Urban Runoff Management:
So Far, So Good. So What?
Geoff Brosseau
The RMP 2007 Annual Meeting
Perspectives on the Impact of the
Clean Water Act on San Francisco Bay
October 2, 2007
So Far
 1986
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments
 1990 Phase I Stormwater Regulations
(Municipal, Industrial, Construction)
 1990s Phase I permits and programs
 1999 Final Phase II Stormwater Regulations
(Municipal, Construction)
 2003 State Phase II General Permit
So Good
 Bay Area
has been a leader in the State and
country in developing the stormwater program
and meeting Clean Water Act requirements
 ~90 Phase I communities
 ~30 Phase II communities
 ~1,350 Industrial facilities
 ~1,500 Construction sites
 BASMAA
So Good (cont’)







Recognized Surface Cleaner program (1996 - )
Construction site inspection / education program (1990s)
Regional Advertising Campaigns (1996 - )
Brake Pad Partnership (1996 - )
Start at the Source manual (1997, 1999)
Our Water, Our World Program (1998 - )
Hydromodification management plans (2001 - )
So Good (cont’)
 USEPA Clean Water Act
Recognition Awardwinning programs - in 12 years California has
produced:


7 Municipal award winners
3 Industrial award winners
– fully half from the Bay Area




Santa Clara Valley
Alameda
Lockheed
LLNL
So What?
Case Study: Diazinon
In 1998, using Clean Water Act authority, USEPA:
• listed waterbodies in virtually every urbanized
area of California as impaired by pesticides and
toxicity
• required that TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily
Loads) be calculated and that dischargers (local
governments) reduce the amount of these
pesticides in the waterbodies to the TMDL
targets (max. allowable amount)
So What? (cont’)
1999 – California MS4s pushed USEPA OPP
and OW to coordinate on urban pesticides and
water quality
 In 2000 – USEPA announced the phase out of
diazinon products
 By 2002 – The amount of reported diazinon
applications had decreased substantially
 By 2006 – Aquatic toxicity and diazinon
concentrations in urban creeks had decreased
dramatically–in most cases below TMDL targets
 In
So What(‘s Next)?
 Effectiveness Assessment
 Quantifiable measures
 True


source control (↓Potential Pollutants ↓Runoff)
Product stewardship / EPR / Green chemistry
Start at the Source / Low Impact Development (LID)
 Monitoring
– Creeks >> Bay / Ocean / River
Challenges to measuring
stormwater program effectiveness
(Cause ―? Effect)
(Action ―? Outcome)
 Degrees
of separation phenomenon
 Complicating effects of integrating all inputs
 Outcome Level is defined by:


Type of best management practice being measured
Power of BMP
Municipal Program Effectiveness Assessment
Assessment Outcome Levels
Increasing
Difficulty
Level 6 –
Protecting
Receiving Water
Quality
Level 5 – Improving Runoff Quality
Level 4 – Reducing Loads from Sources
Level 3 – Changing Behavior
Level 2 – Raising Awareness
Level 1 – Documenting Stormwater Program Activities
True Source Control (↓Potential Pollutants)
Product-based Pollutants: Conceptual Relationships
Manufacture
Sale
True Source
Control
Source Control
Use
Release to urban runoff
Urban runoff discharge
Treatment
Control
Costs
Effectiveness
Receiving water
True Source Control (↓Runoff)
Stormwater Quality
Management Hierarchy
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
Treat
Thank you
Implementation Success Story:
Pesticides and Stormwater

By 2006 – Aquatic toxicity and diazinon
concentrations in urban creeks decreased
dramatically – in most cases below TMDL
targets - Level 6 Outcome – Protecting receiving
water quality

USEPA and DPR changing the way pesticides
are regulated to address/prevent water quality
problems / Retailer data show less-toxic product
sales ↑ - Level 3 Outcome – Changing behavior

Surveys - Level 2 Outcome – Raising awareness