C.3:c.i(2)(e): More pervious paving materials are sometimes inconsistent with fire
district regulations. The following proviso should be added: "where consistent with fire
district requirements."
C.3.e: Alternative compliance should be allowed for a wider range of types of projects,
upon demonstration of infeasibility of compliance with provisions C.3.b and C.3.d.
C.3.e.i(3)(b): The 'referenced Government Code Section (65589.5(h)(3)) states,
"housing for very low, low-, or moderate income households" means that at least 200/0
of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower, income households, or 100% of'the
units shall be sold or rented to moderate-income households." The County
recommends that this; low income housing definition coincide with, the California
Redevelopment Law requirement of 15%, as stated under .Government Code Section
33413 subdivision (b)(,2)(i), which is consistent with the County's 15% Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance requirement (Section 822-4.402(a) of the County Ordinance Code).
The current language's provides something of a disincentive to provide affordable
housing in accordance; with County regulations. Modifying the percentage to meet
existing California Redevelopment Law (and the County's current Inclusionary Housing
requirement) may provide an incentive for developers to build affordable units.
C.3.e.i(3)(d)(footnote 2(ii)): Land uses are subject to change after a project is
established. This section should add language indicating that the parking ratios should
be required for the designed occupancy. It will not be feasible to require that changes
4 '
of lessees be required to maintain the same use (i.e. restaurant-occupied spaces be
required to only be used as restaurants).
C.3.e.i(4)(a)(footnote 3): "Purchase and preservation, by deed instrument, of
natural/pervious area"'should be offered as an additional option for equivalent offsite
treatment should be added, with an appropriate ratio of impervious area created to
natural/pervious area preserved.
C.3.g.ii(5)/Attachment C;Lb: No basis is provided for disallowing use, for projects
above 10 acres, of the;; design procedure, criteria, and sizing factors specified in the
Contra Costa Clean Water Program's Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. No similar exclusion is
made for other County's programs' current procedures. The County is unaware of any
reason why this exclusion would yield improvements in water quality. Unless there is a
compelling basis.for this, there is no reason to require both developers and County staff
(for both public and private projects) to go through more complicated/expensive
exercises to comply with the permit's hydromodification management requirements, the
County should be allowed to continue to utilize the guidance in the Stormwater C.3
Guidebook. If this exclusion is retained, an effective-date with an adequate opportunity
for preparation is absolutely necessary (July 1, 2010, at the earliest).
C.3.j: Collection of data for projects creating between 1,000 and 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface will be costly and time consuming. The purpose of this data is not
clear. It is also unclear how this activity (and the associated expense) would improve
water quality. If this;; data collection is to be required, it should exclude projects
creating 5,000 to 1,000 square feet of impervious surface that are will be required to
install stormwater management facilities, and will already be reported (per C.3.W(1),
and possibly C.3.b.i(5),). .
C.4 - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SITE CONTROLS
The County objects to the significantly increased oversight of the business community.
The inspections required by C.4.b.i may be duplicative of inspections that numerous
other agencies are already mandated to conduct regularly, including environmental
inspections (Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Boards,
Air Quality Management Districts) and public safety inspections (Fire Districts, Health
Department).
It is unacceptable to expect the County, already operating on limited resources, to be
required to divert resources from activities that directly improve water quality in order
to fulfill administrative irequirements that have historically been the responsibility of the
Water Board(s). The County specifically objects to being required to determine whether
businesses are,required to file for coverage under the State General Industrial.Permit.
(and report those that have not), and to track businesses that should already have
coverage under the State's General Industrial Permit. Itis not entirely clear whether the
5
intent of C.4.b.ii(3)(d), C.4.b.ii(4)(d) and C.4.c.iii(4) is to require local jurisdictions
to cite NOI / State General Industrial Permit facilities that. have been reported in
violation". The County does not have the authority to cite violations of a State permit.
We only inspect and enforce local stormwater regulations (the County Ordinance). It
should also be noted that SIC codes (referenced in C.4.b.ii(3)(b)) are.outdated and
are not used by the County.; this reference should be replaced with a more appropriate
designator of use.
It is not acceptable for the County to be required to develop the authority to conduct
cleanup activities, and to bill violators to recover costs (per C.4.a.i(1)(b) and
C.4.c.i(5)). This .may result in significant County exposure to liability associated with
cleanup. These requirements should be removed from the MRP.
It is also not feasible for the County to track all changes in commercial and industrial
uses to review for.changes in the potential to contribute to pollution and whether
inspections (or increased frequency) are required (per C.4.b.ii(5)(e)). Not all types of
changes to use are subject to review by the County, and it is not feasible for the County
to inspect every facility every year.
C.5 - ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
The County's ability to effectively combat illegal dumping is severely compromised by
our limited legal authority under various State laws. It is extremely important to
analyze what additional legal authorities, including changes to State law, the County
would be required to develop in order to comply with various C.5 Provisions related to
identifying parties responsible for illegal dumping and litter violations and either
citing/fining them or recovering clean-up costs from them.
The extent of County's enforcement for litter & dumping violations (dictated by CA
Penal Code — Sections 374.3, 374.4.& 374.7) is enforced by the County Sheriff's Office
(with prosecutions handled by District Attorney). Because the activities called for in
provision C.5.b.i(4) are generally handled by the Sheriff's Office, which often has more
urgent issues to address, it will not always be able respond to litter/dumping referrals
as they are reported.. An implementation date of 07/01/09 is suggested to allow
sufficient time to establish necessary authorities within other departments..
It should also be noted that it is rarely possible to identify a "responsible party" for
illegal dumping and litter cases. The burden of proof is significant, generally requiring
confessions or eyewitnesses. Even finding someone's name in dumped materials is not
adequate proof, per the District Attorney's Office.
The County's legal authority to recover costs of abatement only applies to the property
owner, as dictated+, by CA Government Code — Section 25845 (including
6
notifications/process required, also-prescribing time frames); the owner of the property
is often not necessarily the "responsible party," so these regulations are ambiguous in
how they may apply to mobile sources. It is also not acceptable to subject the County
to the liabilities associated with conducting cleanup activities (per C.5.a.i(1)(b),
C.5.a.i(2)(b) and C.5.1l.i(1)).
The County currently has the authority to issue criminal enforcement and penalties for
illicit discharges as written in Chapter 1014-6 in;the County Ordinance, upon conviction.
However, an Ordinance change will be required to issue administrative penalties and
fines (required in C.51a.i(2)(a)). If the administrative ',penalty system must be
employed, November 30, 2008 is not enough time to implement a change in the County
Ordinance. An implementation date of July 1, 2009 is recommended.
C.6 - CONSTRUCTION.SITE CONTROL
C.6.a.i/C.6.b.ii(5): It. is not appropriate 'to require the County to perform cleanup
activities (and ,seek reimbursement from the operator) in response to construction site
stormwater pollutant control. Although cleanup clearly must be required, the County
should not be required to conduct this activity and face exposure to the enormous
related liabilities.
C.6.a.ii(3)/C.6.a.iii: Establishment of legal authorities is not feasible prior to
November 30, 2008. This requirement should be changed to November 30, 2009.
ii
C.6.c.ii(3): In the first sentence,the words "if necessary" should be moved such that
they follow the word "implementation" so that it is clear that it pertains to all of the
advanced treatment measures listed.
C.6.e.ii(1): The County will be able to more effectively (and less expensively)
implement screening,level inspections if the inspector, after observing an violation,
were allowed to contact appropriate County staff to follow the ERP and document the
violation. The following parenthetical statement should be added at the end of the last
sentence: "(or cause the ERP to be followed and the violation to be documented)".
C.6.e.iii: It is not feasible or valuable for reporting to include the total number of
screening level inspections conducted (this would be the total number of inspections'
conducted by the County). The text of. provision C.6.e.iii indicates that screening level
inspections need be reported only when a violation is observed. The annual report
form (Attachment Q implies that all screening level inspections are to be listed; this
field should be removed from (or clarified in) the annual report form.
CAe/C.M/C.3.g: Since the activities that are precursors to implementation of
provisions -.6.e, C.3.f and C.3.g are not to be completed by November 30, 2008 (per
provisions C.6.a.ii(3) and C.6.b.ii(7)) and are not to be reported until the October 2009
7
i
annual report (per provisions C.6.a.iii and C.6.b.iii), implementation dates for provisions
C.6.e,.C.3.f and C.3.g should not be required.for at least one year after the precursor
activities (recommended implementation date: July 1, 2010).
C.7 - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND OUTREACH
The PEIO portion of the new MRP is acceptable, though there are more requirements
than in the existing permit, most of them can be met through existing County
programs.
One facet of the permit that is unclear and will require further explanation by the
RWQCB is that many other sections of the permit have outreach/education associated
with them, but are not referenced in . Provision C.7. This includes sections C.9.h
Pesticide Toxicity Control - Public Outreach, C.10.b.i(1) Trash Reduction - Enhanced
Trash Management Control Measures, C.11J Mercury Controls — Development of a Risk
Reduction Program, and C.12.i.i. PCB Controls - Development of a Risk Reduction
Program. These associations should be specifically referenced in provision C.7.
Provision C.7.k is unclear. Clarification is requested regarding exactly what is required
with regards to outreaching to municipal officials. It is assumed that participation in the
County Clean Water Program achieves compliance with this requirement.
C.8 - WATER OUALITY MONITORING
The requirements of the section C.8 (as well as C.9 and sections C.11 through C.14)
may be able to be carried out on a regional basis. with tasks/costs shared, by all co-
Permittees. Use of the term "collectively" in the aforementioned provisions should be
clarified with reference to establishment of sampling- plans. If regional cooperation is
allowed in carrying out the requirements of these water quality and specific monitoring
Provisions, memorandums of agreement may need to be established. This approach
would streamline.efforts and produce a more. consistent .data set by utilizing the same
field staff, equipment, analytical laboratories, etc.. However, this proposition may
require development of an oversight organization such as a Regional Monitoring
Committee Program, or could be overseen by the Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association (BASMAA).
Historically, the required level of monitoring (which is presumably set forth with the
goal of developing data to be used for the establishment of future TMDLs) has been the
responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board. The County questions the
appropriateness of transferring this responsibility to the permittees. Additional new
monitoring requirements will require time to organize, select sampling sites; and
develop sampling plans. We recommend an implementation. date of July 1, 2009 for
both regional and Permittee monitoring efforts.
8
The timeline for reporting on thea pollutants of concern 'monitoring project status is
currently specified at six months after completion of data collection. This reporting
requirement should be restated to occur within one year follow data collection or in the
next annual report. The nine required monitoring projects would be unnecessarily
burdensome, if required under the current implementation schedule. Prioritization and
phasing of implementation dates is recommended in order to ensure quality of data.
The large number of sampling sites (15) to be performed at lower reaches of watershed
will result in redundant',data sets and wasted sampling/analysis costs. This should be
changed to a percentage of sample sites per mile of creek reach.
Deployment of continuous sampling equipment for collecting general water quality
parameters (at two sites per year at 15 minute intervals for two weeks) and for
collecting temperatures{(at six sites. per year at 15 minute intervals for eight.months)
will require significant additional costs for technicians to routinely monitor and service
equipment in addition to replacement costs in case of failure and vandalism. Additional
monitoring requirements that will require increased funding include detailed trash
assessments (at eight sites per year) and stream surveys of six stream miles per year.
a
C.9 - PESTICIDES TOXICITY CONTROL
Clarification is needed with regards to the requirement of C.9.e to work with Federal
(US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture) and State
(Department of Pesticide Regulation and Dept. of Toxic Substance Control) departments
that oversee pesticides, since this role has traditionally been achieved by the State
Water Resources Board!(as a partner agency to DPR).
Tracking pesticide usage by operators should not be required of the local County
government. This should be a function of the State Water Resources Control Board,
pursuant to the State ;,General Agricultural permit, and should be removed from the
MRP.
It is not feasible to document of the effectiveness of pesticide reduction/Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) outreach to residents in C.9.h.iv by tracking what percentage of
stakeholders educated hired certified IPM contractors. . As this is unlikely to yield
valuable data, it should,'be removed from the MRP.
C.10 - TRASH REDUCTION
Although the County agrees that trash is unsightly and contributes to water pollution,
the MRP's requirement to plan for a goal of zero trash impacts by 2023, although
admirable, is completely unrealistic. The costs associated with the requirements of this
section must. be considered relative to the entirety of County's responsibilities to its
population and environment, as well as the economic law of diminishing returns, and
. 9 ,
should be revised' accordingly. .Ultimately, the solution involves human behavior
modifications (and incentives) that will require time to develop.
The Counts supports trash reduction, both in waterways and throughout the County.
However, there are ai number of specific provisions that merit revision or more.
wholesale reconsideration, as noted below.
C.10.a: The Trash Reduction section of the proposed MRP refers to implementation of
the full trash capture devices throughout 5% of jurisdictions' urban and suburban land
area as a "pilot project, which is a precursor to .the Long-Term Plan for Trash
Abatement. While the County supports trash reduction (especially insofar as its water
quality impacts), it seems that a smaller pilot project would be appropriate for full trash
.capture devices (i.e.. 5-10 pillot site projects distributed through the entire County, '
including incorporated cities) prior to requiring such a comprehensive and expensive
project. This change;, to the MRP would require substantial changes throughout
provision C.10.
C.10.a.i: Agricultural areas and non-urban parks should not be considered part of the
County's "urban and suburban land area The definition of "urban and suburban land
area" currently does not exclude agricultural areas or non-urban parks, but does include
"estate residential development areas".' This appears to'be an oversight, since non-
urban parks and agricultural areas are significantly less urban than "estate residential
development areas". The words "agricultural areas, and .non-urban parks" should be
added to the list of portions of the jurisdiction that are to be excluded from "urban and
suburban land area".
The definition of "urban and suburban land area" should also be clarified such that it
excludes areas that are within the ultimate 'permittees'. boundaries, but are not within
permittees' actual jurisdiction.. This clarification.is meant to clarify that there are areas
where it is not legally feasible for the permittees to implement trash management (i.e.
military bases, CalTrans' property, etc.).
C.10.a.ii(1): Provision!,- C.10.a.ii encourages full trash capture devices to be placed to
be located in lower reaches or upstream tidal .reaches of major tributaries. This seems
to potentially encourage installation of devices that would severely limit biological
functionality of waterways in stretches. where they are likely to be in relatively natural
states; this may compromise biological integrity and impede beneficial uses. It should
also be noted that much of the. County's drainage infrastructure is in a relatively
unimproved/natural state.
C.10.b.i: The definition of ''full trash capture device" is defined in provision C.10.b.i
(and the Glossary) as being required to trap particles retained by a 5mm mesh screen.
The 5mm seems to be an arbitrary and especially fine gradation that will not necessarily
produce a high degree of water quality benefit per dollar, spent. It also seems to
10
increases chances of clogging, failure, and flooding. Unless there is specific science
supporting the necessity of the 5mm specification, and a favorable cost-benefit ratio,
the County requests that this specification be reviewed and adjusted appropriately (or
deferred until appropriate studies can be -conducted to determine the appropriate
specification).
C.10.b.i(1): The requirement to conduct weekly street sweeping throughout 10% of
the County is an expensive activity that yields a low cost-benefit ratio, especially during
the dry season. Unless there is irrefutable evidence that such frequent street sweeping
yields water quality results commensurate with the associated costs, the County.
requests that the frequency be reduced to twice per month during the dry season
(consistent with provision C.2.a.ii(2)). Consideration of the relationship between water
quality benefits and implementation costs is necessary.
The requirement.for "maintenance of adequate litter receptacles in high traffic areas" is
potentially problematic for multiple reasons: litter is often found around receptacles not
in them; receptacles are often misused in place of property service; receptacles are
often damaged/burned; there is often no clear delineation of where they are or who ..
owns them, is responsible for emptying, repairing or replacing them, who is liable for
any harm or damage caused as result of receptacle placement, use or servicing. The .
County may be required to develop new legal authority to require certain land owners
and business operatorsin high trash or litter generation areas to purchase, install and
adequately maintain and service litter receptacles.
C.10.b.i(2): The installation of Full Trash Capture Devices" in 5% of the County's
Urban and Suburban Land Area is a financially .burdensome requirements, which is
estimated to cost'between $16 — 250 million to implement. The County recommends
that this requirement be reduced to a small number of pilot sites throughout the County
until the devices' efficacy in trash removal, maintenance requirements, and cost
effectiveness can be evaluated prior to making decisions regarding a more widespread
implementation of Full Trash (rapture Devices
C.10.c/C.10.d: It is not realistic to believe that any municipality can develop a plan
(hat when implemented will ensure that there will be no trash impacts on beneficial
uses within their jurisdictions. There will always be trash (dumping/litter) and therefore
some degree of trash-related impacts. Development of a collective plan for an
achievable degree of trash reduction, however, is acceptable.
The deadline for submitting the Long-Term 'Plan for Trash Abatement is listed. as
October, 2012 in section C.10.c, but is indicated as required in the October, 2011
annual report in C.10.d. . The reference in C.10.d should be changed to October 2012
for consistency.
11 '
C.11 through C.14 MERCURY CONTROLS, PCB CONTROLS, COPPER
CONTROLS, and PDBE'S, LEGACY PESTICIDES AND SELENIUM
As noted in the comments regarding Provision C.8 and ,the general comments, the
County is concerned about the appropriateness of this level of monitoring being shifted
to the County. The number of studies and pilot projects, which are outside the
expertise of County staff, would be anticipated to be extremely costly.- Furthermore,
the studies and pilot projects are not prioritized, and would be even more difficult to
conduct simultaneously In addition (also, as noted), the County objects to being
required to gather data to be used in development of TMDLs. This has historically, and
more appropriately, been a function of the RWQCB.
C.15 — EXEMPTED AND CONDITIONALLY EXEMPTED DISCHARGES
Due to a lack of clarity in sections C.15.viii(1 and 2), it is difficult to address provision
C.15. See the following;comments and questions:
a
C.15.b.i/C.15.11J.ii: It its not reasonable for the County to monitor all discharges from
foundation drains, crawl space pumps, footing drains and air conditioner condensate
from private property. The County, may not have the legal authority to regulate these
types of discharges, does not have an inventory of these types of mechanisms. Given
the number of these existing in the.County, the potential lack of legal authority, and the
amount of time required to regulate this type of discharge, it would be an extremely
inefficient means of improving/protecting water quality. These types of discharges
should be relisted in C.15.a.i as exempt discharges. The County would be more
appropriately engaged in public information and outreach regarding appropriate BMPs
to minimize any water quality impacts associated with this.sort of discharge.
C.15.b.iii: This section should be removed. Discharges of potable water should be
subject to regulation. However, it is not appropriate or realistic for the jurisdictions to
be required to oversees this regulation. Relationships vary between jurisdictions and
water districts and fire districts. The-County may not have the legal authority to require
compliance from the water districts or the fire districts. The County would be happy to
cooperate with water districts and fire districts in coordination of discharges of potable
water into the County storm drain system, but it would be more appropriate for these
discharges to be regulated directly by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
C.15.b.iv: The County encourages responsible individual'car washing practices, and
intends to provide public information, outreach and assistance to increase the degree to
which car washing is conducted responsibly. This section should be relocated to section
C.7.
C.15.b.v: It is not reasonable for the County to monitor all discharges from swimming
pools, spas, hot tubs and fountains from private property. The County does not have
12
an inventory of these features, and may not have the legal authority to regulate these
discharges. Provision C.15.b.v(c) appears to prohibit pools from being constructed in
areas that are not developed with sanitary sewer systems, which accounts for much of
the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. It should be noted that the County
would be more appropriately engaged in responding to discharges that, are not
conducted correctly and providing information regarding appropriate BMPs to prevent
water quality impacts. The County has provided, and intends to continue to provide,
public information and outreach regarding appropriate operation 'of pools, spas, hot
tubs and fountains.
C.15.b.vi(e): The County may not have the legal authority to conduct 'enforcement
response" to large-volume irrigation runoff. This. should not be. regulated by the
County, as it should be a function of the State Agricultural Permit.
C.15.viii(l and 2): The meaning of these provisions is not,entirely clear. Clarification
is requested. If provision C.15.viii(1) implies that the preceding sections of provision
C.15 only apply to agencies,, activities and facilities that are owned, conducted and
operated by the permittees, and provision C.15.viii(2) indicates that non-permittee
dischargers would be regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under a
separate NPDES permit, then the County does not object to the provisions noted as
unacceptable.
G:\FldCtl\NPDES\PERMIT\MRP Letter BOS to SFRWQCB\MRP.'Attachment B-2-26-08.doc
i
'� 13