1 / 23

California MS4 General Permit: Future Directions & Challenges

This presentation by Christine Sotelo from the State Water Resources Control Board delves into the statistics, challenges, and future components of the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit in California. It covers the current state, stakeholder collaboration, upcoming permit components, and administrative challenges. Learn about the ongoing process, timelines, and the importance of water quality assessments in maintaining compliance and sustainability.

hayes
Télécharger la présentation

California MS4 General Permit: Future Directions & Challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phase II Small MS4 General Permit “What we have learned, where we are going” Christine Sotelo Municipal Storm Water Unit State Water Resources Control Board 916.322.1400 csotelo@waterboards.ca.gov

  2. Presentation Overview • Phase II Statistics/Background Info • State Water Board Permitting Approach • Challenges • Overall Continued Approach • Possible New Permit Components

  3. Overview of California 250 entities designated

  4. North Coast Water Board 13 permitted entities

  5. San Francisco Water Board 30 permitted entities

  6. Central Coast Water Board • 110 designated entities • 102 awaiting permit coverage • 8 permitted entities

  7. Central Valley Water Board • 85 permitted entities • 4 awaiting coverage

  8. Lahontan Water Board 4 permitted entities

  9. Colorado River Water Board 6 designated entities without permit coverage

  10. Overview of California • Los Angeles and Santa Ana Water Boards • Cities/Counties covered under Phase I • San Diego Water Board - • 0 designations

  11. Overview of California 250 entities designated

  12. Stakeholder CollaborationWhat is it? • Information sharing • Meetings • Two-party / Multi-party • Facilitated / Non-Facilitated

  13. Stakeholder Collaboration“Why” • Phase II Issues not monolithic • Stakeholders interests vary • Prevent petitioned permit • Assist in developing preliminary draft

  14. Stakeholder CollaborationMakes Sense • Benefits all parties • Fosters trust, information sharing and communication • Fair structure • Offers strategy if permit contested • Builds foundation • Produces sustainable, stable agreements

  15. Stakeholder CollaborationChallenges • Short time schedule • Permit expires - April 2008

  16. Stakeholder CollaborationCurrent Details • Interviewed Regional Water Boards (ongoing) • Two-party meetings • CASQA/Water Board Issue Teams • NGOs/Water Board • Multi-party meetings

  17. Tentative Timeline Late February Release Preliminary Draft March Two public workshops to discuss draft April Release a Draft Permit May Begin 60 day public comment period June Two public workshops July/August Adopt Permit

  18. Draft General Permit Administrative Challenges • Report of waste discharge requirements • NOI, Fee, new SWMP • Staggered designations • Recently submitted SWMPs • Regional Water Board must review and approve all 250 SWMPs

  19. Draft General PermitOverall Approach • Non-prescriptive - allows flexibility • Continue six MCMs • New permit - no relaxation of programs • Continue BMP measurable goals: • Allowed achievement within permit term • Within 5 years of designation • Compliance with TMDLs • Clarity language and concepts

  20. Possible New Components • Program Management MCM • Farmed out staff • Budget • Consistency (other departments, training) • Ensure overall compliance • Program effectiveness assessment • Current permit - weak language • Integrate CASQAs manual

  21. Possible New Components Possible New Permit Components • Integrate Hydromodification/LID principles into MCM • Sustainability - Board core value • Industrial/Commercial Inspection program into MCM • Current permit - “may” include inspection program into MCM • Tetra tech audits/inspections • Integrate Hydromodification/LID principles into MCM • Integrate Industrial/Commercial Inspection Program into MCM • Water Quality Monitoring • Integrate CASQA Program Effectiveness Guidance manual

  22. Possible New Components • Water Quality Assessments • Ultimately programs must assess effectiveness of the overall program • Difficult and expensive • Possibly require answers to “Water Quality Assessment questions” • Purpose • Type of data needed • Appropriate assessment method

  23. Contact Information Christine Sotelo Municipal Storm Water Unit State Water Resources Control Board 916.322.1400 csotelo@waterboards.ca.gov

More Related