management committee agenda com… · guests: nick laurell, sga, inc 1. welcome/introductions: dan...

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 1:30 p.m.

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

City of Antioch: Phil Hoffmeister / Ron Bernal City of Brentwood: Jagtar Dhaliwal / Miki Tsubota City of Clayton: Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord: Dan Sequeira / Frank Kennedy Town of Danville: Chris McCann / Steve Lake / Michael Stella City of El Cerrito: Stephen Pree / Jerry Bradshaw / Melanie Mintz / Karen Pinkos City of Hercules: John McGuire / Jose Pacheco City of Lafayette: Donna Feehan / Ron Lefler City of Martinez: Tim Tucker / Khalil Yowakim Town of Moraga: Edric Kwan / Staff Engineer / Frank Kennedy City of Oakley: Jason Vogan / Keith Coggins City of Orinda: Cathy Terentieff / Charles Swanson City of Pinole: Dean Allison City of Pittsburg: Jolan Longway/ Laura Wright / Keith Halvorson City of Pleasant Hill: Rod Wui City of Richmond: Lynne Scarpa / Joanne Le City of San Pablo: Karineh Samkian (Chair) / Adelѐ Ho City of San Ramon: Steven Spedowfski / Robin Bartlett / Maria Fierner City of Walnut Creek: Rinta Perkins (Vice-Chair) / Carlton Thompson/Steve Waymire Contra Costa County: Cece Sellgren / Julie Bueren / Mitch Avalon / Mike Carlson CCC Flood Control & Water

Conservation District: Mike Carlson / Tim Jensen

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR NOW

Next Management Committee Meeting: Wednesday, April 17, 2013, 1:30 p.m.

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, Conference Room A

The Contra Costa Clean Water Program will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities that are planning to participate in Management Committee meetings.

Contact Fan Ventura at least 48 hours before the meeting at (925) 313-2360.

2

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Management Committee Meeting Agenda

March 20, 2013

AGENDA

Public Comments: Any member of the general public may address the Management Committee on

a subject within their jurisdiction and not listed on the agenda. Remarks should not exceed three (3) minutes.

Consent Calendar: All matters listed under the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered

to be routine and can be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Management Committee or a member of the public prior to the time the Management Committee votes on the motion to adopt.

5 min.

A. Public Information/Participation Committee Meeting Minutes – January 23 and February 27, 2013 (Tracy Hein)

B. Management Committee Meeting Minutes – February 20, 2013 (Tom Dalziel)

C. Development Committee Meeting Minutes – February 27, 2013 (Dan Cloak)

D. Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes – March 6, 2013 (Tom Dalziel)

Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Comments/Reports:

10 min.

A. Selina Louie – San Francisco Bay

B. Genevieve Sparks – Central Valley

Presentations:

A. Legal Assistance on Stormwater Compliance Issues (Elisa Wilfong/Stacey Grassini – Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office)

15 min.

Actions:

A. APPROVE BASMAA’s Draft Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Draft Annual Report Format as Recommended by the Administrative Committee, and its Submittal to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards; and, DIRECT the Program Manager to Sign and Certify the Submittal on Behalf of Each Permittee’s Duly Authorized Representative (Tom Dalziel)

15 min.

B. APPROVE the Final Draft Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Group Program Budget for a Cost Not to Exceed $2,786,485, and the Carryover of Unspent Fiscal Year 2012/13 Group Activities Budget (Tom Dalziel)

30 min.

3

C. AFFIRM the Monitoring Committee’s Recommendations in Awarding Community Watershed Stewardship Grants to Selected Recipients (Elisa Wilfong/Khalil Abusaba)

10 min.

D. APPROVE the Design Criteria for Non-LID Stormwater Treatment Facilities and Direct These Criteria be Incorporated into an Addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 6th Edition (Dan Cloak)

15 min.

Reports:

A. Regional Discussions on Trash Load Reduction Plans (Dan Cloak)

10 min.

B. Municipal Regional Permit Reissuance (Tom Dalziel)

15 min.

C. Current Single-Use Bag Ban Bills (Elisa Wilfong)

10 min.

D. Update on Recruitment of the Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Position (Tom Dalziel)

5 min.

Information Items:

5 min.

A. BASMAA Committee Meeting Minutes 1. Monitoring/Pollutants of Concern – Jan. and Feb. 2013 2. Municipal Operations – Feb. 2013 3. Public Information/Participation – Jan. 2013

B. APWA Article – “Got Drugs? New Developments on Disposal of Use or Expired Pharmaceutical Drugs”

Old/New Business:

Adjournment: Approximately 130 minutes (3:40 p.m.)

4

UPCOMING EVENTS and/or DEADLINES

May 9,

2013

CASQA Quarterly Meeting, Irvine. Theme = Implications of Legal Cases. For more

information, visit: http://www.casqa.org/Meetings/tabid/55/Default.aspx

September 9-11, 2013

9th Annual CASQA Conference, Squaw Valley, Lake Tahoe. For more information later, visit http://stormwaterconference.com/

FUTURE PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETINGS

All meetings held at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, Conference Room A, except as noted.

March 20

3rd Wednesday

Management Committee (MC) Meeting, 1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

March 27 4th Wednesday

Public Information / Participation (PIP) Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon, Conference Room “A”*

March 27 4 th Wednesday

Development Committee (DC) Meeting, 1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

March 28**

4th Thursday

Municipal Operations Committee (MOC) Meeting, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

April 8

2nd Monday

Monitoring Committee (MonC) Meeting, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon, Conference Room

“B”

April 3 10+

1st Wednesday

Administrative Committee (AC) Meeting 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon

*Starting in March, PIP will meet again in Conference Room A.

+ AC meeting rescheduled to April 10.

**In February, MOC changed to quarterly meetings (March, June, September, December).

SCHEDULE FOR MONTHLY BASMAA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

1st Wednesday

Monitoring Committee, 9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.**

1st Thursday

Development Committee, 1:30 – 4:00 p.m.**

4th Monday*** Regional Monitoring Coalition

4th Tuesday****

Trash/Municipal Operations Committee, 1:00 – 4:00p.m. **

4 th Wednesday Public Information/Participation Committee, 1:00 – 4:00 p.m.**

*** Added to list

****Changed from 3rd Thursday

**Please note the time and location for the BASMAA Subcommittee meetings are subject to change.

TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Agenda\12 13\MC Agenda 2013-03.docx

http://www.casqa.org/Meetings/tabid/55/Default.aspx

http://stormwaterconference.com/

PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION (PIP) COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES January 23, 2013

Attendance:

MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT

City of Antioch Julie Haas-Wajdowicz

City of Martinez Tim Tucker City of Pittsburg Laura Wright (Vice-Chair) City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Dan Jordan (Chair)

Program Staff: Tracy Hein GUESTS: Nick Laurell, SGA, Inc 1. Welcome/Introductions:

Dan Jordan began the meeting at 9:07 a.m. No introductions were necessary.

2. Moving Forward with SGA: Website Conversion: Tracy Hein reported that the conversion of the website is progressing and should be complete in the near future. Photo Booth: In response to the committee’s interest in pursuing the Photo Booth option for youth outreach, Nick Laurrell reviewed three options. They included an actual photo booth, a backdrop with the program branding which provides a backdrop for photos of people (such as with Be The Street Campaign) and use of a Green Screen where photos are taken in front of it and a campaign related image inserted behind those in the photo later. There was significant discussion about the pros and cons of each of the options and how and where they could be used. The group ended the discussion leaning toward the green

2

screen option with possible enhancements. Nick will put together an online survey for the members to take to help further determine how the outreach can be done. Literature Review/Survey: Laurrell discussed the in-depth literature review done by SGA staff and told the committee that the results of their review would be sent out to committee members later in the week. A draft of the telephone survey will be sent out for review as well. The survey should be done in mid-February and will be followed shortly after by the focus groups. Training: Laurrell then gave an overview on the anticipated technical training series. It is envisioned as a three part training with session being one to two hours in length. The trainings will include such subject matter as the use and effectiveness of social media, how to buy and evaluate on line advertising, developing an outreach strategy and what is coming in the future. Presentation to the Management Committee: In anticipation of SGA’s presentation to the Management Committee in February, the group discussed what should be covered in that presentation. It is anticipated that it will be a two part presentation. Stephen Groner will talk about the difference in the approach to education and outreach. Laurrell will cover the information from the collected data.

4. Proposed FY 2013/14 PIP Budget Tracy Hein presented the proposed FY 13/14 PIP budget. Hein informed the PIP members that the Management Committee had already seen this proposed budget during their last meeting, but members of that committee were told it was only staff projections and that PIP members had not had an opportunity to discuss it yet. Significant discussion ensued about the details of the budget and whether this was a realistic amount ($250K) to be able to do effective outreach and comply with the Municipal Regional Permit. It was decided by the committee that it was important to point out as a budget line item the $20,000 in pro bono work that SGA is contributing toward enhancement of the program website.

5. Branding Campaign Update Laura Wright and Tracy Hein provided the committee an update following their conference call with Cheryl Wessling. In summary, they reported that, similar to our own PIP committee feedback, no one was happy with the latest logos that had been presented by MIG. The executive group met to reevaluate the approach. More information will follow

3

as it becomes available.

6. For the Good of the Order/Roundtable: Julie Haas-Wajdowicz reported that Antioch will be having a July 4th event. She has been told the event must be a “no impact” event which translates into all garbage from the event has to be removed and will be picked up by volunteers. Details are yet to be worked out, but she plans on giving away Chico Bags to all those who show up with a full garbage bag of trash from cleaning up after the event.

7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, February 27, 2012, 9:00 am – 12:00 noon,

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez Conference Room G

TH:fv G:\NPDES\PIP_PEIO\Minutes&Attendance\12 13\PIP Minutes 2013_01.doc

PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION (PIP) COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2013

Attendance:


City of Antioch Julie Haas-Wajdowicz

City of Martinez Tim Tucker City of Pittsburg Laura Wright (Vice-Chair) City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Dan Jordan (Chair)

Program Staff: Tracy Hein GUESTS: Nick Laurell, SGA, Inc. 1. Welcome/Introductions:

Dan Jordan began the meeting at 10:10 a.m. No introductions were necessary.

2. Moving Forward with SGA: Website Conversion: Tracy Hein reported that the newly converted website is live. She went through her first training session and, as expected, found that WordPress is definitely much more user friendly than, the previously used, Dreamweaver. The next step is to review the draft manual while working on the live and/or staging sites. Once that manual is finalized others will receive website training. On a training related note, Nick Laurrell informed the group that the training videos discussed in previous meetings are in production. Survey/Focus Group Update: Laurrell reported that the phone survey and focus group meetings are done and presented

2

the very initial findings to the committee. He was very pleased with the participation and can already tell the findings will provide very helpful information. There was significant discussion regarding the findings. Laurrell will have a draft findings report at the next PIP Committee meeting. Transcripts of the focus group audio recordings are being made and will be made available to the Committee as well. Management Committee Meeting Follow Up: The group discussed the presentation that Stephen Groner and Nick Laurrell made to the Management Committee on February 20 and it was reported their presentation received very positive feedback. Discussion of the presentation led into discussion of the proposed PIP budget (originally item 3 on the agenda). There were some budget related comments made by Management Committee members which were primarily addressed by Laura Wright and Lynne Scarpa. No suggestions for changes to the proposed budget amount were made. Youth Outreach: Laurrell informed the group that a link to the online survey, discussed at the last meeting, will be sent to committee members shortly.

4. Proposed FY 2013/14 PIP Budget: See notes above.

5. Promotional Item Update: Tracy Hein presented a handout of potential CCCWP promotional items. Following group discussion nine items were chosen. A list of the items and their associated cost breakdowns will be sent to all of the municipalities. The program will coordinate a group buy in an effort to get municipalities the best possible price.

6. For the Good of the Order/Roundtable: Lynne Scarpa told the group about an Our Water Our World (OWOW) related meeting she had with a representative from Annie’s Annuals in Richmond. In the conversation she learned of an OWOW “kiosk” of sorts which allows people to print out important information. No one on the committee was aware of an OWOW kiosk but Tracy Hein will check with Debi Tidd to see what she can find out. Laura Wright shared a conversation she had with 2 teachers who are involved in a Pittsburg’s watershed group made up of kids and educators. She posed a question about the best way to get information into the schools. Both felt the best approach is through an

3

assembly, similar to what is done with the Mr. Funnelhead Program, but focusing on trash. Julie Haas-Wajdowicz encouraged the group to look up the NCRA Players on YouTube for another entertaining example. The next meeting will go back to a 9:00 a.m. start time to ensure enough time to review information to be presented by SGA.

7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:02

Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 9:00 am – 12:00 noon,

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez Conference Room A

TH:fv G:\NPDES\PIP_PEIO\Minutes&Attendance\12 13\PIP Minutes 2013_02.doc

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

February 20, 2013 Attendance:


City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Jagtar Dhaliwal City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord Dan Sequeira Town of Danville Chris McCann City of El Cerrito Jerry Bradshaw, Stephen Prée City of Hercules John McGuire City of Lafayette Donna Feehan City of Martinez Khalil Yowakim Town of Moraga Edric Kwan City of Oakley Keith Coggins City of Orinda Cathy Terentieff City of Pinole Frank Kennedy* Dean Allison City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway City of Pleasant Hill Ann Page* Rod Wui City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa City of San Pablo (Chair) Karineh Samkian City of San Ramon Steven Spedowfski City of Walnut Creek (Vice-Chair) Michael Hawthorne* Rinta Perkins, Steve Waymire Contra Costa County Cece Sellgren Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Mike Carlson

Program Staff: Tom Dalziel, Elisa Wilfong, Tracy Hein, Fan Ventura Program Consultant(s): Dan Cloak, Khalil Abusaba *Not yet a designated voting representative for the agency. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC/ OTHERS/GUESTS: None 1. Introductions: With both the Chair and Vice Chair absent, Tom Dalziel called the meeting

to order at 1:30 PM and requested self-introductions. Dalziel then asked if there were any

2

announcements. Hearing none, Dalziel indicated the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is requesting stakeholder discussion on the possible consolidation of Region 5 municipal NPDES permits into one area-wide municipal NPDES permit similar to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s MRP. Dalziel briefly reviewed potential impacts to the Program and Permittees, and indicated Program staff would participate in these discussions and provide updates to the Management Committee as appropriate. Dalziel then announced State Water Board Chair, Charles Hoppin, would be resigning from the Board sometime this Spring. Two other Water Board members’ (i.e., Tam M. Dudoc and Frances Spivey-Webber) are currently serving on the Board although their terms expired on January 15, 2013. This leaves three vacancies to be filled on the State Board, which are appointed by the governor. Chair Karineh Samkian arrived at 1:43 PM and proceeded to run the meeting.

2. Consent Calendar:

A. January 14, 2013 Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes B. January 16, 2013 Management Committee Meeting Minutes C. January 23, 2013 Development Committee Meeting Minutes D. February 6, 2013 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes

Moved/Seconded (Laura Hoffmeister/Frank Kennedy) to approve the Consent Calendar. Ayes: 17 (Cities/Towns of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Hercules,

Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District)

Noes: None Absent: El Cerrito, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek Abstain: None

3. Regional Board Staff Comments/Reports: Regional Board representatives were not in attendance.

4. Presentations:

A. Public Outreach Program FY 2012/13 Tracy Hein provided a brief review of the consultant selection process resulting in the selection of S. Groner Associates (SGA) for Public Information / Participation services to the Program. Hein then introduced SGA representatives Steven Groner and Nick Laurrell. Groner began the presentation with an overview of his background as an engineer working for the Los Angeles County Public Works Department. His duties included assisting them with compliance with their municipal NPDES permit. In 1998,

3

Groner formed SGA, a community relations and social marketing firm, which has been providing public education consultant services to many of the major Southern California stormwater programs for the past 14 years. More recently, SGA has been assisting BASMAA with their “Be the Streets” litter campaign. Groner reviewed studies and previous work suggesting people are strongly influence by what they view to be normal behaviors (i.e., social norms). Groner reviewed how his staff, which consists of artist and technicians (i.e., left and right side brain employees), combined their skills to use social media, traditional advertising, key “champions” and other methods to reach and influence target audiences’ perception of social norms. Laurel then provided a review of SGA’s work for the Program and PIP Committee in development of a long term strategic plan, which will initially be used for implementation of the mandated pesticide outreach campaign. As part of this effort, SGA conducted a phone survey and will begin focus groups starting tomorrow. Results of these efforts will be used in development of the strategic plan for the pesticide outreach campaign. Laurrell also provided a brief review of the redesign work on the Program’s website. This redesign will leave much of the current look and feel intact, but converts the site to “wordpress”, which allows Program staff to more easily make changes and add content to the website that previously needed to be done by consultants. Committee members asked a number of questions, including “how will the Program assess effectiveness?” Laurrell responded the number of “engagements” is probably the best indicator for changed norms and outcomes.

B. FY 2013/14 Group Program Budget – Second Draft Dalziel reviewed the one substantive change to the budget figures reviewed by the Management Committee in January, which was the reduction of the “HMP Monitoring and Equipment” budget (line item 7.B) from $10,000 to $8,400 due to lower equipment costs. In response to inquiries from Management Committee members in January on how much money the other stormwater programs were spending on PIP activities, Tracy Hein reported the Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara PIP budgets ranged from 27-43 cents per capita. Contra Costa’s per capita budget is 23 cents. Specific components for next fiscal year’s PIP budget will be determined by the results of current surveying and focus group meetings. SGA is working to leverage existing programs (e.g., Our Water Our World (OWOW) Program). A lengthy discussion ensued as to what extent the OWOW Program could be leveraged to satisfy the Provision C.7 mandates. Khalil Abusaba then reviewed the proposed budgets for the Water Quality Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern group activities (budget line items 12-19), including the Program’s contribution to the Regional Monitoring Collaborative (budget line item 20). Questions were asked and answered. Questions were asked regarding the $5,000 budget to “Train Municipal Employees

4

that Apply/Use Pesticides”. Dalziel indicated this budget was proposed by the Administrative Committee and would be used for a one-day training on landscape Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) and structural IPM. A lengthy discussion ensued as to whether sufficient budget was provided to assist municipalities with development and implementation of their Long Term Trash Reduction Plans, which are due February 1, 2013. Dalziel reviewed his assumption for why the $23,440 budget should be sufficient. He also indicated that if the budget is not enough, then the Management Committee would have the option to use the Program’s contingency or unallocated MRP reserve. No direction to change the proposed Trash Reduction budget was provided. Chris McCann asked how much the Program had spent on regional Trash Reduction projects to date. Dalziel indicated this information would be made available at the March meeting. Dalziel reviewed the proposed use of reserves and how these proposed reserves were highlighted in the budget and in the “Reserve Details”. Questions were asked and answered. Lastly, Committee members tentatively confirmed their prior agreement to carryover unspent FY 2012/2013 Group Activities budget. The majority of the carryover was a result of lower Personnel costs resulting from the vacant Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist position, the resignation of one Watershed Management Planning Specialist, the temporary leave of absence for the other Watershed Management Planning Specialist position, and the temporary status of the Administrative Analyst position. The intent of the carryover would be to maintain consistent municipal funding levels for implementation of group activities in FY 2014/2015 and potentially 2015/2016.

5. Actions:

A. Approve the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report and its Submittal to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and Direct the Program Manager to Sign and Certify the Submittal on Behalf of Each Permittee’s Duly Authorized Representative Abusaba explained the item, and summarized the table regarding Stressor Source ID Studies. More detailed information is available on Groupsite. He noted the Water Board studies done in the North Coast area of California on water temperature would not directly apply to the Contra Costa area. It is warmer here, so temperatures would naturally be a little higher. Moved/Seconded (Chris McCann/Cece Sellgren) to approve the item and take action as indicated in the staff report.

5

Ayes: 20 (Cities/Towns of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito (via e-mail), Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole (via email), Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill (via e-mail), Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek (via e-mail), Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District)

Noes: None Absent: El Cerrito, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek Abstain: None

B. Approve the Updated Model Stormwater Management Ordinance Dan Cloak explained the draft had been developed and review by a workgroup of municipal representatives and the Legal Subcommittee of the City/County Attorneys’ Association legal. Cloak summarized changes to the updated model ordinance. Cloak explained the next step in the process is for the Management Committee to approve the model ordinance and then for municipal representatives to work with their City Attorney to review, adapt, and adopt the stormwater ordinance consistent with their internal procedures. Cathy Terentieff suggested edits clarifying references to the “plan” in Section .05 “Stormwater Control Plan Required” (i.e., “Stormwater Control Plan” versus “Operation and Maintenance Plan”). She also suggested replacing “CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment” with “NPDES Permit” in Section .09(f) “Construction Activities”. Committee members concurred with these proposed edits. One committee member suggested the model ordinance include a reference to the Enforcement Response Plan(s) required by the permits. Legal Workgroup members explained they considered this but decided this detail might be confusing or become outdated and that referencing in the ordinance the NPDES permit, and any subsequent amendment, reissuance or successor permit, was sufficient. Program staff was directed to make the edits suggest by Terentieff above, and then redistribute the updated model stormwater ordinance to Management Committee representatives for review and adoption, as appropriate, at the local level. Moved/Seconded (Sellgren/L. Hoffmeister) to approve the Model Stormwater Management Ordinance, with reference changes above.

Ayes: 17 (Cities/Towns of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District)

Noes: None

6

Absent: El Cerrito, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek Abstain: None

6. Reports:

A. Regional Discussions on Trash Load Reduction Plans Cloak discussed the various meetings between MRP representatives and SF Bay Water Board staff on Long-Term Trash Plans. Permittees would delineate high/medium/low-trash areas, which would be placed in the BASMAA model and regional maps. Medium- and high-trash areas would have three options for handling these areas (noted on Pages 1 and 2 of the staff report). The big question is how to measure progress. That will be discussed at next meeting with Water Board staff (March 4).

B. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Cloak explained the IPM Ad Hoc Work Group is working to use the responses to the IPM survey to make improvements to Program’s IPM model policy and standard operating procedures. The Work Group’s next meeting is February 27. Frank Kennedy briefly discussed San Mateo’s IPM document, which the IPM Ad Hoc Work Group is reviewing. Cloak thanked those who responded to the survey.

C. MRP Provision C.3.e. Special Projects Report due March 15, 2013 Cloak explained that the form attached to the staff report is for the required reporting on special projects in accordance with Provision C.3.e.ii in the MRP. All permittees will have to complete and submit the form; however, Walnut Creek and Concord may be the only ones with special projects. Most permittees will have “None” on their forms. If agencies have projects in process, then check with Cloak or Dalziel for guidance.

D. Update on San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Review of FY 2011/12 Annual Reports Dalziel noted that Contra Costa permittees received five (5) letters so far on Sections C.2 and C.3. Dale Boyer, San Francisco Bay Water Board staff, had previously indicated all Permittees would be receiving a comment letter on Provision C.10 (Trash Load Reduction).

E. February 15 Water Board Meeting on Permit Reissuance Dalziel explained the BASMAA Board of Directors recently met with San Francisco Bay Water Board staff to review initial objectives for reissuance of the MRP. The Water Board’s priorities are C.3 (New and Redevelopment), C.8 (Monitoring), C.10 (Trash Load Reduction), C.11 (Mercury Controls) and C.12 (PCB Controls). Tom Mumley, San

7

Francisco Bay Water Board Assistant Executive Officer, hopes to renew the permit soon after the current one expires. Water Board staff recognizes that Permittees have funding restraints, so Water Board staff is considering permit areas where efforts can be reduced. However, Water Board staff indicated that meeting requirements for the next permit will likely result in increased compliance costs. BASMAA is working on development of a process and timeline for review of high, medium and low permit priorities. Program staff will continue to provide updates on this process as appropriate.

F. Personnel Recruitment Update Dalziel announced that Hein has been hired as the permanent Administrative Analyst. There were over 30 candidates for the Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist. There will be two rounds of interviews, with at least two panels for the first round of interviews. Dates for those interviews will be determined. He is looking for municipal representatives to sit on both rounds of interviews. Management Committee representative wishing to participate on a panel should let Tom Dalziel know.

7. Information Items: A. BASMAA Committee Meeting Minutes

- Public Information/Participation – Nov. 2012 - Monitoring/Pollutants of Concern – Dec. 2012

B. Newsletter – The IPM Practitioner

There were no comments on the Information Items.

8. Old/New Business:

9. Adjournment:

Chair Samkian adjourned the meeting at 4:35 pm. TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Minutes&Attendance\12 13\MC Minutes 2013-02.doc

Development Committee

February 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes

Attendance:


City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister

City of Brentwood Jeff Cowling

City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister

City of Concord Frank Kennedy

Contra Costa County David Swartz

City of Orinda Cathleen Terentieff

City of Pittsburg Majeed Bahri, Jolan Longway

City of Pleasant Hill Ann Page

City of Richmond Lynne Scarpa

City of Walnut Creek Carlton Thompson

Non-Voting Members

Town of Danville Chris McCann

Program Staff: Dan Cloak (Consultant)

Guests:

City of San Ramon Chris Low

Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda

Carlton Thompson convened the meeting. There were no announcements or changes to the agenda.

2

Consent Calendar

Carlton asked for a motion to approve the January 23, 2013 Development Committee minutes. David Swartz moved approval, and Frank Kennedy seconded. There were no objections.

Reports/Discussion

Draft C.3 Update and Program Website Changes — Dan Cloak noted the final version of the C.3 Update was distributed to Committee members via Groupsite on February 5. It has not yet been posted to the Program website because the site has been “frozen” while being upgraded to Wordpress. Dan said he had just received notice that the Wordpress site has been launched; he will update the site within the next day or so. [update: Done.]

Initial Discussion with Water Board staff on MRP Reissuance. Dan reported that staff of the Bay Area Phase I programs met with Tom Mumley, Dale Bowyer, Shin-Roei Lee, and Selena Louie February 15. At that meeting, there was general agreement that many of the permit provisions will be changed only to streamline some excessive detail and reporting requirements. The provisions that are exceptions are C.3., C.8. (Monitoring), C.10. (Trash), and C.11/C.12 (PCBs and Mercury). For these provisions, there are a number of reports scheduled or in progress. It was agreed to compile a timeline for discussion of these “MRP 2.0” permit provisions. The timeline will be based on consideration of when these reports are to be delivered.

For Provision C.3., Contra Costa’s report on the results of our HMP Model Verification and Calibration (report due August 30, 2013) and to propose changes to criteria and/or sizing factors (proposal due April 1, 2014) will provide technical grist for discussions affecting hydromodification management and LID criteria for all MRP permittees.

Special Projects Report Due to Water Board March 15 – There are two projects in Walnut Creek and one project in Concord that meet the Special Projects criteria and are in the process of development review. Other municipalities will also need to prepare a certification statement but will note they have no projects to report. Program staff will request the certification letters be forwarded to them during the first week of March so that they may be compiled and submitted to the Water Board as one package on March 15. The Committee discussed reporting requirements, particularly the requirement for a narrative regarding LID feasibility which must be completed for each Special Project. Carlton is in the process of reviewing such a narrative drafted by the applicant for a project at 1500 Mt. Diablo Boulevard in Walnut Creek.

Carlton noted the 85% lot coverage requirement to be eligible for Category “B” is driving applicants to increase lot coverage, thereby eliminating pedestrian amenities. The 85% lot coverage requirement and is also providing an unintended disincentive for designers to direct some Drainage Management Areas to LID treatment.

Non-LID Treatment Facilities Technical Criteria Guidance — Dan reviewed the February 25, 2013 memo included in the agenda packet. The participants reviewed the technical criteria on page 3 of that memo and made the following comments:

Rewrite the second bullet point under “General,” regarding the use of runoff factors

3

for pervious surfaces, to make it more clear.

In the third bullet point under “General” note that the applicant should commit to obtaining a 2-year warranty as a condition of discretionary approval, and that a copy of the warranty must be provided prior to final project approval.

Carlton requested that the criteria be accompanied by sample calculations for each of the two types of devices allowed (tree-box-type high-rate biofilters and vault-based high-rate media filters).

On a motion by Laura Hoffmeister, seconded by Jeff Cowling, the Committee agreed to the following next steps:

Development Committee approved the technical criteria in the memo as working criteria;

The criteria will be circulated to key manufacturers’ representatives to identify any flaws that would interfere with achieving the CCCWP’s objectives;

The criteria could be brought back to the Development Committee to discuss any identified flaws; otherwise the criteria will be forwarded to the Management Committee for adoption followed by publication on the Program’s website.

Future C.3 Workshop/Training – Dan asked the participants for their thoughts on whether a C.3 training was needed during FY 2012/2013. He said the training could be held in May or June. Carlton noted a workshop for development professionals could also serve as a listening session to get feedback on what is working and not working with the C.3 requirements. Frank said he thought it would be useful to provide some training in documentation for Special Projects. Lynne and Jolan suggested it would be useful to have some training in conducting C.3 O&M inspections. David noted he was seeing repeated design errors such as lack of energy dissipation and these could be addressed as well.

Chris, Carlton and others noted there may also be a need for C.6 training, particularly regarding documenting verbal warnings and follow ups as part of the record-keeping and reporting.

Open Discussion: C.3 and C.6 Projects and Issues

At Carlton’s request, David provided a synopsis of outcomes of the meeting between Water Board staff and the County regarding the audit letter issued to the County. It was noted there needs to be a better connection between the inspection forms and the Enforcement Response Plan.

Chris asked what should be done with construction site monitoring reports. She received some showing exceedances in pH. Frank suggested telling the contractor these should be sent to the SWRCB via the SMARTS system as required by the Construction General Permit, as they are required under that permit, not the MRP. Lynne noted there should be municipal follow up if there is reason to believe the monitoring data represents discharges to municipal storm drains.

4

NEXT NEW DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS COMMITTEE MEETING:

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

1:30 PM – 4:30 PM

Conference Room “A”, Contra Costa County Public Works Department

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553

Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2013


Voting Members City of Concord Dan Sequeira Contra Costa County Cece Sellgren CCC Flood Control District Mike Carlson Town of Danville Chris McCann City of El Cerrito Stephen Prée City of Oakley Keith Coggins City of San Pablo Karineh Samkian Non-Voting Members City of Walnut Creek Rinta Perkins City of San Ramon Steven Spedowfski Program Staff: Tom Dalziel, Fan Ventura

1) Introductory Remarks: Chair Samkian began the meeting at 9:35 a.m. and asked if there

were any announcements or proposed changes to the agenda. Rinta Perkins asked to be included in the agenda to provide an update on the recent trash plan meeting, as it may affect the budget. The Committee agreed. Samkian reminded cities the deadline for submittal of Notices of Acceptance for full trash capture devices installed under the Trash Demonstration Grant were due today.

2) FY 2013/14 Group Program Budget: Tom Dalziel reviewed changes made to the budget since its review by the Management Committee on February 20. A budget of $1,000 was added to line item 12.H. (i.e., Citizen Monitoring and Participation) to provide for periodic maintenance/calibration of monitoring equipment owned by the Contra Costa County Department of Development and Conservation and loaned to community organizations and stakeholders. This activity further supports Provision C.8.f., which requires Permittees to encourage citizen monitoring. Dalziel revisited the assumptions regarding budget line item 14 (Trash Reduction), and also expressed the concerns of Lynne Scarpa that cities will need a lot of assistance and support in development of their Long Term Trash Reduction Plans. Dalziel explained a regional profile for development of a Long Term Trash Plan template and guidance was anticipated. He explained the $23,440 budget would be sufficient for a BASMAA funded regional project costing up to $117,200 (i.e., $23,440 would be the CCCWP’s cost share,

2

which is approximately 20%). Furthermore, the Program’s contingency totaling $132,690 could also be made available should costs for development and implementation of the Long Term Trash Plans be necessary. Additionally, the Program’s unallocated MRP reserve could also be used subject to Management Committee approval. Relevant to the discussion on the trash budget, Perkins provide a brief report on the most recent regional trash meeting. According to Tom Mumley, San Francisco Bay Water Board Assistant Executive Officer, only 20% of Bay Area Permittees provided sufficient documentation in their Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Annual Reports demonstrating adequate progress towards implementation of trash reduction measures and actions. With respect to future work necessary for development of the Long Term Trash Reduction Plans due February 2014, Perkins noted that maps designating high, medium and low trash generation areas will need to be produced and that cities, particularly small cities with less available resources, will need support and assistance in producing these maps. Perkins shared Lynne Scarpa’s concern that municipalities will likely need a lot of support and assistance in development of the Long Term Trash Reduction Plans, for which sufficient funding will be necessary. Dalziel explained there is still approximately $80,000 available on the existing contract with EOA, Inc. This contract provides up to $99,000 in assistance to individual cities in development and refinement of maps showing their trash generation rates by area, based upon ABAG land use data, municipal street sweeping frequencies, and parking enforcement provisions. Dalziel indicated this contract could be used to provide additional mapping assistance to municipalities. Dalziel reminded Committee members that although this contract is with the Program, EOA’s services to each individual municipality is tracked and paid for by each individual municipality out of their stormwater utility assessment (excluding Brentwood and Richmond). After discussion, the Committee agreed to maintain the $23,440 Trash Reduction budget. Dalziel next reviewed the current and projected reserve balances. The Committee requested the reserve summary show the projected reserve balance resulting from the Management Committee’s preliminary direction to encumber unspent Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Group Program Budget. The Administrative Committee agreed to recommend Management Committee approval of the budget as discussed above.

3) 2014 Permit Reissuance Update: Dalziel reviewed the discussion in a meeting between Water Board staff and the BASMAA Board of Directors on February 15 on the timing, priorities and process for reissuance of the MRP. A lengthy discussion ensued. Program staff will continue to provide reports to the Management Committee and Administrative Committee as appropriate.

4) Personnel Update: Dalziel provided a brief update on the hiring of Tracy Hein as the Program’s Administrative Analyst at Step 4, and the anticipated interview process for the Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist position. The schedule for interviews had not yet been established. Questions were asked and answered.

5) Central Valley Municipal Area-Wide Permit: Dalziel outlined the potential policy and

3

financial impacts that would result to all Permittees from the Central Valley Water Board’s tentative plans to issue an Area-Wide Permit in their region. A lengthy discussion ensued. Program staff will be involved in the planned discussion on these tentative plans with the East County Co-Permittees and Central Valley Water Board staff, and will provide periodic updates to the Management Committee and Administrative Committee as appropriate.

6) FY 2012/13 Annual Report Format: Dalziel gave an overview of BASMAA’s proposed changes to the Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Annual Report format, which is due to the Water Boards by April 1, 2013. Dalziel stated Section 10 had not yet been revised. This section will be revised following review of the anticipated Water Board staff comments on the trash section in the FY 2011/2012 Annual Reports. Comments from MRP Permittees on BASMAA’s recommended Annual Report format are due by March 22. BASMAA will review and incorporate comments, and submit the proposed format to the San Francisco Bay Water Board by the April 1 deadline on behalf of all MRP Permittees. The Program will submit BASMAA’s proposed format to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of the East County Permittees by the April 1 deadline. Dalziel explained that following submittal of the proposed format to the Water Boards, Program staff will include additional guidance into the forms that is specific only to Contra Costa Permittees. Committee members provided the following proposed changes to BASMAA’s Annual Report format:

Section C.2.f: Eliminate the word “current” in “We have a current Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Corporation Yard(s)”;

Section C.3.i: Update this section with guidance specific to Contra Costa. Dalziel explained this guidance would be modified and made specific to Contra Costa Permittees after the BASMAA format is submitted to the Water Boards on April 1;

Section C.7.b.iii.1: Dalziel indicated this section would be added back in as it will apply to Contra Costa, which is conducting a pre-campaign survey this year for our Pesticide Campaign.

Section C.7.i: Add “since the beginning of the permit term” in “Guidance: Describe outreach conducted locally since the beginning of the permit term (e.g., presentations at City/Town councils, workshops etc.) AND refer to the Countywide FY 12-13 Annual Report for additional information (if applicable);

Section C.9.g: Delete “trends in use of pesticides impacting water quality” in “Effectiveness evaluation could include measures such as number of staff trained in IPM, feedback from staff trainings, trends in use of pesticides impacting water quality, number of pesticide outreach events conducted, etc.”;

For C.3.i, Dan Cloak previously suggested cities track the number of small projects subject to the “Small Projects” provision; however, this is not required as part of the MRP. Administrative Committee members were given until Wednesday, March 15 to provide

4

any additional suggested changes to BASMAA’s proposed Annual Report format. The Management Committee will be requested to approve BASMAA’s proposed format, with edits proposed by Contra Costa Permittees, and its submittal to the Water Boards; and, to direct the Program Manager to sign and certify the submittal on behalf of each Contra Costa Permittee’s duly authorized representative.

7) FY 2012/13 Program Committees, Tasks and Attendance: Dalziel provided a mid-year review of Committee tasks and meeting attendance. Due to a lack of specific tasks requiring monthly meetings, the Municipal Operations Committee will meet quarterly with the next meeting planned for March 28. Committee members reviewed attendance and noted the City of Pinole had not attended any Management Committee or subcommittee meetings this fiscal year. Dalziel noted the Program Agreement requires designated representatives to attend 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings, and that two or more consecutive absences shall cause the Management Committee or subcommittee chairperson to contact the municipality’s Management Committee representative or the City Manager and request new representatives be designated. The Management Committee Chair, Karineh Samkian, indicated she would contact the City of Pinole and request a new individual be designated to participate on the Management Committee and Municipal Operations Committee.

8) Draft March 20, 2013 Management Committee Agenda: Dalziel reviewed the draft agenda. Stephen Prée asked to defer the Staff Report on the Integrated Pest Management item to April. The Committee asked that two items be added: 1) An update on discussions regarding the MRP reissuance; and, 2) an action item approving a letter of support for Assemblyman Levine’s bill on single-use plastic bags. The draft agenda was approved with the above revisions.

9) Old/New Business: Karineh Samkian reported not all municipalities individually provide funding for the Green Business Program (GBP). Dalziel reminded Committee members that all Contra Costa municipalities indirectly fund the GBP through the Program (i.e., $9,000 annually). Karineh suggested a representative of the GBP be asked to make a presentation on the GBP to the Management Committee in April or May. Committee members concurred. Some Committee members noted the next Administrative Committee meeting is scheduled during the Spring Break. Due to the low anticipated attendance at the April 3 meeting, Committee members agreed to move the April 3 meeting to Wednesday, April 10.

10) Adjournment: Chair Samkian adjourned the meeting at 11:24 a.m.

5

Next Meeting: Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 9:30 am – 12 noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, Conference Room A

TD:fv G:\NPDES\Admin Committee\Minutes&Attend\12 13\AC Minutes 2013-03.doc

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Presentation Item A - Legal Assistance on Stormwater Compliance Issues

Recommendation: Receive presentation. Background: Provision C.4 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requires each Permittee to implement an industrial and commercial site control program at all sites that could reasonably be considered to cause or contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. This includes conducting site inspections and effective follow-up and enforcement to abate actual or potential pollution sources consistent with each Permittee’s respective Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). Provision C.4.a.i. states that Permittees shall have the ability to inspect and require effective stormwater pollutant control and to escalate progressively stricter enforcement to achieve expedient compliance and pollutant abatement at commercial and industrial sites within their jurisdiction. In addition to C.4, Provision C.5 requires abatement of any and all illicit discharges otherwise not controlled under Provision C.4 with the proper corrective actions, case tracking and follow-up. To comply with Provisions C.4 and C.5, Permittees have enforcement tools to implement an effective industrial and commercial site control program and illicit discharge detection and elimination program. These enforcement tools include a prioritized facility inspection list, proactive and reactive facility inspections, legal authority to reinforce pollution prevention activities, outreach materials to educate the public about pollution prevention, warning notices and citations to correct violations, as well as escalated enforcement resources if violations are not resolved through municipal means. Referral to the County District Attorney’s staff is one escalated enforcement resource available to all Permittees to correct violations.

Throughout the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s history, the majority of stormwater inspections have been corrected and resolved through local means, including warning notices and education. Notices of violations and citations have been issued from time to time for pollutants entering the storm drain system or for lack of cooperation from facility owners to install pollution prevention strategies for their day-to-day business activities. Large illicit discharges - discharges that impact a water body or failure to install major corrective actions for stormwater migration - have resulted in escalated enforcement actions. Escalated enforcement may include prosecution and reward of cost recovery for municipal resources to correct the violation. Given the proper documentation and violation history, the District Attorney’s staff is capable of proceeding with a prosecution case to administratively correct stormwater violations, especially reoccurring stormwater violations. Mr. Stacey Grassini, the Assistant District Attorney, will give a presentation reviewing the County’s District Attorney services available to municipal staff for stormwater compliance. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. EW:TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Elisa\2013-03\Presentation A - Elisa.docx

1

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item A – APPROVE BASMAA’s Draft Fiscal Year 2012/2013

Draft Annual Report Format as Recommended by the Administrative Committee, and its Submittal to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards; and, DIRECT the Program Manager to Sign and Certify the Submittal on Behalf of Each Permittee’s Duly Authorized Representative

Recommendation: Approve BASMAA’s draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2012/2013 Annual Report format with changes as recommended by the Administrative Committee, and its submittal to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards by the April 1 deadline; and, direct the Program Manager to sign and certify the submittal on behalf of each Permittee’s duly authorized representative. Background: Provision C.16.b in the MRP and East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit states:

“The Permittees shall collaboratively develop a common annual report format for acceptance by the Executive Officer by April 1, 2010. The resulting Annual Report Form, once approved, shall be used by all Permittees. The Annual Report Form may be changed by April 1 of each year for the following annual report, to more accurately reflect the reporting requirements of Provisions C.1 – C.15, with the agreement of the Permittees and by the approval of the Executive Officer.”

Discussion:

2

With input and direction from the BASMAA subcommittees and Board of Directors, EOA Inc. prepared an updated Annual Report form for FY 2012/2013 reporting (see attachment #1). This form was distributed to the Stormwater Programs via the Program Managers on February 28 for review and comments. Programs are to compile and submit their comments back to EOA, Inc. by Friday, March 22. A summary of the changes in BASMAA’s draft FY 2012/2013 Annual Report Form is provided as attachment #2. The Program’s Administrative Committee reviewed BASMAA’s draft Annual Report form on March 6 and proposed the following edits: • Section C.2.f: Eliminate the word “current” in: “We have a current

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Corporation Yard(s)”.

• Section C.3.i: Update this section with guidance specific to Contra Costa.

(Staff response: Detailed guidance more specific to Contra Costa Permittees will be added to the form after the universal BASMAA format is submitted to the Water Boards on April 1.)

• Section C.7.b.iii.1: Add this section back in as it will apply to Contra Costa

Permittees, which are collectively conducting a pre-campaign survey this year for the pesticide outreach campaign.

• Section C.7.i: Add “since the beginning of the permit term” in: “Guidance:

Describe outreach conducted locally since the beginning of the permit term (e.g., presentations at City/Town councils, workshops etc.) AND refer to the Countywide FY 12-13 Annual Report for additional information (if applicable).”

• Section C.9.g: Delete “trends in use of pesticides impacting water quality”

in: “Effectiveness evaluation could include measures such as number of staff trained in IPM, feedback from staff trainings, trends in use of pesticides impacting water quality, number of pesticide outreach events conducted, etc.”

Administrative Committee members were given until Wednesday, March 15 to provide any additional suggested changes to BASMAA’s draft Annual Report form. No additional input was provided. The Administrative Committee is recommending the Management Committee approve BASMAA’s draft Annual Report form with their changes outlined above, and its submittal to the Water Boards; and, to direct the Program Manager to sign

3

and certify the submittal on behalf of each Contra Costa Permittee’s duly authorized representative. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachments: 1. BASMAA’s Draft Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Annual Report Format and Form 2. BASMAA Summary of FY 2012-2013 Annual Report Form Changes

TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Action Item FY 2012 2013 Annual Report Format.doc

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report DRAFT TO BASMAA BOARD - February 22, 2013 Permittee Name: ______

FY 12-13 AR Form 12/21/122/1422/13

i-1

ATTACHMENT B

Table of Contents

Section Page

Section 1 – Permittee Information ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Section 2 – Provision C.2 Municipal Operations ......................................................................................................... 2-1

Section 3 – Provision C.3 New Development and Redevelopment ....................................................................... 3-1

Section 4 – Provision C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls ......................................................................... 4-1

Section 5 – Provision C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ..................................................................... 5-1

Section 6 – Provision C.6 Construction Site Controls .................................................................................................. 6-1

Section 7 – Provision C.7 Public Information and Outreach .................................................................................... 7-1

Section 8 – Provision C.8 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................... 8-1

Section 9 – Provision C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls ................................................................................................ 9-1

Section 10 – Provision C.10 Trash Load Reduction ................................................................................................... 10-1

Section 11 – Provision C.11 Mercury Controls ........................................................................................................... 11-1

Section 12 – Provision C.12 PCBs Controls ................................................................................................................. 12-1

Section 13 – Provision C.13 Copper Controls ............................................................................................................ 13-1

Section 14 – Provision C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium Controls..................................................... 14-1

Section 15 – Provision C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges ............................................. 15-1

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report Permittee Information Permittee Name: ______

FY 12-13 AR Form 1-1 12/21/122/61422/13

Section 1 – Permittee Information

SECTION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Background Information

Permittee Name:

Population:

NPDES Permit No.: CAS612008

Order Number: R2-2009-0074R

Reporting Time Period (month/year): July 2012 through June 2013

Name of the Responsible Authority: Title:

Mailing Address:

City: Zip Code: County:

Telephone Number: Fax Number:

E-mail Address:

Name of the Designated Stormwater

Management Program Contact (if

different from above):

Title:

Department:

Mailing Address:

City: Zip Code: County:

Telephone Number: Fax Number:

E-mail Address:

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.2 – Municipal Operations Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 2-1 12/21/122/61422/13

Section 2 - Provision C.2 Reporting Municipal Operations

Program Highlights and Evaluation Highlight/summarize activities for reporting year:

Summary:

Guidance: Summarize activities for the reporting year conducted by your municipality, such as: 1) participation in the countywide program’s

Municipal Operations Committee/Work Group (if applicable); and 2) participation in the BASMAA Municipal Operations Committee (if

applicable). Refer to the C.2 Municipal Operations section of the countywide Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report (if applicable) for a

description of activities implemented at the countywide and/or regional level.

C.2.a. ►Street and Road Repair and Maintenance

Place an X in the boxes next to implemented BMPs to indicate that these BMPs were implemented in applicable instances. If not applicable, type

NA in the box. If one or more of these BMPs were not adequately implemented during the reporting fiscal year then indicate so and provide

explanation in the comments section below:

Place a Y in the boxes next to activities where applicable BMPs were implemented. If not applicable, type NA in the box and provide an

explanation in the comments section below. Place an N in the boxes next to activities where applicable BMPs were not implemented for one or

more of these activities during the reporting fiscal year, then in the comments section below provide an explanation of when BMPs were not

implemented and the corrective actions taken.

Control of debris and waste materials during road and parking lot installation, repaving or repair maintenance activities from polluting

stormwater

Control of concrete slurry and wastewater, asphalt, pavement cutting, and other street and road maintenance materials and wastewater

from discharging to storm drains from work sites.

Sweeping and/or vacuuming and other dry methods to remove debris, concrete, or sediment residues from work sites upon completion of

work.

Comments:


FY 12-13 AR Form 2-2 12/21/122/61422/13

C.2.b. ►Sidewalk/Plaza Maintenance and Pavement Washing




implemented and the corrective actions taken. Place an X in the boxes next to implemented BMPs to indicate that these BMPs were

implemented in applicable instances. If not applicable, type NA in the box. If one or more of these BMPs were not adequately implemented

during the reporting fiscal year then indicate so and explain in the comments section below:

Control of wash water from pavement washing, mobile cleaning, pressure wash operations at parking lots, garages, trash areas, gas station

fueling areas, and sidewalk and plaza cleaning activities from polluting stormwater

Implementation of the BASMAA Mobile Surface Cleaner Program BMPs

Comments:

C.2.c. ►Bridge and Structure Maintenance and Graffiti Removal




implemented and the corrective actions taken.Place an X in the boxes next to implemented BMPs to indicate that these BMPs were implemented

in applicable instances. If not applicable, type NA in the box. If one or more of these BMPs were not adequately implemented during the

reporting fiscal year then indicate so and explain in the comments section below:

Control of discharges from bridge and structural maintenance activities directly over water or into storm drains

Control of discharges from graffiti removal activities

Proper disposal for wastes generated from bridge and structure maintenance and graffiti removal activities

Implementation of the BASMAA Mobile Surface Cleaner Program BMPs for graffiti removal

Employee training on proper capture and disposal methods for wastes generated from bridge and structural maintenance and graffiti

removal activities.

Contract specifications requiring proper capture and disposal methods for wastes generated from bridge and structural maintenance and

graffiti removal activities.

Comments:


FY 12-13 AR Form 2-3 12/21/122/61422/13

C.2.d. ►Stormwater Pump Stations

Does your municipality own stormwater pump stations: Yes No

If your answer is No then skip to C.2.e.

Complete the following table for dry weather DO monitoring and inspection data for pump stations1 (add more rows for additional pump

stations). If a pump station is exempt from DO monitoring, explain why it is exempt. Do not leave any cells blank.

Pump Station Name and Location

First inspection

Dry Weather DO Data

Second inspection

Dry Weather DO Data

Date mg/L Date mg/L

Summarize corrective actions as needed for DO monitoring at or below 3 mg/L. Attach inspection records of additional DO monitoring for

corrective actions:

Summary:

Attachments:

Complete the following table for wet weather inspection data for pump stations (add more rows for additional pump stations): Do not leave any

cells blank.

Pump Station Name and Location

Date

(2x/year

required)

Presence of

Trash

(Cubic Yards)

Presence of

Odor

(Yes or No)

Presence of

Color

(Yes or No)

Presence of

Turbidity

(Yes or No)

Presence of

Floating

Hydrocarbons

(Yes or No)

1 DO monitoring is exempted where all discharge from a pump station remains in a stormwater collection system or infiltrates into a dry creek immediately downstream.


FY 12-13 AR Form 2-4 12/21/122/61422/13

C.2.e. ►Rural Public Works Construction and Maintenance

Does your municipality own/maintain rural2 roads: Yes No

If your answer is No then skip to C.2.f.




implemented and the corrective actions taken.Place an X in the boxes next to implemented BMPs to indicate that these BMPs were implemented

in applicable instances. If one or more of the BMPs were not adequately implemented during the reporting fiscal year then indicate so and

explain in the comments section below:

Control of road-related erosion and sediment transport from road design, construction, maintenance, and repairs in rural areas

Identification and prioritization of rural road maintenance based on soil erosion potential, slope steepness, and stream habitat resources

No impact to creek functions including migratory fish passage during construction of roads and culverts

Inspection of rural roads for structural integrity and prevention of impact on water quality

Maintenance of rural roads adjacent to streams and riparian habitat to reduce erosion, replace damaging shotgun culverts and excessive

erosion

Re-grading of unpaved rural roads to slope outward where consistent with road engineering safety standards, and installation of water bars

as appropriate

Inclusion of measures to reduce erosion, provide fish passage, and maintain natural stream geomorphology when replacing culverts or

design of new culverts or bridge crossings

Comments including listing increased maintenance in priority areas:

2 Rural means any watershed or portion thereof that is developed with large lot home-sites, such as one acre or larger, or with primarily agricultural, grazing or open

space uses.


FY 12-13 AR Form 2-5 12/21/122/61422/13

C.2.f. ►Corporation Yard BMP Implementation

Place an X in the boxes below that apply to your corporations yard(s):

We do not have a corporation yard

Our corporation yard is a filed NOI facility and regulated by the California State Industrial Stormwater NPDES General Permit

We have a current Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Corporation Yard(s)

Place an X in the boxes below next to implemented SWPPP BMPs to indicate that these BMPs were implemented in applicable instances. If not

applicable, type NA in the box. If one or more of the BMPs were not adequately implemented during the reporting fiscal year then indicate so

and explain in the comments section below:

Control of pollutant discharges to storm drains such as wash waters from cleaning vehicles and equipment

Routine inspection prior to the rainy seasons of corporation yard(s) to ensure non-stormwater discharges have not entered the storm drain

system

Containment of all vehicle and equipment wash areas through plumbing to sanitary or another collection method

Use of dry cleanup methods when cleaning debris and spills from corporation yard(s) or collection of all wash water and disposing of wash

water to sanitary or other location where it does not impact surface or groundwater when wet cleanup methods are used

Cover and/or berm outdoor storage areas containing waste pollutants

Comments:

Guidance: Your municipality is not required to report on BMPs implemented or inspections conducted at municipal corp yards that are covered

under the State Industrial General Permit.

If you have a corporation yard(s) that is not an NOI facility , complete the following table for inspection results for your corporation yard(s) or

attach a summary including the following information: Do not leave any cells blank.

Corporation Yard Name

Inspection Date

(1x/year required) Inspection Findings/Results Follow-up Actions

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.3 – New Development and Redevelopment Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-1 1/21/132/61224/13

Section 3 - Provision C.3 Reporting New Development and Redevelopment

C.3.b.v.(2)(a) ►Green Streets Status Report

(All projects to be completed by December 1, 2014)

On an annual basis (if applicable), report on the status of any pilot green street projects within your jurisdiction. For each completed project,

report the capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, legal and procedural arrangements in place to address operation and maintenance

and its associated costs, and the sustainable landscape measures incorporated in the project including, if relevant, the score from the Bay-

Friendly Landscape Scorecard.

Summary:

Guidance (all Co-permittees): Include the following text (if applicable) :

The C.3 New Development and Redevelopment section of the Countywide program’s FY 1112-123 Annual Report includes a description of

activities conducted at the countywide or regional level.

Guidance for those Co-permittees that have identified potential Green Streets projects OR are considering specific sites for potential projects:

Describe the location, characteristics, and status of the potential project(s). The information described above DOES NOT need to be included for

potential projects – this is only for completed projects.

Guidance for Co-permittees that have completed projects: If you submitted this information in the Annual Report for a previous year, refer readers

to that Annual Report. You do not need to report the same information again.


The C.3 New Development and Redevelopment section of the Countywide program’s FY 12-13 Annual Report includes a description of activities

conducted at the countywide or regional level.

Guidance for Co-permittees with pilot Green Streets projects that were not constructed by June 30, 2013:

You may describe the status of your project, and/or, if applicable, include the following text : The Green Street Pilot Project Summary Report

submitted by BASMAA, on behalf of the MRP permittees, in BASMAA’s MRP FY 12-13 Regional Supplement – New Development and

Redevelopment includes information on the green street projects planned in our jurisdiction.

Guidance for Co-permittees with pilot Green Streets projects that were constructed by June 30, 2013:

You may describe the status of your project, and include the information required for completed projects listed above, and/or, if applicable,

include the following text: The Green Street Pilot Project Summary Report submitted by BASMAA, on behalf of the MRP permittees, in BASMAA’s

MRP FY 12-13 Regional Supplement – New Development and Redevelopment includes information on the green street project constructed in our

jurisdiction, including capital costs, O&M costs, legal and procedural arrangements to address O&M and its associated costs, and sustainable

landscape measures.


FY 12-13 AR Form 3-2 1/21/132/61224/13

C.3.b.v.(2)(c) ►Summary of Green Street Projects Completed by

January 1, 2013

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Provide a summary of all green street projects completed by January 1, 2013.

Summary:

Guidance (all Co-permittees): Include the following text :

BASMAA has prepared a regional summary of all green street pilot projects completed by January 1, 2013. The summary is being submitted by

BASMAA, on behalf of the MRP permittees in BASMAAA’s Annual Report. The summary contains all the required elements listed in Provision

C.3.b.v.(2)(c).

Guidance (all Co-permittees): Include the following text :

BASMAA has prepared a regional summary of all green street pilot projects. The Green Street Pilot Project Summary Report is being submitted by

BASMAA, on behalf of the MRP permittees, in BASMAA’s MRP FY 12-13 Regional Supplement – New Development and Redevelopment. The Green

Streets Pilot Project Summary Report contains all of the required elements listed in Provision C.3.b.v.(2)(c) for all green street projects completed by

January 1, 2013, as well as information on projects not yet completed.

C.3.b.v.(1) ►Regulated Projects Reporting Table

Fill in attached table C.3.b.v.(1) or attach your own table including the same information. Guidance: Refer to footnotes in the table for instructions

on how to complete the table. Do not leave any cells blank. For example, enter zero or N.A. as appropriate. If a Permittee did not approve any

Regulated Projects during the reporting period (fiscal year), then the Permittee should state so here or in the C.3.b.v.(1) Reporting Table.

C.3.iii(3)Low Impact Development Reporting

(For FY 11-12 Annual Report only) Report the method(s) of implementation of Provision C.3.c.i in the 2012 Annual Report. For specific tasks listed in

Provision C.3.c.i. that are reported using the reporting tables required for Provision C.3.b.v, a reference to those tables is adequate.

Guidance: Example text:

We have modified local ordinances/policies/procedures and the C.3. Data Form to require all regulated projects approved after December 1,

2011 to implement LID source control, site design and stormwater treatment requirements. We are using the following Program and BASMAA

products to ensure LID implementation:

LID Infeasibility/Feasibility Worksheets

Biotreatment Soil Specifications

Green Roof Specifications


FY 12-13 AR Form 3-3 1/21/132/61224/13

Please see Table C.3.b.v. (1) for specific information on regulated projects approved during FY 11-12. Note that projects approved prior to

December 1, 2011 were not required to fully implement the LID requirement in Provision C.3.c.i.

C.3.e.v. ►Alternative or In-Lieu Compliance with Provision C.3.c.

(For FY 11-12 Annual Report only) Did your agency make any ordinance/legal authority

and procedural changes to implement Provision C.3.e.?

Yes.

No

If yes, attach a copy of the ordinance/legal authority changes or provide a link to the document(s). Discuss any procedural changes made.

(For FY 11-12 Annual Report and each Annual Report thereafter)

Is your agency choosing to require 100% LID treatment onsite for all Regulated Projects

and not allow alternative compliance under Provision C.3.e.?

Yes

No

Comments (optional):

C.3.e.vi ► Special Projects Reporting

1. Has your agency received, but not yet granted final discretionary approval of, a

development permit application for a project that has been identified as a potential

Special Project based on criteria listed in MRP Provision C.3.e.ii(2) for any of the three

categories of Special Projects (Categories A, B or C)?

Yes

No

2. Has your agency granted final discretionary approval of a project identified as a

Special Project in the March 15, 20132 report? If yes, include the project in both the

C.3.b.v.(1) Table, and the C.3.e.vi. Table.

Yes

No

If you answered “Yes” to either question,

1) Complete Table C.3.e.vi . below.

2) Attach narrative discussion of 100% LID Feasibility or Infeasibility for each project.

Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank. For example, enter zero or N.A. as appropriate. Contact your Countywide Program staff (if

applicable) to obtain guidance on the narrative discussion of LID Feasibility/Infeasibility. If the project does not go through a discretionary

approval process, contact Countywide Program staff for direction.


FY 12-13 AR Form 3-4 1/21/132/61224/13

C.3.h.iv. ► Installed Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation

and Maintenance Verification Inspection Program Reporting

(1) Fill in attached table C.3.h.iv.(1) or attach your own table including the same information. Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank. For

example, enter zero or N.A. as appropriate.

(2) On an annual basis, provide a discussion of the inspection findings for the year and any common problems encountered with various types of

treatment systems and/or HM controls. This discussion should include a general comparison to the inspection findings from the previous year.

Summary:

Guidance: 1) Water Board staff in their April 11, 2011 annual report review letter indicated that a self-inspection by owners/operators of

treatment and HM controls is not acceptable as a municipal O&M verification inspection. Inspections must be conducted by permittee staff

and/or contractor under direction of the permittee. 2) If a permittee did not inspect any Regulated Projects during FY 12-13 because there are

no Regulated Projects within the permittee’s jurisdiction or because no stormwater treatment or HM controls have been built yet for Regulated

Projects within the permittee’s jurisdiction, the permittee should state that here.

(3) On an annual basis, provide a discussion of the effectiveness of the O&M Program and any proposed changes to improve the O&M Program

(e.g., changes in prioritization plan or frequency of O&M inspections, other changes to improve effectiveness program).

Summary:

(4) During the reporting year, did your agency:

Inspect all newly installed stormwater treatment systems and HM controls within 45

days of installation?

Yes

No Not applicable. No

new facilities were

installed.

Inspect at least 20 percent of the total number of installed stormwater treatment

systems or HM controls?3

Yes


treatment

measures

Inspect at least 20 percent of the total number of installed vault-based systems?

Yes


vault systems.

If you answered “No” to any of the questions above, please explain:

3 If there is only 1 treatment measure in the jurisdiction, the agency must inspect it every year.

Formatted Table


FY 12-13 AR Form 3-5 1/21/132/61224/13

C.3.i. ►Required Site Design Measures for Small Projects and

Detached Single Family Home Projects

On an annual basis, discuss the implementation of the requirements of Provision C.3.i, including ordinance revisions, permit conditions,

development of standard specifications and/or guidance materials, and staff training.

Summary:


BASMAA prepared standard specifications in four fact sheets regarding the site design measures listed in Provision C.3.i, as a resource for Co-

permittees. We have modified local ordinances/policies/procedures and forms/checklists to require all applicable projects approved after

December 1, 2012 to implement at least one of the site design measures listed in Provision C.3.i. We are using the following Program and BASMAA

products for C.3.i implementation:

BASMAA’s site design fact sheets

The countywide program’s checklist [insert name of form]

C.3.i guidance provided by the countywide program [insert name of guidance document/appendix]

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-6 1/21/132/614/13

C.3.b.v.(1) ►Regulated Projects Reporting Table (part 1) – Projects Approved During the Fiscal Year Reporting

Period

Project Name

Project No.

Project Location10

, Street

Address Name of Developer

Project

Phase

No.11

Project Type &

Description12 Project Watershed13

Total Site

Area

(Acres)

Total

Area of

Land

Disturbed

(Acres)

Total New

Impervious

Surface

Area (ft2)14

Total

Replaced

Impervious

Surface

Area (ft2)15

Total Pre-

Project

Impervious

Surface

Area16 (ft2)

Total Post-

Project

Impervious

Surface Area17

(ft2)

Private Projects

Public Projects

Comments:

Guidance: If necessary, provide any additional details or clarifications needed about listed projects in this box. Do not leave any cells blank.

10

Include cross streets 11

If a project is being constructed in phases, indicate the phase number and use a separate row entry for each phase. If not, enter “NA”. 12

Project Type is the type of development (i.e., new and/or redevelopment). Example descriptions of development are: 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.

13 State the watershed(s) in which the Regulated Project is located. Optional but recommended: Also state the dDownstream watershed(s) may be included, but this is optional.

14 All impervious surfaces added to any area of the site that was previously existing pervious surface.

15 All impervious surfaces added to any area of the site that was previously existing impervious surface.

16 For redevelopment projects, state the pre-project impervious surface area.

17 For redevelopment projects, state the post-project impervious surface area.

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-7 1/21/132/614/13

C.3.b.v.(1) ►Regulated Projects Reporting Table (part 2) – Projects Approved During the Fiscal Year Reporting Period (private projects)

Project Name

Project No.

Application

Deemed

Complete

Date18

Application

Final

Approval

Date1719

Source

Control

Measures20

Site Design

Measures21

Treatment

Systems

Approved22

Type of Operation &

Maintenance

Responsibility

Mechanism23

Hydraulic Sizing

Criteria24

Alternative

Compliance

Measures25/26

Alternative

Certification27 HM Controls28/29

Private Projects

Comments:

Guidance: If necessary, provide any additional details or clarifications needed about listed projects in this box. Note that MRP Provision C.3.c. contains specific requirements for LID site design and source control

measures, as well as treatment measures, for all Regulated Projects. Entries in these columns should not be “None” or “NA”. Do not leave any cells blank.

18

For private projects, state project application deemed complete date and final discretionary approval date. If the project did not go through discretionary review, report the building permit issuance date. 19

For private projects, state project application final discretionary approval date. If the project did not go through discretionary review, report the building permit issuance date. 20

List source control measures approved for the project. Examples include: properly designed trash storage areas; storm drain stenciling or signage; efficient landscape irrigation systems; etc. 21

List site design measures approved for the project. Examples include: minimize impervious surfaces; conserve natural areas, including existing trees or other vegetation, and soils; construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces, etc. 22

List all approved stormwater treatment system(s) to be installed onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility (e.g., flow through planter, bioretention facility, infiltration basin, etc.). 23

List the legal mechanism(s) (e.g., O&M agreement with private landowner; O&M agreement with homeowners’ association; O&M by public entity, etc…) that have been or will be used to assign responsibility for the maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment systems.

24 See Provision C.3.d.i. “Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems” for list of hydraulic sizing design criteria. Enter the corresponding provision number of the appropriate criterion (i.e., 1.a., 1.b., 2.a., 2.b., 2.c., or 3).

25 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.v.(1)(m)(i) for the offsite project.

26 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.v.(1)(m)(ii) for the Regional Project.

27 Note whether a third party was used to certify the project design complies with Provision C.3.d.

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

29 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).

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 8 pt

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-8 1/21/132/614/13

C.3.b.v.(1) ►Regulated Projects Reporting Table (part 2) – Projects Approved During the Fiscal Year Reporting Period (public projects)

Project Name

Project No.

Approval

Date30

Date

Construction

Scheduled

to Begin

Source

Control

Measures31

Site Design

Measures32

Treatment

Systems

Approved33

Operation &

Maintenance

Responsibility

Mechanism34

Hydraulic Sizing

Criteria35

Alternative

Compliance

Measures36/37

Alternative

Certification38 HM Controls39/40

Public Projects

Comments:

Guidance: If necessary, provide any additional details or clarifications needed about listed projects in this box. Note that MRP Provision C.3.c. contains specific requirements for LID site design and source control

measures, as well as treatment measures, for all Regulated Projects. Entries in these columns should not be “None” or “NA”. Do not leave any cells blank.

30

For public projects, enter the plans and specifications approval date. 31

List source control measures approved for the project. Examples include: properly designed trash storage areas; storm drain stenciling or signage; efficient landscape irrigation systems; etc. 32

List site design measures approved for the project. Examples include: minimize impervious surfaces; conserve natural areas, including existing trees or other vegetation, and soils; construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces, etc. 33

List all approved stormwater treatment system(s) to be installed onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility (e.g., flow through planter, bioretention facility, infiltration basin, etc.). 34

List the legal mechanism(s) (e.g., O&M agreement with private landowner; O&M agreement with homeowners’ association maintenance plan for O&M by public entity, etc…) that have been or will be used to assign responsibility for the maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment systems.

35 See Provision C.3.d.i. “Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems” for list of hydraulic sizing design criteria. Enter the corresponding provision number of the appropriate criterion (i.e., 1.a., 1.b., 2.a., 2.b., 2.c., or 3).

36 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.v.(1)(m)(i) for the offsite project.

37 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.v.(1)(m)(ii) for the Regional Project.

38 Note whether a third party was used to certify the project design complies with Provision C.3.d.

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

40 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).

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-9 1/21/132/614/13

C.3.h.iv. ►Table of Installed Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation and Maintenance Verification Inspection Program Reporting

Fill in table below or attach your own table including the same information. Guidance: The table is intended to help Permit requires permittees to meet two requirements of the MRP. The table is intended to (1) report

on the inspections of installed stormwater treatment systems, and (2) provide a list of all newly installed treatment measures and HM controlsBMPs to vector control agencies on an annual basis before the wet

season, i.e., October 1. Countywide programs (or in some cases, individual permittees) intend towill submit these tables to vector control agencies to fulfill this requirement. The facility name, address, responsible

party and type of treatment/HM control should be provided for all BMPsfacilities installed during this fiscal year. If a newly installed facilityBMP has not yet had an inspection because the 45-day time frame for

inspecting the newly-installed facility extends into the next fiscal year, include the facility in the table, so that it will be reported to the applicable vector control district. In those cases, indicate N/A in thein columns

pertaining to inspection information that the 45-day inspection will be reported in the subsequent fiscal year. Do not leave any cells blank.

Name of

Facility/Site

Inspected

Address of

Facility/Site

Inspected

Newly

Installed?

(YES/NO)41

Party

Responsible42

For Maintenance

Date of

Inspection

Type of

Inspection43

Type of Treatment/HM Control(s) Inspected44 Inspection Findings or Results45

Enforcement Action

Taken46 Comments/Follow-up

41

Indicate “YES” if the facility was installed within the reporting period, or “NO” if installed during a previous fiscal year. 42

State the responsible operator for installed stormwater treatment systems and HM controls. 43

State the type of inspection (e.g., 45-day, routine or scheduled, follow-up, etc.). 44

State the type(s) of treatment systems inspected (e.g., bioretention facility, flow-through planter, infiltration basin, etc…) and the type(s) of HM controls inspected, and indicate whether the treatment system is an onsite, joint, or offsite system. 45

State the inspection findings or results (e.g., proper installation, improper installation, proper O&M, immediate maintenance needed, etc.). 46

State the enforcement action(s) taken, if any, as appropriate and consistent with your municipality’s Enforcement Response Plan.

FY 12-13 AR Form 3-10 1/21/132/614/13

C.3.e.vi.Special Projects Reporting Table

Reporting Period – January 1 – June 30, 2013

Guidance: Provide all information indicated in the table. Do not leave blank cells in the table. If any of the indicated information is not available, please explain (for example, “Information is not yet available due to

the preliminary phase of design.”)

Project Name

& No.

Permittee Address Application

Submittal

Date47

Status48 Description49 Site Total

Acreage

Density

DU/Acre

Density

FAR

Special Project

Category50

LID

Treatment

Reduction

Credit

Available51

List of LID

Stormwater

Treatment

Systems52

List of Non-LID

Stormwater

Treatment

Systems53

Name of the

Special

Project and

Project No. (if

applicable)

Name of the

Permittee in

whose

jurisdiction the

Special Project

will be built

Address of the

Special

Project; if no

street address,

state the cross

streets

See

footnote

See footnote See footnote Total site

area in

acres

Number

of

dwelling

units per

acre.

Floor Area

Ratio

Category A:

Category B:

Category C:

Location:

Density:

Parking:

See footnote

Category A:

Category B:

Category C:

Location:

Density:

Parking:

See footnote

Indicate each

type of LID

treatment

system and the

percentage of

total runoff

treated

See footnote

Indicate each

type of non-LID

treatment system

and the

percentage of

total runoff

treated. Indicate

whether

minimum design

criteria met or

certification

received

See footnote

47

Date that a planning application for the Special Project was submitted. If a planning application has not been submitted, include a projected application date. 48

Indicate whether final discretionary approval is still pending or has been granted, and provide the date or version of the project plans upon which reporting is based. 49

Type of project (commercial, mixed-use, residential), number of floors, number of units, type of parking, and other relevant information. 50

For each applicable Special Project Category, list the specific criteria applied to determine applicability. For each non-applicable Special Project Category, indicate n/a. 51

For each applicable Special Project Category, state the maximum total LID Treatment Reduction Credit available. For Category C Special Projects also list the individual Location, Density, and Minimized Surface Parking Credits available. 52

: List all LID stormwater treatment systems proposed. For each type, indicate the percentage of the total amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d. for the Special Project’s drainage area.

53 List all non-LID stormwater treatment systems proposed. For each type of non-LID treatment system, indicate: (1) the percentage of the total amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d. for the Special Project's drainage area, and (2) whether the treatment

system either meets minimum design criteria published by a government agency or received certification issued by a government agency, and reference the applicable criteria or certification.

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.4 – Industrial and Commercial Site Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 4-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 4 – Provision C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls

Program Highlights

Provide background information, highlights, trends, etc.

Guidance: Summarize activities for the reporting year conducted by your municipality, such as: 1) updating business plans, facilities lists, and

inspection frequencies and priorities; 2) conducting inspections; 3) conducting training; 4) participating in a countywide committee or work group;

and 5) participating in the BASMAA Municipal Operations Committee (if applicable). Refer to the C.4. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls

section of the Program’s FY 10-1112-13 Annual Report (if applicable) for a description of activities of the countywide program and/or the BASMAA

Municipal Operations Committee.

C.4.b.i. ► Business Inspection Plan

Do you have a Business Inspection Plan? Yes No

If No, explain:

Guidance: Note that this section applied to FY 09-10 Annual Report only. If your agency has not yet developed a Business Inspection Plan,

indicate the reason why and the schedule for completion.

C.4.b.iii.(1) ► Potential Facilities List

List below or attach your list of industrial and commercial facilities in your Inspection Plan to inspect that could reasonably be considered to cause

or contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff.

C.4.b.iii.(2) ►Facilities Scheduled for Inspection

List below or attach your list of facilities scheduled for inspection during the current fiscal year.


FY 12-13 AR Form 4-2 1/21/132/61422/13

C.4.c.iii.(1) ►Facility Inspections

Fill out the following table or attach a summary of the following information. Indicate your violation reporting methodology below.

Permittee reports multiple discrete violations on a site as one violation.

Permittee reports the total number of discrete violations on each site.

Number Percent

Number of businesses inspected

Total number of inspections conducted

Number of violations (excluding verbal warnings)

Sites inspected in violation

Violations resolved within 10 working days or otherwise deemed resolved in a longer but still timely manner

Comments:

Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank.

1) Provide a narrative explanation, as appropriate, that explains how “sites inspected in violation” is reported.

2) Provide an explanation for each violation not resolved within 10 days or otherwise deemed resolved in a longer but still timely manner.

C.4.c.iii.(2) ►Frequency and Types/Categories of Violations

Observed

Fill out the following table or attach a summary of the following information.

Type/Category of Violations Observed Number of Violations

Actual discharge (e.g. active non-stormwater discharge or clear evidence of a recent discharge)

Potential discharge and other

Comments:

Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank. Explain if discharge streams are counted as either a) one discharge

per inspection per site; b) one discharge per storm drain inlet/waterbody per inspection per site; or c) one

discharge per source of discharge per inspection per site.


FY 12-13 AR Form 4-3 1/21/132/61422/13

C.4.c.iii.(2) ►Frequency and Type of Enforcement Conducted

Fill out the following table or attach a summary of the following information. Do not leave any cells blank.

Enforcement Action

(as listed in ERP)48

Number of Enforcement

Actions Taken

% of Enforcement

Actions Taken49

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Total

C.4.c.iii.(3) ►Types of Violations Noted by Business Category

Fill out the following table or attach a summary of the following information. Do not leave any cells blank.

Business Category50

Number of Actual

Discharge Violations

Number of Potential/Other

Discharge Violations

C.4.c.iii.(4) ►Non-Filers

List below or attach a list of the facilities required to have coverage under the Industrial General Permit but have not filed for coverage:

Guidance: Provide a list of businesses identified during scheduled inspections as non-filers. If none, state that there were no industries identified as

non-filers during scheduled inspections during this fiscal year.

48

Agencies to list specific enforcement actions as defined in their ERPs. 49

Percentage calculated as number of each type of enforcement action divided by the total number of enforcement actions. 50

List your Program’s standard business categories.


FY 12-13 AR Form 4-4 1/21/132/61422/13

C.4.d.iii ►Staff Training Summary

Training Name Training Dates Topics Covered

No. of Inspectors in

Attendance

Percent of Inspectors

in Attendance

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.5 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 5-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 5 – Provision C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

Program Highlights

Provide background information, highlights, trends, etc.

Guidance: Summarize activities for the reporting year conducted by your municipality, such as: 1) implementation of your collection system

screening program; 2) participation in a countywide program’s committee or work group; and 3) participation in the BASMAA Municipal

Operations Committee (if applicable). Refer to the C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination section of countywide program’s FY 11-1212-13

Annual Report (if applicable) for description of activities at the countywide or regional level.

C.5.c.iii ►Complaint and Spill Response Phone Number and Spill

Contact List

List below or attach your complaint and spill response phone number and spill contact list.

Contact Description Phone Number

C.5.d.iii ►Evaluation of Mobile Business Program

Describe implementation of minimum standards and BMPs for mobile businesses and your enforcement strategy. This may include participation in

the BASMAA Mobile Surface Cleaners regional program or local activities.

Description:

Guidance: Describe how your municipality currently addresses mobile businesses (e.g., respond to complaints/observations of illicit discharges,

require the BMPs recommended by the BASMAA Mobile Surface Cleaners Program, etc.). Indicate whether your municipality has a practice of

hiring certified Mobile Surface Cleaners. Refer to the C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination section of countywide program’s FY 11-1212-13

Annual Report (if applicable) for a description of efforts by countywide committees/work group and the BASMAA Municipal Operations

Committee to address mobile businesses.

C.5.e.iii ►Evaluation of Collection System Screening Program

Provide a summary or attach a summary of your collection screening program, a summary of problems found during collection system screening

and any changes to the screening program this FY.

Description:

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.5 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 5-2 1/21/132/61422/13

C.5.f.iii.(1), (2), (3) ►Spill and Discharge Complaint Tracking

Spill and Discharge Complaint Tracking (fill out the following table or include an attachment of the following information)

Number Percentage

Discharges reported (C.5.f.iii.(1))

Discharges reaching storm drains and/or receiving waters (C.5.f.iii.(2))

Discharges resolved in a timely manner (C.5.f.iii.(3))

Comments:

Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank. Describe the implementation of your agency’s illicit discharge complaint and response program and

explain how data account for discharge reports that are unsubstantiated in the field and discharges that are prevented from reaching storm

drains/receiving waters.

C.5.f.iii.(4) ►Summary of major types of discharges and

complaints

Provide a narrative or attach a table and/or graph.

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.6 – Construction Site Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 6-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 6 – Provision C.6 Construction Site Controls

C.6.e.iii.1.a, b, c ►Site/Inspection Totals

Number of sites disturbing < 1 acre of soil requiring

storm water runoff quality inspection (High Priority Sites

only(sites disturbing < 1 acre of soil requiring storm

water runoff quality inspection) (C.6.e.iii.1.a)

Number of sites disturbing ≥ 1 acre

of soil

(C.6.e.iii.1.b)

Total number of storm water runoff quality

inspections conducted (include only High Priority

Site and sites disturbing 1 acre or more)

(C.6.e.iii.1.c)

#

Guidance: This is the total number of SITES considered

high priority, which triggers a requirement for monthly

inspection during the rainy season. Please see MRP for

discussion of what sites are considered high priority

sites. Sites disturbing less than one acre of soil that are

not considered high priority by the Permittee should not

be reported here.

#

Guidance: This is the total number

of SITES that disturb one or more

acres of soil and are inspected

monthly during the rainy season.

#

Guidance: This is the total number of INSPECTIONS

conducted at high priority sites and at sites

disturbing one or more acres of soil. Do not list

inspections that are conducted at sites that are

not within these two categories.

Comments:


1) Provide explanatory details about the data reported above if necessary.

2) Provide the number of inspections that are conducted at sites not within the above categories as part of your agency’s inspection

program and a general description of those sites (optional).


FY 12-13 AR Form 6-2 1/21/132/61422/13

C.6.e.iii.1.d ►Construction Activities Storm Water Violations


BMP Category Number of Violations51

excluding Verbal Warnings

% of Total Violations52

Erosion Control

Run-on and Run-off Control

Sediment Control

Active Treatment Systems

Good Site Management

Non Stormwater Management

Total53

100%

Check one:

The above table (Table C.6.e.iii.1.d) counts more than 1 violation per inspection, since some inspections resulted in

violations in more than one category. For example, at one inspection there may have been both an erosion control

violation and a sediment control violation.

__ The above table (Table C.6.e.iii.1.d) counts ONLY 1 violation per inspection. For example, at each inspection, only 1

violation was recorded (for example, if there an erosion control violation was recorded at one inspection, no other

types of BMP violations were recorded for that same inspection).

51

Count one violation in a category for each site and inspection regardless of how many violations/problems occurred in the BMP category. For example, if during one inspection at a site, there are 2 erosion control violations, only 1 violation would be counted for this table.

52 Percentage calculated as number of violations in each category divided by total number of violations in all six categories.

53 The total number of violations may count more than one violation per inspection, since some inspections may result in violations in more than one category. For example, during one inspection of a site, there may have been both an erosion control violation and a sediment control violation. For this reason, the total number of violations in this table may not match the total number of enforcement actions reported in Table C6.e.iii.1.e.


FY 12-13 AR Form 6-3 1/21/132/61422/13

C.6.e.iii.1.e ►Construction Related Storm Water Enforcement

Actions


Enforcement Action

(as listed in ERP)54

Number Enforcement

Actions TakenIssued

% Enforcement Actions

TakenIssued55

Level 156

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Total 100%

C.6.e.iii.1.f, g ►Illicit Discharges


Number

Number of illicit discharges, actual and those inferred through evidence at high priority sites and sites that disturb 1 acre or

more of land (C.6.e.iii.1.f)

Number of sites with discharges, actual and those inferred through evidence at high priority sites and sites that disturb 1 acre

or more of land (C.6.e.iii.1.g)

54

Agencies should list the specific enforcement actions as defined in their ERPs. 55

Percentage calculated as number of each type of enforcement action divided by the total number of enforcement actions. 56

For example, Enforcement Level 1 may be Verbal Warning.


FY 12-13 AR Form 6-4 1/21/132/61422/13

C.6.e.iii.1.h, i ►Violation Correction Times

Number Percent

Violations (excluding verbal warnings) fully corrected within 10 business days after violations are discovered or

otherwise considered corrected in a timely period (C.6.e.iii.1.h)

%57

Violations (excluding verbal warnings) not fully corrected within 30 days after violations are discovered

(C.6.e.iii.1.i)

%58

Total number of violations (excluding verbal warnings) for the reporting year59 100%

Comments:

Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank. Provide an explanation for each violation not resolved within 10 days or otherwise deemed resolved in a

longer but still timely manner. Permittees who list violations not fully corrected within 30 days after violations are discovered should provide an

explanation of how their program is complying with the MRP. If your agency’s ERP Level 1 includes written warning to address situations that are

not violations, exclude those from the tally of violations and explain the basis of the exclusion in this comment box.

C.6.e.iii.(2) ►Evaluation of Inspection Data

Describe your evaluation of the tracking data and data summaries and provide information on the evaluation results (e.g., data trends, typical

BMP performance issues, comparisons to previous years, etc.).

Description:

C.6.e.iii.(2) ►Evaluation of Inspection Program Effectiveness

Describe what appear to be your program’s strengths and weaknesses, and identify needed improvements, including education and outreach.

Description:

Guidance: Evaluate your construction inspection program and summarize efforts conducted by your municipality in FY 10-1112-13 to implement

MRP requirements, such as: 1) revised stormwater construction inspection forms and inspection data tracking tools; 2) revised operating

procedures and provided training to inspectors; 3) conducted inspections with the new forms; 4) participated in the countywide program’s

committees/work groups; and 5) participated in the BASMAA Development Committee (if applicable). Refer to the C.6 Construction Site Control

57

Calculated as number of violations fully corrected in a timely period after the violations are discovered divided by the total number of violations for the reporting year. 58

Calculated as number of violations not fully corrected within 30 days after the violations are discovered divided by the total number of violations for the reporting year. 59

The total number of violations reported in the table of Violation Correction Times equals the number of initial enforcement actions. I.e., This assumes one violation is issued for several problems during an inspection at a site. It The total number of violations in the table of Violation Correction Times may not equal the total number of enforcement actions because one violation issued at a site may have a second enforcement action for the same violation at the next inspection if it is not corrected.


FY 12-13 AR Form 6-5 1/21/132/61422/13

section of countywide program’s FY 11-12 12-13 Annual Report (if applicable) for a description of activities at the countywide or regional level.

C.6.f ►Staff Training Summary

Training Name Training Dates Topics Covered

No. of Inspectors

in Attendance

Percent of

Inspectors in

Attendance

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.7 – Public Information and Outreach Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 7-6 1/21/132/14226/13

Section 7 – Provision C.7. Public Information and Outreach

C.7.a ►Storm Drain Inlet Marking (existing storm drains)

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Report prior years’ estimated annual percentages of municipality maintained storm drain inlet markings

inspected and maintained as legible with a no dumping message or equivalent. At least 80% of municipality-maintained storm drain inlet

markings shall be inspected and maintained at least once per 5-year permit term.

Summary:

Guidance: Based on the total number of municipality maintained storm drain inlets stenciled with a marking such as “No dumping, drains to Bay”,

provide the percentage that was inspected and maintained as legible during the following fiscal years:

Estimated annual percentage of stenciled municipality storm drain inlets that were inspected and maintained as legible:

2009-10: ____%

2010-11: ____%_

2011-12: ____%

2012-13: ____%

C.7.a ►Storm Drain Inlet Marking (newly-constructed, privately-maintained streets)

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Report prior years’ annual number of projects accepted after inlet markings were verified. For newly-approved,

privately-maintained streets, permittees shall require inlet marking by the project developer upon construction and maintenance of markings

through the development maintenance entity. Markings shall be verified prior to acceptance of the project.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide, on an annual basis, the number of projects with privately-maintained streets constructed and accepted by your agency, for

which inlets were marked prior to acceptance of the project.

Annual number of newly-constructed, privately-maintained streets for which inlets were marked:

2009-10: ______ projects

2010-11: ______projects

2011-12: ______projects

2012-13: ______ projects

Explain your agency’s process for verifying the marking of storm drain inlets for projects with privately maintained streets. If applicable, explain

how your agency is modifying its procedures to verify the marking of storm drain inlets prior to the acceptance of projects with privately-

maintained streets.


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-7 1/21/132/14226/13

C.7.b.ii.1 ►Advertising Campaign

Summarize advertising efforts. Include details such as messages, creative developed, and outreach media used. The detailed advertising report

may be included as an attachment. If advertising is being done by participation in a countywide or regional program, refer to the separate

countywide or regional Annual Report.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide a summary of local advertising efforts AND/OR Refer to your Countywide Program’s Annual Report (if applicable).

If participating in the BASMAA Regional Youth Litter Outreach Campaign, also include the following text:

The following separate report developed by BASMAA summarizes the activities of the Regional Youth Litter Campaign

• BASMAA Youth LitterBe the Street Campaign Report

C.7.b.iii.1 ►Pre-Campaign Survey

(For the Annual Report following the pre-campaign survey) Summarize survey information such as sample size, type of survey (telephone survey,

interviews etc.). Attach a survey report that includes the following information. If survey was done regionally, refer to a regional submittal that

contains the following information:

Guidance: If participating in the BASMAA Regional Litter Ad Campaign, use the following text: The following separate report developed by

BASMAA summarizes the pre-campaign survey conducted in FY 11-12:”Information on the pre-campaign survey for the BASMAA Regional Youth

Litter Campaign was provided in the FY 11-12 Annual Report.” If reporting on a pre-campaign survey for another advertising campaign, attach the

survey report or refer to a countywide or regional report.

• BASMAA Youth Litter Campaign Report

.

Place an X in the appropriate box below:

Survey report attached

Reference to regional submittal:

C.7.c ►Media Relations

Summarize the media relations effort. Include the following details for each media pitch in the space below, AND/OR refer to a regional report

that includes these details:

Topic and content of pitch

Medium (TV, radio, print, online)

Date of publication/broadcast Summary:

Guidance: Provide summary of local media relations efforts AND/OR

Formatted: Highlight



Formatted: Body Text, No bullets ornumbering, Don't keep with next, Hyphenate,Allow hanging punctuation, Adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text, Adjust spacebetween Asian text and numbers, FontAlignment: Auto


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-8 1/21/132/14226/13

Provide the following text (if applicable):

“The following separate report developed by BASMAA summarizes media relations efforts conducted during FY 11-1212-13:

• BASMAA Media Relations Final Report FY 11-1212-13

This report and any other media relations efforts conducted countywide is included within the C.7 Public Information and Outreach section of the

Countywide Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report.”

C.7.d ►Stormwater Point of Contact

Summary of any changes made during FY 10-1112-13:

Guidance: This section was required in FY 09-10; however, report if any changes were made to website address and phone number used as point

of contact, and any changes in how the point of contact is publicized and maintained. Refer to countywide Program’s C.7 Public Information and

Outreach section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report (if applicable) for efforts conducted by the countywide program to publicize

stormwater points of contact (e.g. program website, hotline, outreach materials, etc.). If there was no change in what was reported in FY 11-12,

indicate “No Change”.

C.7.e ►Public Outreach Events

Describe general approach to event selection. Provide a list of outreach materials and giveaways distributed.

Use the following table for reporting and evaluating public outreach events

Event Details Description (messages, audience) Evaluation of Effectiveness

Provide event name, date, and location.

Indicate if event is local, countywide or regional.

Guidance: Contact your countywide program

staff for the list of all Public Outreach events for

which Co-permitees may take credit as

participants (if applicable). In addition, report in

this table information on any local public

outreach events.

Identify type of event (e.g., school fair,

farmers market etc.), type of audience

(school children, gardeners, homeowners

etc.) and outreach messages (e.g.,

Enviroscape presentation, pesticides,

stormwater awareness)

Provide general staff feedback on the event

(e.g., success at reaching a broad spectrum of

the community, well attended, good

opportunity to talk to gardeners etc.). Provide

other details such as:

Estimated overall attendance at the

event.

Number of people that visited the

booth, comparison with previous years

Number of brochures and giveaways

distributed

Results of any spot surveys conducted


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-9 1/21/132/14226/13

C.7.f. ►Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts

Summarize watershed stewardship collaborative efforts and/or refer to a regional report that provides details. Describe the level of effort and

support given (e.g., funding only, active participation etc.). State efforts undertaken and the results of these efforts. If this activity is done regionally

refer to a regional report.

Evaluate effectiveness by describing the following:

Efforts undertaken

Major accomplishments

Summary:

Guidance: Countywide program staff will provide a summary of efforts conducted at the countywide or regional level. Municipalities should report

any direct participation at the local level.

C.7.g. ►Citizen Involvement Events

List the types of events conducted (e.g., creek clean up, storm drain inlet marking, native gardening etc.). Use the following table for reporting

and evaluating citizen involvement events.

Event Details Description Evaluation of effectiveness

Provide event name, date, and location.

Indicate if event is local, countywide or

regional

Guidance: Contact your countywide program

staff for the list of all Citizen Involvement

events for which Co-permitees may take

credit as a participant (if applicable). In

addition, you need to add information on any

local Citizen Involvement events to this table.

Describe activity (e.g., creek clean-up, storm

drain marking etc.)

Provide general staff feedback on the event.

Provide other evaluation details such as:

Number of participants. Any change

in participation from previous years.

Distance of creek or water body

cleaned

Quantity of trash/recyclables

collected (weight or volume).

Number of inlets marked.

Data trends


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-10 1/21/132/14226/13

C.7.h. ►School-Age Children Outreach

Summarize school-age children outreach programs implemented. A detailed report may be included as an attachment.

Use the following table for reporting school-age children outreach efforts.

Program Details Focus & Short Description

Number of

Students/Teachers

reached Evaluation of Effectiveness

Provide the following

information:

Name

Grade or level (elementary/

middle/ high)

Guidance: Refer to the C.7

Section of the countywide

program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual

Report (if applicable) for a

description of School-age

Children Outreach efforts

conducted at the countywide

level. In addition, add

information on any local School-

age Children Outreach efforts to

this table.

Brief description, messages, methods

of outreach used

Provide number or

participants

Provide agency staff feedback. Report any

other evaluation methods used (quiz, teacher

feedback etc.). Attach evaluation summary if

applicable.


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-11 1/21/132/14226/13


FY 12-13 AR Form 7-12 1/21/132/14226/13

C.7.i. ►Outreach to Municipal Officials

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Summarize outreach conducted to increase the overall awareness of stormwater and/or watershed messages

among municipal officials.

Summary:

Guidance: Describe outreach conducted locally (e.g., presentations at City/Town councils, workshops etc.) AND refer to the Countywide FY 12-13

Annual Report for additional information (if applicable).

FY 2011-2012 Annual Report C.8 Water Quality Monitoring Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 8-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 8 - Provision C.8 Water Quality Monitoring

C.8 ►Water Quality Monitoring

State below if information is reported in a separate regional report. Municipalities can also describe below any Water Quality Monitoring activities

in which they participate directly, e.g. participation in RMP workgroups, fieldwork within their jurisdictions, etc.

Summary

Guidance: Provide information on Water Quality Monitoring activities in which your agency has participated directly AND the following text (if

applicable) :

“During FY 11-1212-13, we contributed through the countywide Program to the BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC). In addition, we

contributed financially to the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary (RMP) and were represented at RMP

committees and work groups. For additional information on monitoring activities conducted by the Program, BASMAA RMC and the RMP, see the

C.8 Water Quality Monitoring section of the Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report.”

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.9 – Pesticides Toxicity Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 9-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 9 – Provision C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls

C.9.b ►Implement IPM Policy or Ordinance

Report implementation of IPM BMPs by showing trends in quantities and types of pesticides used, and suggest reasons for increases in use of

pesticides that threaten water quality, specifically organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbaryl, and fipronil. A separate report can be attached as

evidence of your implementation. Guidance: List only quantities of organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbaryl and fipronil that are used in a

manner that threatens water quality (i.e., are used outdoors and may come in contact with stormwater.)

Trends in Quantities and Types of Pesticides Used60

Pesticide Category and Specific Pesticide Used Amount61

FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14

Organophosphates

Product or Pesticide Type A

Product or Pesticide Type B

Pyrethroids

Product or Pesticide Type X

Product or Pesticide Type Y

Carbaryl

Fipronil

C.9.c ►Train Municipal Employees Enter the number of employees that applied or used pesticides (including herbicides) within the scope of their duties this reporting

year.

Enter the number of these employees who received training on your IPM policy and IPM standard operating procedures within the

last 3 years.

Enter the percentage of municipal employees who apply pesticides who have received training in the IPM policy and IPM standard

operating procedures within the last three years.

60

Includes all municipal structural and landscape pesticide usage by employees and contractors. 61

Weight or volume of the product or preferably its active ingredient, using same units for the product each year.


FY 12-13 AR Form 9-2 1/21/132/61422/13

C.9.d ►Require Contractors to Implement IPM Did your municipality contract with any pesticide service provider in the reporting year? Yes No

If yes, attach one of the following:

Contract specifications that require adherence to your IPM policy and standard operating procedures, OR

Copy(ies) of the contractors’ IPM certification(s) or equivalent, OR

Equivalent documentation.

If Not attached, explain:

Guidance: If your agency has not required contractors to implement IPM, indicate the reason why and the schedule for adoption of contract

specifications or standard operating procedures requiring contractors to be IPM certified and to use IPM .

C.9.e ►Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes

Summarize participation efforts, information submitted, and how regulatory actions were affected OR reference a regional report that summarizes

regional participation efforts, information submitted, and how regulatory actions were affected.

Summary:

Guidance: Include the following text (if applicable):

“During FY 11-1212-13, we participated in regulatory processes related to pesticides through contributions to the countywide Program, BASMAA

and CASQA. For additional information, see the Regional Pollutants of Concern Report submitted by BASMAA on behalf of all MRP Permittees.”

C.9.f ►Interface with County Agricultural Commissioners

Did your municipal staff observe any improper pesticide usage or evidence of improper usage (e.g.,

pesticides in storm drain systems, along street curbs, or in receiving waters) during this fiscal year?

Yes

No

If yes, provide a summary of improper pesticide usage reported to the County Agricultural Commissioner and follow-up actions taken to correct

any violations. A separate report can be attached as your summary.


FY 12-13 AR Form 9-3 1/21/132/61422/13

C.9.g. ►Evaluate Implementation of Source Control Actions

Relating to pesticides

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Submit a report that evaluates; 1) the effectiveness of control measures implemented, and 2) attainment of

pesticide concentration and toxicity targets for water and sediment from monitoring data (Provision C.8.). If needed, the report should include the

following:

Improvements to existing control measures and/or additional control measures required. A plan to implement improved and/or new control measures.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “The Effectiveness Evaluation Report is included in Section C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control of

the Countywide Program’s FY 12-13 Annual Report”

Additionally, describe any effectiveness evaluation conducted locally for the following control measures:

Adopting IPM Policy/Ordinance

Municipal Staff Training

Requiring Contractors to Implement IPM

Outreach to Residents

Requiring New Development and Redevelopment Projects to Minimize Pesticide Use

Effectiveness evaluation could include measures such as number of staff trained in IPM, feedback from staff trainings, trends in use of pesticides

impacting water quality, number of pesticide outreach events conducted, etc.

C.9.h.ii ►Public Outreach: Point of Purchase

Provide a summary of public outreach at point of purchase, and any measurable awareness and behavior changes resulting from outreach (here

or in a separate report); OR reference a report of a regional effort for public outreach in which your agency participates.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “See the C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report for

information on point of purchase public outreach conducted countywide and regionally.”


FY 12-13 AR Form 9-4 1/21/132/61422/13

C.9.h.iv ►Pest Control Contracting Outreach

(For FY 12-13 Annual Report only) Document effectiveness of outreach to residents who use or contract for structural or landscape pest control OR

reference a regional that summarizes these actions.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “See the C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control section of the Program’s FY 12-13 Annual Report for a

report that evaluates outreach to residents”.

Additionally, describe any effectiveness evaluation conducted locally for the following control measures:

Providing targeted information

IPM messages in general outreach

Outreach to residents about OWOW

Outreach to Residents about certified IPM contractors

Coordination with Household Hazardous Waste programs to promote appropriate pesticide disposal

Effectiveness evaluation could include measures such as number of outreach pieces IPM messages added, number of residents reached with

outreach about IPM contractors, etc

C.9.h.vi ►Public Outreach: Pest Control Operators

Provide a summary of public outreach to pest control operators and landscapers and reduced pesticide use (here or in a separate report); OR

reference a report of a regional effort for outreach to pest control operators and landscapers in which your agency participates.

Summary:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “See the C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report for

a summary of our participation in and contributions towards countywide and regional public outreach to pest control operators and landscapers

to reduce pesticide use.”

Response to Water Board Staff Comments on Section 9, Provision

C.9, of FY 10-1111-12 Annual Report

Use this area to respond to any Water Board staff comments on Section 9 of your FY 10-1111-12 Annual Report, and refer to any required

submittals that are attached.

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.10 – Trash Load Reduction Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 10-1 1/21/132/61422/13

Section 10 - Provision C.10 Trash Load Reduction - TO BE UPDATED

C.10.a.i ►Short-Term Trash Loading Reduction Plan

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report only) Provide description of actions/tasks initiated/conducted/completed in developing a Short-Term Trash Loading

Reduction Plan (due February 1, 2012).

Description:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): The Short –Term Trash Loading Reduction Plan was submitted to the Water Board on February

1, 2012. See the C.10 Trash Load Reduction section of Program’s FY 11-12 Annual Report for information on countywide and regional activities

conducted on behalf of co-permittees.”

C.10.a.ii ►Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction

Tracking Method

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report only) Provide description of actions/tasks initiated/conducted/completed to gather trash loading data and in

developing a Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (due February 1, 2012).

Description:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “The Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method was submitted to the

Water Board on February 1, 2012. See the C.10 Trash Load Reduction section of Program’s FY 11-12 Annual Report for information on countywide

and regional activities conducted on behalf of co-permittees.”

C.10.a.iii ►Minimum Full Trash Capture

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report and Each Annual Report Thereafter) Provide description of actions/tasks initiated/conducted/completed in

implementing Minimum Full Trash Capture Devices (due July 1, 2014) within individual jurisdictions. Include information on Full Trash Capture

Devices installed under the Bay-area Wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project administered by San Francisco Estuary Partnership and an

estimate of the total land area that is planned for treatment by July 1, 2014.

Description:

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “See the C.10 Trash Load Reduction section of Program’s FY 11-12 Annual Report for

information on countywide and regional activities conducted on behalf of co-permittees.” In addition, municipalities should report on their efforts

to obtain and install full trash capture devices.


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-2 1/21/132/61422/13

C.10.b.iii ►Trash Hot Spot Assessment

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report and Each Annual Report Thereafter) Provide volume of material removed from each Trash Hot Spot cleanup, and the

dominant types of trash (e.g., glass, plastics, paper) removed and their sources to the extent possible.

Fill out the following table or attach a summary of the following information. Guidance: Do not leave any cells blank.

Trash Hot Spot Cleanup Date

Volume of Material

Removed Dominant Type of Trash

Trash Sources

(where possible)


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-3 1/21/132/22146/13

C.10.d ►Summary of Trash Reduction Actions and Loads Reduced

Provide a summary of trash load reduction actions (i.e., control measures and best management practices) implemented within your jurisdictional

boundaries during the reporting period to achieve a 40% trash load reduction goal by July 1, 2014. For those actions implemented in FY 2011-12,

include brief descriptions of levels of implementation and the total trash loads and dominant types of trash removed from each action.

New or Enhanced Trash Load

Reduction Action Description of New or Enhanced Action Implemented in FY 11-12

Estimated

Trash Load

Removed

in FY 11-12

(Gallons)62

Estimated

Percent

Reduction

as of

FY 11-1258

Estimated

Dominant Types

of Trash Removed

in FY 11-12

Existing Enhanced Street

Sweeping

Single-Use Carryout Bag

Policies

Polystyrene Foam Food Service

Ware Policies

Public Education and

Outreach Programs

Activities to Reduce Trash from

Uncovered Loads

Anti-littering and Illegal

Dumping Enforcement

Activities

62

The estimated load removed and percent reduction in FY 11-12 is consistent with assumptions described in the Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method Technical Report (version 1.0) submitted to the Water Board on February 1, 2012. In the future, load reductions reported in Annual Reports may be adjusted based on revisions to the tracking methodology.


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-4 1/21/132/22146/13







Estimated

Trash Load

Removed

in FY 11-12

(Gallons)62

Estimated

Percent

Reduction

as of

FY 11-1258

Estimated

Dominant Types

of Trash Removed

in FY 11-12

Improved Trash Bins/Container

Management

Single-use Food and Beverage

Ware Ordinance

On-land Trash Cleanups

Additional Enhanced Street

Sweeping (Beyond Existing

Enhanced)

Partial-Capture Treatment

Devices

Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet

Maintenance

Full-Capture Treatment

Devices


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-5 1/21/132/22146/13







Estimated

Trash Load

Removed

in FY 11-12

(Gallons)62

Estimated

Percent

Reduction

as of

FY 11-1258

Estimated

Dominant Types

of Trash Removed

in FY 11-12

Creek/Channel/Shoreline

Cleanups

Preliminary Estimate of Trash Load Removed (Gallons) in FY 2011-12

Preliminary Baseline Trash Load Estimate (Gallons)

Total Percentage Reduction in FY 2011-12 (Compared to Baseline Trash Load)


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-6 1/21/132/22146/13

C.10.d Guidance (DELETE this guidance table after completing the table above)

New or Enhanced Trash

Load Reduction Action

Description of NEW or

ENHANCED Action

Implemented in

FY 11-12

Estimated Trash Load Removed in

FY 11-12 (Gallons)

Estimated Percent Reduction as of

FY 11-12

Estimated Dominant

Types of Trash

Removed in FY 11-12

Guidance: Fourteen

potential actions are

provided. These actions

are consistent with those

described in the BASMAA

Trash Load Reduction

Tracking Method

Technical Report. For

details on what specific

actions fit within each

category, see the

Technical Report. Only

those “Applicable

Control Measures” in the

Technical Report can be

used to show progress

towards meeting trash

load reduction goals (i.e.

40%). Other actions

cannot be counted and

should not be reported

within this section.

In the table, DELETE each

action (i.e., the row with

the action) that your

municipality DID NOT

implement during FY 11-

12, leaving only those

rows with the actions your

municipality

implemented.

Guidance: For each

enhanced action,

provide a full

description of the

implementation

performed in FY 11-12

by your municipality.

For example, if you

implemented the

action “Single Use

Carryout Bag Policies”,

provide text that

includes a description

of the

policy/ordinance,

date of

implementation and

adoption, manner in

which the

policy/ordinance will

be enforced, breadth

of the descriptions of

those enhanced

actions that began or

continued to be

implemented in FY 11-

12.

Guidance: The Trash Load

Reduction Calculator (version

1.5) distributed by BASMAA in

April 2012 should be used to

estimate the trash load removed

(gallons) in FY 11-12 through new

and existing enhanced actions

implemented by your

municipality. To obtain load

reduced estimates, the following

must be performed:

1) Use a blank calculator and

input all required information on

the “Summary” tab of the

calculator, in accordance with

the instructions provided in the

“Instructions” tab;

2) For each applicable action

implemented in FY 11-12, enter

the appropriate information in

the respective tab of the

calculator;

3) Once ALL information on

actions implemented in FY 11-12

is entered into the calculator,

open the “Summary” tab of the

calculator; and refer to column C

(i.e., “Loads Reduced

(gals/year)”;

4) For each new and existing

enhanced action implemented

during FY 11-12, place values

Guidance: The Trash Load

Reduction Calculator (version 1.5)

distributed by BASMAA in April 2012

should be used to determine the

percent reduction credit received

for implementing new and existing

enhanced actions within your

municipality. To obtain the percent

reduction credit for each enhanced

action, the following must be

performed:

1) Use a blank calculator and input

all required information on the

“Summary” tab of the calculator, in

accordance with the instructions

provided in the “Instructions” tab;

2) For each applicable action

implemented in FY 11-12, enter the

appropriate information in the

respective tab of the calculator;

3) Once ALL information on actions

implemented in FY 11-12 is entered

into the calculator, open the

“Summary” tab of the calculator;

and refer to column D (i.e., “Load

Reduction (%)”;

4) For each new or existing

enhanced action implemented

during FY 11-12, place values from

Column D of the calculator into this

column of the annual report table.

Guidance: To the

extent possible,

provide the

dominant types of

trash removed

through new and

existing enhanced

actions performed

by your municipality

in FY 11-12. Examples

may include single-

use carryout plastic

bags, polystyrene

foam food service

ware, plastic bottles,

plastic food

packaging, etc.

Estimates will likely be

qualitative. For

actions that target

all types of trash

(e.g., public

education and

outreach) enter “All

Trash Types”.


FY 12-13 AR Form 10-7 1/21/132/22146/13

New or Enhanced Trash

Load Reduction Action

Description of NEW or

ENHANCED Action

Implemented in

FY 11-12

Estimated Trash Load Removed in

FY 11-12 (Gallons)

Estimated Percent Reduction as of

FY 11-12

Estimated Dominant

Types of Trash

Removed in FY 11-12

from Column C of the calculator

into this column of the annual

report table.

Preliminary Estimate of Trash Load Removed

(Gallons) in FY 2011-12

Guidance: Using the Trash Load Reduction Calculator for FY 11-12, copy the “Total Estimated Trash

Load Removed (Gallons) by All Actions” in cell C32 on the Summary tab into this cell of the Annual

Report table.

Preliminary Baseline Trash Load Estimate

(Gallons)

Guidance: Enter the “Preliminary Baseline Trash Load” from cell C10 of the Trash Load Reduction

Calculator or as reported in your municipality’s Short-term Trash Load Reduction Plan.

Preliminary Percent Trash Load Reduction in FY

2011-12 (Compared to Baseline Trash Load)

Guidance: Using the Trash Load Reduction Calculator for FY 11-12, copy the “% Reduction” in cell

C/D12 on the Summary tab into this cell of the Annual Report table.

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.11 – Mercury Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 11-1 1/21/132/14226/13

Section 11 - Provision C.11 Mercury Controls

C.11.a.i ►Mercury Recycling Efforts

List below or attach lists of efforts to promote, facilitate, and/or participate in collection and recycling of mercury containing devices and

equipment at the consumer level (e.g., thermometers, thermostats, switches, bulbs).

Guidance: Describe mercury-containing device and equipment collection and recycling efforts conducted by your municipality during FY 11-

1212-13. Efforts may include the following:

1) Promotion (i.e., media advertising, providing information on your agency’s website, etc.) of:

a) Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) programs, including promotion of HHW drop-off events and local businesses that provide

residents and small businesses the opportunity to drop-off of mercury-containing devices and equipment (e.g., bulbs, thermostats,

thermometers and/or switches) at designated locations on specific dates, times and/or business hours. Provide the name of the

agency or business that is responsible for sponsoring or running the HHW program, HHW drop-off event or drop off point. Examples

may include your City, County agencies/organizations (e.g., County DEH), special districts (e.g., Central Contra Costa Sanitary

District), Joint Powers Authority (JPA) (e.g., StopWaste.org), private corporations (e.g., Home Depot, Lowe’s, IKEA, Orchard Supply

Hardware) and private contractors (e.g., Allied Waste, Recology, Solano Garbage Company, ReThink Waste).

b) The Thermostat Recycling Corporation, an organization developed on behalf of the thermostat manufacturers, that recycles mercury-

containing thermostats and switches generated by residents and small businesses. The HVAC industry is the largest generator of these

waste streams and is the targeted audience to inform of this recycling option.

Note: If the Countywide Program has a role in is responsible for promoting the collection and recycling of mercury containing devices,

refer to the Countywide Program’s Annual Report.

2) Facilitation/Organization of HHW drop-off events conducted by your municipality/contractors or HHW drop-off events that occur within

your jurisdiction. Examples of facilitation and organization efforts include: providing buildings, equipment, containers and/or staff for

conducting HHW drop-off events; providing proper storage of mercury-containing devices and equipment used by your municipality, in

accordance with federal and state laws; and working with contractors regarding device and equipment recycling and/or disposal

options. If you are assisting other agencies/organizations with these efforts, state this as well.

3) Collection of:

a) Mercury-containing devices and equipment at designated drop-off points or HHW drop-off events organized and conducted by your

municipality and/or your contractors. Provide how often (e.g., 2nd and 4th Saturday from 9 to 12, every six months, annually, etc.) HHW

drop-off events are offered to residents and small businesses within your jurisdiction. To the extent possible, provide the number of

residents and businesses that used or participated in HHW drop-off events held by your agency and/or contractors. NOTE: If your

municipality has no role in the collection of mercury-containing devices and equipment at the consumer level, state so here. If

contractors or other entities are collecting mercury-containing devices and equipment at the consumer level on the behalf of your

municipality, state the name of the contractor or entity here.

b) Mercury-containing devices and equipment by your municipality or contractors at individual residences. Services provided at

individual residences include curbside collection and scheduled pickups of HHW by your agency, HHW Program staff and/or

designated contractors. NOTE: a very limited number of HHW Programs and cities provide these services. Provide the number of

residents that use curbside collection and/or schedule pickups of mercury-containing devices and equipment.


FY 12-13 AR Form 11-2 1/21/132/14226/13

c) Other mercury-containing device and equipment collection and recycling efforts that your agency and contractors may conduct

countywide which may not be described above.

C.11.a.ii ►Mercury Collection

Provide an estimate of the mass of mercury collected through these efforts, or provide a reference to a report containing this estimate.

Guidance:

For all Permittees other than (the Cities of Fairfield, Suisun City and Vallejo):

DELETE the entire table below AND provide text similar to the following: “Please refer to the FY 11-1212-13 Countywide Program Annual Report for

an estimate of the mass of mercury collected through collection and recycling efforts in the Countywide Program area.”

For the Cities of Fairfield, Suisun City and Vallejo:

Report the estimated mass of mercury collected through collection and recycling efforts conducted by your municipality, designated HHW

Program within your County, or other designated entities who collects these waste streams on your behalf (e.g., Solano Garbage Company). Only

count mercury-containing devices and equipment collected from residents and businesses in your jurisdiction. Use the Supplemental Excel

Spreadsheet and Guidance developed by BASMAA to estimate the mass of mercury collected through your efforts.

Mercury Containing Device/Equipment Total Amount of Devices Collected Estimated Mass of Mercury Collected

Fluorescent Lamps63 (linear feet)

CFLs64 (each)

Thermostats65 (each)

Thermostats (lbs)

Thermometers (each)

Switches (lbs)

Total Mass of Mercury Collected During FY 2011-2012:

63 Only linear fluorescent lamps should be included

64 Only compact fluorescent lamps should be included 65

Thermostats can be reported by quantity or by pounds. Whichever unit is used, please avoid double-counting.


FY 12-13 AR Form 11-3 1/21/132/14226/13

C.11.b ►Monitor Methylmercury

C.11.c ►Pilot Projects to Investigate and Abate Mercury Sources

in Drainages

C.11.d ►Pilot Projects to Evaluate and Enhance Municipal

Sediment Removal and Management Practices

C.11.e ►Conduct Pilot Projects to Evaluate On-Site Stormwater

Treatment via Retrofit

C.11.f ►Diversion of Dry Weather and First Flush Flows to POTWs

C.11.g ►Monitor Stormwater Mercury Pollutant Loads and Loads

Reduced

C.11.h ►Fate and Transport Study of Mercury In Urban Runoff

C.11.i ►Development of a Risk Reduction Program Implemented

Throughout the Region

C.11.j ►Develop Allocation Sharing Scheme with Caltrans

State below if information is reported in a separate regional report. Municipalities that participate directly in regional activities to can provide

descriptions below.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A summary of countywide Program and regional accomplishments for these sub-provisions

are included within the C.11 Mercury Controls section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report and/or the BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.12 – PCB Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 12-4 1/21/132/12246/13

Section 12 - Provision C.12 PCBs Controls

C.12.a.ii,iii ►Ongoing Training

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report and Each Annual Report Thereafter) List below or attach description of ongoing training development and inspections

for PCB identification, including documentation and referral to appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. county health departments, Department of

Toxic Substances Control, California Department of Public Health, and the Water Board) as necessary.

Description:

Guidance: As applicable, summarize how your agency has incorporated PCBs and PCBs-containing equipment into existing industrial inspections

and the results of the inspections in relation to PCBs (e.g., were PCBs or PCBs-containing equipment identified and referred to appropriate

regulatory agencies?) Report on any local efforts to provide associated training. Provide the following text (if applicable): “See the FY 11-1212-13

Program Annual Report for a description of training provided countywide and/or regionally., and report on any local training efforts, if applicable.”

C.12.b ►Conduct Pilot Projects to Evaluate Managing PCB-

Containing Materials and Wastes during Building Demolition and

Renovation Activities

C.12.c ►Pilot Projects to Investigate and Abate On-land

Locations with Elevated PCB Concentrations

C.12.d ►Conduct Pilot Projects to Evaluate and Enhance

Municipal Sediment Removal and Management Practices

C.12.e ►Conduct Pilot Projects to Evaluate On-Site Stormwater

Treatment via Retrofit

C.12.f ►Diversion of Dry Weather and First Flush Flows to POTWs

C.12.g ►Monitor Stormwater PCB Pollutant Loads and Loads

Reduced

C.12.h ►Fate and Transport Study of PCBs In Urban Runoff

C.12.i ►Development of a Risk Reduction Program Implemented

Throughout the Region

State below if information is reported in a separate regional report. Municipalities that participate directly in regional activities to can provide

descriptions below.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A summary of countywide Program and regional accomplishments for these sub-provisions

are included within the C.12 PCB Controls section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report and/or the BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.13 – Copper Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 13-1 1/21/132/14226/13

Section 13 - Provision C.13 Copper Controls

C.13.a. iii.(1) ► Legal Authority: Architectural Copper

(For FY 10-11 Annual Report only) Do you have adequate legal authority to prohibit discharge of wastewater to

storm drains generated from the installation, cleaning, treating, and washing of the surface of copper

architectural features, including copper roofs to storm drains?

Yes No

If No, explain and provide schedule for obtaining authority within 1 year.

Guidance: If your agency answered "No" in the FY 10-11 and FY 11-12 Annual Reports, provide information on the status of your legal authority.

C.13.a.iii.(2) ►Training, Permitting and Enforcement Activities

(FY 11-12 Annual Report and each Annual Report thereafter) Provide summaries of activities implemented to manage waste generated from

cleaning and treating of copper architectural features, including copper roofs, during construction and post-construction including. :

Development of BMPs on how to manage the water during and post construction

Requiring the use of appropriate BMPs when issuing building permits

Educating installers and operators on appropriate BMPs

Enforcement actions taken again noncompliance

Guidance: Describe how your municipality is implementing the measures listed above. You may include participation in relevant countywide

Program efforts if applicable (e.g., municipal staff training, development of BMP fact sheet) , but explain how countywide materials and efforts are

used for local implementation.

C.13.a.iii.(3) ►Evaluation of Effectiveness

(FY 12-13 Annual Report) Evaluate the effectiveness of measures the agency has undertaken to prevent discharge of wastewater to storm drains

during the installation, cleaning, treating, and washing of the surface of copper architectural features. The discussion of the effectiveness of these

measures should include BMP implementation and may propose additional measures to address this source of pollutants.

Guidance: If your agency does not allow the use of architectural copper, provide that information here. Otherwise, explain how your agency has

educated property owners, contractors and inspection staff on architectural copper BMPs. If applicable, describe any problems that have been

encountered, and steps taken or planned to address the problems. If applicable, describe any additional measures that your agency proposes to

implement to address this source of pollutants.

C.13.b. iii. ► Legal Authority: Pools, Spas, and Fountains


FY 12-13 AR Form 13-2 1/21/132/14226/13

(For FY10-11 Annual Report only) Do you have adequate legal authority to prohibit discharges to storm drains from

pools, spas, and fountains that contain copper-based chemicals? Yes No

If No, explain and provide schedule for obtaining authority within 1 year:

Guidance: If your agency answered "No" in the FY 10-11 and FY 11-12 Annual Reports, provide information on the status of your legal authority


FY 12-13 AR Form 13-3 1/21/132/14226/13

C.13.c ►Vehicle Brake Pads

Reported in a separate regional report.

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A summary of the countywide Program’s participation with the Brake Pad Partnership (BPP) is

included within the C.13 Copper Controls section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report and/or the BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

C.13.c.iii ►Water Quality Issues Associated with Automobile

Break Pads

(FY 12-13 Annual Report Only) – Assess status of copper water quality issues associated with automobile brake pads and recommend brake-pad

related actions for inclusion in subsequent permits if needed.

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “An assessment of copper water quality issues associated with automobile brake pads and

recommend brake-pad related actions for inclusion in subsequent permits is included within the C.13 Copper Controls section of Program’s FY 12-

13 Annual Report and/or the BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

C.13.d.iii ►Industrial Sources Copper Reduction Results

Based upon inspection activities conducted under Provision C.4, highlight copper reduction results achieved among the facilities identified as

potential users or sources of copper, facilities inspected, and BMPs addressed.

Summary

Guidance: Summarize inspections conducted at facilities identified as potential users or sources of copper that resulted in the use of copper

reduction BMPs. (Refer to BASMAA POC inspector training materials.)

C.13.e ►Studies to Reduce Copper Pollutant Impact Uncertainties

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold


FY 12-13 AR Form 13-4 1/21/132/14226/13

Report on progress of studies being conducted countywide or regionally to reduce copper pollutant impact uncertainties. State below if

information is reported in a separate regional report.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A summary of the countywide Program and/or regional efforts to develop regional studies to

reduce copper pollutant impact uncertainties is included within the C.13 Copper Controls section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13 Annual Report

and/or BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium Controls Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 14-1 1/21/132/14226/13

Section 14 - Provision C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium Controls

C.14.a ►Control Programs for PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides and

Selenium Controls

Report on progress of studies being conducted countywide or regionally to characterize the distribution and pathways of PBDEs, legacy

pesticides, and selenium. State below if information is reported in a separate regional report.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A summary of the countywide Program and regional efforts related to the Control Program

for PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium is included within the C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium section of Program’s FY 11-1212-13

Annual Report and/or BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

C.14.a.v. ►Control Programs for PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides and

Selenium Controls – Load Computation

(For FY 13-14 Annual Report only) Submit a report with information required to compute loading estimates of PBDEs, legacy pesticides and

selenium from urban runoff to the Bay.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “Information required to compute loading estimates of PBDEs, legacy pesticides and

selenium from urban runoff to the Bay is included within the C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium section of Program’s FY 12-13 Annual

Report and/or BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

C.14.a.vi. ►Control Programs for PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides and

Selenium Controls – Control Measures

(For FY 13-14 Annual Report only) Submit a report identifying control measures and/or management practices to reduce impacts from discharges

of PBDEs, legacy pesticides or selenium in urban runoff.

Summary

Guidance: Provide the following text (if applicable): “A report identifying control measures and/or management practices to reduce impacts

from discharges of PBDEs, legacy pesticides or selenium in urban runoff is included within the C.14 PBDE, Legacy Pesticides and Selenium section

of Program’s FY 12-13 Annual Report and/or BASMAA Regional POC Report.”

FY 2012-2013 Annual Report C.15 – Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges Permittee Name: _____

FY 12-13 AR Form 15-1 1/21/132/14226/13

Section 15 - Provision C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges

C.15.b.iii.(1), C.15.b.iii.(2) ► Planned and Unplanned Discharges

of Potable Water

Is your agency a water purveyor? Yes No

If No, skip to C.15.b.vi.(2):

If Yes, Complete the attached reporting tables or attach your own table with the same information. Provide any clarifying comments below.

Comments:

C.15.b.vi.(2) ► Irrigation Water, Landscape Irrigation, and Lawn or

Garden Watering

Provide implementation summaries of the required BMPs to promote measures that minimize runoff and pollutant loading from excess irrigation.

Generally the categories are:

Promote conservation programs

Promote outreach for less toxic pest control and landscape management

Promote use of drought tolerant and native vegetation

Promote outreach messages to encourage appropriate watering/irrigation practices

Implement Illicit Discharge Enforcement Response Plan for ongoing, large volume landscape irrigation runoff.

Summary:

Guidance: Describe how your municipality is promoting the measures listed above. You may include participation in relevant countywide

Program outreach efforts, but explain how countywide materials and efforts are used to promote local implementation of required BMPs. Refer to

the C.3 New Development and Redevelopment, C.7. Public Information and Outreach and C.9. Pesticide Toxicity Control sections of Program’s FY

11-1212-13 Annual Report as needed (if applicable).


FY 12-13 AR Form 15-2 1/21/132/14622/13

C.15.b.iii.(1) ►Planned Discharges of the Potable Water System

Site/ Location Discharge Type

Receiving

Waterbody(ies)

Date of

Discharge

Duration of

Discharge

(military time)

Estimated

Volume

(gallons)

Estimated Flow Rate

(gallons/day)

Chlorine

Residual

(mg/L)

pH

(standard

units)

Discharge

Turbidity66

(NTU)

Implemented BMPs &

Corrective Actions

66

Monitor the receiving water for turbidity if necessary and feasible. Include data in this column if available.


FY 12-13 AR Form 15-3 1/21/132/14622/13

C.15.b.iii.(2) ►Unplanned Discharges of the Potable Water System67

Site/ Location

Discharge

Type

Receiving

Waterbody(ies)

Date of

Discharge

Discharge

Duration

(military

time)

Estimated

Volume

(gallons)

Estimated

Flow Rate

(gallons/day)

Chlorine

Residual

(mg/L)68

pH

(standard

units) 52

Discharge

Turbidity

(Visual) 52,

Implemented

BMPs &

Corrective

Actions

Time of

discharge

discovery

Regulatory

Agency

Notification

Time69

Inspector

arrival

time

Responding

crew arrival

time

67

This table contains all of the unplanned discharges that occurred in this FY. 68

Monitoring data is only required for 10% of the unplanned discharges. If you monitored more than 10% of your unplanned discharges, report all of the data collected. 69

. Notification to Water Board staff is required for unplanned discharges where the chlorine residual is >0.05 mg/L and total volume is ≥ 50,000 gallons. Notification to State Office of Emergency Services is required after becoming aware of aquatic impacts as a result of unplanned discharge or when the discharge might endanger or compromise public health and safety.

Action Item BASMAA Draft FY 2012 2013 Annual Report Format Attachment 2 1 EOA, Inc.

Summary of FY 2012-2013 Annual Report Form Changes

Provision Description of Proposed Change

C.2.a, b, c, e Changes to address Water Board staff comments on reporting implementation of BMPs

C.3.b Add references to Green Street Pilot Project Summary Report due Sept. 15, 2013

C.3.c.iii (3) Remove LID implementation reporting requirement (required in FY 11-12 only)

C.3.e.v Remove reporting of changes in legal authority to implement alternative compliance (required in FY 11-12 only)

C.3.h.iv.(4) Add “not applicable” boxes to clarify reporting of compliance with BMP O&M verification program requirements

C.3.i Add reporting on implementation of C.3.i (site design measures for small and single family home projects)

C.6 Edits to define violations as excluding verbal warnings (for consistency with C.4 reporting) and to make other reporting requirments more clear (in response to Water Board comments on FY 11-12 Annual Reports)

C.7.a Add requirement to report estimated annual percentages (over past four fiscal years) of municipality-maintained storm drain inlet markings that have been inspected and maintained as legible. Add requirement to report annual number of projects (over past four fiscal years) with newly-constructed, privately-maintained streets accepted after storm drain inlet markings were verified.

C.7.i Add reporting of summary of outreach to municipal officials.

C.9.g. Add reporting of effectiveness evaluation of source control actions related to pesticides.

C.9.h.iv Add reporting of effectiveness of outreach to residents who use or contract for structural or landscape pest control.

C.10 Changes to be provided - currently under discussion

C.11.a.i Clarification of guidance on reporting of mercury recycling efforts.

C.12.a.ii,iii Clarification of guidance on reporting of ongoing training and inspections related to PCBs

C.13.a.iii(3) Add effectiveness evaluation of measures to prevent discharges of wastewater from installation and maintenance of copper architectural features

C.13.c.iii Add assessment of status of copper water quality issues associated with automobile brake pads and recommend actions for inclusion in subsequent permits.

Action Item BASMAA Draft FY 2012 2013 Annual Report Format Attachment 2 2 EOA, Inc.

Provision Description of Proposed Change

C.14.a.v Add requirement to submit a report with information required to compute loading estimates of PBDEs, legacy pesticides, and selenium from urban runoff to the Bay.

C.14.a.vi Add requirement to submit a report identifying control measures and/or management practices to reduce impacts of discharges of PBDEs, legacy pesticides, and selenium in urban runoff.

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item C - AFFIRM the Monitoring Committee’s Recommendations in

Awarding Community Watershed Stewardship Grants to Selected Recipients

Recommendation: Affirm the selected recipients. Background: As directed by the Monitoring Committee, Program staff convened a review committee to participate in the selection of recipients for the “2013 Contra Costa Community Watershed Stewardship Grants.” The County Watershed Program has sponsored these grants for several years providing $80,000 per year in funding. The Monitoring Committee voted to supplement the grant program with $20,000 in funding to be providing by the Program to satisfy Provision C.8.f (Citizen Monitoring) for FY 2012/13. On February 19th Abigail Fateman, Senior Planner, CCC Dept. of Conservation and Development, Khalil Abusaba, consultant staff to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, David Swartz, Watershed management Specialist with the County Watershed Program, and Cece Sellgren, Watershed Manager of the County Watershed Program met to evaluate and determine the level of award for the Community Watershed Stewardship Grant program. This program provides up to $100,000 in grants to local non-profit organizations to provide a variety of stormwater and watershed services. Thirteen applications requesting a total of $194,050 were received. See Attachment 1 for the list or applicants, amount requested and amount to be granted. Since the requested amount was nearly double the available money, the committee developed selection criteria to determine awards. The review committee (reviewers) initially discussed if there were any applications that should not be awarded any money. The reviewers agreed that proposed study of the toxic algae bloom in McNaby marsh proposed by The Dorothy M. Sakasaki Environmental Endowment Fund did not meet the goals of the Watershed Stewardship

Grant Program. The algae study is interesting and potentially important research that may fit better within the receiving water monitoring program of the utility (Mountain View Sanitation District) that manages the marsh. No grant funding for this proposal is recommended. The reviewers then discussed which proposals should be awarded as close to the requested amount as possible. The reviewers agreed that proposals to fund watershed coordinators were the highest priority as watershed coordinators function to help the region achieve Clean Water Program/MRP goals. The remaining projects would be funded at lower levels. The reviewers applied several different considerations to create a balance (e.g., geographic distribution of grant resources, extent to which CWP/MRP goals were addressed, ability to obtain additional funding, ability to scale the project to resources provided), ultimately distributing the funds as outlined in Attachment 1. The Monitoring Committee approved the selected recipients and recommends affirming the selected recipients by the Management Committee. Fiscal Impact: $20,000. Funding is included in the FY 2012/13 Program Budget. Attachment(s):

1. “Watershed Grand Awards 2013” EW:TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Elisa\2013-03\Action Item -C.docx

Attachment 1

Applicant Project Requested

Percentage of project in

Unincoorporated County Awarded

Percent of

Requested Amount

Funded

CCRCD

Rodeo Creek Community Watershed

Stewardship Program $18,440 90% $ 16,000 87%

CCRCD

Alhambra Watershed Council watershed

coordinator $16,920 90% $ 11,000 65%

SPAWNERS

San Pablo Creek Watershed Stewardship

Program $15,000 85% $ 10,000 67%

Lunchbox International

New Leaf: A Sustainable Living Collaborative

Rainwater Harvesting Systems $20,000 65% $ 2,500 13%

Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed

Water pollution prevention, restoration of

Marsh Creek Watershed, and expantion of

FOMCW $20,000 25% $ 18,000 90%

Citizens for a Greener El Sobrante

Expantion of membership base and rain

garden installation $20,000 100% $ 2,500 13%

CREEC

Friends of the Carquinez Watershed

Community Stewardship Program $14,500 70% $ 6,500 45%

CCRCD

Walnut Creek Watershed part-time

coordinator $19,840 15% $ 18,000 91%

Bring Back the Natives Garden Tour Garden Tours $5,500 100% $ 2,500 45%

Save Mount Diablo

Creek Restoration and habitat enhancement

projects in Kirker, Marsh, and Hess Creeks $10,000 100% $ 2,500 25%

Earth Team Aqua Team $10,000 50% $ 8,000 80%

Groundwork Richmond Tree Planting Program $12,000 5% $ 2,500 21%

The Dorothy M Sakasaki

Environmnetal Endowment Fund

and Mount View Sanitary District

The McNabney Marsh Toxic Algae Bloom

Research Project $11,850 100% $ - 0%Total $194,050 $ 100,000

Contra Costa Community Watershed Stewardship

Grant

Distribution Budget 2012-2013:

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Dan Cloak, Program Consultant Subject: Action Item D - APPROVE the Design Criteria for Non-LID Stormwater

Treatment Facilities and Direct These Criteria Be Incorporated into an Addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 6th Edition

Recommendation: As recommended by the Development Committee, approve the following design criteria for non-LID stormwater treatment facilities. If approved, the criteria will be incorporated into an addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook effective immediately and will be included in future editions of the Guidebook. Background: MRP Provision C.3.e.ii.(1) provides that, for Special Projects, a specified portion of the impervious surfaces created or replaced may be treated with “one or a combination of the following two types of non-LID treatment systems:

Tree-box-type high-flowrate biofilters Vault-based high-flowrate media filters”

With regard to reporting requirements, MRP Provision C.3.e.vi.(3)(i) states:

List of non-LID Stormwater Treatment Systems: List all non-LID stormwater treatment systems approved. For each type of non-LID treatment system, indicate: (1) the percentage of the total amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d. for the Special Project’s drainage area, and (2) whether the treatment system either meets minimum design criteria published by a government agency or received certification issued by a government agency, and reference the applicable criteria or certification.

Other Bay Area countywide programs have elected to adopt the State of Washington Department of Ecology’s Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) certifications.

Qualifying “Special Projects” are currently being reviewed in Walnut Creek and Concord; these projects are eligible for and may choose to use non-LID treatment. Discussion Interpretation and use of the TAPE criteria is complicated, and TAPE’s multiple use levels and treatment requirements leave room for shading and misrepresentation. Further, to facilitate preparation and review of facility sizing, it needs to be specified how the design criteria work with the hydraulic sizing criteria in Provision C.3.d. of the permit. Therefore it is recommended that CCCWP publish its own minimum criteria to which municipalities may refer in their Special Projects reports. The attached proposed minimum criteria are generally in line with the TAPE criteria, similar criteria published by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and, in the case of tree-box filters, criteria published by the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. The proposed criteria were sent to representatives of the most commonly used vault-based high-flowrate media filters and high-flowrate tree-box-type biofilters for comment. Development Committee participants suggested that the criteria be accompanied by example calculations. These are shown on the attached. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. Design Criteria for Non-LID Treatment Facilities DC:td G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Action Item - Non-LID Facility Criteria.docx

CCCWP Technical Criteria for Non-LID Facilities

Non-LID Treatment Facilities may be either tree-box-type high-flowrate biofilters or vault-based high-flowrate media filters.

General

Inflow rate is that generated by a continuous rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour.

Landscape and non-impervious surfaces should be made self-treating or self-retaining and not drain to treatment facilities, if feasible.

Use the runoff factors in Table 4-5 of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 6th Edition.

The applicant’s Stormwater Control Plan (Plan) must include as an attachment a letter from the manufacturer stating the manufacturer has reviewed the Plan, the proposed device meets these technical criteria, and the manufacturer will provide a warranty for two years following activation of the facility.

High-Flowrate Tree-Box-Type Biofilters

Maximum design surface loading rate of 50 inches per hour.

Precast concrete construction.

Inlet design to capture flows at least up to the maximum design surface loading rate and to bypass high flows.

Minimum media depth of 3.5 feet (may be reduced, but maintaining the same media volume, if required because of inadequate head to discharge point).

Media and facility configuration supports a healthy tree or other vegetation.

Vault-Based High-Flowrate Media Filters

Replaceable cartridge filters.

Maximum design filter surface loading rate of 1 gpm/ft2

Storage volume detains runoff and allows settling of coarse solids prior to filtration.

Flow through the cartridge filters is controlled by an orifice or other device so that the design surface loading rate is not exceeded.

Example calculations:

Given a project with the following Drainage Management Areas draining to a non-LID facility:

DMA 1: 2050 SF Roof, runoff factor 1.0

DMA 2: 3035 SF Asphalt, runoff factor 1.0

DMA 3: 250 SF Solid Unit Pavers Set in Sand, runoff factor 0.5

High-Flowrate Tree-Box-Type Biofilter

Equivalent Impervious Area = (2050 + 3035) × 1.0 + (250 × 0.5) = 5,210 SF

Sizing factor = 0.2"/hr 50"/hr = 0.004

Minimum biofilter surface area = 0.004 × 5,210 SF = 20.84 SF

Vault-Based High-Flowrate Media Filter

Design flowrate =

((3035 + 2050) ft2 × 1.0 + (250 ft2 × 0.5)) × 0.2"/hr × 1 ft/12" × 1 hr./60 min. × 7.48 gal/ft3 = 54 gpm

Cartridge surface area = 10.7 SF/cartridge (obtain from manufacturer and verify)

No. of cartridges required = 54 gpm/1 gpm/ft2 10.7 ft2/cartridge = 5.04 cartridges

(round to 5)

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Dan Cloak, Program Consultant Subject: Staff Report A - Regional Discussions on Trash Load Reduction Plans

Recommendation: Receive an update on the status of Trash Reduction planning. Background: The Management Committee has received updates on the progress of discussions between MRP Permittees and San Francisco Bay Water Board staff regarding implementation of MRP Provision C.10 and, specifically, development of Long-Term Trash Plans due to the Water Board in February 2014. The discussions began last November. Discussion: Permittee representatives caucused on February 26. A meeting with Water Board staff was held March 4. Highlights from the latter meeting follow:

Water Board staff and Permittee representatives shared a general agreement on the February 26, 2013 draft recommendations (attached).

Water Board staff emphasized their desire to receive more and better information in the 2013 and 2014 Annual Reports. Permittee representatives will caucus on what information can reasonably be compiled and presented. It is of interest to show how municipalities have identified higher-trash areas and focused efforts, including installation of full-trash-capture devices, in those areas.

Permittees’ ideas for Long-Term Trash Plans and Provision C.10 in the next MRP include a commitment to develop and implement, during the permit term, an assessment approach for demonstrating progress toward trash reduction goals. In particular, it has been suggested to develop a method for correlating visual

on-land assessments of trash with trash loads entering storm drains. The work would be funded in whole or in part through an awarded Proposition 84 grant.

Permittees will develop regionwide guidance on the preparation of Long-Term Trash Plans. The resources and schedule for preparing the guidance are yet to be determined.

The next meeting with Water Board staff is scheduled for March 22. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): “Bay Area Stormwater Trash Management Draft Recommendations, February 26, 2013” DC:td G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Staff Report - Trash Update.docx

Bay Area Stormwater Trash Management Draft Recommendations February 26, 2013

1

ATTACHMENT B

Framework/Step Recommendations

1. Long‐Term Plan Framework

a. The Long‐Term Plan Framework developed by BASMAA is a generally acceptable and should be used by Permittees in developing long‐term trash load reduction plans.

b. Permittees should use common guidance consistent with the framework to develop Long‐Term Plans. c. In areas not served by full capture or control measures that have been demonstrated to be equivalent to full

capture, the problem‐solving approach is acceptable.

2. Step #1‐ Delineation of Trash Generation Areas

a. Permittees should begin long‐term plan development by delineating high, medium and low trash generating areas where control measures will be implemented.

b. High, medium and low trash generating areas should be delineated in a consistent/standardized manner among all Permittees.

c. Permittees are encouraged to begin delineating areas by using modeled trash generation rates and refining delineations based on their knowledge of trash generation within their jurisdiction. Refinements should be based on local knowledge and a level of field confirmation.

d. The process by which a Permittee finalizes their delineations should be described in their long‐term plan and all refinements should be documented.

3. Step #2‐ Source Identification

a. In efforts to select effective control measures, Permittees should attempt to identify sources of trash in high and medium priority areas not served by full‐capture devices or equivalent combinations of measures. Source identification methods used by Permittees should be reported in Long‐Term Plans.

b. Source identification is likely not needed in low trash generating areas.

4. Step #3‐ Prioritize High and Moderate Generation Areas for Implementation

a. Permittees should further prioritize high and medium trash generating areas based on their knowledge of trash problems and sources. Areas with high trash generation should be considered the highest priority for Permittee control measure implementation.

b. Permittees should consider areas with low trash generation, low priority for control measure implementation.

5. Step #4 ‐ Select Control Measures

a. Permittees should select control measures that are designed to solve the trash problem within a high or medium priority area.

b. Permittees will implement a very limited number of control measures within low generation areas that consist of pollution prevention and/or true source controls, and are implemented jurisdiction‐wide.

fventura

Typewritten Text

MC Agenda Item Staff Rpt A Attachment


2

ATTACHMENT B

6. Step #5 ‐ Define the method(s) used to determine progress in high and moderate priority areas.

There are three general categories of methods used to demonstrate progress towards trash reduction goals:

1. Verification entails confirming that a control measure was implemented consistent with specific performance standards/criteria. Verification will serve as an adequate method to demonstrate progress for any control measure (or combination of control measures) for which adequate documentation has been developed that indicates it will fully reduce1 the amount of trash discharged from an area.

Full Capture Devices ‐ Verification is an acceptable method to use in areas treated by full capture devices as long as adequate maintenance of these devices can be verified. The level of verification required will be consistent with the operation and maintenance verification performance standards (To be developed).

Full Capture Equivalency ‐ Once a Permittee has provided information to the Water Board that adequately illustrates that one or more control measure is equivalent to full capture (i.e., “fully reducing trash”), Permittees may choose to use a verification method consistent with those used for areas treated by full capture devices. Information may be developed locally or regionally to demonstrate that a control measure fully reduces trash. Once a demonstration has been provided, the application of the control measure with the proper verification will be deemed to fully reduce trash from any area in which it is applied. Verification (as described above) will then be considered an acceptable method to demonstrate progress in areas treated by this control measure, so long as it is implemented consistent with its performance standards (To be developed).

2. Assessments entail the collection of information needed to adequately demonstrate that one or more control measures are reducing trash discharged to a water body.

Applicability of Assessments ‐ There are many different types of assessments and the type used to demonstrate progress is dependent upon the trash source and control measure type, and whether the assessment will be associated with a specific control measure type or assess the effects of one or more control measures within an broader geographical area. Assessments will be used to demonstrate progress for control measures (or combinations of control measures) that have not been deemed full capture or full capture equivalents.

Standardized Assessment Methods – Standardize assessment methods for trash, currently do not exist. Permittees should strive to develop and test standardized assessment methods for determining progress

1 A control measure or combination of control measures that reduce trash discharged from an MS4 at a level equal to or greater than a full capture device is deemed to “fully reduce” trash from a given area.


3

ATTACHMENT B

toward trash load reduction goals.

3. Documentation entails the tracking and reporting that a control measure is effectively implemented.

Permittees should provide documentation in annual reports of the types and levels of control measure implementation, including the locations where control measures are implemented. Descriptions of improvements to trash controls planned for future years should also be provided.

2. Step #6 ‐ Implement trash control measures

Permittees should implement control measures that are designed to solve the trash problem within their jurisdictions.

3. Step #7 ‐ Evaluate and document progress using defined assessment methods.

Methods used to demonstrate progress may include verification (with documentation) or assessment (with documentation), depending on whether and adequate demonstration that a control measure can “fully reduce” trash has been provided. Documentation of progress towards goals should be included in annual reports along with information on verification and assessment results. Areas where success in solving the trash problem has been achieved should be also documented.

4. Step #8 ‐ Modify trash generation area delineations and reprioritize areas and control measures as needed.

Descriptions of significant refinements to trash generation area delineations, priorities, control measures and approaches to demonstrating progress should be included in annual reports.

TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Staff Report - MRP Version 2.0.docx

1

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Program Manager Subject: Staff Report B – Municipal Regional Permit Reissuance

Recommendation: Receive report on regional discussions on planning for reissuance of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Background: The MRP was adopted on October 14, 2009 and became effective on December 1, 2009. The MRP expires five years from the effective date of the MRP, which is November 30, 2014. The Permittees must file a Report of Waste Discharge (i.e., application for reissuance) not later than 180 days in advance of the MRP expiration, which is May 30, 2014. This starts the formal MRP reissuance process, which is a little over 14 months away. Last month, Program staff summarized the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s internal review of MRP reissuance goals, objectives and priorities (see Staff Report E in the February 20 Management Committee agenda packet for additional details); and, BASMAA’s first meeting with Water Board staff on February 15, 2013 to review the initial objectives for reissuance of the MRP. At that meeting, Tom Mumley, Water Board Assistant Executive Officer, indicated Water Board staff’s initial priorities were C.3 (New and Redevelopment), C.8 (Monitoring), C.10 (Trash Load Reduction), C.11 (Mercury Controls) and C.12 (PCB Controls). Mr. Mumley also indicated their desire to renew the permit in a timely fashion. He recognized that Permittees have significant funding restraints, and so he instructed his staff and requested input from BASMAA on areas of the permit that efforts might be reduced with no impact on measures to improve water quality. Mr. Mumley indicated, however, that despite these efforts, meeting requirements for the next permit will likely result in increased compliance costs. BASMAA offered to develop a process and timeline for review of high, medium and low permit priorities, which Mr. Mumley accepted.

TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Staff Report - MRP Version 2.0.docx

2

Discussion: On Thursday, March 7, the BASMAA Board of Directors met for the second time to continue its review and discussion of objectives, process and timeline for negotiation and reissuance of the MRP. This review included the review of a “Green Infrastructure Program” concept paper (see attached) and initial review of a timeline and process for negotiating high, medium and low priority issues with Water Board staff through 2014. Program staff will provide further details of this meeting, and any additional updates at the March 20 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None Attachments: None TD G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Staff Report - MRP Version 2.0.docx

Municipal Regional Permit 2014 Reissuance

“Green Infrastructure Program” Concept

Summary

A region-wide Green Infrastructure Program is proposed as the principal means of implementing MRP 2.0 Provisions C.11 (Mercury Controls), C.12 (PCBs Controls), C.13 (Copper

Controls), C.14 (PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides, and Selenium). The Green Infrastructure Program

would also implement MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment) as it

relates to public streets and roads and would substitute for any additional full trash capture

facilities in MRP 2.0 Provision C.10 (Trash Load Reduction). The Green Infrastructure Program

would support and enhance Provision C.5 (Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination).

The Green Infrastructure Program would consist of planning, designing, and building systems

to divert runoff flows from existing streets, gutters, storm drain pipes, and channels to new

bioretention and other Low Impact Development facilities.

Regional-level planning and ongoing coordination of the Green Infrastructure Program could be

funded through reductions in Monitoring requirements (Provision C.8). Initial implementation

of the Green Infrastructure Program would be funded through existing competitive grant

programs. After a few years, this would be supplemented by dedicated local revenues achieved by restructuring existing stormwater program budgets. Looking further into the future, Green

Infrastructure would become part of local Capital Improvement Program budgets for drainage

infrastructure and would be funded through a variety of revenue sources, including

transportation funding, future bond measures, and ongoing Federal and state grant programs.

A Green Infrastructure Program Would Consolidate and Integrate Permit Provisions

Current MRP provisions point toward increasing capital investment in (and ongoing operation

and maintenance of) facilities to intercept and treat stormwater flows.

The current MRP makes a nod toward integrating Mercury and PCBs control strategies; however, the required pilot projects under C.11/C.12 are not integrated with C.10 and C.3

requirements to install facilities to treat runoff from public streets and roads. Further, the

C.11/C.12 strategy does not acknowledge the concomitant benefits in reducing loads of other

pollutants (copper, PBDEs, selenium, legacy pesticides) or in eliminating illicit discharges.

Statewide many Phase I permits (for examples, the San Diego and Los Angeles permits) are

trending toward watershed-level organization to better address multiple TMDLs. Region 2 staff

have stated a desire to streamline and make routine the conventional permit provisions (C.2,

Municipal Maintenance Activities; C.4, Industrial Inspections; C.5, Illicit Discharge Detection

and Elimination; C.6, Construction Inspection; C.7, Public Outreach and Education) in order to free up resources and place more emphasis on activities driven by pollutant exceedances in

receiving waters (that is, by TMDLs and other Water Quality Improvement Plans).

How a Green Infrastructure Program Could Be Organized Under the MRP

For Green Infrastructure projects, costs per unit of drainage area vary widely. In rare cases,

runoff from a relatively large drainage area can be diverted from existing storm drain pipes into one or more bioretention facilities constructed on available public land. In other cases (such as

most “green streets” projects) runoff from a smaller drainage area is diverted into bioretention

facilities which must be squeezed into limited space in an existing streetscape.

Some Green Infrastructure projects have a long gestation time while interagency coordination and funding are arranged and planning and design are completed. In other cases,

opportunities arise to incorporate drainage retrofits into a street or highway improvement

project—but only if information and resources are available timely.

For these reasons, it makes sense for MRP permittees to share a common commitment to

coordinate, fund, plan, design, and construct their own local Green Infrastructure projects,

coupled with an explicit understanding that the pace for completion of those projects, and the efficacy of the projects, will vary from place to place throughout the region and over time.

Consider as an example: Both City “A” and City “B” analyze local opportunities for Green

Infrastructure projects, identify and pursue specific projects, and set aside capital funding for

their projects. However, the best apparent opportunities in City “A” do not materialize. Eventually, City “A” uses the accumulated capital set-aside to include bioretention in a bulb-

out as part of a “complete streets” project in its downtown. On the other hand, City “B”

identifies an opportunity to divert a storm drain serving 50 acres of historically industrial land

to a bioretention area located in an unused right-of-way. State-administered grants pay for

most of the capital cost. Both City “A” and City “B” have fulfilled their obligations under the MRP, even though City “B”’s project is timelier and removes much more load of targeted

pollutants. City “B” reaps additional benefits from the economic activity engendered by a larger

project and from the boost to local environmental quality.

One aim of the “Green Infrastructure” Provision would be to ensure that the Bay Area as a whole has a number of projects that have been designed, have undergone CEQA review, and

are competitive for any grant funding that becomes available.

An MRP Green Infrastructure Program permit provision could require that each permittee:

Analyze, identify, and rank opportunities for Green Infrastructure projects.

Evaluate local transportation projects and other projects for opportunities to

incorporate Green Infrastructure.

Set aside funding from local sources for Green Infrastructure projects.

Move some Green Infrastructure projects forward to preliminary design.

Pursue opportunities for non-local project funding.

Participate in regional efforts including peer review of designs; incorporation of features to facilitate facility monitoring; and tracking, reporting, and evaluation of Green

Infrastructure projects.

These requirements would constitute implementation for the upcoming permit term for:

Provisions C.11, C.12, C.13, and C.14.

Additional full trash capture requirements in Provision C.10.

Provision C.3 as it relates to reconstruction or expansion of existing public streets and roads within existing right-of-way.

Provision C.8 (Monitoring) would be scaled back and savings allocated to regional coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of local Green Infrastructure projects.

Launch of a Green Infrastructure Program is Supported by Currently Funded Projects

The Prop. 84-funded and SFEP-administered Bay Area Green Infrastructure Master Planning

Project aims to “enable municipalities to complete planning-level identification and prioritization of optimal sites for LID implementation.” The project includes GIS-based analysis

and optimization and interviews with selected public works staff to identify potential projects.

A Green Infrastructure Program Could Improve Public Support for Stormwater Programs

Contra Costa’s Stormwater Funding Initiative effort revealed a lack of public support for

funding the MRP’s plethora of regulatory compliance-driven activities. Apparently, voters want to know what they are getting for their tax (or fee) dollar. A partial shift toward investment in

infrastructure designed to improve water quality could improve public support for stormwater

programs and for funding those programs.

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report C – Current Single-Use Bag Ban Bills

Recommendation: Receive report. Background: Trash bans have been included as one type of trash reduction Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed by the Bay Area Stormwater Agencies Association (BASMAA) regional effort to reduce trash and comply with Provision C.10 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Trash bans, specifically polystyrene food containers and single-use plastic bags, have generally been accepted by Water Board staff as a viable long term solution to trash source control. Consequently, many Permittees have chosen to include trash bans as part of their selected BMPs in their short-term trash reduction plans to comply with the 40% trash reduction requirement in C.10 of the MRP. To date, trash bans only exist on a municipal level (i.e., the City of Richmond’s ban on polystyrene food containers). Historically, legislation proposing trash bag bans has been unsuccessful on a State-wide level. Currently, there are two new bills proposing a State-wide trash ban on single-use plastic bags. Assembly Bill (AB) 158 written by Assembly Member Levine, introduced in January 2013, proposes a law as of January 1, 2015, prohibiting stores (defined as selling a line of dry grocery, canned good, or nonfood items and some perishable items) with a minimum of $2 million in sales or 10,000 square feet of retail floor store space from providing single-use carryout bags to customers. Additionally, the bill requires stores to provide recycled paper bags, compostable bags, or reusable bags to consumers, and require, as of January 1, 2020, a plastic bag collection bin for customers to recycle single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. As of July 1, 2016, other smaller convenience food stores, foodmarts, and certain other specified stores would be included into the bill’s requirements. The bill imposes civil penalties on stores

who violate the program. Senate Bill (SB) 405 is essentially identical to AB 158, but is written by Senator Padilla and was introduced in February 2013. Both bills would provide long-term legislative solutions to single-use plastic bags. Creating a State-wide law banning plastic bags removes the burden on local municipalities to pass ordinances to ban plastic bags, creates a legislative structure for enforcement to prosecute and fine violators of the bill, and allows fines to be paid to the local agency that imposed the fine. At the March 6 Administration Committee meeting, Committee members requested Program staff prepare a letter of support for AB 158 for Management Committee consideration on March 20. Program staff is currently reviewing AB 158 and SB 405. Program staff is also researching whether there are other related bills. Program staff is coordinating this review with the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. For this reason, Program staff is delaying Management Committee consideration of a recommended letter of support pending further review. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. EW:TD:fv G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Elisa\2013-03\Staff report C - Single Use Bag Legislation.docx

TD:fv

G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\12-13\Shells\Tom\2013-03\Reports - Sr Specialist Recruitment.docx

1

Date: March 20, 2013 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Program Manager Subject: Staff Report D – Update on Recruitment of the Senior Watershed

Management Planning Specialist Position

Recommendation: Receive report. Background: In August 2012, the Management Committee approved filling the vacant Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist position, and directed the Program Manager to request the County to immediately initiate the recruitment process. On January 14, 2013, the position was advertised. The original application deadline of February 8 was extended to February 15. Discussion: By the February 15 deadline, 43 applications were received. The County’s Human Resources Department is continuing to screen the applications. Following the County’s normal application appeal period, interviews will be arranged. Updates, if any, on the schedule for conducting interviews will be provided at the meeting. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None.

DRAFT Meeting Summary

Monitoring / POCs Committee

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Internal Meeting 1. Budgeting and planning for Regional Projects part 1 (open only to BASMAA and member

program representatives / staff, and invited participants) A. Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (Chris Sommers / Armand Ruby)

Outcomes:

Confirmed or refined timeline for review and finalization

Clarified/discussed time-sensitive issues for draft regional UCMR

B. Monitoring projects: Triggers and Stressor / Source ID (Arleen Feng) Outcome: Confirmed timeline, next steps and roles in regional review of WY2012 Creek Status data and selection of SSID projects

Action: SSID site evaluation

Create a sample table format for compiling list of WY13 sites and triggers for review and prioritization

Gretel Silyn Roberts

TBD

Main Meeting

2. Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda (Arleen Feng)

Action: Send out notice announcing there will not be an Annual BAMBI meeting in 2013

Chris Sommers

Before Feb MPC

Action: Add to February MPC agenda update/ information sharing on programs’ geomorphic projects

Arleen Feng Before Feb MPC

3. Approval – December 5, 2012 meeting summary (Arleen Feng)

Vote: The Committee approved the December 5, 2012 meeting summary as provided. 4. MPC / BOD Status Review (Arleen Feng)

A. Board of Directors update – There was no Board of Directors meeting since the last MPC meeting; the next Board of Directors meeting is this Friday, December 7.

Action: Continue developing MOU between BASMAA and RMP regarding joint projects

Geoff Brosseau / Arleen Feng

TBD

B. Action Items from previous MPC meetings

Outcomes: Received updates and reviewed Action Item status

Action: Send Geoff CCCWP in-kind billing amounts through FY11-12 for RMC 4a and RMC 3a

Khalil Abu-Saba / Armand Ruby Feng

TBD

BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee Meeting Summary DRAFT January 16, 2013

2

5. Regional Projects – POCs Outcomes: Approve & recommend new or revised Project Profiles for BOD approval, or identify process for resolving issues by Friday 1/18:

A. Integrated Monitoring Report, FY12-13 & 13-14 new/revised scope and budgets - supersedes individual budgets originally planned for C.11.j, C.11/12.f, g, h; C.12.b; RMC 8c and 7e-2 (Chris Sommers)

Agreement – Recommend development of finalized cost estimates to be

forwarded for 1/24/13 Board of Directors actions: a) approve FY12-13 scope and budget, subject to MPC review 2/6/13; b) FY13-14 budget estimate; c) direction on FY13-14 acceptable funding sources and contractors/selection mechanism.

Action: Revise budget estimates for Part A, to incorporate review by Lucy Buchan and Armand Ruby

Chris Sommers

Before 1/24 BOD

B. Caltrans Allocation Sharing - MRP C.11.j, FY 11-12 revised and 12-13 placeholder

(Khalil Abu-Saba / Armand Ruby)

C. Load estimation using STLS spreadsheet model; Sediment estimation - C.8.e.vi and PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides - C.14.a, FY 13-14 placeholders (Arleen Feng)

Action: Check and correct tables showing Project budgets for IMR-related and other projects

Arleen Feng Before 1/24 BOD

6. Regional Projects - Monitoring (C.8) Project Profiles

Outcome: Approve & recommend new or revised Project Profiles for BOD approval, or identify process for resolving issues by Friday 1/18:

A. RMC 3c Creek Status Monitoring Coordination - FY13-14 placeholder (Arleen Feng/Chris Sommers)

B. RMC 5e-A POC Loads Station Operation + Setup - FY13-14 placeholder (Arleen Feng)

C. RMC 5e-B POC Loads Station lab analyses, data management & data QC; and RMC 7d-3 Regional POC Loads Monitoring Report - FY 13-14 placeholders (Arleen Feng)

7. Regional Projects - Updates

Outcome: Receive updates or confirm next steps as needed 8. Review New Actions and Deferred items; Preview next meeting agenda (Arleen Feng) 9. Adjourn

BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee Meeting Summary DRAFT December 5, 2012

3

Next BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee meeting is Wednesday, February 6, 2013

BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee Meeting Summary DRAFT January 16, 2013

4

Meetings Attended

Affiliation /

Representing

Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 ACCWP Arleen Feng X X X X X X

2 City of Richmond / CCCWP

Lynne Scarpa X X X X X X

3 Contra Costa Co / CCCWP

Cece Sellgren X P

4 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen X

5 EOA / SMCWPPP Jon Konnan X X X X X

6 EOA / SMCWPPP Lucy Buchan X P X P X X

7 Daly City / SMCWPPP Cynthia Royer P

8 EOA / SCVURPPP Chris Sommers X X X X X X

9 EOA / SCVURPPP Paul Randall X X

10 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau X X X X P

11 Brown & Caldwell Khalil Abu-Saba X X X X X X

12 ARC Armand Ruby P P P P P X

13 Geosyntec Peter Mangarella X X X X X X

14 Geosyntec Donna Bodine X

15 Geosyntec Lisa Austin X

16 SFEI Lester McKee X P X X P

17 SFEI Jen Hunt P

18 AMS Paul Salop P

19 OWP Brian Currier P

20 Gretel Silyn Roberts Consultant X X

21 Alessandro Hnatt ADH P

22 City of San Jose James Downing P

23

24

25

X = In-person; P = by phone


Monitoring / POCs Committee

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Internal Meeting 1. Budgeting and planning for Regional Projects (open only to BASMAA and member program

representatives / staff, and invited participants) A. Integrated Monitoring Report

Action: Comments to Chris Sommers / Lisa Austin on draft scope of work for Part B

MRP Program representatives

February 13

Action: Meet to discuss comments on and finalize draft scope of work

MRP Program representatives

February 15, 10-12

B. Urban Creeks Monitoring Report

Action: Meet to discuss POC Loads Monitoring report Chris Sommers / Lester McKee / Khalil Abu-Saba

February 7

C. Stressor-Source ID Projects, MRP C.8.d.i

Action: Frame guidance and other materials for 2/25 RMC internal agenda item

Chris Sommers / Armand Ruby

February 13

Main Meeting

2. Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda (Arleen Feng)

Announcements o Phase II Small MS4 General Permit reissued yesterday, effective July 1; includes

monitoring requirements for first time o Minamata Convention on Mercury resulted in global, legally-binding treaty to

prevent emissions and releases (see From Power Stations to Cement Factories section at end of story for true source control measures that could reduce atmospheric deposition in California of mercury from Asia)

o Grant announcements – Solicitations are expected soon for San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund and DWR Prop.84 grant funds

3. Approval – January 16, 2013 meeting summary (Arleen Feng)

Vote: The Committee approved the January 16, 2013 meeting summary with correction.

4. MPC / BOD Status Review (Arleen Feng)

A. Board of Directors update – The Board of Directors last met on January 24, approving portions of a Project Profile for Integrated Monitoring Report development, a CW4CB work order for retrofit screening monitoring, and electing new officers.

http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2702&ArticleID=9373&l=en

http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2702&ArticleID=9373&l=en

BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee Meeting Summary DRAFT February 6, 2013

2

B. Action Items from previous MPC meetings Outcomes: Received updates and reviewed Action Item status

5. Regional Projects – POCs Project Profiles

Outcomes: Approve & recommend new or revised Project Profiles for BOD approval A. Integrated Monitoring Report, FY 12-13 & 13-14 clarify next steps in

scoping/budgeting (Chris Sommers)

Agreement – Reps from ACCWP, CCCWP, and SCVURPPP recommended Board of Directors actions (other MRP reps not available): a) approve FY12-13 Part B scope, budget, and consultants; subject to comments from MPC; and b) FY13-14 budget estimate.

Action: Revise Part B scope and budget based on changes agreed to in February 15 meeting

Chris Sommers / Lisa Austin

February 21

B. Caltrans Allocation Sharing - MRP C.11.j, FY 11-12 revised and 12-13 placeholder

(Khalil Abu-Saba / Armand Ruby)

Action: Revise Project Profile to reflect new approach for discussion in 3/6 MPC

Khalil Abu-Saba / Armand Ruby

March 1

C. Load estimation using STLS spreadsheet model; Sediment estimation - C.8.e.vi

and PBDEs, Legacy Pesticides - C.14.a, FY 13-14 placeholders (Arleen Feng)

Action: Revise Project Profiles to reflect discussions in today’s meeting

Arleen Feng TBD

6. Regional Projects - Monitoring (C.8) Project Profiles

Outcome: Approve & recommend new or revised Project Profiles for BOD approval

A. Creek Status Monitoring Coordination – RMC 3c FY 13-14 placeholder (Chris Sommers)

Action: Lead MRP reps’ discussion/ revision as needed re FY 13-14 placeholder budget


March 25 RMC

B. POC Monitoring – RMC 5e FY 13-14 placeholders (Arleen Feng)

C. Creek S&T Information Management QA/QC – RMC 3g FY 13-14 placeholders (Arleen Feng)

Action: Lead MRP reps’ discussion/ revision as needed re FY 13-14 placeholder budget


March 25 RMC

Action: Revise Project Profiles to reflect discussions in today’s meeting

MRP reps TBD


3

7. Regional Monitoring Coalition: Urban Creeks Monitoring Report

Outcome: Received updates or confirmed next steps as needed 8. RMC: Stressor-Source ID Projects, MRP C.8.d.i (Arleen Feng/Chris Sommers)

Outcome: Review prototype spreadsheet template for compiling regional inventory of Creek Status sites with triggers, agree on process/timeline for distributing and populating the finalized template for discussion/prioritization

Action: Revise template to reflect discussions in today’s meeting, including adding pull downs and shading tracking rows, and distribute to MPC reps

Armand Ruby February 11

9. Review – New Actions & deferred items; Preview next meeting agenda 10. Adjourn Main Meeting 11. Regional Projects Planning Part 2 (open only to BASMAA and member program

representatives / staff, and invited participants) A. Geomorphic Projects, MRP C.8.d.iii – MRP Program representatives shared their

approaches and plans for implementing this sub-provision.

B. Other

12. Adjourn Internal Meeting

Next BASMAA Monitoring / POCs Committee meeting is Wednesday, March 6, 2013


4

Meetings Attended

Affiliation /

Representing

Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 ACCWP Arleen Feng X X X X X X X

2 City of Richmond / CCCWP

Lynne Scarpa X X X X X X X

3 Contra Costa Co / CCCWP

Cece Sellgren X P

4 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen X P

5 EOA / SMCWPPP Jon Konnan X X X X X X

6 EOA / SMCWPPP Lucy Buchan X P X P X X X

7 Daly City / SMCWPPP Cynthia Royer P

8 EOA / SCVURPPP Chris Sommers X X X X X X X

9 EOA / SCVURPPP Paul Randall X X

10 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau X X X X P X

11 Brown & Caldwell Khalil Abu-Saba X X X X X X X

12 ARC Armand Ruby P P P P P X P

13 Geosyntec Peter Mangarella X X X X X X X

14 Geosyntec Donna Bodine X X

15 Geosyntec Lisa Austin X

16 SFEI Lester McKee X P X X P X

17 SFEI Jen Hunt P

18 AMS Paul Salop P

19 OWP Brian Currier P

20 Gretel Silyn Roberts Consultant X X P

21 Alessandro Hnatt ADH P

22 City of San Jose James Downing P P

23

24

25



Municipal Operations Committee

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Introductions, Announcements, Changes to Agenda ............................................... Elisa Wilfong

Approval – July 19, 2012 meeting summary ............................................................ Elisa Wilfong

Vote: Committee members approved the meeting summary as drafted. Review – Proposed revisions to FY 12-13 Annual Report forms: C.2 / C.7 ................. Kristin Kerr

Committee members reviewed, discussed agreed to edits to the draft annual report forms

Agreement: MRP Program representatives agreed to recommend the forms, as edited in this meeting, to the Board of Directors for approval on February 28.

Action: Kristin Kerr will make the edits agreed-to today and make the final draft forms available for review and approval.

Update – Surface Cleaner Recognition program .................................................. Geoff Brosseau

Committee members received and discussed an update on the enhancement project that will add fleet washers and carpet cleaners to the program this fiscal year. Committee members also discussed possible ways to increase the rigor of the current program, and agreed to consider in more detail after the enhancement project is completed.

Next Municipal Ops Committee Meeting is Thursday, March 21, 2013

BASMAA MuniOps Committee – Meeting Summary DRAFT February 21, 2013

2

Meetings Attended

Representing Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Alameda Co. CWP Jim Scanlin P

2 Contra Costa CWP Rinta Perkins P

3 Contra Costa CWP Elisa Wilfong P P

4 Contra Costa CWP Dan Cloak P

5 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen P

6 SM Co. WPPP / EOA Kristin Kerr P P

7 SC Valley URPPP / EOA Lori Pettegrew P

8 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau P P

9 City of San Jose Mary Morse P

10 City of San Jose James Downing P

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37


Meeting Summary

Public Information / Participation Committee

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 Introductions, Announcements, Changes to Agenda .............................................. Tim Swillinger Approval – November 28, 2012 meeting summary ................................................. Tim Swillinger

Vote: Committee members approved the meeting summary with edits. Regional Outreach ................................................................. Cynthia Butler / Nick Laurrell, SGA

The Regional Outreach Campaign work group received updates and discussed the following:

General Update

Video Contest o Based on voting by Committee members on the more than 50 videos received, 12

videos form a top tier of vote getters. Of those, 5-7 appear to be the best of the best. The Committee discussed ways to pare the list to the top video.

Action: The top 12 vote-getting videos will be provided to the Youth Resource Council for voting.

Action: A survey monkey-type poll will be conducted on the top tier identified by the YRC to identify the top video.

Action: An Academy Awards-type live cast awards show will be held Thursday, March 14 to announce the top video.

Action: Leading up to the awards show, each of the 51 videos received will be featured on the BetheStreet website.

Regional Media Relations ......................................................... Sharon Gosselin / Julia Fishman

The Committee brainstormed ideas for the remaining pitches for the year and set their schedule. Three pitches have been prepared and released to-date: 1) DPR’s surface water quality regulations; 2) Joint pitch with EPA regarding new Greener Pesticides for Cleaner Waterways grant project (relates to IPM Advocates for Retail Stores), and 3) No burning of holiday gift wrap (joint pitch with BAAQMD). Committee members agreed to the following three additional pitches this fiscal year: 4) Plastic bag bans, 5) Re-launch of Our Water, Our World vis-à-vis Greener Pesticides for Cleaner Waterways grant project, and 6) Be the Street.

Action: Julia Fishman will send out the 2012-13 work plan / schedule revised to reflect today’s discussion and decisions.

Our Water, Our World .................................................................Geoff Brosseau / Annie Joseph

Committee members received an update on recent efforts:

The master solicitation of printed materials will be released soon.

The OSH product list and labels file will be released soon; to be followed by the Home Depot versions.

IPM Advocates are continuing to work with stores and train store employees through the Greener Pesticides for Cleaner Waterways grant to SFEP and other funding from local agencies. UCIPM is putting on a continuing education class for the Advocates next week on top pests. Part of the IPM Advocates for Retail Stores grant to BASMAA is to

conduct a task that sustains the Advocates past the end of the grant, which these efforts are helping to do.

BASMAA PI/P Committee DRAFT January 23, 2013 3

Our Water, Our World representatives met once again with StopWaste.org staff to discuss possible funding for Our Water, Our World. Our Water, Our World representatives also met with BayFriendly Landscaping staff to discuss potential coordination.

Other Campaigns ....................................................................................... Athena Honore, SFEP

Committee members received and discussed updates on three related projects:

Greener Pesticides for Cleaner Waterways – After meeting with the EPA Region IX Administrator, the project schedule has been extended and SFEP has been advised to involve more outreach experts in the project, particularly in scoping out the mobile app task.

Got Ants – The focus continues to be on developing an advertisement and a website. Both the ads and an ad plan should be available soon.

Bay Protection and Behavior Change – Unsatisfied with the results of the initial efforts, the project steering committee is getting back to basics – focusing on creating a creative brief that is much clearer and explicit about the basic attributes of the project.

Next Regular Meeting is Wednesday, February 27, 2013

BASMAA PI/P Committee DRAFT January 23, 2013 4

Meetings Attended

Representing Name Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Alameda Co. CWP Sharon Gosselin X P P P

2 Alameda Co. CWP Jim Scanlin P P X P P

3 Alameda Co. CWP Cynthia Butler P X P P P

4 Contra Costa CWP Tracy Hein P P P P P

5 Contra Costa CWP Dan Jordan P

6 Contra Costa CWP Rinta Perkins P P

7 Fairfield-Suisun URMP Kevin Cullen P P P

8 Marin Co. STOPPP Gina Purin P P P P P

9 Marin Co. STOPPP Terri Fashing P

10 Napa Co. SPPP Jamison Crosby

11 SM Co. WPPP Tim Swillinger P P X P P P

12 SC Valley URPPP Vishakha Atre P X P P P

13 SC Valley URPPP Jill Bicknell P

14 Vallejo San & FCD Jennifer Kaiser P P X P P P

15 BASMAA Geoff Brosseau P P X P P P

16 City of San Jose Elaine Marshall

17 City of Palo Alto Maree Doden P P X P P P

18 City of Modesto Gayle Ziegler P P P

19 S. Groner & Assoc. Nick Laurell P P X P P P

20 Consultant Annie Joseph P P X P P P

21 City of Sunnyvale Jackie Besoyan P P X P P

22 O’Rorke Julia Fishman P P P P

23 O’Rorke Alexis Carmona P P

24 SFEP Athena Honore P P P P P

25 USD Mike Auer P P

26 Consultant Debi Tidd X

27 City of Roseville Delyn Ellison-Lloyd P

28

29

30


management committee agenda com… · guests: nick laurell, sga, inc 1. welcome/introductions: dan...

Documents