2014/2015 annual report - be river friendly

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership including the County of Sacramento and the cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, and Rancho Cordova

2014/2015 Annual Report October 2015

Submitted to:

State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 NPDES Stormwater Permit No. CAS082597

2 - Partnership Activities

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2014/2015 Annual Report 2.1-1

Chapter 2 Partnership Activities 2.1 Introduction

This Chapter describes activities conducted and financed jointly by the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

This Chapter is formatted to follow the organization and presentation of activities/tasks in the 2008-2013 Work Plans submitted as part of the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan dated November 2009 and adopted by the Regional Water Board on January 29, 2010 (SQIP).

Structure This Chapter is divided into the following Sections:

• Section 2.1 – Introduction • Section 2.2 – Program Management • Section 2.3 – Program Effectiveness • Section 2.4 – Monitoring Program • Section 2.5 – Target Pollutants Program • Section 2.6 – Regional Public Outreach Program • Section 2.7 – Regional Commercial/Industrial Program

Within each Section, the information is presented as follows:

• Element Introduction • Element Activities • Element Effectiveness Assessment • Assessment Summary and Proposed Element Changes

Partnership Activities Program Management

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2014/2015 Annual Report 2.2 -1

2.2 Regional Program Management

Element Introduction The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) was established to coordinate the Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Stormwater Permit) compliance activities throughout the Permittees’ jurisdictional areas with the objective of improving water quality in receiving waters identified in the Stormwater Permit, including urban creeks, the Sacramento River and the American River.

The permittees entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that formalizes the manner in which the permittees address common issues, promote consistency among each Permittees’ stormwater programs, coordinate resources related to regional activities, and plan and coordinate activities required to comply with the Stormwater Permit. The MOU includes a cost-share percentage (based on population) for each Permittee for regional activities (also referred to as Partnership or joint activities). A Steering Committee, consisting of representatives designated by each Permittee, was established to provide a forum for making decisions and providing guidance to the Permittees relative to the implementation of regional activities.

Regional activities include the Monitoring Program, the Target Pollutant Program, Regional Public Outreach, the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program and Overall Program Effectiveness Assessments. Permittee-specific activities conducted in addition to regional activities are described in each agency’s Annual Report.

Element Activities As required by the Permit, SQIP and Annual Work Plan, the following activities were performed under this element.

PM.1 Program Management

PM.1.1 Conduct Steering Committee Meetings

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.3.e PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed

The Steering Committee oversees Partnership permit compliance activities and provides leadership for implementation of the regional activities. The Permittees coordinate and make decisions through regular meetings of this Steering Committee and via electronic mail and telephone. The Steering Committee meets every other month. Some typical agenda items included joint budget updates, regional monitoring activities, Delta Regional Monitoring Program, Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) coordination and MOU renewal, Proposition 84 Citrus Heights Grant Study, regional outreach , annual report and work plan development, target pollutant reduction strategies (e.g., methylmercury and pesticides), Limited Term Permit renewal, and Statewide policies or programs (e.g., Trash Amendments, Strategic Initiative, Regional Permit, etc.).

PM.1.2 Submit Permittees’ Partnership (Regional) Activities Work Plan including the Monitoring Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.3.e PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Permittees’ 2015/2016 Regional Work Plan was submitted to the Regional Water Board on May 1, 2015. The Regional Work Plan included the activities for Program Management, the Monitoring Program,

Program Management Partnership Activities

``

2.2-2 Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2013/2014 Annual Report

Target Pollutant Program, Regional Public Outreach and the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program. The effectiveness assessment approach for those regional activities was based on the 2007 CASQA Program Effectiveness Guidance Document. On April 17, 2015, the Regional Water Board renewed the Partnership’s 2008 Permit for a limited term (Limited Term Permit) to allow the option to participate in a Regional Monitoring Program (e.g., the Delta RMP). Under the Limited Term Permit, only Effectiveness Level 1 (documenting activities) is required.

PM.1.3 Submit Permittees' Partnership (Regional) Annual Report

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.3.b, D.29.a, MRP I.B

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership’s 2013/2014 Annual Report was submitted to the Regional Water Board on October 1, 2014.

PM.1.4 Conduct Partnership Work Plan assessment activities and report in the Partnership (Regional) Annual Report

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.2.b, D.3.b PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


This section describes the activities conducted during the fiscal year demonstrating assessment at Effectiveness Level 1 (documenting activities). The Program Management section does not have any assessments of key indicators and other activities that will be evaluated at Effectiveness Level 2 (raising awareness) and above during the permit term.

PM.1.5 Conduct the Regional Activities' Annual Fiscal Summary

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.7 PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Table 2.2-1 below presents an estimated summary of the expenditures incurred in the 2014/2015 fiscal year and the proposed 2015/2016 budget related to the regional activities of the Partnership. The Fiscal Summary does not include Permittee staff costs. See the Permittee-specific annual reports for the fiscal summaries for each individual agency and their funding source.

Table 2.2-1. Fiscal Summary 2014/2015 2015/2016

Region Programs Expenditures ($) Budget ($) Monitoring Program/Special Studies/Target Pollutant Program 388,397 768,400 Regional Public Outreach Program 230,256 431,420 Regional Commercial/Industrial Program 0 0 New Development Element 0 50,000

Total $ 618,653 $ 1,299,820

Partnership Activities Program Management


Table 2.2-2 below presents a summary of the joint authorizations that were executed during the 2014/2015 fiscal year for regional activities conducted during the 2014/2015 fiscal year per the MOU. Table 2.2-2 Joint Authorization Summary* Joint Authorization

Number Project Name Budget Amount ($) FY15-PM-01 Low Impact Development Conference 5,000 FY15-MP-01 Storm Water Monitoring – FY14/15 (LWA) 654,424 FY15-MP-02 Storm Water Monitoring – FY 14/15 CMP River

Monitoring (SRCSD) 87,107

FY15-MP-03 Delta Regional Monitoring Program FY 14/15 Contribution

70,000

FY15-TP-01 CASQA Pesticides Regulatory Activities 17,000 FY15-TP-02 Pesticides-Ruby Regulatory Assistance 17,500 FY15-PO-01A IPM Consultants and supplies (OWOW) 50,000 FY15-PO-01B IPM-OWOW Boot Camp Workshops 7,500 FY15-PO-02A Splash in the Class – Classroom Presentations 39,420 FY15-PO-03 Sacramento News and Review 13,500 FY15-PO-04 Storm Water Creative Development 85,000 FY15-PO-05 Media Placement 49,900 FY15-PO-06 CapRadio Garden Partnership 30,000 FY14-PO-04 Public Opinion Survey (FY14, FY15, FY16) 50,000

Total $1,176,351

PM.1.6 Participate in the Region-wide MS4 Permit Stakeholder and work group meetings

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


County and City of Sacramento staff actively participated on the Region-wide MS4 Permit Stakeholder Work Group throughout the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Regional Water Board Work Group Meetings were held on August 20, September 26, October 29, December 16, 2014 and February 10, 2015. The Regional Board anticipates adopting the Region-wide MS4 Storm Water general permit in 2016.

Element Effectiveness Assessment The previous section described activities conducted during the fiscal year demonstrating assessment at Effectiveness Level 1 (documenting activities). On April 17, 2015, the Regional Water Board renewed the Partnership’s 2008 Permit for a limited term (Limited Term Permit) to allow the option to participate in a Regional Monitoring Program (e.g., the Delta RMP). Under the Limited Term Permit, only Outcome Level 1 effectiveness assessment is required. The overall effectiveness of the SQIP and the individual Elements in reducing stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable, achieving compliance with water quality standards in receiving waters, and meeting performance standards was provided in the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013.

Program Management Partnership Activities

``


Assessment Summary and Proposed Element Changes

Work Plan Task Completion Summary All tasks in the Regional Program Management section were completed per the Annual Work Plan.

Work Plan and/or SQIP Revisions and Changes The Report of Waste Discharge and LTEA submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013 included SQIP amendments in the form of proposed 5-year Work Plans for each Program and Element for the next permit term. The Partnership plans to incorporate the key recommendations from the LTEA into an updated SQIP when the new Region-wide MS4 Permit is issued.

There are no changes recommended to the 2015/2016 Regional Activities Annual Work Plan.

Partnership Activities Program Effectiveness


2.3 Program Effectiveness

Introduction The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) assesses the effectiveness of its program as required by the Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Stormwater Permit), Provision 29, in order to:

• Demonstrate compliance with the Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Stormwater Permit) in reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) and ensuring that these discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards established for local rivers and creeks

• Track the long-term progress of the SQIP toward achieving improvements in receiving water quality

• Provide the data and feedback needed to improve the SQIP and identify new activities or modify existing activities in order to continuously improve upon meeting the above MEP and water quality standard goals of the Stormwater Permit

The Partnership submitted their Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) on March 15, 2013, in accordance with Provision D.29 and D.33 of the Stormwater Permit. The LTEA provided a long term evaluation of the Program, identified key findings about program effectiveness, and provided a set of recommendations for continued improvement.

The Partnership’s Stormwater Permit expired on September 11, 2013, was administratively extended through the submittal of the 2013 ROWD and subsequently renewed for a limited term. Reissuance of a full-term Stormwater Permit has been delayed to allow for the Regional Water Board to develop a Region-wide Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit. The Partnership is currently participating in the Regional Water Board’s Region-wide MS4 Permit development that would replace the Partnership’s individual permit. The Regional Water Board anticipates that this new permit will be adopted in April 2016. The Partnership plans to incorporate the key recommendations from the LTEA into an updated SQIP when the new Stormwater Permit is issued. On April 17, 2015, the Regional Water Board renewed the Partnership’s 2008 Permit for a limited term (Limited Term Permit) to allow the option to participate in a Regional Monitoring Program (e.g., the Delta RMP). Under the Limited Term Permit, only Outcome Level 1 effectiveness assessment is required. The overall effectiveness of the SQIP and the individual Elements in reducing stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable, achieving compliance with water quality standards in receiving waters, and meeting performance standards was provided in the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013. This section provides a summary of the LTEA assessment strategy, key findings and key recommendations for the next full permit term.

Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) The Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) provided a long term evaluation of the Program, identified key findings about program effectiveness, and provided a set of recommendations for continued improvement. The LTEA utilized both programmatic and environmental outcomes to evaluate effectiveness. Programmatic outcomes show the extent to which the program is implemented, its effect on raising awareness, or on a measurable change in behavior among the target population. Environmental outcomes are based on measured or estimated changes attributable to program activities in the amount of pollutants released to or observed in urban runoff or receiving waters. The Program has 23 years of monitoring data that was utilized in the assessment. The LTEA demonstrated that the Program is a mature program in which foundational elements of program management such as legal authority, funding, collaborative agreements, departmental responsibilities, and staffing management have been long established, and a wide variety of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) developed and implemented.

Program Effectiveness Partnership Activities


LTEA Assessment Strategy The LTEA utilized both programmatic and environmental outcomes to evaluate effectiveness. Programmatic outcomes show the extent to which the program is implemented, its effect on raising awareness, or on a measurable change in behavior among the target population. Environmental outcomes are based on measured or estimated changes attributable to program activities in the amount of pollutants released to or observed in urban runoff or receiving waters. The LTEA focused on programmatic outcomes in instances where a logical link can be drawn from implementation of the activity to environmental benefits, but for which direct measurement of an environmental benefit attributable to the activity is impractical or impossible. In the field of stormwater pollution control, this is often the case, due to the inherently widespread, diffuse nature of most pollutant sources, and the fact that release of these pollutants is affected by the behavior of literally hundreds of thousands of individuals living in the urban environment. It is not always practical to measure programmatic outcomes using numerical indicators, so some of these assessments are qualitative. Based on a large set of high quality data collected by the Partnership’s monitoring program (which spans more than two decades), and utilizing a variety of statistical analyses (to better- evaluate the inherently variable data), the LTEA used environmental outcomes to assess the overall effectiveness of the program in protecting and improving the water quality of urban discharge and receiving waters. These environmental outcomes are discussed below within the framework of a set of management questions that were established in the Partnership’s Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (SQIP), which guided the design of the water quality monitoring program. The ability to link specific activities to measurable water quality improvements is limited by both the diffuse nature of pollutant sources, and the inherent variability of stormwater data. However, special studies and detailed analysis of our monitoring data provide important information about the impact of some key activities on water quality. To some extent, the LTEA focused the effectiveness of work conducted during the 2008 permit term, which best represents the current status of the Program. However, as necessary, the Partnership utilized data and information from the three previous permit terms (1990- 2008) to provide baseline data, evaluate progress, and to support conclusions and recommendations. The LTEA examined each of the program elements set forth in the Permit and the SQIP: Program Management, Construction, Commercial/Industrial, Municipal Operations, Illicit Discharge, Public Outreach, New Development, and Monitoring/Target Pollutant. For each of the program elements, the Partnership compiled program assessment data (Appendix A), and worked together to collectively assess the effectiveness of their elements based on the data and through their knowledge and experience. Program managers were also directed to provide recommendations for changes to their elements. The findings and recommendations of the element managers form the basis for what is highlighted in the LTEA and the proposed SQIP amendments that are recommended in the 5-year work plans (Chapter 3).

LTEA Key Findings One of the Key Findings/Challenges for the Partnership is true-source control. As demonstrated by the progress made by the Brake-Pad Partnership for copper and by the Partnership for pesticides, it is much more effective to control the source of contamination at the product manufacturing and/or regulation level. While local governments can control some sources and support effective changes for others, state and federal governments are responsible for implementing many of the changes that will result in water quality improvements. Thus, it would be helpful if the state would take a leadership for these sources. Key findings are as follows:

Program Management • Each member of the Partnership has established stormwater ordinances that provide the legal

authority necessary for full implementation of the Program • Formal interagency agreements among Partnership members are in place to provide mechanisms for

decision making and cost sharing • Funding mechanisms are in place to support program activities



Construction • Permittee-specific plan review processes were variable but all resulted in a high rate of compliance • Permittee-specific progressive enforcement is effective but lacks the regional coordination

necessary to track violators across jurisdictional boundaries • Municipal employees are generally knowledgeable of State Construction General Permit requirements

and local requirements for construction site management

Commercial/Industrial • The regional inspection program for priority businesses is efficient, effective and creates a level playing

field for businesses within the Permit area • Permittee-specific programs for non-priority businesses did not encounter sufficient issues to warrant

elevating any additional businesses to a priority standing Municipal Operations • Drainage maintenance plays an important role in preventing pollutants from entering waterways from both

the physical removal of pollutants as well as the detection of illicit connections/discharges • Permittee-specific programs ensure a high level of stormwater compliance at municipal facilities Illicit Discharge • Training of municipal employees and public awareness of phone ‘hotlines’ has created a successful

referral system • The size of a release and the response rate to the release is more important than the nature of the

release (e.g. hazardous vs non-hazardous materials) • Household Hazardous Waste Programs are an effective tool to reduce the potential for contaminants to

enter into the drainage system but more uniform tracking mechanisms are needed Public Outreach • The fundamental concept of stormwater flowing untreated into creeks and rivers has yet to be widely

understood by the public New Development • Permittee-specific plan review processes were variable but all resulted in a high rate of compliance • Maintenance Agreements/Covenants and maintenance follow-up are effective at ensuring adequate

performance of control measures or devices Monitoring and Target Pollutant • Urban discharges, urban tributaries, and the rivers have been effectively characterized for the

Sacramento permit area • River water is generally of high quality. Exceedances of water quality standards in rivers are rare to

infrequent. • Water quality exceedances observed in the rivers are generally not linked to urban discharge sources • The vast majority of constituents monitored do not pose a threat to water quality • Drinking water beneficial uses in the rivers are adequately protected • In older development areas, trends are not discernible for most monitored constituents • True-source control is the most effective method to achieve water quality benefits • Implementing new development standards significantly improves the quality of urban runoff • Local involvement/support for state and federal changes with regards to pesticide use have resulted in:

o Urban tributaries in the Sacramento permit area no longer impaired by diazinon and chlorpyrifos

o Toxicity occurrences in urban tributaries have decreased significantly. Recent adoption of state and federal regulations restricting pyrethroid use are expected to greatly reduce discharge loads

• Source control investigations for a variety of pollutants have indicated the following: o Sediment control BMPs will help reduce the discharges of copper, lead, zinc, mercury,

pathogens, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other sediment bound pollutants.

Program Effectiveness Partnership Activities


Sediment control is primarily accomplished through the New Development, Municipal Operations, and Construction elements

o The largest potential source of mercury in urban areas is mercury-containing products such as fluorescent lamps; however, mercury discharges in urban runoff are very minor compared to legacy sources of mercury already in the watersheds

o Sources of bacterial pathogen indicators are difficult to quantify due to confounding effects of in situ growth, and limitations of source identification technology. Wild animals are likely to constitute a significant, yet largely uncontrollable source

o The major source of copper in urban watersheds is identified as automobile brake pads by Brake Pad Partnership which will be phased-out by 2025

o The major source of pesticides in urban watersheds is legal application of insecticides by licensed pest control operators

LTEA Key Recommendations (for the Next Permit Term)

With the exception of the Monitoring/Target Pollutant Program (below), the key recommendations represented by the 5-year work plans and proposed as SQIP amendments reflect Partnership efforts to achieve the following general goals:

• Greater efficiency in assessing programmatic outcomes:

o The elimination of “counting” exercises and data collection that do not provide a meaningful measurement of effectiveness of a given BMP, in favor of simpler assessments of program implementation

o Consistency of data gathering and BMP evaluation among Partnership members • Consolidation of duplicative and/or overly specific tasks • Elimination of completed, outdated, and/or ineffective BMPs

In accordance with these goals, the Partnership consolidated tasks into unified 5-year work plans proposed as amendments to the SQIP (Chapter 3).

Monitoring/Target Pollutant The following key recommendations are proposed for the Monitoring/Target Pollutant Programs:

• Consolidate the monitoring and target pollutant programs into one program • Reduce the frequency of discrete monitoring events for urban discharge and urban tributaries. Monitoring

efforts over the last 20 years have effectively characterized the water quality associated with the urban watershed, but has limited ability to link specific activities to changes in water quality, or to identify changes occurring on a year-to-year basis. Because the occurrence of pollutants in our urban discharge is well understood, continuation of relatively frequent monitoring is no longer necessary.

• Replace frequent discrete monitoring with continuous data sensor stations in urban discharge and urban tributaries.

• Reduce or eliminate toxicity monitoring for urban discharge and urban tributaries. Partnership monitoring and State Water Board reports have clearly identified insecticides as by far the most important and only consistent source of toxicity in urban waters. Because insecticide toxicity is statewide, and pesticide regulation is the responsibility of the State, continued toxicity monitoring by the Partnership and other local agencies is unnecessary.

• Monitor receiving water conditions through ongoing collaboration with regional and state monitoring efforts. The Partnership is currently a partner in the Coordinated Monitoring Program effort with Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD), sampling two sites (upstream and downstream of the urban area) on both the Sacramento and American Rivers. Although the Partnership proposes to continue participating, it will explore opportunities to replace or reduce sampling sites as part of the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) or other regional monitoring efforts.

• Plan and implement load reduction projects within an integrated regional water management framework. Based on the proven effectiveness of new development standards in improving urban runoff water quality and reducing pollutant loads, the Partnership will focus efforts on implementation and assessment of load reduction projects designed to improve downstream receiving water quality.



The Partnership will plan and design the projects within a framework of integrated regional water management and in consideration of the watershed priorities. Examples of projects include dry weather flow reduction programs such as water conservation, River Friendly Landscaping, and Low Impact Development (LID) retrofits such as green streets and parking lots.

• Refine application of the Watershed Treatment Model to evaluate new or improved structural and non-structural BMPs that can improve water quality. This approach will allow the Partnership to integrate watershed priorities into the Program and implement projects to achieve multiple benefits.

• Continue to promote control of pollutants through effective state and federal regulation of products that are major pollutant sources. This is based on the inability to effectively reduce pollutants from widely used products at the local level, and on the significant progress achieved in addressing priority target pollutants such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, pyrethroids, and copper through product control regulation by state and federal agencies.

Permittee-Specific Program Effectiveness Assessment

The comprehensive review and evaluation of permittee-specific key indicators was conducted as a part of the LTEA submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013. See Appendix A of the LTEA for the permittee-specific assessment data.

Partnership Activities Monitoring Program


2.4 Monitoring Program

Element Introduction The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) Monitoring Program was initiated to comply with the requirements of the Sacramento Area-wide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No. R5- 2015-0023, NPDES No. CAS082597, (Stormwater Permit) Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the overall Partnership Program. Section 2.4 of the Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (SQIP) describes the monitoring activities to satisfy the MRP requirements and to evaluate effectiveness of the overall Partnership Program. Specifically, the Partnership uses monitoring data to achieve the following objectives:

• Assess water quality in urban runoff and receiving waters (rivers and creeks) and identify potential problems

• Identify pollutants and help identify key pollutant sources • Investigate observed and reported problems in local waterways and help identify sources of the problems • Evaluate the effectiveness of selected Best Management Practices (BMPs) and control measures • Assess the effectiveness of the overall Partnership Program by tracking water quality changes and

evaluating trends over time • Adjust future monitoring efforts to provide the most useful data in the most cost-effective manner.

The Monitoring Program activities are completed and the data are analyzed to answer the 2009 SQIP Section 2.4-2 management questions and to assess program effectiveness at outcome levels 4 through 6. The data analysis also assists in selection of program, permittee-specific and Target Pollutant Program, Section 2.5, activities. The Monitoring Program objectives are achieved through the following activities: Receiving Water Monitoring (river, urban tributary, water column toxicity, sediment), Urban Runoff (Discharge) Monitoring, Special Studies, Dry Weather Monitoring Analysis, and Reporting and Effectiveness Evaluation. For the 2014/ 2015 fiscal year, the urban runoff discharge monitoring was not required in lieu of participating in the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) per the October 14, 2014 letter from the Regional Water Board (Appendix 2.4-K). Table 2.4-1 summarizes all monitoring activities for the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Figure 2.4-1 is a map of the current monitoring stations.

Table 2.4-1. 2014/2015 Monitoring Events

Event Period Event Type River [1] Urban

Tributary Urban Tributary

Sediment Receiving Water Column Toxicity

11/1/2014 Wet [2] [2] 12/11/2014 Wet [2] [2] 2/6/2015 Wet [2] [2] 5/12/2015 Dry [2] [2]

Notes: = sampling event completed [1] River sampling performed through the Coordinated Monitoring Program (CMP) [2] Not required in stormwater permit

1 October 14, 2014 4:46 PM Email communication from Genevieve Sparks, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to Sherill Huun, City of Sacramento. Sacramento Area Phase 1 MS4 Permit – Response to Annual Monitoring Plan Modification Request

Monitoring Program Partnership Activities


Figure 2.4-1. 2014/2015 Monitoring Sites




MP.1 Receiving Water Monitoring

MP.1.1 Conduct river monitoring during 3 wet events and 1 dry event

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP II.B. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) and Partnership manage the Coordinated Monitoring Program (CMP) through the CMP Steering Committee. The Steering Committee designed the CMP to provide long-term ambient river water quality characterization data, satisfy NPDES permit monitoring requirements, and complete recommended special studies. Following the SRCSD NPDES permit renewal in December 2010, SRCSD and the Partnership entered into a revised agreement to ensure that the CMP continues to meet NPDES permit requirements for both agencies. The CMP collected water column samples for the constituents listed in Table B of the Stormwater Permit at four sites on the Sacramento and American Rivers (see Figure 2.4-1 and Table 2.4-2). Samples were collected for three wet weather events and one dry weather event in the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Water quality data for the 2014/2015 fiscal year CMP monitoring activities are presented in the Technical Memorandum Sacramento Coordinated Monitoring Program Receiving Water Monitoring Annual Data Review 2014/2015, included as Appendix 2.4-A to this report. See Table 2.4-2 for a description of the monitoring sites. The CMP collects river cross-sectional composite samples from a boat, except at the upstream American River (at Nimbus) location where the CMP collects a mid-depth grab sample by wading into the river. During certain events, due to time constraints, depth composites were collected instead of depth integrated cross sectional composites.

Table 2.4-2. River Monitoring Sites for Stormwater Program

River Site Description of Site Location and Immediate Upstream Land Use

Photo

American River

Nimbus Dam

Mid-depth, mid stream grab samples are collected in the wadeable portion of the main river channel. Lake Natoma is immediately upstream. Folsom Reservoir is just upstream from Lake Natoma. Land use surrounding Lake Natoma is mixed use urban (primarily City of Folsom). Land use upstream of Folsom Reservoir is primarily rangeland and forest.

Discovery Park

Cross sectional depth composite samples are collected with a sampling apparatus from a boat. Land use upstream is mixed use and includes a large fraction of the permitted urban area.



River Site Description of Site Location and Immediate Upstream Land Use

Photo

Sacramento River

Veterans Bridge

Cross sectional depth composite samples are collected with a sampling apparatus from a boat. Land use upstream is primarily agricultural at this site upstream from the bridge and urban influenced.

Freeport Marina

Cross sectional depth composite samples are collected with a sampling apparatus from a boat. This site is downstream of nearly all the urban runoff from the Cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento.

MP.1.2 Conduct urban tributary monitoring during 3 wet events and 1 dry event

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP II.B. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership collected urban tributary water column grab samples for the constituents listed in Table B of the Stormwater Permit at three locations (see Figure 2.4-1 and Table 2.4-3). Samples were collected for three wet weather events and one dry weather event in the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Arcade Creek did not have flow for the dry weather event, therefore no samples were collected. Historically, flow has been present during the late spring dry weather sampling event. See Table 2.4-1 for a summary of the 2014/2015 fiscal year monitoring events. The rising limb or peak of the hydrograph is targeted for sample collection. The Partnership installed continuous data sensors and data loggers to collect field parameter measurements (i.e., stage, temperature, electrical conductivity, etc.) at the Willow Creek and Laguna Creek stations in the 2014/2015 fiscal year as has been done since the 2008/2009 fiscal year. The Partnership collected water column samples for the input parameters to the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM), a site specific water quality objective model for copper and potentially other metals. The Partnership was not required to collect sediment samples in 2014/2015. A complete report of all events and activities, including analytical results, is included as Appendix 2.4-B: Urban Tributary Monitoring Report 2014/2015 (Part 2. Appendix F includes all lab reports).



Table 2.4-3. Urban Tributary Monitoring Sites

Creek Site Downstream Water Body

Description of Site Location and Upstream Land Use Photo

Arcade Creek

Watt Ave., Sacramento (AC03)

Natomas East Main Drain

The tributary watershed is highly urbanized with predominantly older development.

Willow Creek

Blue Ravine Rd., Folsom (WC01)

Lake Natoma

The tributary watershed consists of suburban development with limited new development. This creek has more gradient than the other creeks monitored by the Partnership.

Laguna Creek

East Stockton Blvd., Elk Grove (LC02)

Morrison Creek

The tributary watershed is primarily newer residential development with increasing urbanization. The upper watershed has lower density development.

Upper Laguna Creek

Waterman Near Bond (LC03)

Morrison Creek

The site is near to the downstream portion of the upper watershed, which is primarily undeveloped.

MP.1.3 Conduct work and/or financially participate in the Delta Regional Monitoring Plan activities for FY14/15

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL




The Partnership received a letter from the Regional Water Board on October 14, 2014 to approve paying funds to the Delta RMP in lieu of conducting urban discharge monitoring for fiscal year 2014/2015 (Appendix 2.4-K). The Partnership contributed funds to the Delta RMP in the amount of $70,000.

MP.2 Urban Runoff (Discharge) Monitoring No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year, traded for task MP.1.3

MP.3 Water Column Toxicity No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.4 Sediment Monitoring No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year

MP.5 Bioassessment Monitoring No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.6 Water Quality-Based Programs

MP.6. 1 Additional pesticides monitoring to be determined after TMDL adoption

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP.G.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No new pesticide monitoring was required in the 2014/2015 Work Plan.

MP.7 Additional Mercury and Methylmercury Analyses No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.8 Special Studies: Wet Detention Basin Monitoring No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.9 Special Studies: Pilot Watershed-New Development BMP Evaluation No tasks required for the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Study completed in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

MP.10 Special Studies: Proprietary Treatment BMP Evaluation

MP.10.1 Evaluate data submitted from manufacturers

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP III.D. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership evaluated data submitted by one manufacturer in February 2015, the Filterra High Flow unit. The submittal was not approved because it did not meet the requirements of the Partnership’s evaluation protocol. The evaluation protocol is included in Appendix 2.4-C.



MP.11 Dry Weather Monitoring Analysis

MP.11.1 Examine dry weather monitoring results to identify water quality problems. Perform follow-up investigations if the examination indicates a need to investigate

PERMIT REFERENCE

B.5. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership evaluates dry weather receiving water data as part of the event-based Notice of Water Quality Exceedance (NWQE) (Task MP.15.6) in the year-end Report of Water Quality Exceedance (RWQE) (Task MP.15.7). The 2014/2015 fiscal year dry weather monitoring event data for the urban tributaries and rivers did not identify any out-of-range results that led to new water quality objective exceedances and, as a result, follow-up activities were not necessary.

MP.12 Annual Work Plan

MP.12.1 Submit Annual Work Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.3.a. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The 2015/2016 monitoring work plan was completed and submitted to the Regional Water Board on May 1st, 2015. The submitted work plan included an alternative monitoring approach that consists of participating in the Delta RMP and conducting monitoring at select urban tributary and urban discharge sites using continuous sensors. The Regional Board notified the Partnership on August 3, 2015 that the work plan was approved1.

MP.13 Annual Report

MP.13.1 Submit Annual Report

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.3.b. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The 2013/2014 Annual Report was completed and submitted to the Regional Board on October 1, 2014.

1 August 3, 2015 4:21 PM Email communication from Liz Lee, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to Sherill Huun, City of Sacramento. Sacramento MS4 Permit: 2015-2016 Delta RMP and Monitoring Work Plan approval



MP.14 Standard Monitoring Provision Compliance

MP.14.1 Comply with Standard Monitoring Provisions

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I. B. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership is committed to maintaining a Monitoring Program that provides reliable, accurate data that can be used as a measure of the current condition of the water resources in the Sacramento area and to determine the effectiveness of pollution control efforts. Standard Monitoring Program procedures ensure that data obtained are widely accepted as conforming to the best available methods: sample collection, sample transfer to laboratories for testing, laboratory testing, and review of the results including quality control. Quality control, in addition to quality assurance practices, has been incorporated to test the methodologies, laboratories, and quality assurance plans. This provides internal confidence of the results and a data set that is acceptable for use by outside parties. The Partnership generally prepares data to conform to the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPrP) standards through the historically used Data Quality Evaluation Plan (DQEP).

Sample Collection

All monitoring activities conform to sampling and analysis standards and protocols that are described in annually updated Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs). Sampling for the 2014/2015 Monitoring Program was conducted as prescribed in the sampling plans for each of the activities and are included in appendices to this report:

• Coordinated Event Sampling Plan: 2014/2015 Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership Monitoring Program (see Appendix 2.4-D)

• 2014/2015 Sacramento Stormwater NPDES Monitoring Urban Tributary Sampling and Analysis Plan, October 2012 (see Appendix 2.4-E)

The SAPs are updated prior to each monitoring year. Crews are annually trained and required to attend refresher training on sample collection and handling protocols. The protocols are consistent with other regional monitoring programs and conform to state and national recommendations and requirements.

Sample Transfer

The SAPs outline chain of custody methods and requirements. In addition, transfer requirements for different samples are predetermined to ensure that the monitoring event is designed to allow adequate time for transportation and receipt of the samples at the laboratories.

Laboratory Testing

The Partnership annually reviews laboratories to create a list of those certified for the various analysis methods and their respective ranking based on technical qualification and past experience. The Partnership uses the list developed to create the basis for laboratory selection and a list of substitute laboratories if needed. A summary of the laboratory evaluation process completed for the upcoming 2014/2015 monitoring year is included as Appendix 2.4-F. It is recommended to continue the rigorous review of analysis and reporting for organic carbon, metals, mercury, pyrethroid pesticides, orthophosphate (OP) pesticides, and low level polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

Quality Control

To ensure that the data obtained are valid and defensible, the Partnership has committed to a comprehensive quality control program. Each SAP describes specific quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures. The Partnership records the results from its quality control activities along with the environmental data. The



Partnership maintains a more detailed list of qualifier data than included by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance, yet is consistent with USEPA methods. The quality control procedures are detailed in a data quality evaluation plan (DQEP, see Appendix 2.4-G) and updated annually.

Permit Specified Requirements

The Monitoring Program activities comply with Standard Monitoring Provisions in Section IV of the Stormwater Permit’s MRP and are summarized below:

IV.A Samples and Measurements to be Representative

The Partnership collects samples in the following representative manner:

• Flow-weighted composite samples are collected when feasible and appropriate with automatic sampling equipment (USEPA protocols require the use of grab samples for certain constituents).

• Grab samples are taken at the rising limb of the hydrograph.

• Continuous monitoring with field parameter probes and telemetrically connected data loggers is performed at two of the urban tributary sites to characterize trends over time and better time grab sample collection.

• During river monitoring, a depth-integrated cross sectional composite is collected when feasible, except at American River at Nimbus where boat access is limited. Mid-stream depth integrated composites are collected sometimes given time constraints.

• Event data such as flow rate are recorded and linked to environmental data.

• The Partnership DQEP includes procedures to assess data accuracy, precision and overall representativeness.

IV.B Monitoring Records

The Partnership keeps records such as hard copy or electronically signed laboratory reports for the required retention period. The Partnership maintains a database of all laboratory analytical data, event data, and quality control results, including historical results, for internal and external use.

IV.C Monitoring Records Requirements

The Partnership keeps records of the following:

• Date, location, and time of sample • Individual(s) collecting sample • Date of analysis • Laboratory or analyst • Method of analysis • Results of analysis • Quality control records

IV.D Sampling Meets 40 CFR Part 136

The Partnership designs all sampling standard operating procedures to meet the 40 CFR 136 requirements. Additional analytical methods are used by the Partnership to meet the requirements of the MRP Table B for reporting limitation and method detection level.

IV.E False Results

The Partnership uses quality control methods and assessments to ensure conformance to data quality protocols and objectives and exclude false results, to the extent practicable.

IV.F Laboratory Certification

The Partnership reviewed laboratories to confirm their certification and previous reliability. The review concluded that laboratories used by the Partnership are reliable and state and/or USEPA certified.

IV.G ML and MDL analysis



The Partnership bases laboratory selection on ability to provide results consistent with necessary minimum levels (MLs) and method detection limits (MDLs) when feasible.

IV.H.1 Reporting of Concentrations above ML

The Partnership reports and maintains all sample results along with data qualifiers.

IV.H.2 Reporting of Concentrations at or Below ML and MDL

The Partnership reports laboratory analytical results in the following manner:

• The Partnership reports analytical results between the MDL and ML as “detected but not quantified” (DNQ).

• The Partnership reports analytical results less than the MDL as “not detected” at the MDL. • Regardless of concentration all results are recorded and maintained. • The Partnership employs statistical techniques that estimate the concentration at or below MDL for

use in statistical analysis. • The Partnership reviews laboratories to determine attainable ML values. • The Partnership conducts a thorough review of laboratories each year to locate a lab that can meet

the low reporting limits required. For some sample matrices, some pesticide and organic constituents cannot be reported at the Permit MLs.

IV.I Reporting Non-Permit Required Samples

The Partnership includes all data collected, enabling selection and design of effective measures that improve the water quality of the region. The Program maintains this data to help with future studies.

IV.J Arithmetic Mean unless otherwise noted

Partnership standard operating procedures report the statistical method used for analyzing sample result data. The Partnership uses arithmetic means where appropriate and possible, taking into account the occurrence of non-detect and unquantified values.

IV.L Changes to Monitoring Program

The Partnership works toward adapting the Monitoring Program to better reflect local conditions with the input of the Regional Board.

MP.15 Effectiveness Evaluation

MP.15.1 Annually conduct analysis for evaluation of Water Quality Based Programs

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I. B. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership completed effectiveness evaluations for all elements based on the November 2009 SQIP as reported in the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge. As indicated in the SQIP, the Partnership assesses the Target Pollutant Program (Water Quality Based Programs) through an evaluation of monitoring data.

In addition to the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge Water Quality Assessment, the Partnership completed additional analyses to consider data collected in the 2014/2015 fiscal year. These updates include graphs, charts, statistics, and other analysis excerpts that are discussed within this section (Monitoring Program) of this annual report and at the end of this section. In addition, the Partnership reports these evaluations within this annual report appendices for the various monitoring activity reports.

The Partnership performs these analyses for the purposes of overall Program effectiveness and as input to the Target Pollutant Program. The data and analysis results can be used to draw effectiveness conclusions, to guide future data collection and as part of individual Target Pollutant strategies. The March 2013 Report



of Waste Discharge recommends several changes to the water quality based programs to encourage water quality improvement projects and provide more useful and purposeful data collection and monitoring. These recommendations will be considered in light of the forthcoming Regionwide permit requirements and data collected since 2013.

MP.15.2 Estimate total discharged volume

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I.B.9 PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership’s annual estimate of total discharged volume for the 2014/2015 fiscal year is 5.29 billion cubic feet, based on rainfall-runoff volume empirical relationships and previously reported estimates of dry weather runoff for the 2012 Sacramento County urban area, which was obtained from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Table 2.4-4 summarizes the observed rainfall events and estimated discharge volumes based on the California State University Sacramento (CSUS) rainfall gage. The Partnership most recently updated the empirical models for estimating wet weather runoff volume discharge as part of the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge. Dry weather discharge is based on per acre daily rates developed as part of the 1996 Discharge Characterization Report. Dry weather runoff in the wet season (October-April) is approximately 1.47 billion cubic feet and dry season runoff is 0.92 billion cubic feet.

Table 2.4-4. 2014/2015 Discharge Volume of Wet Weather Events as Determined by Rainfall Record (CSUS) and Estimated Discharge Volume for the Sacramento County Urban Area.

Event No. Event Start Time Event End Time

Rainfall Event Duration (hr.)

Rainfall Amount (in.)

Estimated Discharge Volume (Million Cubic Feet MCF)

1 9/25/2014 7:00 9/25/2014 11:00 4 0.37 65.15 2 9/27/2014 1:00 9/27/2014 3:00 2 0.17 24.92 3 11/1/2014 1:00 11/1/2014 3:00 2 0.15 21.34 4 11/13/2014 3:00 11/13/2014 8:00 5 0.19 28.59 5 11/20/2014 14:00 11/20/2014 16:00 2 0.21 32.35 6 11/22/2014 7:00 11/22/2014 9:00 2 0.11 14.55 7 11/28/2014 21:00 11/29/2014 1:00 4 0.23 36.20 8 11/29/2014 9:00 11/29/2014 13:00 4 0.13 17.88 9 12/2/2014 6:00 12/2/2014 17:00 11 0.53 101.59

10 12/3/2014 2:00 12/3/2014 19:00 17 1.84 473.10 11 12/5/2014 20:00 12/5/2014 22:00 2 0.12 16.20 12 12/11/2014 5:00 12/12/2014 9:00 28 2.67 749.56 13 12/15/2014 3:00 12/15/2014 13:00 10 0.44 80.71 14 12/16/2014 19:00 12/17/2014 0:00 5 0.7 143.28 15 12/19/2014 10:00 12/19/2014 20:00 10 0.85 182.14 16 2/6/2015 10:00 2/7/2015 1:00 15 1.07 242.08 17 2/8/2015 9:00 2/8/2015 18:00 9 1.07 242.08 18 3/11/2015 6:00 3/11/2015 10:00 4 0.13 17.88 19 4/5/2015 13:00 4/5/2015 16:00 3 0.11 14.55



Event No. Event Start Time Event End Time

Rainfall Event Duration (hr.)

Rainfall Amount (in.)

Estimated Discharge Volume (Million Cubic Feet MCF)

20 4/7/2015 4:00 4/7/2015 17:00 13 0.75 156.03 21 4/24/2015 20:00 4/25/2015 7:00 11 0.95 208.98 22 5/7/2015 7:00 5/7/2015 10:00 3 0.19 28.59

Total 166 12.98 2,898

MP.15.3 Estimate total pollutant loads for target pollutants

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I.B.10.a. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Maintain level of target pollutant load discharged KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

No activities are planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Assessment submitted in March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge.

MP.15.4 Prepare receiving water concentration data trend summaries and comparisons of urban runoff concentrations

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I.B.10.b. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Decreasing concentration trends KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership annually utilizes receiving water data in comparisons of urban tributary and river concentrations during the preparation of NWQEs and RWQEs. The Partnership updated the historical time series plots for target pollutants in receiving waters with the 2012/2013 fiscal year data. The Partnership completed an analysis of the receiving water concentration trends and submitted the results as part of the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge. No activities are planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.15.5 Compare older land use urban runoff quality to newer development

PERMIT REFERENCE


Demonstrate lower concentrations in newer development urban runoff discharges

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Assessment submitted in the March 2013 Report of Water Discharge. No activities planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.



MP.15.6 Evaluate significant correlations of target pollutants with other constituents

PERMIT REFERENCE

MRP I.B.10.c. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Demonstrate lower concentrations in newer development urban runoff discharges

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Assessment submitted in the March 2013 Report of Water Discharge. No activities planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.15.7 Notice of Water Quality Exceedance - Submit event-based notice of water quality exceedance

PERMIT REFERENCE

C.3.a. & MRP I.C. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


NWQEs were prepared and submitted to the Regional Board following each event when comparisons to water quality objectives (WQOs) identified constituents that exceed WQOs as required by Section I.C. of the MRP section of the Permit. All NWQE reports for the 2014/2015 fiscal year are included as Appendix 2.4-H. Beginning in January 2003, water quality data from each monitoring event for receiving waters was compared with WQOs from the following sources as specified in the Permit:

• California Toxics Rule (CTR)

• Permit-specified WQOs (based on since-modified Department of Fish and Game objectives that were incorporated in Finding 65 of the Permit)

• Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River Watershed, and

• Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for chemical constituents (incorporated into the Basin Plan by reference for those waters that are used for drinking water supply)

Results for creek monitoring were compared against WQOs and considered in NWQEs. The Basin Plan does not specifically list beneficial uses for the tributaries; however, to be consistent with the Sacramento creek pesticide total maximum daily load (TMDL)3 and “tributary rule” policies, the downstream beneficial uses in the American and Sacramento Rivers are applied. The appropriateness of this policy for certain constituents and reaches should be carefully examined to determine if the beneficial use exists. Application of the “tributary rule” should also consider hydraulic dilution and in-stream water chemistry changes between the water body of interest and the downstream beneficial use. Downstream river receiving waters, where these beneficial uses are established, include vast volumes of watershed drainage that tend to “buffer” the relatively short duration and comparatively small (volumetrically) urban runoff event.

Exceedances reported in the original event-based NWQE were reviewed and updated where necessary, as noted in the tables listed below, results that were not reported correctly in the electronic submittals, and interpretations of Basin Plan objectives that are based on average or percentile values. Table 2.4-5 through Table 2.4-7 summarize water quality objective exceedances in the urban tributaries. Table 2.4-8 through Table 2.4-9 summarize water quality objective exceedances in the rivers.

3 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Total Maximum Daily Load Report for the Pesticides Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos in: Arcade Creek, Elder Creek, Elk Grove Creek, Morrison Creek, Chicken Ranch Slough, and Strong Ranch Slough. July 2004.



Table 2.4-5. 2014/2015 Arcade Creek at Watt Avenue Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives

Event Constituent Result Units Qualifier [1] WQO WQO Source Included in

NWQE

Arcade Creek at Watt Avenue

WWCRK35 11/01/2014

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.008 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org NO[2]

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0146 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org NO[2]

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0045 µg/L DNQ 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org NO[2]

Chrysene 0.0215 µg/L IL 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org NO[2]

Copper - Dissolved 8.89 µg/L 5.03 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss YES

Copper - Dissolved 8.89 µg/L 7.11 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES

Escherichia coli 54000 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES

Fecal Coliform 92000 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES

WWCRK36 12/11/2014

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.028 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0476 µg/L IL 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0354 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Chrysene 0.0668 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Chrysene 0.0668 µg/L 0.049 CTR-HH org only YES Copper - Dissolved 5.71 µg/L 2.71 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss YES Copper - Dissolved 5.71 µg/L 3.6 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.0099 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Escherichia coli 28000 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES Fecal Coliform 92000 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES

WWCRK37 02/06/2015

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0415 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0565 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0565 µg/L 0.049 CTR-HH org only YES

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0368 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES

Chrysene 0.0875 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES

Chrysene 0.0875 µg/L 0.049 CTR-HH org only YES


Copper - Dissolved 8.71 µg/L 6.71 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES


Fecal Coliform 35000 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES Notes: WQO – water quality objective as specified in the NPDES permit NWQE – notice of water quality exceedance BP – Basin Plan REC – recreational use based objective CTR – California Toxics Rule FW AQ – freshwater aquatic life HH water + org only – human health based on consumption of water and organisms [1] Data qualifiers as reported by lab or data evaluation process: J = estimated value, not quantifiable. [2] Not included in the original NWQE due to reporting error DNQ = Detected but not quantified IL = Laboratory replicate RPD exceeds control limit



Table 2.4-6. 2014/2015 Laguna Creek at Stockton Blvd Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives

Event Constituent Result Units Qualifier [1] WQO WQO Source Included

in NWQE

Laguna Creek at Stockton Blvd

WWCRK35 11/01/2014

Chrysene 0.0089 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES




WWCRK36 12/11/2014

Chrysene 0.0104 µg/L GN 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Copper - Dissolved 3.93 µg/L 2.75 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss YES Copper - Dissolved 3.93 µg/L 3.66 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES Escherichia coli 7900 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES Fecal Coliform 13000 MPN/100mL FDP 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES

WWCRK37 02/06/2015

Chrysene 0.0164 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org YES Copper - Dissolved 8.4 µg/L 3.12 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss YES

Copper - Dissolved 8.4 µg/L 4.2 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES Escherichia coli 70000 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES Fecal Coliform 70000 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES

Zinc - Dissolved 43.7 µg/L GB 41.17 CTR-FW AQ Acute-Diss YES Zinc - Dissolved 43.7 µg/L GB 41.51 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss YES

DWCRK13 05/12/2015


Fecal Coliform 3300 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES Notes: WQO – water quality objective as specified in the NPDES permit NWQE – notice of water quality exceedance BP – Basin Plan REC – recreational use based objective CTR – California Toxics Rule FW AQ – freshwater aquatic life HH water + org only – human health based on consumption of water and organisms [1] Data qualifiers as reported by lab or data evaluation process: J = estimated value, not quantifiable. FDP = Field duplicate RPD not within control limits GB = Matrix spike recovery not within control limits GN = Surrogate recovery is outside of control limits



Table 2.4-7. 2014/2015 Willow Creek at Blue Ravine Road Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives

Event Constituent Result Units Qualifier [1] WQO WQO Source Included

in NWQE

Willow Creek at Blue Ravine Road

WWCRK35 11/01/2014



Solids, Total Dissolved 140 mg/L 125 BP Table III-3 YES

WWCRK36 12/11/2014

Escherichia coli 7900 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES Fecal Coliform 7900 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. YES

WWCRK37 02/06/2015

Escherichia coli 400 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan YES Mercury - Total 0.0701 µg/L D 0.05 CTR-HH water + org YES

Mercury - Total 0.0701 µg/L D 0.051 CTR-HH org only YES Solids, Total Dissolved 150 mg/L 125 BP Table III-3 YES

DWCRK13 05/12/2015

Solids, Total Dissolved 150 mg/L 125 BP Table III-3 YES

Notes: WQO – water quality objective as specified in the NPDES permit NWQE – notice of water quality exceedance BP – Basin Plan REC – recreational use based objective CTR – California Toxics Rule FW AQ – freshwater aquatic life HH water + org only – human health based on consumption of water and organisms [1] Data qualifiers as reported by lab or data evaluation process: J = estimated value, not quantifiable. D = Analytes analyzed at a secondary dilution



Table 2.4-8. 2014/2015 American River Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives

Event Constituent Result Units Qualifier WQO WQO Source Included in

NWQE American River at Discovery Park CMP 214 12/12/2014

Escherichia Coli 22000 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan Yes Fecal Coliform 22000 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. Yes Chrysene 0.005 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org Yes Copper, Dissolved 3.1 µg/L 2.45 CTR-FW AQ Chronic-Diss Yes

CMP 215 2/7/2015

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.006 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org Yes Chrysene 0.006 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org Yes Escherichia Coli 3500 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan Yes Fecal Coliform 3500 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. Yes

American River at Nimbus CMP 214 12/12/2014

Escherichia Coli 1100 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan Yes Fecal Coliform 1100 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. Yes

Notes: WQO – water quality objective as specified in the NPDES permit NWQE – notice of water quality exceedance BP – Basin Plan REC – recreational use based objective CTR – California Toxics Rule FW AQ – freshwater aquatic life HH water + org only – human health based on consumption of water and organisms

Table 2.4-9. 2014/2015 Sacramento River Exceedances of Water Quality Objectives4

Event Constituent Result Units Qualifier WQO WQO Source Included in

NWQE Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge CMP 214 12/12/2014

Escherichia Coli 3500 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan Yes

Fecal Coliform 3500 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. Yes

Specific Conductance 242 µg/L 240 Basin Plan Yes

Sacramento River at Freeport Marina CMP 213 11/1/2014

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.005 µg/L 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org Yes

Chrysene 0.0048 µg/L DNQ IP 0.0044 CTR-HH water + org Yes

CMP 214 12/12/2014

Escherichia Coli 1400 MPN/100mL 235 Basin Plan Yes

Fecal Coliform 1400 MPN/100mL 400 BP REC-1 Desig. Yes

Notes: WQO – water quality objective as specified in the NPDES permit NWQE – notice of water quality exceedance BP – Basin Plan REC – recreational use based objective CTR – California Toxics Rule FW AQ – freshwater aquatic life HH water + org only – human health based on consumption of water and organisms IP = Analyte detected in the method or field blank



MP.15.8 Report of Water Quality Exceedances – Submit report of water quality exceedance as part of the Annual Report

PERMIT REFERENCE

C.3.b. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Reduction in observed exceedances for RWQE constituents KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership submits an annual RWQE that identifies constituents that exceed WQOs for receiving water where urban runoff may cause or contribute to the exceedance. The MRP does not require the Partnership to repeat the RWQE process for recurring constituents unless directed to do so by the Regional Water Board.

The year-end RWQE considers the extent that urban runoff causes or contributes to the exceedances. The Partnership developed an assessment process as the Permit does not specify a method for this assessment. The Partnership updates and reports the process flow chart in this report as Appendix 2.4-I. Constituents that are addressed by a RWQE are included in the Target Pollutant analysis and prioritized accordingly as described in the November 2009 SQIP. Historical RWQE constituents are provided in Table 2.4-10.



Table 2.4-10. Historical Report of Water Quality Exceedance Constituents

Reporting Year RWQE Constituent Control Program

2002/2003 Bacteriological indicators (Fecal Coliform and E. coli.)

Fecal Waste Reduction Strategy1

Sediment Strategy6 Total Dissolved Solids and Specific Conductance (electrical conductivity/EC)

General BMPs2

Diazinon General BMPs2 Pesticide Plan3

Copper

General BMPs2 Copper/Lead Control Activities4 Sediment Strategy6

Turbidity General BMPs2 Sediment Strategy6

2003/2004 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons General BMPs2

Sediment Strategy6 Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) General BMPs2

Sediment Strategy6 2004/2005 Mercury Mercury Plan5

Pentachlorophenol General BMPs2 Sediment Strategy6

Chlorpyrifos General BMPs2 Pesticide Plan3

2005/2006 Gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-BHC or Lindane) and Degradation By-Products

Sediment Strategy6

2006/2007 Lead General BMPs2 Copper/Lead Control Activities4

Sediment Strategy6 Zinc General BMPs2

Sediment Strategy6 2007/2008 No new constituents added 2008/2009 No new constituents added 2009/2010 No new constituents added 2010/2011 No new constituents added 2011/2012 No new constituents added 2012/2013 No new constituents added 2013/2014 No new constituents added 2014/2015 No new constituents added

*The proposed load reduction strategy is described in Section 2.9.7.1 of the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) submitted as part of the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). [1] Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. Fecal Waste Reduction Strategy, Archibald and Walberg Consultants. June 2004. Internal updates reported through Target Pollutant Program. [2] General BMPs include: public and industrial outreach, erosion and sediment control, household hazardous waste programs, and new development BMPs [3] Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. Pesticides Plan. October 2005 [4] Sacramento Stormwater Management Program. Identification of the Sources of Copper in Sacramento Urban Runoff. Larry Walker Associates. December 1998. Internal updates reported through Target Pollutant Program [5] Sacramento Stormwater Management Program. Mercury Plan. Archibald and Wallberg Consultants. April 2004 [6] Sacramento Stormwater Management Program. Sediment Strategy. September 2012

2014/2015 RWQE Constituents

Partnership monitoring in 2014/2015 resulted in the addition of no new constituents to the RWQE. Any constituents found at concentrations above relevant WQOs are already included in previous RWQEs or it cannot be demonstrated that urban runoff causes or contributes to the receiving water WQO exceedance.



Appendix 2.4-I contains a flow chart of the RWQE identification process and Appendix 2.4-J includes a listing of the water quality objectives used for receiving water comparisons.

The Partnership annually reviews indicators of the frequency of exceedances to determine if there are noticeable changes. In the 2014/2015 fiscal year there was no significant change in trends for RWQE constituents.

A summary of constituents that exceeded WQOs in the 2014/2015 fiscal year and the rationale for not including the constituents in the 2014/2015 RWQE is presented in Table 2.4-11.

Table 2.4-11. Constituents Reported with Receiving Water Exceedances in 2014/2015 Fiscal Year and RWQE Listing Status

Constituents Above WQO in FY14/15

Creek Exceedance

River Exceedance

Previous RWQE Reason for Not Listing

Benzo(a)pyrene Yes No 2003/04 Previous RWQE Benzo(b)fluoranthene Yes Yes 2003/04 Previous RWQE Benco(k)fluoranthene Yes Yes 2003/04 Previous RWQE Chrysene Yes Yes 2003/04 Previous RWQE Copper, dissolved Yes Yes 2002/03 Previous RWQE Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Yes No 2003/04 Previous RWQE E.coli Yes Yes 2002/03 Previous RWQE Fecal coliform Yes Yes 2002/03 Previous RWQE Mercury, total Yes No 2004/05 Previous RWQE TDS/specific conductance Yes Yes 2002/03 Previous RWQE Zinc, dissolved Yes No 2006/07 Previous RWQE

MP.15.9 Prepare upstream-downstream water quality comparisons

PERMIT REFERENCE

N/A PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Decreasing differences in water quality over time KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Assessment submitted in the March 2013 Report of Waste Discharge. No activities planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

MP.15.10 Delta Methylmercury TMDL Control Measure Study


The 2014-2015 Monitoring Work Plan does not specify a methylmercury assessment task. However, as part of the Delta Methylmercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Phase 1 assessment, the Regional Water Board required the Partnership to develop a control study work plan to evaluate potential methylmercury control measures and feasibility of compliance with the TMDL wasteload allocation. The Partnership submitted the final work plan in April 2013 to satisfy this requirement and began sample collection in the

PERMIT REFERENCE


Decreased loading between pre- and post-project conditions with consideration to site land use changes

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL



2014/2015 fiscal year under a Proposition 84 grant at the Citrus Heights Police Station green parking lot and the Sylvan Community Center. The study has sampled nine stormwater events across both pre-project and post low impact development (LID) locations. The final project report for the Proposition 84 grant will be completed by December 2015 to evaluate the net export of methylmercury from LID locations compared to net export from pre-project and typical urban runoff conditions. This final project report will be used as the basis for the TMDL final report due by October 20, 2018.

Element Effectiveness Assessment On April 17, 2015, the Regional Water Board renewed the Partnership’s 2008 Permit for a limited term (Limited Term Permit) to allow the option to participate in a Regional Monitoring Program (e.g., the Delta RMP). Under the Limited Term Permit, only Outcome Level 1 effectiveness assessment is required. The overall effectiveness of the SQIP and the individual Elements in reducing stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable, achieving compliance with water quality standards in receiving waters, and meeting performance standards was provided in the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013.

In general, effectiveness assessments using monitoring data to evaluate management actions requires longer periods of data (i.e., greater than five years), and complete updates to the assessments is not necessary annually. The Partnership updates data sets and evaluates the collected data for quality, exceedances of water quality objectives, and significant changes or out-of-range results.


Work Plan Task Completion Summary All tasks in the Monitoring Program were completed per the 2014/2015 Annual Work Plan.

Work Plan and/or SQIP Revisions and Changes The 2015/2016 Work Plan includes an alternative monitoring plan proposal to perform a pilot monitoring evaluation using higher resolution sensors that would provide more data capable of detecting changes in urban runoff and urban tributary quality. The NPDES permit does not include a schedule of monitoring requirements for 2015/2016 and the Partnership planned to evaluate this monitoring approach prior to adoption of a new Stormwater Permit. The Regional Water Board approved the Monitoring Work Plan on August 3, 2015.



Supplemental Data Analysis The following table and plots summarize historical concentrations of “indicator” (i.e., target pollutant constituents of higher priority) constituents in and in the urban tributary and river receiving waters. Summary statistics for the indicator constituents are provided in Table 2.4-12 and Table 2.4-13. The time series plots (Figure 2.4-2 through Figure 2.4-99) are reprinted from the monitoring data reports included in Appendix 2.4- B (urban tributary). Time series plots are the first step in trend analysis and can be useful in identifying obvious data trends, variability, gaps and comparisons between sites.

Table 2.4-12. Summary Statistics for Key Indicator Constituents at Monitoring Locations (Part 1)

Copper (filtered) Mercury (unfiltered)

Total Suspended Solids Escherichia coli

Monitoring Locations n median (µg/L) n median (ng/L) n median

(mg/L) n median (MPN/100 mL)

Arcade Creek at Watt Ave. 52 5.26 31 22.50 47 120 46 10,000

Laguna Creek at E. Stockton Blvd. 27 3.98 26 5.21 27 29 27 3,000

Willow Creek at Blue Ravine Road 48 1.88 33 19.50 49 36 49 800

Sacramento R. at Veterans Bridge 201 1.42 206 5.13 236 28 107 14

Sacramento R. at Freeport 193 1.33 217 4.20 227 22 107 23

American R. at Nimbus 193 0.54 201 1.22 220 2 104 30

American R. at Discovery Park 196 0.60 204 1.74 230 3 107 30

Notes: [1] Urban runoff discharge monitoring was not required in 2014/2015 Data ranges consistent with time series plots below and are generally 2003-2015 for urban tributaries and 1992-2015 for rivers

Table 2.4-13. Summary Statistics for Key Indicator Constituents at Monitoring Locations (Part 2)

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Chrysene Bifenthrin Permethrin

Monitoring Locations n median (ng/L) n median

(ng/L) n median (ng/L) n median

(ng/L) n median (ng/L)

Arcade Creek at Watt Ave. 56 <1 56 <2 31 19.3 22 16.5 22 1.5

Laguna Creek at E. Stockton Blvd. 27 <0.5 27 <0.1 27 1.8 23 5.7 23 <2

Willow Creek at Blue Ravine Road 57 <1 57 <1 33 <1 24 0.75 24 <2

Sacramento R. at Veterans Bridge 132 <10 159 <10 79 <3.50 25 <0.1 25 <2

Sacramento R. at Freeport 144 <10 170 <20 93 <3.50 37 <0.1 37 <2

American R. at Nimbus 127 <10 154 <10 78 <3.50 25 <0.1 25 <2

American R. at Discovery Park 128 <10 154 <10 78 <1.50 25 0.1 25 <2

Notes: [1] Urban runoff discharge monitoring was not required in 2014/2015 Data ranges consistent with time series plots below and are generally, 2003-2015 for urban tributaries and 1992-2015 for rivers.


Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2014/2015 Annual Report 2.4-

Figure 2.4-2 Dissolved Copper at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-3 Dissolved Copper at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-4 Dissolved Copper at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-8 Dissolved Copper at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-9 Dissolved Copper at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-10 Dissolved Copper at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-11 Dissolved Copper at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-12 Dissolved Copper at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-16 Total Mercury at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-17 Total Mercury at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-18 Total Mercury at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-19 Total Mercury at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-20 Total Mercury at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-21 Total Mercury at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-22 Total Mercury at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-23 Total Mercury at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-27 Total Suspended Solids at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-28 Total Suspended Solids at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-29 Total Suspended Solids at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-30 Total Suspended Solids at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-31 Total Suspended Solids at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-32 Total Suspended Solids at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-33 Total Suspended Solids at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-34 Total Suspended Solids at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-38 Escherichia coli at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-39 Escherichia coli at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-40 Escherichia coli at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-41 Escherichia coli at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-42 Escherichia coli at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-43 Escherichia coli at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-44 Escherichia coli at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-45 Escherichia coli at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-49 Chlorpyrifos at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-50 Chlorpyrifos at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-51 Chlorpyrifos at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-52 Chlorpyrifos at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-53 Chlorpyrifos at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-54 Chlorpyrifos at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-55 Chlorpyrifos at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-56 Chlorpyrifos at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-60 Diazinon at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-61 Diazinon at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-62 Diazinon at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-63 Diazinon at Laguna Creek (LC03)



Figure 2.4-64 Diazinon at American River at Nimbus

Figure 2.4-65 Diazinon at American River at Discovery Park



Figure 2.4-66 Diazinon at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge

Figure 2.4-67 Diazinon at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina



Figure 2.4-71 Chrysene at Arcade Creek (AC03)

Figure 2.4-72 Chrysene at Laguna Creek (LC02)



Figure 2.4-73 Chrysene at Willow Creek (WC01)

Figure 2.4-74 Chrysene at American River at Nimbus



Figure 2.4-75 Chrysene at American River at Discovery Park

Figure 2.4-76 Chrysene at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge



Figure 2.4-77 Chrysene at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina

Figure 2.4-81 Bifenthrin at Arcade Creek (AC03)



Figure 2.4-82 Bifenthrin at Laguna Creek (LC02)

Figure 2.4-83 Bifenthrin at Willow Creek (WC01)



Figure 2.4-84 Bifenthrin at Laguna Creek (LC03)

Figure 2.4-85 Bifenthrin at American River at Nimbus



Figure 2.4-86 Bifenthrin at American River at Discovery Park

Figure 2.4-87 Bifenthrin at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge



Figure 2.4-88 Bifenthrin at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina

Figure 2.4-92 Permethrin at Arcade Creek (AC03)



Figure 2.4-93 Permethrin at Laguna Creek (LC02)

Figure 2.4-94 Permethrin at Willow Creek (WC01)



Figure 2.4-95 Permethrin at Laguna Creek (LC03)

Figure 2.4-96 Permethrin at American River at Nimbus



Figure 2.4-97 Permethrin at American River at Discovery Park

Figure 2.4-98 Permethrin at Sacramento River at Veterans Bridge



Figure 2.4-99 Permethrin at Sacramento River at Freeport Marina

Partnership Activities Target Pollutants


2.5 Target Pollutants

Program Introduction The Target Pollutant Program identifies the highest priority pollutants for the Partnership and focuses resources on the reduction of these pollutants. The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) uses an established process for prioritizing pollutants based on a review of discharge and receiving water data and an evaluation of water quality impacts and regulatory concerns. The Partnership develops reduction strategies for each target pollutant and then implements the associated control strategies and activities.

This chapter describes the Target Pollutant Program activities conducted in compliance with Provision D. 27 of the 2008 Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Stormwater Permit) and the 2015 Limited Term Stormwater Permit during the 2014/2015 fiscal year related to the following target pollutants: sediment and erosion surrogates, pesticides, mercury, metals and pathogen indicators. The Partnership generally implemented this work as a joint effort, although some tasks (e.g., related to integrated pest management implementation, infrastructure cleaning operations, erosion control efforts, etc.) were conducted by individual Permittees under other program elements. See the individual Permittee discussions in each agency’s 2014/2015 Annual Report (Chapters 3 through 9) for discussions of agency-specific work performed.


TP.1 Overall Target Pollutant Strategy

TP.1.1 Provide target pollutant strategy updates at Permittee Steering Committee Meetings and support initiatives

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


City/County Stormwater Program staff continued to provide updates on progress in addressing target pollutants. Key items include the following:

• CASQA efforts to monitor and improve regulation of other key pesticides by DPR and EPA

• Citrus Heights City Hall Green Parking Lot Grant Project

• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) statewide trash policy

• SWRCB Storm Water Strategic Initiative

• SWRCB initiative to revise statewide bacteria objectives

• Continued leadership of CASQA participation in the development of regulations by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to implement Senate Bill 346 (copper brake pad legislation).

Target Pollutants Partnership Activities


TP.2 Sediment Erosion Control Strategies

TP.2.1 Implement Sediment Control Work Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership continued to conduct the following activities to control sediment and erosion during the 2014/2015 fiscal year, as identified in the Sediment Strategy completed in September 2012:

• Implementation of stormwater quality development standards for new and redevelopment projects to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants discharged to receiving waters under the New Development Element.

• Enforcement of ordinances and standards to reduce erosion at construction sites implemented under the Construction Element.

• Implementation of operational BMPs implemented under the Municipal Operations Element which remove sediment, such as street sweeping and maintenance of detention basins, storm drains and inlets, sumps and channels.

• Operation and maintenance of stormwater quality treatment facilities required for new and redevelopment projects under the New Development Element and/or the Municipal Operations Element such as wet basins, dry basins, and underground vaults.

• Inspection, complaint response, and enforcement activities conducted under the Commercial/Industrial and Illicit Discharge elements to identify and eliminate sources of sediments and associated pollutants from industrial, commercial, and residential sources.

TP.3 Pesticide Control Strategies

TP.3.1 Continue to Implement Pesticide Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership continued activities to address pesticide use, consistent with the Pesticide Plan, during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

BMPs implemented by individual Permittees include the following:

• Documentation of municipal pesticide use • Certified Pesticide Applicator oversight of municipal pesticide applications • Training for public agency pesticide applicators • Permittee-specific Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policies • Coverage under Aquatic Pesticide Permit (requirement for this permit depends on the nature of

Permittee pesticide applications. • Coordination with Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District on structural BMP design

and maintenance • Support of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) programs • Enforcement of local prohibitions against illegal discharges



BMPs implemented jointly by the Partnership include the following:

• IPM outreach and education programs, such as the Water Wise Program and Our Water Our World • Development of IPM message for a stormwater media campaign • Encouragement of IPM in landscaping through support of the River Friendly Landscaping program • Promotion of IPM implementation by licensed structural pest control operators (PCO), through

Partnership staff participation in GreenPro Certified and California Structural Pest Control Board • Water quality monitoring • Tracking of relevant monitoring programs by other agencies, such as the SWRCB’s Surface Water

Ambient Monitoring Program, and DPR’s Environmental Monitoring Branch • Participation in the development of Central Valley pyrethroid TMDL. Work with SWRCB staff to

include urban pesticide reduction in SWRCB Storm Water Strategic Initiative. • Tracking and commenting on State and Federal regulatory activities that pertain to pesticides of

significance to urban stormwater discharges, primarily through CASQA • Input on pesticide product risk assessments for surface water quality, primarily through CASQA • Leading efforts to improve water quality protection through State and Federal pesticide regulations,

primarily through CASQA

Continued regulation of pesticide use throughout Permittee jurisdictions is conducted by the County Agricultural Commissioner.

TP.3.2 Identify and Promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership promotes IPM through implementation of in-house IPM policies (described in the Municipal Operations sections of the individual Permittee Annual Reports), public outreach efforts (described in section TP.3.4 below), and participation in IPM certification programs. Partnership staff continues to serve on the Advisory Committee and Audit Committee for the National Pest Management Association’s (NPMA) GreenPro IPM Certification program. Partnership staff, serving as president of the California Structural Pest Control Board, convened a committee of the Board which developed recommendations on how to utilize continuing education requirements and other Board mechanisms to support increased adoption of IPM among industry members. Partnership staff served on the US EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee’s IPM work group, which worked remotely through the 2014/2015 fiscal year and met in Arlington, Virginia, in May 2015. The current focus of the IPM work group is to increase EPA’s effectiveness in promoting IPM in schools.

TP.3.3 Implement "Permittee Pest Control" section of Pesticide Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.27.a.i. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The individual Permittees continued to implement and/or update existing in-house IPM policies and programs. The status of in-house IPM programs is reported in the Municipal Operations sections of the individual Permittee’s Annual Reports.



TP.3.4 Implement "Public Education and Outreach" section of Pesticide Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.27.a.ii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership continued to support the Our Water Our World (OWOW) Program in stores throughout Sacramento County, including provision of program materials and IPM and water quality protection training for retail staff. The Partnership continues to utilize University of California Statewide IPM Program (UCIPM) Water Wise materials through web links and distribution of brochures at public events and retail outlets. Partnership staff participated in UCIPM’s Strategic Planning Committee, as well as the Selection Committee for UCIPM’s Executive Director, with a goal to ensure continued focus on urban pest management issues. Additional details of pesticide and IPM outreach programs are included in the Public Outreach section of this Annual Report. See PO.3.5, PO.5.3 and PO.5.4.

The Partnership continues to maintain, on its website (www.beriverfriendly.net), a set of River Friendly Pest Control web pages which provide links to key IPM resources, and provides information to residents about the impact of pesticides on water quality, as well as pest management tips for key pests of local concern.

TP.3.5 Continue to support/participate in efforts to influence pesticide regulation by state and federal agencies

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.27.a.v. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Decrease residential use of pesticides known to impact water quality

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership, primarily through active leadership and participation in the CASQA pesticide subcommittee, as well as providing staff to represent CASQA with various State and Federal agencies, continued to participate in the State and Federal regulatory processes that affect pesticide discharges including the following:

A Partnership staff member continued to serve as president and appointed member of the California Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB), which regulates the structural pest control industry. The SPCB continues to maintain IPM licensing and continuing education requirements, as well as funding IPM research for bed bugs and Argentine ants. The SPCB IPM Continuing Education Committee, convened by the Board president, developed recommendations to the Board to increase IPM continuing education requirements, to better promote and support adoption of IPM by the structural pest control industry.

Partnership staff serves by appointment on DPR’s Pest Management Advisory Committee (PMAC). Participation on the PMAC has promoted DPR’s recently increased focus on urban pest management and water quality issues. DPR’s priority areas in the solicitation for the 2014/2015 Pest Management Alliance Grant funding included improving surface water quality through urban IPM practices. Partnership staff participated in development of the Central Valley Pyrethroid TMDL. A key result is recognition in the draft TMDL of the importance of utilizing pesticide regulatory authority as the primary mechanism to mitigate urban water quality impacts of pesticides, as well as inclusion of BMPs appropriate for local agency implementation, such as public outreach and in-house IPM.

Partnership staff serves as co-chair of the CASQA Pesticides Subcommittee. This subcommittee includes stormwater program staff and consultants from throughout the state and facilitates proactive action by CASQA on pesticide issues, including communication with US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and DPR staff, and submittal of comment letters on relevant pesticide regulatory



actions. Activities and achievements of the subcommittee during the 2014/2015 fiscal year are described in detail in the CASQA Pesticides Subcommittee Annual Report 2014/2015 (included as Appendix 2.5.A).

A key activity of CASQA, led by Partnership staff, was the organization of a SWRCB Board Workshop

in November 2014, which was intended to inform the Board members of the successes resulting from collaboration between DPR, water board staff, CASQA, and stormwater agencies. The workshop included a focus on the importance of utilizing pesticide regulatory authority as the main instrument for mitigating urban water quality impacts of pesticides. (See workshop presentation in Appendix 2.5.B). An important result of this workshop, and continuing collaboration between CASQA and Water Board staff, was the inclusion of “Urban Pesticide Reduction” as a recommended top priority project in the SWRCB staff proposal for a statewide Storm Water Strategic Initiative (SWSI). As described in the Water Board staff report for the SWSI, the Urban Pesticide Reduction Project includes key elements from a set of recommendations (Appendix 2.5.C) that were provided by the County to a Water Board work group tasked with developing a statewide strategy for addressing pesticide impairments.

Through CASQA, the Partnership submitted comments listed below (copies included in Appendix

2.5.D-H) on EPA and DPR pesticide regulatory activities, as well as pesticide use by the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

• Registration Review Proposed Interim Decision – Metofluthrin • Triclopyr Registration Review

DPR

• Cyantraniliprole products proposed registration • Registration Applications for Storm Drain Products, including Smart Sponge Plus

California Department of Food and Agriculture

Statewide Pest Prevention and Management Program, Draft PEIR

Partnership staff, as an appointee of the US EPA Administrator, continued to serve on US EPA’s Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), an advisory committee to its Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). PPDC provides an opportunity for direct communication with OPP management and other pesticide stakeholders. Staff attended PPDC meetings by teleconference in January 2015, and in Arlington, Virginia in May 2014. Staff also serves on the following PPDC workgroups: Toxicity for the 21st Century (Tox21) and Integrated Pest Management.

Partnership staff met in May 2015 with Office of Water staff and the OPP Director to review progress on OPP’s efforts to coordinate methodology with the Office of Water regarding evaluation of toxic effects of pesticides on aquatic organisms. Partnership staff and other CASQA representatives met with DPR’s Environmental Monitoring Branch staff regarding fipronil impacts on urban water quality. DPR agreed that fipronil impacts are significant, and as a result it plans to take action to mitigate fipronil impacts.

Partnership staff and consultants participated in ongoing stakeholder meetings on the development of a Central Valley region pyrethroid TMDL, and submitted a comment letter to the Central Valley Regional Board (Appendix 2.5.I). As a result of Partnership recommendations, administrative drafts of the TMDL included some of the key provisions which make it consistent with the direction of the SWRCB’s Storm Water Strategic Initiative. This includes language in the draft TMDL acknowledging that full implementation of the regulatory authorities of pesticide regulatory agencies (DPR and USEPA) should be a primary mechanism for addressing pesticide-caused water quality impairments for urban water bodies.



TP.4 Mercury Control Strategies

TP.4.1 Continue to Implement Mercury Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.27.b. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership continued to implement the Mercury Plan during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Mercury control activities include the following as needed by the individual Permittees:

• Sediment and erosion control BMPs • Commercial/industrial inspections • Support of HHW mercury reduction programs (See Task TP.4.2) • Posting of mercury reduction information on Partnership website • Implementation of activities required under the Delta Mercury TMDL • Participation on the Delta Tributary Mercury Council (DTMC) on mercury watershed programs

Sediment Erosion Control BMPs

As indicated in TP.2, sediment erosion control activities reduce the pollutants associated with sediments, such as mercury, metals and pesticides. The individual Permittees implement the strategies listed above that are associated with sediment erosion control through the following Program Elements:

• Erosion and sediment control BMPs implemented under the Construction Element.

• Operational BMPs implemented under the Municipal Operations Element which remove sediment, such as street sweeping and maintenance of detention basins, storm drains and inlets, sumps and channels.

• Stormwater quality treatment facilities required for new and redevelopment projects under the New Development Element such as wet basins, dry basins, and underground vaults.

• Inspection, complaint response, and enforcement activities conducted under the Commercial/Industrial and Illicit Discharge Elements to identify and eliminate sources of sediments and associated pollutants from industrial, commercial, and residential sources. See below for more information on a portion of the Industrial inspections conducted.

Commercial/Industrial Inspections

The County Department of Environmental Management (EMD), on behalf of the Partnership, continued inspections at industries such as metal recyclers, auto dismantlers, and auto body shops. These industry facilities are likely to have some or all of the following mercury sources: mercury switches (automobiles and major appliances), mercury-containing control devices (major appliances), and discarded mercury thermometers, thermostats, and fluorescent lamps from households and commercial buildings. See CI.3 in the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program for more information on the compliance program.

Guidance materials on mercury switch disposal for auto dismantlers, auto repair shops, and scrap metal recyclers are posted on the Sacramento Stormwater Partnership website www.beriverfriendly.net.

http://www.beriverfriendly.net/



Mercury Web Page

The Partnership’s web page (http://www.beriverfriendly.net/mercury/) contains information for residents and businesses about mercury impacts, and steps that they can take to reduce the discharge of mercury to the environment. It also includes links to Be Mercury Free (a regional partnership for mercury pollution reduction) and information on the household hazardous waste collection from various local agencies.

Methylmercury TMDL

A Phase I control study required by the Delta Methylmercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was completed during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. The Partnership initiated its control study through the Citrus Heights City Hall Green Parking Lot Grant Project funded by a Proposition 84 grant. Project activities included water quality sample collection, sample analysis, and data evaluations for the purpose of testing whether LID features reduce the methylmercury discharges to the MS4. The City of Citrus Heights, on behalf of the Partnership, submitted the completed grant report to the SWRCB, which was approved in September 2015. A Phase I control study progress report based on this project will be provided to the Central Valley Water Board’s TMDL staff by October 20, 2015.

Delta Tributary Mercury Council (DTMC)

The DTMC is a watershed-level program intended to reduce mercury levels and mercury consumption. The Partnership continued to track DTMC activities.

TP.4.2 Incorporate into the Mercury Strategy coordination with the countywide universal waste management strategy

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.27.b.i. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Universal Waste is a subset of hazardous waste that includes fluorescent lamps, thermostats, and thermometers and other mercury containing wastes. In the 2008/2009 fiscal year, the Partnership identified Universal Waste collection as a potentially effective mercury source control strategy. As part of the Be Mercury Free program, a regional partnership for mercury pollution reduction, the Partnership promotes proper disposal of mercury-containing products primarily through its website.

During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the individual Permittees continued implementing household hazardous waste (HHW) programs that provide a mechanism for proper disposal of universal wastes.

• The County and the City of Sacramento continued to operate two regional HHW collection centers that are available to all residents of the County (including those from incorporated cities) at no charge following specific guidelines (http://www.bemercuryfree.net/households.html).

• The City of Folsom continued to operate a HHW program for city residents, providing at-home pickup of wastes on an appointment basis.

• The City of Galt continued to host their annual HHW collection events for its residents.

• The City of Elk Grove has completed construction of the Special Waste Collection Center and accepts household waste items generated by residents and small businesses.

• The City of Citrus Heights has established annual Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) drop-off events.

• The City of Rancho Cordova continues to rely on the County and City of Sacramento facilities to provide HHW services for its residents.

Additional details on these programs are provided in the Illicit Discharge section of the individual 2014/2015 Annual Reports (Chapters 3 through 9) prepared by each agency.

http://www.beriverfriendly.net/mercury/

http://www.bemercuryfree.net/households.html



TP.5 Metals Control Strategies

TP.5.1 Continue to implement the Metals Reduction Plan

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Metals reduction is implemented primarily through sediment reduction, as outlined Section TP.2 above, and through implementation of SB 346, which was State legislation passed to reduce copper content of brake pads.

TP.6 Pathogen Indicator Control Strategies

TP.6.1 Continue to implement Fecal Waste Reduction Strategy

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The Partnership continued to implement the Fecal Waste Reduction Strategy during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. The fecal waste reduction strategies include the following:

• Inspection of kennels for appropriate waste handling procedures • Support of practical alternatives to increase appropriate pet waste disposal, and continue to prohibit

discharges of pet waste into the MS4 • Control of illicit discharges, cross connections, and sanitary sewer overflows

Additional information regarding implementation of the strategy is provided below:

Kennel Inspections

Inspections of kennels throughout the Partnership area were conducted through the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program implemented by the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department. Kennels are inspected on a triennial basis. See CI.3.3 through CI.3.10, and CI 5.2 for more information on the inspections.

Appropriate Pet Waste Disposal

Pups on the Parkway complements the Stormwater Program’s public outreach messages that promote proper pet waste disposal. Partnership support includes funding for stocking of pet waste disposal stations by County parks staff.

The Partnership continued its Scoop the Poop program, which supports the use of pet waste disposal bag dispensers in local parks and along trails. The dispenser stations include outreach messages. See PO.1.2 for more information.

The Partnership continued to include pet waste messages in general stormwater outreach materials and on its website (www.beriverfriendly.net). The Partnership’s regional mixed media campaign included a focus on proper pet waste disposal. See PO.3.3 for more information.

Individual Permittees continue local ordinances that prohibit discharges of pet waste into the MS4.



Illicit Discharge and Sanitary Sewer Overflows

The Partnership continued implementation of BMPs that help to eliminate or reduce fecal matter in the storm drain system, including prohibition, investigation, and elimination of sanitary sewer cross connections; mitigation of sanitary sewer overflows; street sweeping; and cleaning of the storm drainage system infrastructure including detention basins.

TP.7 Other Target Pollutant Control Strategies No tasks scheduled for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

TP.8 Effectiveness Evaluation

TP.8.1 Prepare Annual Report assessment of program effectiveness utilizing Monitoring Program data analysis

PERMIT REFERENCE


N/A KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


This analysis was conducted as part of the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment of the Report of Waste Discharge which was submitted to the Regional Water Board in March 2013.



Work Plan Task Completion Summary All tasks were completed per the Annual Work Plan.

Work Plan and/or SQIP Revisions and Changes The Report of Waste Discharge and LTEA submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013 included SQIP amendments in the form of proposed 5-year Work Plans for each Program and Element for the next permit term. The Partnership proposed a new approach for Target Pollutant Program in the 2013 ROWD and LTEA (Section 2.9). These proposed SQIP amendments were not incorporated in the Limited Term Stormwater Permit due to the limited term of the order. The Partnership plans to incorporate the key recommendations from the LTEA into an updated SQIP when the new Region-wide MS4 Permit is issued.

2015/2016 Annual Work Plan revisions are not proposed at this time.

Partnership Activities Regional Public Outreach


2.6 Regional Public Outreach

Element Introduction The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (Partnership) conducts regional public outreach programs to educate the public about the harmful effects of stormwater pollution and to motivate people to prevent pollution; it also creates and promotes opportunities for public participation in creek and river stewardship projects. The ultimate purpose is to improve the quality of urban runoff and protect local creeks and rivers.

The permit requires the permittees to ensure that the Regional Public Outreach Program uses appropriate media to measurably increase the knowledge of target communities regarding the impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters and to provide potential BMP solutions for the target audience that lead to behavioral change and reduce pollutant releases to the municipal storm drain systems and the environment.

Public outreach activities are coordinated with activities related to other program elements to ensure consistent and integrated messages. The Partnership maintains relationships with other groups and agencies to share ideas and experiences, and jointly implement outreach where mutually beneficial opportunities exist. Many of the Partnership’s outreach activities are conducted regionally, as a collaborative effort among the permittees to prevent duplication, share resources and reach a broader segment of the population. In general, collaborative, county-wide efforts can be more cost-effective; however, in some cases, localized public outreach by individual permittees is more appropriate or cost-effective. This section describes the Partnership’s regional activities. Permittee-specific activities conducted in addition to regional activities are described in each agency’s Annual Report (Chapters 3-9).


PO.1 Public Participation

PO.1.1 Participate in clean up events

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai.,bi.c. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Engage the public in cleaning up creeks

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership worked with the Sacramento Area Creeks Council (SACC) on the 25th Annual Creek Week event. Creek week is an area-wide volunteer effort to improve and enhance local urban waterways by cleaning trash as well as removing invasive exotic plants from our local creeks. Creek Week ran from April 10–18, 2015 which included educational activities for all ages. The Partnership was represented on Creek Week’s organizing committee which coordinates publicity and promotional efforts to engage the public and encourage participation in creek clean ups throughout the Sacramento area. Promotional brochures were distributed to encourage volunteers to participate in the event (see Appendix 2.6A for a sample of the Creek Week brochure).

Regional Public Outreach Partnership Activities


PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai.,bi.c. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Remove trash from waterways KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


During Creek Week 2015, more than 1,800 volunteers helped clean 35 miles of creeks and removed nearly 16 tons of trash from creeks in Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Galt, Rio Linda, the Delta, and unincorporated Sacramento County. Volunteers also removed invasive plants along the creeks.

PO.1.2 Implement pet waste reduction programs such as "Scoop the Poop"

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai., aiv., bi., biv., c.


Increase number of stations installed

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed Since the Scoop the Poop program was initiated in 2006/2007 fiscal year, a total of 167 stations have been installed in the Sacramento region. The Scoop the Poop program aims to reduce the improper disposal of pet waste in parks and along trails. The program involves the installation of pet waste stations which include a plastic bag dispenser and a sign to encourage proper waste disposal. During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, a total of 3 new stations were installed in park districts.

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai., aiv., bi., biv., c.


Promote the use of pet waste disposal stations

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed At public outreach events, the Partnership distributed materials that promoted the proper disposal of pet waste, with a message including the use of pet waste stations. In addition, Scoop the Poop ads were placed in Arden Carmichael News, a local community newspaper, totaling 15,000 circulations. See Appendix 2.6B for a copy of the ad.

Volunteers help clean up a creek. Students participating at the Creek Week Celebration.



PO.1.3 Encourage the public to participate in watershed groups and their activities

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai.,bi.,c. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Promote watershed/environmental groups and their activities KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership continued to participate in activities sponsored or conducted by local watershed and environmental groups (see list in Table 2.6-1) as requested or warranted, depending on available staff and resources. This may have included providing technical resources, and/or sponsoring, attending and/or speaking at meetings and outreach events.

Table 2.6-1 Watershed Groups and Jurisdictions

Watersheds/ Groups Permittees/ Geographical Area Other Regional Stakeholders

Alder Creek City of Folsom County of Sacramento

Sacramento Area Creeks Council Sacramento Valley Conservancy Bureau of Reclamation State Parks

Amador/Dry Creek County of Sacramento

Amador County San Joaquin County Sacramento Area Creeks Council SAFCA

American Basin Council of Watersheds (Upper Dry Creek)

County of Sacramento

Dry Creek Conservancy Placer County Sacramento Area Creeks Council

American River Conservancy City of Folsom City of Rancho Cordova City of Sacramento County of Sacramento

Bureau of Reclamation US Fish and Wildlife Service California State Parks California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Arcade Creek City of Sacramento City of Citrus Heights County of Sacramento

Sacramento Area Creeks Council

Laguna Creek County of Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova City of Elk Grove City of Sacramento

Sacramento Area Creeks Council Laguna Creeks Watershed Council Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

County of Sacramento City of Sacramento City of Elk Grove

SRCSD California Native Plant Society California Waterfowl Association Cosumnes River Preserve

Sacramento River City of Sacramento County of Sacramento

SRCSD Sacramento River Watershed Program



PO.2 Hotline

PO.2.1 Maintain hotline number for illicit discharges

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aii,bii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Continue to promote the use of the hotline KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership and the County continued to maintain two hotline phone numbers (808-4H2O and 875-RAIN, respectively) in order to facilitate easy reporting of storm water-related problems by the public (e.g., clogged drains, illicit discharges/connections, and faded inlet markers). The Partnership hotline is a ‘phone tree’ system that asks callers to select the jurisdictions in which the problem is located, and then forwards calls to the appropriate Permittee’s direct contact number for follow–up action. The hotline numbers are publicized as follows:

• On the Partnership and individual Permittee websites • In newspaper advertisements • On brochures and other outreach materials • Storm drain inlet markers

PO.3 Public Outreach Implementation

PO.3.1 Update the public outreach strategy to account for changes in public awareness and behavior based on survey results

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aiii, biii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Identify areas in the public outreach strategy that need improvement or modification KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed As in past years, a major component of the Partnership’s public outreach strategy involves the development of a media campaign. During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership developed an outreach plan that involved using the storm water survey results from 2013/2014 to design and create messages for the new outreach campaign. Out of all of the environmental topics addressed in the survey (e.g. pet waste, motor oil, paint, pesticides/fertilizer, and litter/trash) the survey showed that the greatest potential for impact is with convincing Sacramento residents to use less pesticides/fertilizer and to shop for less-toxic versions of these products. As a result, the Partnership worked with a media consultant to design an outreach campaign that focused on promoting integrated pest management (IPM) practices. For details about the campaign, see PO.3.3.

In addition, the Partnership continued to focus efforts on other key activities such as the Our World Our World program, participating in community outreach events, partnering with Capital Public Radio’s eco-friendly gardening radio advertisements, and developing new promotional materials for business audiences as part of the public outreach strategy for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.



PO.3.2 Continue to develop and distribute brochures and promotional materials, including translating materials in languages other than English

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aii., biii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Document/quantify materials distributed and new materials developed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed Appendix 2.6C summarizes the educational and instructional materials produced and distributed by the Partnership during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. The distribution numbers shown represent all seven Permittees combined. During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, several storm water brochures in other languages, such as in Spanish and Russian, were distributed throughout Sacramento at public outreach events and workshops. These brochures are also available electronically on the Partnership website www.beriverfriendly.net.

PO.3.3 Conduct a mixed media campaign (e.g., radio, print ads, television, signage, etc.)

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aiii., biii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Document/quantify impressions made KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed In January 2015, the Partnership launched a new mixed media IPM campaign (“Some Jeepers are Keepers”) that focused on informing the public about less toxic and natural ways of controlling pests around the home. The campaign has included billboards, radio and television advertising, social media ads, delivering a combined total of 5,718,601 impressions. For a sample of the outreach campaign, see Appendix 2.6D. The campaign was also extended to non-English speaking audiences through online, radio and television advertising.

The Partnership also utilized social media techniques to promote messages to Facebook users. Since last fiscal year, the Partnership increased its Facebooks followers from nearly 300 to 1,200 fans through various promotional efforts. Seasonal messages were featured on a consistent basis to motivate the public to engage in everyday activities that protect and conserve waterways. The Partnership also updated its website www.BeRiverFriendly.net by enhancing the design and functionality of the website. The Partnership continued to look for opportunities to promote its Facebook and social media presence and enhance its website as part of its 2014/2015 public outreach efforts.





PO.3.4 Implement a program that addresses fundraiser carwash discharges

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai.,aiv., bi., biv., c.


Increase awareness on the impact of fundraiser carwash discharges in waterways

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership continued to expand efforts to increase awareness on the impact of fundraiser carwash discharges in waterways by maintaining the River-Friendly Fundraiser Carwash Program (RFFCP) website and distributing promotional materials at several public outreach events listed in Table 2.6-2 (see Appendix 2.6C for the amount of brochures distributed).

The Partnership continued to partner with the Regional Water Authority to promote a “Water Smart Carwash” certification program. The program certifies commercial carwashes as “Water Smart” and encourages residents to utilize carwash facilities for personal and fundraising events while saving water and preventing storm water pollution.

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.ai.,aiv., bi., biv., c.


Increase number of River-Friendly Carwash host facilities

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership collaborated with Sacramento News and Review to develop an eight page newspaper insert to promote sustainable businesses and demonstrate best management practices (see Appendix 2.6E). One of the business types highlighted in the newspaper included commercial carwash facilities that host river-friendly carwashes and play a role in conserving water and ultimately help reduce the discharge of polluted water into our waterways. This important message was directed to potential carwash hosts so that more River-Friendly carwash facilities would be available to residents and/or charity groups.

PO.3.5 Implement home and garden care programs, including the distribution of educational materials (e.g., Our Water Our World, Waterwise, and River-Friendly Landscaping)

PERMIT REFERENCE


Reduction in pesticide use and increase public's use of alternative home and garden care KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed Prior Partnership survey results showed that most respondents applied pesticides on their own, used them relatively infrequently, and disposed of them improperly. The most targeted pests according to the 2011 survey were ants and spiders. In the 2014/2015 fiscal year, a new survey was conducted and results indicated that the greatest potential for impact was with convincing Sacramento residents to use less fertilizer, less pesticides/herbicides, and to shop for non-chemical or less-toxic versions of these products. The Partnership participated in several IPM related home and garden care programs to increase knowledge on proper pesticide use and to encourage the public to consider less toxic methods for controlling pests:



Our Water Our World

The Partnership supported the Our Water Our World (OWOW) IPM outreach program in the Sacramento-area. The Partnership partnered with retail stores to make less toxic products more available to consumers such as Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH), Home Depot, Emigh Ace Hardware and Green Acres nursery.

A total of 18 stores participated in the OWOW program at the end of the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Each store location included point-of-sale distribution of 34 different fact sheets (including Spanish) on pest control topics. Over 35,000 less toxic informational materials were distributed via the store displays. In addition, participating stores placed small labels in front of products that helped consumers identify products that were non-toxic or less toxic than their conventional counterparts. In addition, OWOW fact sheets were distributed at landscape/garden related events and several other outreach events.

On behalf of the Partnership, OWOW participated in events at store locations and helped encourage customers to pick less-toxic pesticide options. OSH and Home Depot reported that according to 16 participating locations there was an average increase of up to 25% in sales of less-toxic pesticides (varied by location). The stores feel that the less toxic products continued to grow in demand at their stores and that these products still remained in many cases in more demand than the more traditional pesticides.

In April and May 2015, the OWOW program carried out “Boot Camp” educational workshops, focused on encouraging residents to properly apply and dispose of pesticides and fertilizers and to use less-toxic pesticide options. The four workshops were carried out at Green Acres in Sacramento, Green Acres in Folsom, Home Depot in Elk Grove, and Talini’s Nursery in Sacramento.

OWOW Boot Camp educational workshop at Talinis Nursery

A Display of less toxic pesticides at a Boot Camp Workshop

Water Wise Pest Control Materials

During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership continued to distribute Water Wise Pest Control cards that provide accurate, easy to understand information on effective and less toxic methods of dealing with common garden and household pests. These materials were distributed during landscape/garden related events and several other outreach events.

River-Friendly Landscaping

The Partnership continued to distribute River-Friendly Landscaping educational and outreach materials at various outreach events listed in Table 2.6-2.



PO.3.6 Continue to promote proper disposal of pet waste through the multicultural, mixed media outreach campaign

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document/quantify impressions made and materials distributed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed During the spring of 2015, an educational insert developed by the Partnership was featured in the Sacramento News and Review Newspaper, totaling 83,000 circulations. Several pollution prevention messages were promoted including the importance of proper pet waste disposal. In addition, Scoop the Poop ads were placed in Arden Carmichael News, a local community newspaper (see Appendix 2.6B), totaling 15,000 circulations.

PO.3.7 Continue Public-Public and Public-Private Partnerships with other governmental agencies or special districts (i.e., River-Friendly Landscaping) and private businesses (e.g. pet stores, nurseries, zoo, educational institutions, River-Friendly Carwash Program, etc.)

PERMIT REFERENCE


Maximize the sharing of resources and reach a wider population in the Sacramento region KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed To ensure effective storm water outreach activities and promote coordination and consistent messages, the Partnership continued to cultivate and maintain relationships with other government agencies, special districts, local businesses, trade and professional associations, schools, environmental groups, involved individuals, and the media. The following are a few of the ways that the Partnership coordinated with other groups during the fiscal year to present the storm water message.

Sacramento Area Creeks Council

During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, several of the Permittees worked with the Sacramento Area Creeks Council on Creek Week events. See PO.1.1 for a summary of coordination efforts.

EcoLandscape California

EcoLandscape California is a committee that organizes a conference every two years to promote ecologically sustainable landscaping. Ecolandscape California is actively involved in the River-Friendly Landscape outreach effort which includes promoting landscaping practices that reduce storm water runoff and the application of pesticides. The Partnership works with the group to promote and expand the use of the River-Friendly Landscaping guidelines in the Sacramento region.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) — Our Water Our World Program

SRCSD partnered with the Partnership on the OWOW program and IPM campaign (see PO 3.3), which educates the public on pesticide issues and promotes less toxic alternative methods for controlling specific pests.

Business Environmental Resources Center (BERC)

BERC continued to maintain and provide web support for the River-Friendly Fundraiser Carwash program, previously mentioned in this chapter (see PO.3.4). The Partnership also worked with BERC to develop a list of best management practices that were highlighted in an eight page newspaper insert for the Sacramento News and Review publication (see Appendix 2.6E). In addition, the Partnership coordinates with BERC to promote the Sacramento Area Sustainable Business Program (SASB) to the pressure washer industry.



Regional Water Authority

The Partnership combined efforts with the Regional Water Authority to implement a “Water Smart Carwash” certification program to encourage residents to wash their vehicles at commercial carwashes as an effort to reduce the impact of storm water pollution and conserve water. Please see section PO.3.4 for more information.

PO.3.8 Support community outreach events

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aiii.,biii. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Continue to promote public participation in community outreach events KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership participated in 11 community outreach events during the fiscal year to reach as many Sacramento area residents as possible. The Partnership also promoted community outreach events to the public. The Partnership provided a storm water booth at most events and distributed educational and promotional materials such as those described in the following table.

Table 2.6-2 Community Outreach Events

Date Event Name No. of

attendees Target Audience 8/2/2014 Harvest Day 500 Landscape & garden

community 9/18/2014 The Sacramento Sustainable Business Awards 150 General public 1/23/2015 Northern California Home and Landscape Expo 5,000 General public 4/5/2015 Earth Fest @ the Sacramento Zoo 3,500 General public 4/16/2015 Sacramento State Earth Day 5,000 College Students 4/18/2015 Creek Week 2,000 General public 4/19/2015 Earth Day @ Southside Park 2,500 General public 4/22/2015 Mayor’s Earth Day @ Cesar Chavez Park 6,000 General public 4/22/2015 Earth Day @ Sacramento City College 10,000 College students 4/25/2015 Elk Grove Greener Gardens Event 500 General public 5/16/2014 Walk on the Wildside 600 General public Total attendees 35,750

PO.4 Public School Education

PO.4.1 Continue to support Splash

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aiv., biv. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Continue to financially support Splash and increase awareness of storm water issues among students KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL



Summary of Work Completed The County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento Area Sewer District and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District provided financial support for the program during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. A total of 3,636 students in K-12 participated in Splash during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Some students were given a pre and post assessment test to evaluate the Splash Elementary Program’s student educational outcomes. The students were given a pre-test to assess their baseline knowledge. After the class completed the program, Splash conducted a post-test. Overall, the program appears to have improved students’ understanding of basic water quality and pollution prevention concepts by an average of 28%.

Elementary students participating in the Splash program.

PO.4.2 Conduct classroom presentations

PERMIT REFERENCE

12.aiv., biv. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Document number of school presentations conducted and increased awareness of storm water issues among students KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership provided the “Splash in the Class” program to students throughout the County of Sacramento. “Splash in the Class” is a 70-minute, highly interactive presentation covering storm water pollution found around the home and neighborhood, pollution prevention, the aquatic food chain, and the hydrological cycle- linking all three aspects together. A total of 4,813 students in grades 3-6 received the presentation. During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, Splash fully implemented an improved evaluation method for assessing student learning. This approach directly measured how much the Program improved students’ understanding of storm water pollution by testing their knowledge before and after the presentation as opposed to assessing program quality through teacher opinion polls, which was used in the past. 30 classes participated in the pre and post assessment. Of those who participated in the assessment, the results showed that the presentation improved students’ understanding of basic storm water pollution concepts by an average of 30% with nearly 70%of the students answering the questions correctly after the presentation. In addition, the program received positive feedback from several teachers based on a teacher opinion survey. Results show that 79% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the presentations made the students more environmentally aware and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that students are likely to practice pollution prevention tips.



PO.5 Business Outreach

PO.5.1 Identify and prioritize strategies to partner with sustainable business programs to encourage storm water pollution prevention in businesses, targeting mobile businesses

PERMIT REFERENCE

12av., bv. PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Work with an existing green business program to establish storm water practices for businesses, specifically mobile businesses KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the Partnership collaborated with Sacramento News and Review to develop an eight page newspaper insert to promote sustainable businesses and encourage storm water pollution prevention practices (see Appendix 2.6E). The insert was distributed to business owners and the general public within the Sacramento region.

The Partnership worked with BERC to promote the Sacramento Area Sustainable Business Program to the pressure washer industry in workshops and various events. In addition, BERC mailed letters to more than 100 pressure washing businesses explaining the benefits of participation in the Sustainable Business program and following established best management practices in their pressure washing activities. This program promotes businesses that take voluntary actions to prevent pollution and conserve resources. A Sustainable Business checklist developed specifically for pressure washers can be found online at http://www.sacberc.org/sasb/Pages/Checklist-and-Publications.aspx

PO.5.2 Continue to develop and distribute educational materials to businesses with languages other than English

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document/quantify materials distributed and new materials developed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed See PO.3.2 for description of non-English brochures that were distributed in the 2014/2015 fiscal year. The Permittees continued the process of updating information in all business related brochures including non-English speaking materials during this fiscal year. The revised brochures will be completed and distributed in the 2015/16 fiscal year.

PO.5.3 Work with landscape professionals to encourage the use of River-Friendly Landscaping guidelines

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document/quantify materials distributed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed The Partnership distributed River-Friendly Landscaping (RFL) publications to professionals to encourage the use of River-Friendly landscaping practices (see www.riverfriendly.org for RFL publications). RFL materials were distributed at community outreach events and were promoted on the RFL website. In addition, the

http://www.sacberc.org/sasb/Pages/Checklist-and-Publications.aspx

http://www.riverfriendly.org/



Partnership worked with Ecolandscape California to distribute materials at the Sacramento County UC Master Gardener’s Harvest Day event on August 2, 2014 and featured an RFL booth at the BERC Sustainable Business of the Year Awards program on September 18, 2014. These events were geared towards landscape professionals and residents. In addition, RFL tips and resources were promoted on the Be River Friendly Sacramento’s Facebook page throughout the year.

PO.5.4 Maintain partner participation of nurseries and retail outlets and training of their staff to promote pesticide reduction programs (e.g., OWOW)

PERMIT REFERENCE


Increase awareness of storm water issues among staff KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL

Summary of Work Completed A total of 18 stores are currently participating in the OWOW program. Additional information is also discussed in PO.3.5. A total of 205 staff from 21 participating stores were trained during this fiscal year. For the fourth year in a row, the Partnership conducted surveys of store staff to gauge the effectiveness of the trainings. Similar to past results, the 2014/2015 results demonstrate improvement in the store staff’s post- training awareness of storm water issues and ability to accurately assist customers to find products that would address their needs while being less toxic to the environment.

An OWOW Training at a Home Depot Store in Elk Grove, California.

Home Depot staff standing next to a display promoting organic and less toxic products in Sacramento, California.

PO.6 Sacramento County Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Sacramento County SQIP (Section 3.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the County of Sacramento.

PO.7 Sacramento City Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Sacramento City SQIP (Section 4.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Sacramento.

PO.8 City of Citrus Heights Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Citrus Heights SQIP (Section 5.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Citrus Heights.



PO.9 City of Elk Grove Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Elk Grove SQIP (Section 6.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Elk Grove.

PO.10 City of Folsom Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Folsom SQIP (Section 7.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Folsom.

PO.11 City of Galt Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Galt SQIP (Section 8.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Galt.

PO.12 City of Rancho Cordova Agency-specific Activities Refer to the Rancho Cordova SQIP (Section 9.7) for additional outreach activities conducted by the City of Rancho Cordova.

Element Effectiveness Assessment On April 17, 2015, the Regional Water Board renewed the Partnership’s 2008 Permit for a limited term (Limited Term Permit) to allow the option to participate in a Regional Monitoring Program (e.g., the Delta RMP). Under the Limited Term Permit, only Outcome Level 1 effectiveness assessment is required. The overall effectiveness of the SQIP and the individual Elements in reducing storm water pollution to the maximum extent practicable, achieving compliance with water quality standards in receiving waters, and meeting performance standards was provided in the Long Term Effectiveness Assessment (LTEA) submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013.

The following Effectiveness level 2 and above activities are tracked for future assessment of this program element:

Tracked Assessment Outcome: Task Number Activity/Task Performance Standard / Target

FY 14/15 Assessment Outcome*

PO.4.1 Continue to support Splash Continue to financially support Splash and increase awareness of storm water issues among students

2

PO.4.2 Conduct classroom presentations Document number of school presentations conducted and increased awareness of storm water issues among students

2


Increase awareness of storm water issues among staff 2

* Assessment outcome levels may vary throughout the permit term. See the SQIP for information on the progression of key indicator outcome levels. ** Some tasks will be performed and assessed in other years of the permit term.

PO.4.1 Continue to support Splash

A total of 3,636 students in K-12 participated in Splash during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Some students were given a pre and post assessment test to evaluate the Splash Elementary Program’s student educational outcomes. The students were given a pre-test to assess their baseline knowledge. After the class completed the program, Splash conducted a post-test. Overall, the program appears to have improved students’ understanding of basic water quality and pollution prevention concepts by an average of 28%.

PO.4.2 Conduct classroom presentations

Student learning was assessed by directly measuring how much the Program improved students’ understanding of storm water pollution by testing their knowledge before and after the presentation. 30 classes participated in the pre- and post-assessment. Of those who participated in the assessment, the results showed that the presentation improved students’ understanding of basic storm water pollution concepts by an average of 30% with nearly 70%of the students answering the questions correctly after the presentation. In addition, the program received positive feedback from several teachers based on a teacher opinion survey. Results show that 79% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the presentations made



the students more environmentally aware and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that students are likely to practice pollution prevention tips.


For the fourth year in a row, the Partnership conducted surveys of store staff to gauge the effectiveness of the trainings. Similar to past results, the 2014/2015 results demonstrate improvement in the store staff’s post- training awareness of storm water issues and ability to accurately assist customers to find products that would address their needs while being less toxic to the environment (e.g. a post-training survey indicated that 93% of staff felt the program helped them to respond to customer’s questions about less toxic pest management methods and products).



Work Plan and/or SQIP Revisions and Changes The Report of Waste Discharge and LTEA submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013 included SQIP amendments in the form of proposed 5-year Work Plans for each Program and Element for the next permit term. These proposed SQIP amendments were not incorporated in the Limited Term Stormwater Permit due to the limited term of the order. The Partnership plans to incorporate the key recommendations from the LTEA into an updated SQIP when the new Region-wide MS4 Permit is issued.

There are no changes recommended to the 2015/2016 Annual Work Plan.

Partnership Activities Regional Commercial/Industrial


2.7 Regional Commercial/Industrial

Element Introduction The primary goal of the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program is to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and effectively eliminate illegal non-stormwater discharges from Permittee-identified priority commercial and industrial facilities and businesses within the boundaries of the Sacramento Area-wide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Stormwater Permit) area. As required by the Stormwater Permit, the Regional Commercial/Industrial Program works to address these conditions by conducting regular compliance inspections and associated enforcement at priority commercial and industrial facilities, as well as through outreach targeted at business operators and their employees.

Through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) executed with each of the Permittees, the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) is authorized to implement the Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Compliance Program (CISCP) in which triennial stormwater compliance inspections and associated enforcement are conducted at identified priority commercial and industrial facilities on behalf of all the Permittees. Implementation of the CISCP makes efficient use of Permittee resources, provides regional consistency, and minimizes impacts to businesses through consolidation of inspections with other EMD inspection programs. The categories of priority commercial and industrial facilities that are included in the CISCP are as follows:

• Facilities with coverage under the Industrial General Permit • Auto body shops • Auto repair shops • Auto dealers • Equipment rental facilities • Kennels • Nurseries • Retail gasoline outlets (i.e., gas stations) • Restaurants

Priority industrial pollutants are identified by taking into consideration stormwater monitoring-related benchmark data exceedances for facilities covered under the Industrial General Permit, as described in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan dated November 2009 and adopted by the Regional Water Board on January 29, 2010 (SQIP). The data is evaluated to identify overlaps between benchmark exceedances and the pollutants identified in the Regional Target Pollutant Program. Overlapping constituents are considered priority industrial pollutants. Additional priority industrial pollutants may be identified by the Permittees using alternative criteria. Outreach material is distributed to targeted businesses having problems addressing the priority industrial pollutants.

The Permittees conduct industry and pollutant-specific outreach to the priority industries described in the SQIP. The outreach was conducted twice during the five-year term of the stormwater permit (2009/2010 and 2012/2013 fiscal years). The objectives of the outreach are to increase awareness of stormwater pollution prevention and stormwater regulations, to educate business owners and operators about best management practices (BMPs) for addressing pollutants, and to encourage environmental stewardship.

The Regional Commercial/Industrial Program is implemented in addition to Permittee-specific Commercial/Industrial Element activities described in Chapters 3 through 9 of this Annual Report.

For background information and additional details about any of the activities/tasks referenced above or listed in this Annual Report, see the SQIP.

Regional Commercial/Industrial Partnership Activities



CI.1 Legal Authority

CI.1.1 Evaluate/amend stormwater ordinances

PERMIT REFERENCE

4.f, 5, 9.a.i PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Revised stormwater ordinances KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No tasks planned for the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

CI.2 Priority Industry and Industrial Pollutant Identification

CI.2.1 Develop and update list of priority industrial pollutants considering overlaps between benchmark exceedances (compiled data provided by Regional Water Board) and Target Pollutant constituents

PERMIT REFERENCE

9.b.iii PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Updated list of priority pollutants at a frequency of no greater than annually and within 3 months of receipt of compiled data tables from the Regional Water Board KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Completion of this task is dependent upon receipt of Regional Water Board compiled data for significant priority industrial pollutant stormwater sampling exceedances at Industrial General Permit (IGP) facilities over the course of the fiscal year. The Permittees did not receive a list of pollutant benchmark exceedances with respect to sampling data from facilities regulated under the State’s IGP from the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Therefore, this task was not conducted this fiscal year. However, all stormwater runoff sample results are reviewed with operators during an IGP inspection to ensure appropriate BMPs are implemented in response to any exceedance.

CI.3 Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Compliance Program (CISCP) – EMD

CI.3.1 Maintain fee ordinance

PERMIT REFERENCE

9.a.iii-viii PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Maintained fee ordinance KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


There were no changes made to the fee ordinance during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.



CI.3.2 Maintain enforcement policy

PERMIT REFERENCE


Maintained enforcement policy KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


There were no changes made to the enforcement policy during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

EMD continued to implement its Progressive Approach Enforcement Policy by conducting “Monitoring Status” re-inspections with associated fees at facilities with repeat violations to ensure continued compliance.

See tasks CI.3.4 and CI.3.7 of this chapter for a summary of enforcement actions conducted during the fiscal year.

CI.3.3 Inspect priority industries once every 3 years

PERMIT REFERENCE


100% of priority industries inspected during 3-yr cycle KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


EMD continued to conduct triennial inspections of priority industry inspections during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Refer to Appendix 2.7A for a list of businesses included in the CISCP inventory, broken out by jurisdiction.

Table 2.7-1 shows inspection-related data for the 2014/2015 fiscal year, which includes the total number of facilities included in the inspection inventory at the start and end of the fiscal year, the number of routine inspections that were conducted, the number of inspections that were conducted in response to complaints received, and the number of re-inspections (i.e., follow up inspections) that were conducted, by industry type. Re-inspections were conducted when the violation(s) noted during a previous inspection were serious, or when suitable return to compliance documentation was not submitted to EMD following issuance of an enforcement action.

Table 2.7-1 EMD Inspection Data

Category No. facilities as of

7/1/14 No. facilities as of

6/30/15 No. inspections

conducted

No. Complaint Response conducted

No. re-inspections conducted

Auto body shops 187 200 56 1 1 Auto dealers 151 163 31 2 0 Auto repair shops 671 703 236 3 0 Equipment rental companies 30 28 6 0 0 Nurseries 10 10 8 0 0 Kennels 43 42 12 0 0 Restaurants1, 2 2,9741,2 3,1021,2 1,536 45 10 Retail Gasoline Outlets2 314 315 136 3 0 Industrial General Permitted Industries 252 246 97 3 1 Total 4,632 4,809 2,118 57 12

1 Also includes Licensed Health Care Facilities 2 RGO/mini-mart facilities are two separate businesses with one joint inspection completed to consolidate inspection time. However, they are tracked as separate businesses and each one location is counted as two facilities/inspections. Currently, there are 98 facilities in this RGO/mini-mart category. This number is manually added to both the restaurant total and the RGO total. Therefore, the totals in these columns will not be consistent with the totals in Appendix 2.7A.



CI.3.4 Track violations during 3 year cycle

PERMIT REFERENCE


Decrease in violations observed from one 3-yr cycle to the next

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


As shown in Table 2.7-2, a total of 860 violations were noted by EMD staff for the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Violations may be noted during routine inspections, complaint responses or during re-inspections. Multiple violations observed at a facility may be addressed with a single enforcement action. See task CI.3.7 for a summary of enforcement actions that were issued in response to these recorded violations.

Table 2.7-2 Observed Violations by EMD

Fiscal Year Violations Observed Total Number

Violations Non-Filer NSD* Poor House Keeping** Illicit Connections 2014/2015 N/A 64 796 0 860

* NSD: Non-stormwater discharge to storm drain system or local waterway. ** Poor housekeeping includes waste management problems.

CI.3.5 Track follow-up inspections during 3 year cycle

PERMIT REFERENCE


Decrease in follow-up inspections required from one 3-yr cycle to the next

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


As shown in Table 2.7-1, 12 re-inspections (also called follow-up inspections) were conducted by EMD staff during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

CI.3.6 Track number of businesses with significant priority industrial pollutant exceedances using Regional Water Board compiled data

PERMIT REFERENCE


Decrease in Industrial General Permit facilities with significant priority industrial pollutant exceedances from one permit cycle to the next KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Completion of this task is dependent upon receipt of Regional Water Board compiled data for significant priority industrial pollutant stormwater sampling exceedances at IGP facilities over the course of the fiscal year. The Permittees did not receive a list of pollutant benchmark exceedances with respect to sampling data from facilities regulated under the State’s IGP from the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Therefore, this task was not conducted this fiscal year. However, all stormwater runoff sample results are reviewed with operators during an IGP inspection to ensure appropriate BMPs are implemented in response to any exceedance.



CI.3.7 De-list facilities with no exposure of pollutants to stormwater

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document facilities de-listed and no longer requiring inspection KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


As shown in Table 2.7-3, a total of 10 facilities were determined by EMD to have no exposure to stormwater, and were de-listed from their inspection program. All facilities de-listed from the EMD program sign an agreement with EMD stating that conditions (all activities and storage are conducted indoors) at the facility will not change and that the facility will be brought back into the stormwater inspections program if facility was found to be in violation of said agreement.

Table 2.7-3 Delisted Facilities

Jurisdiction Industry Category Facility Name Notes City of Elk Grove Auto Repair Elk Grove Automotive No outdoor exposure City of Elk Grove Auto Repair Elk Grove Auto Clinic No outdoor exposure Rancho Cordova Auto Repair ISA: Rancho Cordova

Garage No outdoor exposure

Rancho Cordova Auto Repair Cook Engineering Does not meet definition City of Sacramento Auto Repair Johnny’s Garage No outdoor exposure City of Sacramento Auto Repair Central Valley Towing Does not meet definition Unincorporated Area Auto Repair Scotty & Sons Auto No outdoor exposure Unincorporated Area Auto Repair Top Performance Auto No outdoor exposure Unincorporated Area IGP Vineyard Aggregate IGP terminated Unincorporated Area Auto Dealer Hertz Rent A Car No outdoor exposure

CI.3.8 Conduct enforcement (incl. warnings, NOVs, Cease and Desist Orders, ACPs, and Cost Recoveries)

PERMIT REFERENCE


Decrease in enforcement actions from one 3-yr cycle to the next

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


As shown in Table 2.7-4, a total of 879 enforcement actions were conducted by EMD during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Multiple violations may be addressed with a single enforcement action. See CI.3.4 for information related to the Stormwater Ordinance violations observed that resulted in these enforcement actions.

Monitoring status inspections are an enforcement tool that are is implemented in lieu of issuing an Administrative Enforcement Order to a facility found to be in violation of the Stormwater Ordinance after follow-up inspections. Monitoring status inspections are used as an enforcement tool as well as a means of “monitoring” a facility to ensure it does not relapse into non-compliance. The inspections consist of one to three unannounced re-inspections (the number of inspections conducted is based upon the type and number of violations that are present, and are billed for at EMD’s current hourly rate).



Table 2.7-4 Enforcement Actions by EMD

Fiscal Year

Notice of Violation

Cease and Desist Order

Admin. Enforcement

Order Fine

Monitoring Status

Inspections

Re-inspection Fee Assessed for failure to

Comply

Non-filer referrals to the Regional

Water Board Other

Total # of Enforcement

Actions 2014/2015 860 0 0 0 6 5 8 0 879

CI.3.9 Conduct workshops, upon request and as needs are identified, for the regulated community

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document workshops conducted

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No workshops were conducted during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Workshops are conducted when requested by the regulated community, or when a high number of facilities are found to have similar or reoccurring violations.

CI.3.10 Provide annual training to CISCP inspectors

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document training events KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


All EMD employees involved in the CISCP were provided annual training by Stormwater Staff in classes offered on October 9, 2014 and April 1, 2015. Refer to appendix 2.7C to view the EMD training roster.

CI.3.110 CISCP database - track facility inventory, inspections, enforcement and outreach materials distributed (facilities included to be based on list of priority industries)

PERMIT REFERENCE

D.9.a.iii-viii PERFORMANCE STANDARD

Database updated annually KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


The CISCP database is updated daily to document additions and deletions of facilities from the inventory, as well as to document inspections and enforcement conducted over the course of the fiscal year.



CI.3.12 Refer significant violations to the Regional Water Board

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document significant violations reported to Regional Water Board KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


A report of violations issued during inspections is emailed on a monthly basis by EMD to the Regional Water Board.

Refer to Appendix 2.7B for an example of the monthly reports of significant violations submitted by EMD to the Regional Water Board.

CI.3.13 Refer potential Industrial General Permit non-filers to the Regional Water Board

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document potential non-filers referred to Regional Water Board KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


A total of 8 potential Industrial General Permit non-filers were referred to the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

CI.3.14 Track NOIs filed for potential non-filers referred to the Regional Water Board

PERMIT REFERENCE


Increase in percentage of non-filers referred to Regional Water Board filing NOIs KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Table 2.7-5 shows the number of potential Industrial General Permit non-filers that were referred to the Regional Water Board, as well as the number that filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) following referral.

Table 2.7-5 Industrial General Permit Non-Filer Referrals and NOIs Submitted

Fiscal Year Number Referred to Regional

Water Board Number of facilities that submitted

NOI to Regional Water Board Percentage of Referrals that

submitted NOIs 2014/2015 8 1 12.5%



CI.3.15 Investigate Regional Water Board referrals within 3 working days of receipt of referral

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document Regional Water Board referrals investigated within specified timeframe KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No Regional Water Board referrals were given to EMD for investigation during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

CI.3.16 Provide enforcement support to Regional Water Board related to facilities in the CISCP inventory, including providing facility and historical information, and staff for joint inspections when available

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document support efforts KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No requests of enforcement support were made by the Regional Water Board to EMD during the 2014/2015 fiscal year.

CI.4 Permittee Evaluations

CI.4.1 Evaluate Industrial General Permit facilities for significant priority industrial pollutant exceedances of using Regional Water Board-compiled data

PERMIT REFERENCE


Updated list of IGP facilities requiring outreach materials at a frequency of no greater than annually and within 3 months of receipt of compiled data tables from the Regional Water Board

KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Completion of this task is dependent upon receipt of Regional Water Board compiled data for significant priority industrial pollutant stormwater sampling exceedances at IGP facilities over the course of the fiscal year. The Permittees did not receive a list of pollutant benchmark exceedances with respect to sampling data from facilities regulated under the State’s IGP from the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Therefore, this task was not conducted this fiscal year.



CI.5 Outreach

CI.5.1 Develop industry and pollutant-specific educational materials

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document industry and pollutant-specific educational materials developed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


No industry and/or pollutant-specific educational materials were developed during the 2014/2015 fiscal year because the current materials are sufficient.

CI.5.2 Track industry and pollutant-specific materials distributed

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document industry and pollutant-specific materials distributed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


During the 2014/2015 fiscal year, EMD conducted outreach to 56 Auto Body Shops, 31 Auto Dealers, 236 Auto Repair Shops, 6 Equipment Rental Companies, 8 Nurseries, 12 kennels, 1,536 Restaurants, 136 Retail Gasoline Outlets, and 97 IGP facilities as part of their CISCP inspections.

EMD provides industry and pollutant-specific outreach materials to each business during triennial inspections conducted as part of the CISCP. Industry specific Stormwater Compliance Assistance Bulletins (CABs) are provided to restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, card lock retail gasoline facilities, equipment rental facilities, kennels, and Industrial General Permit facilities. A Cantonese/Mandarin translation of the restaurant CAB is available for distribution at these restaurants. A BMP fact sheet with erosion and sediment control information is provided to nurseries, and a general/all facility CAB and a waste management and housekeeping CAB is provided to other facilities not covered by industry specific CABs. Stormwater compliance brochures developed by the Partnership for auto repair, auto body, vehicle washing, and restaurants are provided by EMD to these businesses as well as a Surface Washing BMP booklet. Russian translations of the auto body and auto repair brochures are available. A Spanish translation of the restaurant brochure is also available. EMD inspectors provide written and verbal BMP guidance during inspections, are available to business operators by phone after inspection, and will do on-site compliance audits upon request. EMD also refers businesses to BERC for additional BMP guidance and assistance.

Further information on outreach materials distribution can also be found in Chapter 2.6 Task PO.3.2 and the Permittee-specific Commercial/Industrial Element activities described in Chapters 3-9. Additionally, outreach materials can be found online at http://www.beriverfriendly.net.

CI.5.3 Develop priority industrial pollutant-specific educational materials for priority pollutants

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document priority industrial pollutant-specific educational materials developed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Completion of this task is dependent upon receipt of Regional Water Board compiled data for significant priority industrial pollutant stormwater sampling exceedances at IGP facilities over the course of the fiscal



year. The Permittees did not receive a list of pollutant benchmark exceedances with respect to sampling data from facilities regulated under the State’s IGP from the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Therefore, this task was not conducted this fiscal year.

CI.5.4 Track priority industrial pollutant-specific materials distributed

PERMIT REFERENCE


Document priority industrial pollutant-specific materials distributed KEY INDICATOR

ASSESSMENT LEVEL


Completion of this task is dependent upon receipt of Regional Water Board compiled data for significant priority industrial pollutant stormwater sampling exceedances at IGP facilities over the course of the fiscal year. The Permittees did not receive a list of pollutant benchmark exceedances with respect to sampling data from facilities regulated under the State’s IGP from the Regional Water Board during the 2014/2015 fiscal year. Therefore, this task could not be completed this fiscal year.




Work Plan and/or SQIP Revisions and Changes The Report of Waste Discharge and LTEA submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 15, 2013 included SQIP amendments in the form of proposed 5-year Work Plans for each Program and Element for the next permit term. These proposed SQIP amendments were not incorporated in the Limited Term Stormwater Permit due to the limited term of the order. The Partnership plans to incorporate the key recommendations from the LTEA into an updated SQIP when the new Region-wide MS4 Permit is issued. There are no changes recommended to the 2015/2016 Annual Work Plan.

2014/2015 annual report - be river friendly

Documents