San Bernardino County Stormwater Program€¦ · Table of Contents TABLE OF...

Annual Report Reporting Year (Fiscal Year) July 2009 – June 2010

For Compliance with Order Nos. R8-2002-0012 & R8-2010-0036

NPDES Permit No. CAS618036

Prepared By San Bernardino County Flood Control District

November 2010

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ I

TABLE OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. III

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .................................................................. 9

1.1 PROGRAM STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 10 1.1.1 Management Committee and Subcommittees..................................................................... 10

1.2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 13 1.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................. 13

1.3.1 Regulatory Authorities ............................................................................................................ 13 1.3.2 Stormwater Ordinance ............................................................................................................. 14

1.4 FISCAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 14

SECTION 2 PROGRAM STATUS ...................................................................................... 21

2.1 MS4 SOLUTION .................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 ILLEGAL DISCHARGE PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 21

2.2.1 Illicit Connections ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Illegal Activities ........................................................................................................................ 26 2.3.1 Industrial Facilities ................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.2 Commercial Facilities ............................................................................................................... 35

2.4 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.............................................. 37 2.4.1 HCOC Map (Erosion-Control BMP Effectiveness Study) ................................................. 38 2.4.2 Water Quality Management Plan ........................................................................................... 39 2.4.3 Construction ............................................................................................................................... 39

2.5 PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 44 2.5.1 Storm Drain System ................................................................................................................. 45 2.5.2 Corporation Yards ..................................................................................................................... 45 2.5.3 Street and Road Maintenance ................................................................................................. 46 2.5.4 Drainage Facilities .................................................................................................................... 48 2.5.5 Training Programs .................................................................................................................... 52

2.6 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................... 57 2.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ................................................................... 58

2.7.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 58 2.7.2 Program Goals ........................................................................................................................... 58 2.7.3 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 59 2.7.4 Non-Media Outreach ................................................................................................................ 59 2.7.6 Material Production .................................................................................................................. 60 2.7.7 School Education ....................................................................................................................... 64 2.7.8 Website ....................................................................................................................................... 64 2.7.9 Hotline ........................................................................................................................................ 66 2.7.10 Regional Events ......................................................................................................................... 68 2.7.11 Media ........................................................................................................................................... 69 2.7.12 Program Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 69

2.8 INDIVIDUAL PERMITTEE OUTREACH ................................................................................ 70

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page i

SECTION 3 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 2009-10 STORMWATER MONITORING PROGRAM ......................................................................... 72

3.1 STORMWATER MONITORING COALITION STUDIES ........................................................ 72 3.1.1 Bioassessment Monitoring Program ..................................................................................... 73 3.1.2 Stormwater Data Compilation Study .................................................................................... 73 3.1.3 Laboratory Intercalibration Study ......................................................................................... 74 3.1.4 Hydromodification Study ...................................................................................................... 74 3.1.5 Low Impact Development Study ........................................................................................... 75

3.2 TMDL MONITORING PROGRAMS PROGRESS ................................................................. 75 3.3.1 Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 77 3.3.2 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................... 79 3.3.5 Comparison of Wet Weather Event Maxima ........................................................................ 95 3.3.6 Comparison with Stormwater Data ....................................................................................... 97 3.3.7 Data Quality Assessment and Quality Control ......................................................................... 99

3.4 BACKGROUND BACTERIAL INDICATOR STUDIES .......................................................... 100 3.5 PILOT POLLUTANT SOURCE INVESTIGATION AND CONTROL PLAN ........................... 101 3.6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 105

SECTION 4 OVERALL PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ............................................... 106

4.1 PROGRAM AREAS .............................................................................................................. 109 4.2 ILLEGAL DISCHARGES....................................................................................................... 109 4.3 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES? .................................................................. 110 4.4 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 110 4.5 PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 110 4.6 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 111 4.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ................................................................. 111 4.8 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................................................................................................ 112

SECTION 5 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FOR REPORTING YEAR 2010-11 ............... 113

5.1 ILLEGAL DISCHARGE PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 113 5.2 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES .................................................................... 113 5.3 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 114 5.4 PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 115 5.5 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 115 5.6 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION ..................................................................... 116 5.7 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................................................................................................ 116 5.8 MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................................................................. 116 5.9 TMDLS ............................................................................................................................... 117 5.10 TRAINING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 122 5.11 OTHER PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................ 122

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page ii

Table of Figures Figure 1.1.1 Management Committee Meeting Attendance by Permitee ................................................................. 11 Figure 1.1.2 Active Subcommittee Membership During Fiscal Year 2009-10 by Permittee ................................... 12 Figure 1.1.3 Active Subcommittee Participation During Fiscal Year 2009-10 by Permittee .................................. 12 Figure 1.4.1 Fiscal Summary by Program Element .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 1.4.2 Fiscal summary by Permittee ............................................................................................................... 16 Figure 1.4.3 Areawide Program Expenditures by Reporting Year ........................................................................... 17 Figure 1.4.4 Comparison of Areawide Program Budget and Expenditures .............................................................. 19 Figure 1.4.5 Areawide Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-10 ............................................................................ 20 Figure 2.2.1 Percentage of Open Channels Inspected and Cleaned In Fiscal Year 2009-10 .................................... 23 Figure 2.2.2 Percentage of Underground Storm Drains Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10 ................. 23 Figure 2.2.3 Percentage of Storm Drain Inlets Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10 ............................... 24 Figure 2.2.4 Percentage of Debris/Detention Basins Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10...................... 24 Figure 2.2.5 Percentage of Areawide Drainage Facilities Inspected by Reporting Year .......................................... 25 Figure 2.2.6 Percentage of Drainage Facilities Cleaned by Reporting Year ............................................................ 26 Figure 2.2.7 Areawide Summary of Reporting Sources for Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events ..................... 27 Figure 2.2.8 Types of Areawide Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events .............................................................. 28 Figure 2.2.9 Areawide Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events by Reporting Year ............................................... 28 Figure 2.2.10 Areawide Make-up of Illegal Discharge Enforcement Types ............................................................ 29 Figure 2.3.1 Areawide Make-up of General and Non-General Industrial Violations ............................................... 30 Figure 2.3.2 Total Industrial Facilities by Permittee ................................................................................................ 31 Figure 2.3.3 General Permitted and Non-General Permitted Industrial Facilities by Permittee ............................... 31 Figure 2.3.4 General Permitted Industrial Facilities and Priorities by Permittee ..................................................... 33 Figure 2.3.5 Permitted Industrial Facility Inspections and Violations by Permittee ................................................ 33 Figure 2.3.6 Non-General Permitted Industrial Facilities and Priorities by Permittee ............................................. 34 Figure 2.3.7 Non-General Permitted Industrial Facility Inspections and Inspections with Violations by Permittee 34 Figure 2.3.8 Total Commercial Facilities by Priority by Permittee .......................................................................... 35 Figure 2.3.9 Commercial Facility Inspections and Violations by Permittee ............................................................ 36 Figure 2.3.10 Wide Make-up of Violations from Commercial Facility Inspections ................................................ 36 Figure 2.4.1 Total Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee............................................................................ 40 Figure 2.4.2 General and Non-General Permitted Construction Sites by Permittee ................................................. 41 Figure 2.4.3 General Permitted Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee ....................................................... 41 Figure 2.4.4 General Permitted Construction Site Inspections and Inspections with Violations ............................. 42 Figure 2.4.5 Non-General Permitted Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee ............................................... 42 Figure 2.4.6 Non-General Permitted Construction Site Inspections and Inspections with Violations ..................... 43 Figure 2.4.7 Areawide Make-up of General and Non-General Construction Site Enforcement Types .................... 43 Figure 2.5.1 Municipal Facility Inventory and Inspection by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2008-09 ........................... 45 Figure 2.5.2 Street Sweeping: Inventory of Curb-Miles by Permittee ..................................................................... 47 Figure 2.5.3 Street Sweeping: Percent Curb-Miles Swept by Permittee During Fiscal Year 2009-10 ..................... 47 Figure 2.5.4 Street Sweeping: Tonnage of Sediment and Debris Removed per Curb-Mile in Test Area ................ 48 Figure 2.5.5 Percentage of Drainage Facilities Cleaned by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2009-10 ............................... 49 Figure 2.5.6 Volume of Debris Removed from Drainage Facilities by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2009-10 ............. 50 Figure 2.5.7 Approximate Composition of Material Removed from Drainage Facilities Areawide ........................ 52 Figure 2.5.8 Summary of Key Staff Trained ............................................................................................................ 54 Figure 2.5.9 Summary of Non-Key Staff Provided with Stormwater Education ..................................................... 54 Figure 2.5.10 Additional Training Events and Staff Trained by Individual Permittees ........................................... 55 Figure 2.6.1 Areawide Total of Household Hazardous Waste Collected by Waste Type ........................................ 57 Figure 2.6.2 Total Household Hazardous Waste Collected Annually, 1996-2011 ................................................... 58 Figure 2.8.1 Non-Areawide Outreach Events Conducted by Individual Permittees ................................................ 70 Figure 2.8.2 Individual Permittee Outreach Event Types and Total Impressions .................................................... 71 Figure 3.3.1 Santa Ana River Basin Sampling Sites ................................................................................................ 78 Figure 3.3.2 Daily Precipitation and fiscal year 2009-10 Monitoring Events .......................................................... 80 Figure 3.3.3 Distribution of Pollutant Maximum Concentrations during FY 2009-2010 ......................................... 96 Figure 3.3.4 Distribution of Bacteria Constituent Maximum Concentrations during FY 2009-10 .......................... 96

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page iii

Figure 3.6.1 Drainage Map of Site 5, Verified through Storm Drain Map Evaluation and Field Reconnaissance. 103 Figure 3.6.2 Drainage Map of Site 5, with sampling locations indicated. .............................................................. 104

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page iv

List of Tables Table I-1 Name Abbreviations for Permittees ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 1-1 Funding Sources for Individual Permittees ........................................................................................ 17 Table 2-1 Methods Used to Address Stormwater Quality during Project Planning and Design Stage ............... 37 Table 2-2 Permittee Inspection and Maintenance Procedure Review................................................................. 51 Table 2-3 Live Training Seminars Conducted by the Areawide Program in FY 2009-10 .................................. 55 Table 3-1 Sampled Constituents ......................................................................................................................... 76 Table 3-2 Stormwater Monitoring Site Characteristics ...................................................................................... 79 Table 3-3 Receiving Water Monitoring Site Characteristics .............................................................................. 79 Table 3-4 Inches of Rainfall in Drainage Area for FY 2009-10 ......................................................................... 81 Table 3-5 Antecedent Rainfall Conditions for the 2009-10 Monitoring Events1 ................................................ 81 Table 3-6 Samples Collected During the 2009-10 Wet Season .......................................................................... 82 Table 3-7 Water Quality Objectives for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River (Sites 2, 3, and 8) ............................. 83 Table 3-8 Water Quality Objectives for Reach 6 of the Santa Ana River (Site 10) ........................................... 84 Table 3-9 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 2 (Flow-Paced Composite) ................................................... 85 Table 3-10 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 3 (Flow-Paced Composite) ................................................... 87 Table 3-11 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 5 (Flow-Paced Composite) ................................................... 89 Table 3-12 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 8 (Receiving Water Grabs) ................................................... 91 Table 3-13 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 10 (Receiving Water Grabs) ................................................. 93 Table 3-14 Comparison of San Bernardino Runoff Data with National and Local Stormwater Data for

Median Commercial/Industrial EMC Values ..................................................................................... 98 Table 3-15 Number of Samples Exceeding Basin Plan Daily Maximum Limits, 2003-2010 ............................ 100 Table 3-16 Summary Statistics of Indicator Bacteria Concentrations (MPN/100 mL) for Samples Taken

2003-2010 ........................................................................................................................................ 100 Table 5-1 Waters on the 303 (d) list in San Bernardino MS4 Permit Area ...................................................... 119

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page v

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Accomplishments for this Reporting Year The Stormwater Program and the Permittees continued to implement the requirements of the Municipal Stormwater Permit during fiscal year 2009-10. Through the Management Committee and the subcommittees, priorities were established and specific program elements were developed and implemented. Highlights of this year’s accomplishments are described below.

• Fourth-Term Permit Adopted January 29, 2010

The Stormwater Program submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) as application for a renewal of the Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit) in October 2006. A public draft Tentative Order of the renewed Permit was released on June 26, 2009. Six months of permit negotiations between the Permittees and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) occurred between July 2009 and January 2010. The renewed fourth-term Areawide Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036) was adopted on January 29, 2010.

• MS4 Database Development

The MS4 Database Subcommittee, with Consultant assistance, continued to develop and refine the database. The MS4 Database improves tracking and reporting of most required Stormwater Program activities, including inspections, municipal activities, outreach, and fiscal data. The MS4 Database is available to all Permittees via the World Wide Web, and has the capability for inspection data to be entered in real time using mobile data devices. The Stormwater Program has also granted limited access for Regional Board staff to review Permittee data. Configuration and implementation of the CityWorks® municipal work management software was begun in late 2005, as a companion application to enhance stormwater activity management. Although it was anticipated to have this program operational by early 2007, it has been delayed due to delayed release of the required ESRI GIS software, and by the need to purchase and configure the needed hardware. Barring further delays, CityWorks® should be operational by early 2011.

• Training

The Training Subcommittee developed content for, or coordinated, five training events this year that were attended by over 200 staff from the Permittee member agencies. The Training Subcommittee is currently working to enhance the training program to meet the new requirements of the fourth-term Permit. The Subcommittee will explore options for collaboration on training efforts with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) and neighboring municipal stormwater programs, and continue the training material lending library.

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page 1

Executive Summary

• Implementation Agreement Revision

The Implementation Agreement for the Stormwater Program was reviewed during the ROWD process in 2006-2007, and was revised to coincide with implementation of the renewed Permit, which had been scheduled for mid-2007. Ongoing legal discussions regarding the Implementation Agreement resulted in further revisions and a delay in approving the revised Agreement. However, a revised Implementation Agreement was finalized near the end of June 2010 and is being presented for approval to each Permittee’s governing board or council. We expect all Permittees will have approved the revised agreement by the end of March 2011 and be effective beginning fiscal 2011-12.

• Completed GIS Mapping Element of the HCOC Map

RBF Consulting (RBF) was hired in 2006 to develop a map of the Permit watershed area that identifies stream channel reaches where there is a Hydrologic Condition of Concern (HCOC) (existing or potential degradation of unimproved stream channels). In 2008-09, the mapping of the improved and natural channels was completed, and the quality control review process by San Bernardino County Department of Public Works was completed in late 2009. Remaining tasks include the characterization and prioritization of unimproved or natural channel reaches for follow-up evaluations and discussion of the findings with the Regional Board staff. The Stormwater Program continues to add data layers and functionality to the HCOC Map, which is available online. The HCOC Map now serves as the backbone platform for development of the Watershed Action Plan (WAP) required by the fourth-term Permit.

• Participation in the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District), as the Principal Permittee, continues to participate on behalf of the Co-Permittees in the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force (SWQSTF). The SWQSTF, created to evaluate REC-1 beneficial use designations in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan), includes staff from Orange County Riverside County, Orange County CoastKeeper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Regional Board, and this effort assists the Regional Board to conduct its triennial review of the Basin Plan. Phase 1 of this effort concluded in December 2004. Phase 2 was completed in 2007, and Phase 3 has been underway since late 2006. The Permittees have contributed substantial funding to the Task Force, which has so far compiled and analyzed: regulatory requirements; existing data on pathogens; and recreational activities in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Reports and technical memoranda were prepared that document the findings. This year, the revised Basin Plan Amendment was being prepared for CEQA scoping and a Regional Board Workshop was scheduled to occur in early 2011.

Objectives for the Basin Plan Amendment include a suspension of water quality standards for periods of unsafe high flows, changing beneficial use designations from full contact recreational use to a “limited” recreational use, with appropriate standards for pathogen indicators based on risk of illness, and changes to the water quality objectives for pathogen indicators.

All documents related to this project are available at the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority website: http://www.sawpa.org/projects/planning/stormwater2.htm.


http://www.sawpa.org/projects/planning/stormwater2.htm

Executive Summary

• TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Development and Implementation

Middle Santa Ana River Pathogen TMDL This TMDL includes Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River (from Prado Dam to Mission Boulevard in Riverside County), as well as reaches of Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Mill Creek near Prado, and Prado Park Lake. TMDLs for these waters were adopted by the Regional Board in August 2005 as an amendment to the Basin Plan, and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) approved the TMDL on May 15, 2006.

Compliance with the TMDL requires the stakeholders to conduct focused monitoring and a detailed investigation of bacterial sources. The studies should help identify how, and where, to implement control measures to reduce the bacterial concentrations.

The first full year of monitoring was completed in fiscal 2007-08, and continued in fiscal 2008-09, and fiscal 2009-10. Monitoring results (attached as the MSAR Bacteria Indicator TMDL Triennial Report) identified several reaches that are impacted by human pathogen sources, including Box Springs Canyon, Chris Basin, and Cypress Channel. The source of human pathogen indicators in Box Springs Canyon was found to be an illicit connection. Other areas are in the process of further investigation and source assessment.

This year, the District began development of the Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plan (CBRP) as required by the fourth-term Permit (Section V.2.D.i). The CBRP will describe, in detail, the specific actions that have been taken or will be taken to achieve compliance with the water quality objectives (urban wasteload allocation) under dry weather conditions (April 1st through October 31st) by December 31, 2015. The draft CBRP must be submitted to the Regional Board by December 31, 2010. Once approved, the CBRP will become the final Water Quality Based Effluent Limits for the MSAR TMDL.

Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL The District participates in the Big Bear TMDL Task Force on behalf of the Co-Permittees. The Regional Board adopted the Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL for Dry Hydrologic Conditions on April 21, 2006. The Big Bear TMDL Task Force is working to implement required TMDL tasks. In-lake water quality monitoring continued in fiscal 2009-10 and monitoring in the tributaries was initiated in July 2009. Results of the monitoring program show overall improvement in beneficial use indicators (attached as Big Bear Lake TMDL Annual Report, February 2010).

The District submitted three components of the Big Bear Lake—Lake Management Plan on February 26, 2010 (Nuisance Aquatic Weed Management Plan), March 31, 2010 (Model Update Plan and Schedule), and April 15, 2010 (In-Lake Sediment Nutrient Reduction Plan). (These three plans were consolidated into a single document now titled “The Big Bear TMDL Action Plan” and were resubmitted to the Regional Board on August 27, 2010.) These documents fulfill Provision V.D.4.h of the fourth-term Permit, and are consistent with the requirements specified in Task 6 of the TMDL. These Plans describe the management actions and commitments that are expected to achieve and maintain compliance with the water quality targets for Big Bear Lake.


Executive Summary

• Participation in the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition

The third-term Permit (Monitoring and Reporting Program III.6 and III.7) and the fourth-term Permit (Monitoring and Reporting Program V) require the Permittees to cooperate with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) in regional monitoring and assessment efforts. The District participates on behalf of the Co-Permittees in the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC) that operates in cooperation and with guidance from SCCWRP. SMC members include six southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura), the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the State Water Resources Control Board, three Regional Boards (Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions), the USEPA, Caltrans, and SCCWRP. Recent and ongoing work by the SMC includes the following:

• Stormwater Data Compilation Study • Implementing a Regionally Consistent and Integrated Freshwater Stream

Bioassessment Monitoring Program • Laboratory Intercalibration Study • Hydromodification Study • Low Impact Development Study

Planned Activities for Next Year In addition to continued implementation of relevant Permit requirements, the following program elements will be targeted for implementation in fiscal 2010-11.

• Local Implementation Plans

The District worked with the Co-Permittees to develop a Model Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The LIP describes how individual Permittees will implement the requirements of the MS4 Permit within their own jurisdictions. Accordingly, the LIP translates the Permit requirements into actions that manage water quality in the local jurisdiction. Each Permittee is required to adopt a LIP for its own jurisdiction by July 29, 2011.

• WQMP Revision

The Co-Permittees are in the process of rewriting the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Guidance under the leadership of the New Development Subcommittee. The review and revision of the WQMP Guidance will address any new or revised provisions in the fourth-term Permit, including the incorporation of Low Impact Development principles. The new WQMP will also be strongly linked to the WAP and the LIPs.

• Watershed Action Plan

The fourth term Permit requires the development of a Watershed Action Plan (WAP) (Section XI.B) that “integrates water quality, stream protection, stormwater management, water


Executive Summary

conservation and re-use, and flood protection, with land use planning and development processes.” This work has been underway since February 2010, and is on schedule to be completed by the due date of January 29, 2011 for the WAP, Phase 1. The WAP builds significantly upon the basic mapping of the HCOC map.

• TMDL Implementation

The MSAR Pathogen TMDL Task Force will continue implementation of the required watershed compliance monitoring program and urban source evalution plans. In addition, the District and the Co-Permittees will complete the development of the CBRP as required for the MSAR TMDL, and follow-up with the Regional Board to ensure its approval. The Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force will continue the approved In-Lake and Watershed-Wide Monitoring Programs, and follow-up with Regional Board to obtain approval of the Big Bear TMDL Action Plan and begin implementation as necessary.

• Monitoring Program Improvements

The fourth-term Permit requires that a new Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program (IWMP) be developed by January 29, 2011. Development of the new IWMP is ongoing and on schedule to be submitted as required. The new IWMP will include additional requirements for dry-weather sampling, regional monitoring, and hydromodification monitoring, with commensurate cost increases.

• Training

The Stormwater Program will continue to host stormwater training events based on the training needs of the member agencies. Training events planned for the next fiscal year include construction BMP and WQMP training, along with more training for LID (Low Impact Development) implementation. Additional training materials will be evaluated by the Training Subcommittee for inclusion in the stormwater library. The Stormwater Program website will also be evaluated for additional opportunities to enhance available training information and materials.

• CASQA Participation The District, acting on behalf of the Co-Permittees, will continue to participate as a member of CASQA to further the interests of stormwater permit holders throughout the state. CASQA works with the State Board and the USEPA to develop and comment on stormwater policies. The District has a representative on the CASQA Board of Directors and the CASQA Executive Program Committee.


Introduction

Introduction The San Bernardino County Stormwater Program (Stormwater Program) began immediately after the issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit (Permit) from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) in October 1990. The Permit named the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District), the County of San Bernardino (unincorporated areas in the Santa Ana River Basin), and the sixteen incorporated cities in the basin as Permittees. The Permit also designated the District as Principal Permittee and the County and sixteen incorporated cities as Co-Permittees. Although all permittees work cooperatively to implement the area-wide MS4 program, each permittee is responsible for compliance with the Permit within its respective jurisdiction.

The Permit initially required the Permittees to develop and implement a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) to minimize non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system and reduce pollution caused by stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The original DAMP was prepared in October 1993, and described the development of required program elements designed to minimize the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. Each Permittee is individually responsible for compliance with the Permit (local programs), although they perform several activities cooperatively or in close coordination (area wide programs).

In 1995, a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) was prepared. The ROWD described the progress made during the first five-year permit term and served as the application for the second-term permit. The Permit was renewed by the Regional Board for a second five-year term (1996-2000) in March 1996. The DAMP and ROWD were made enforceable components of the second-term Permit. During the second-term, the Permittees established required programs, procedures, and policies (collectively referred to as the Municipal Stormwater Management Program (MSWMP)) designed to identify and reduce sources of stormwater pollution and water quality impairment.

On September 1, 2000, the Permittees submitted a revised ROWD and MSWMP to the Regional Board as the application for the third-term Permit. The MSWMP replaced the DAMP. On September 29, 2000, the Regional Board responded with comments that were promptly responded to by the Permittees. On March 2, 2001 the second-term permit (1996-2000) was administratively extended because the Regional Board had not yet issued a third-term Permit. The administratively extended second-term Permit (Order No. 96-32, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036) required the Permittees to continue implementing their stormwater program in accordance with the MSWMP. A third-term Permit was issued on April 26, 2002, under Board Order No. R8-2002-0012 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036).

On October 27, 2006, the District and the Co-Permittees submitted a ROWD and MSWMP, as required, to the Regional Board as application for a fourth-term Permit. The Regional Board released a public draft of the proposed fourth-term Permit (Tentative Order R8-2009-0036) on June 26, 2009. The District, on behalf of the Permittees, submitted written comments on September 9, 2009, and submitted supplemental written comments on September 16, 2009, and on October 13, 2009. The Permittees also participated in several meetings with Regional Board


Introduction

staff in August, September, and early October, 2009. The Regional Board released a second draft of Tentative Order R8-2009-036 on October 23, 2009, and several meetings were held in October and November 2009. These meetings variously included meetings with Regional Board staff, San Bernardino County Stormwater Permittees, and Riverside County Stormwater Permittees. A third draft of the fourth-term Permit was released on December 14, 2009, and the Permittees submitted comments on January 7, 2010. Further meetings and discussions followed the third draft release, and the fourth-term Permit was adopted by the Regional Board on January 29, 2010.

This (fiscal 2009-10) Annual Report presents the current status of MSWMP implementation, with an evaluation of program effectiveness for the reporting year (fiscal year July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010) and planned activities for the upcoming year (July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011). Due to the permit renewal in January 2010, this report bridges the third and fourth Permit terms. The majority of reported activities were conducted per the third-term Permit requirements, since new program requirements of the fourth-term Permit generally include a phase-in period. The tables and figures in this report were developed through an online database program. The District, as the Principal Permittee, uses the database to analyze programmatic data and evaluate possible trends, levels of compliance, program effectiveness, and other useful program management information. The Permittees are each independently responsible for entering information specific to their program into the database, and for submittal of required information and materials needed to comply with the Permit. The Permit also requires that these submittals be signed by a duly authorized Permittee representative under penalty of perjury (Monitoring and Reporting Program IV.3). The signatures/certifications provided by the Permittees are included in the attached CD ROM. All Permittees had provided the signature/certifications as of the Annual Report submittal date.

This is the sixth Annual Report to rely on the MS4 database to provide Permittee data. Every attempt has been made to ensure that all Permit-required information is included, and that the data are accurate. In addition, Regional Board staff have been granted limited access to view database contents via the World Wide Web.

The following terminology is used in this report:

Principal Permittee – San Bernardino County Flood Control District

Co-Permittees – County of San Bernardino and the sixteen incorporated cities in the Santa Ana Watershed area of San Bernardino County: Cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa.

Permittees – Principal Permittee and the Co-Permittees, collectively.

MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (storm drains or channels)

Permittee abbreviations used in the report figures are shown in Table I-1.


Introduction

Table I-1 Name Abbreviations for Permittees

Agency Abbr. Agency Abbr. Big Bear Lake BBL Ontario ONT Chino CHI Rancho Cucamonga RAC Chino Hills CHH Redlands RED Colton COL Rialto RIA Fontana FON San Bernardino SBD Grand Terrace GRT San Bernardino County SBC Highland HIG SBC Flood Control District FCD Loma Linda LOL Upland UPL Montclair MON Yucaipa YUC


Section 1 Program Administration

Section 1 Program Administration The MSWMP requires a significant managerial and administrative commitment to oversee the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address pollution from particular activities and/or land uses. As these management activities are vital to the success of the MSWMP, they have been included as a program element. The Permittees evaluated the MSWMP and the existing management structure during the development of a new Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) as application for the fourth-term Permit. The applicable recommended revisions to the MSWMP and revisions necessary to comply with the requirements of the fourth-term Permit are in the process of being completed.

Local Implementation Plans – The fourth-term Permit (Sections III.A.2.a; III.B1) requires an approved Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for each Permittee. The LIP describes how the Permittee will implement the requirements of the Permit within its own jurisdiction. Accordingly, the MSWMP and the LIP are the principal documents that comprehensively translate the Permit requirements into actions that manage water quality in the local MS4. The Principal Permittee worked with the Co-Permittees to develop a Model LIP that includes the following sections:

Program Management (Section 2) – Provides an overview of the area-wide Permit program, authority and organization, and the Permittee’s responsibilities with the Stormwater Program. This section also documents the Permittee’s individual legal authority, organizational structure and departmental responsibilities, enforcement procedures, funding resources, information management, and training policies and procedures.

Illegal Connections/Illicit Discharges (Section 3) – Describes the procedures for detecting and eliminating illegal connections and illicit discharges (IC/ID) to the MS4.

Municipal Inspection Programs (Section 4) – Describes procedures for maintaining industrial facility, commercial facility, and construction site inventories, implementing periodic inspections and inspection procedures, and reducing pollutants from targeted sources associated with industrial or commercial facilities and construction activities.

New Development and Redevelopment (Section 5) – Provides information regarding stormwater management requirements associated with new development or significant redevelopment projects.

Public Agency Activities (Section 6) – Describes procedures for maintaining facility inventories, conducting facility inspections, and implementing municipal construction activities, and management programs to reduce potential sources of pollutants from sanitary sewers and targeted sources.

Residential (Section 7) – Describes urban runoff management programs to reduce pollutants from residential areas.

Public Education and Outreach (Section 8) – Summarizes activities carried out throughout San Bernardino County to educate the public on how to reduce pollutants in urban runoff.



Program Evaluation (Section 9) – Describes Permit requirements to periodically evaluate program activities and implementation progress through venues such as this LIP, the MSWMP and Annual Reports.

Monitoring (Section 10) – Describes monitoring activities conducted as part of the MS4 program to evaluate urban water quality trends and compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements.

Watershed Management (Section 11) – Describes Permit activities that relate to the management of urban runoff through a watershed-based approach

1.1 Program Structure The Stormwater Program was initiated to comply with the requirements of the Permit. The Stormwater Program is comprised of the District, the County, and the Cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa.

1.1.1 Management Committee and Subcommittees

The Permittees formed a Management Committee to manage MSWMP implementation efforts. The Management Committee is made up of one representative (typically the NPDES coordinator) from each Permittee and, in fiscal 2009-10, was chaired by Matt Yeager, the District’s Stormwater Program Manager.

The Management Committee makes decisions that provide overall guidance throughout the permit term, and recommends implementation actions for the areawide program to the District for execution. Subcommittees are formed to address specific program tasks, and may consist of Management Committee representatives or other Permittee staff. The subcommittees are responsible for developing program element guidelines and making recommendations for action to the Management Committee. Management Committee-approved program elements are finalized by the Principal Permittee for submittal to the Regional Board for review and approval. Once approved by the Regional Board, a program element is included within the MSWMP, and is implemented by the Permittees.

The Management Committee meets on the third Wednesday of each month at the Principal Permittee’s office. Management Committee meetings are scheduled for two and one-half hours, and are open to the public. Co-Permittee attendance is encouraged for full participation in the development of program issues, as well as for sharing local program implementation issues for the benefit of all. Also, the third-term Permit required each Co-Permittee to designate one primary representative and one alternate to the Management Committee, and to attend 9 out of 11 scheduled meetings each year. The fourth-term Permit now requires each Permittee to attend 7 out of 8 Management Committee Meetings. Fewer Management Committee meetings will allow more time for the program Subcommittees to meet, and place more responsibility on them to work through the required program deliverables. The intent is to retain the Management Committee time slot, already reserved by the Permittees, during which subcommittees can be held instead. Figure 1.1.1 shows Management Committee meeting attendance for fiscal 2009-10.



Figure 1.1.1 Management Committee Meeting Attendance by Permitee

A total of 12 Management Committee meetings were held this year. All Permittees met or exceeded the attendance commitment as specified in the third-term Permit, as well as the fourth-term Permit. Nine Permittees attended all 12 meetings, seven Permittees attended 10 meetings, and two attended 9 meetings, with the remainder attending 11 meetings.

Subcommittees are formed as needed. There are three standing subcommittees (Monitoring, Fiscal/Legal, and Public Education), two of which were active over this reporting year (Public Education and Fiscal/Legal). These standing subcommittees focus on long-term program tasks. Membership in these subcommittees is voluntary; however, Permittees with expertise directly related to the subcommittee’s goals are encouraged to participate. Figure 1.1.2 shows active subcommittees and participation, by Permittee, during fiscal 2009-10.

Ad-hoc subcommittees are formed, as required, to carry out focused tasks and to complete specific projects that occur on a less frequent or non-recurring basis. For this reporting year, the MS4 Database, New Development, and Training ad-hoc subcommittees remained active. A subcommittee was formed in 2006 to develop the ROWD as application for renewal of the Permit. The ROWD Subcommittee also worked on the development and negotiation of the fourth-term Permit. A new ad-hoc subcommittee was formed this year to develop the Model LIP. Permittee representatives voluntarily serve as Subcommittee Chairs. Subcommittees were chaired by representatives from Montclair (Public Education), the County (Training and Fiscal), San Bernardino (Fiscal), New/Redevelopment (Ontario), and the District (MS4 Database and ROWD). Figure 1.1.3 shows the actual participation in subcommittees by Permittee.



Figure 1.1.2 Active Subcommittee Membership During Fiscal Year 2009-10 by Permittee

Figure 1.1.3 Active Subcommittee Participation During Fiscal Year 2009-10 by Permittee



1.2 Institutional Arrangements The Permittees entered into an Implementation Agreement dated May 4, 1992. The agreement designates the District as the Principal Permittee, and the County and the Cities as Co-Permittees. This agreement defines the responsibilities of the Principal Permittee and the Co-Permittees. It also defines the funding mechanism for the areawide programs that are administered by the Principal Permittee. Under the initial Implementation Agreement, cost share percentages for the Co-Permittees were based on the adjusted acreage of various land uses, with the Principal Permittee contributing 5%. During fiscal 2005-06 and fiscal 2006-07, the Implementation Agreement was thoroughly reviewed by the Permittees within the Fiscal Subcommittee and several revisions were proposed.

As reported last year, the Fiscal Subcommittee has reconsidered the fundamental assumptions for the cost share formula, and a new cost share formula based on population, land area, and a base or equal share has been developed.

In addition, the role and authority of the Management Committee has been discussed and a more detailed description has been proposed. Timelines for administrative activities have also been modified to be more realistic. The revised draft Implementation Agreement has been reviewed by the Permittees’ upper management and legal counsels, and all comments were considered by the Fiscal Subcommittee and revisions were made as appropriate. A final revised Implementation Agreement is under consideration for adoption by the Permittees, and is expected to be completed by early 2011, and will be effective beginning fiscal 2011-12.

1.3 Legal Authority Legal authority establishes the enforcement powers of governmental agencies to take action against violators of applicable laws, including the NPDES Program. Federal regulations promulgated in November 1990 provided the legal authority to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mandate the NPDES program for stormwater discharges. In California, EPA has designated the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to administer and enforce the NPDES program. The State Board has, in turn, designated the Regional Boards to issue Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permits, either individually or jurisdictionally.

1.3.1 Regulatory Authorities

General NPDES stormwater permits in California for construction activities, linear and underground projects, industrial activities, and Phase II municipal programs are issued by the State Board, with enforcement powers delegated to the Regional Boards. Phase I Municipal NPDES stormwater permits are issued and enforced by the Regional Boards. A Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit governs this Stormwater Program. The Regional Boards may also issue individual stormwater permits to individual dischargers.



1.3.2 Stormwater Ordinance

Each Permittee has adopted a stormwater ordinance to provide legal authority to control the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system. A model storm drain ordinance was prepared by the Fiscal/Legal Subcommittee, and the legal counsels of each Permittee reviewed it before being finalized. Permittees adopted individual ordinances based on the model ordinance in August 1994. The Permittees have authority to issue Notices of Violation (NOVs) to violators of stormwater ordinances, as well as administrative civil liability actions or criminal prosecution. Several Permittees have revised their stormwater ordinances since 1994.

The fourth-term Permit requires all Permittees to maintain adequate legal authority to control the discharge of pollutants to their MS4s as detailed in Section VII of the Permit. The Permittees are in various stages of reviewing their legal authority and its applicability to the fourth-term Permit. If necessary, certification statements, signed by legal counsel, will be submitted as required by the fourth-term Permit at VII.J.

1.4 Fiscal Analysis Prior to promulgation of the NPDES regulations, the Permittees had pollution prevention programs in place (including BMP implementation), which complement the NPDES program by reducing the potential for pollutants to enter the storm drain system. These existing programs include street sweeping, hazardous waste collection, recycling, storm drain maintenance, and others. The 2001 ROWD, finalized in September 2002, describes these BMPs, with an analysis to determine adequacy, or if they are in need of improvement. Permittees have evaluated these BMPs for their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses, and continue to implement these programs. The MSWMP submitted in October 2006, along with the ROWD for the fourth-term Permit, evaluated existing BMPs, and proposed changes in BMP implementation for the fourth-term Permit. All of the existing programs were found to have pollution prevention value to varying degrees. The single most significant recommendation in the 2006 MSWMP, and in the fourth-term Permit, is a shift to a risk-based implementation focus. This reporting year is a transition from the third-term Permit to the fourth-term Permit, so new program elements are only beginning to be implemented.

Budgets are prepared annually (with the exception of one permittee that budgets according to a two-year cycle) for these programs. Annual Reports for fiscal 2005-06 and earlier included Program Total costs (please refer to fiscal 2005-06 Annual Report, Figure 1.4.1), but neither the third-term Permit nor the fourth-term Permit specifically require this information to be reported. In addition, the Permittees typically do not track NPDES costs and total program cost separately for all program elements. Therefore, this detailed information per Permitee is difficult to obtain. The Permittees budget annually for participation in the areawide program, and and areawide implementation is led by the Principal Permittee. Figure 1.4.1 shows expenditures for the previous fiscal year, budgeted amounts for the current reporting year, and estimated budget amounts for next fiscal year, for selected program elements. The reported amounts include actual, budgeted, and estimated costs incurred by the Permittees to implement agency-specific program elements identified in the original DAMP and as amended in the 2001 ROWD (e.g., illicit connections/illegal discharges, industrial/commercial inspection, etc.), as well as areawide costs (e.g., public education, monitoring program, etc.).



Some programs began before the first permit was issued, and other programs were added over the course of the three permit terms. One of the largest costs is for municipal maintenance activities (note that Figure 1.4.1, below, has a log scale on the Y-axis).

Figure 1.4.1 Fiscal Summary by Program Element

Figure 1.4.2 shows the total expenditures to implement programs and conduct activities explicitly required by the Permit and directly related to the Permit requirements. Figure 1.4.2 also shows the budget for these activities for the current fiscal year (2009-10) and the estimated budget for next fiscal year.

The Management Committee approved a budget of $1,495,500 to implement areawide programs for fiscal 2008-09. This amount included $300,000 for Public Education Program, $150,000 for MS4 Database development, $100,000 for the Monitoring Program, and $170,000 for Principal Permittee administration.

The actual amount spent on areawide programs in the previous year (fiscal 2008-09) was approximately $1,403,008, as shown in Figure 1.4.3. The current estimate for fiscal 2009-10 expenditures is $1,496,693. This included all expenditures for the areawide programs by the District.



Figure 1.4.2

Fiscal summary by Permittee



Figure 1.4.3 Areawide Program Expenditures by Reporting Year

Stormwater Program funding sources for individual Permittees are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Funding Sources for Individual Permittees

Agency Funding Source

Big Bear Lake General Funds, Sanitation Funds, and Refuse Funds

Chino Storm drain fees, inspection fees and WQMP check fees.

Chino Hills General Fund, Sewer Fund

Colton Stormwater management fee, General Fund and development fees

Fontana Fees for B&S Plan Check, Eng. Const. Insps., Env. Com./Ind. Inspect., Env. Const. Insp., Env. Program, HHW Program, Pretreatment Program, Storm Drain Maint., Street Maintenance, Street Sweeping, Env. WQMP, Sewers, Solid Waste

Grand Terrace General Fund

Highland General Fund, Benefit Assessment District Loma Linda General Fund



Agency Funding Source

Montclair General Fund

Ontario Stormwater Pollution Abatement Fees, Business License Fees (NPDES), General Fund, Developer Plan Check Fee, NPDES Construction Inspection Fees.

Rancho Cucamonga General Fund & Integrated Waste

Redlands General Fund

Rialto General Fund, Development Impact Fees, Oil Block Grant, Internal Service Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Gas Tax Funds.

San Bernardino General Fund and NPDES Utility tax

San Bernardino County

Flood Control District Funds and County General Fund

SBC Flood Control District

Primarily Flood Control District Property Taxes, with small amounts from rents, royalties, interest and permit fees.

Upland General fund, Developer Fees, Sewer Fund, Storm Drain Development Fund, Solid Waste Fund, & Other

Yucaipa General Fund

For fiscal 2010-11, the Permittees approved a budget of $2,272,600 to implement area wide program elements. The budget includes:

Public Education Program 263,000 MS4 Database Development* 175,000 Storm Water Quality Standards Study-Phase 3 (SAWPA) 150,000 Monitoring Program 230,000 Administration 210,000 Participation in Regional Monitoring Programs 63,000 Chino Basin (Middle Santa Ana River) TMDL 205,000 Big Bear Lake TMDL Implementation 225,000 Annual Report Preparation 85,000 Consultant Costs 50,000 Training 60,000 HCOC Map and Documentation 50,000 Participation in Statewide Storm Water Issues 30,000 New Permit Tasks 270,000 Reserve Fund (10%) 206,600 Total Budget $2,272,600



Figure 1.4.4 shows the distribution of areawide program actual expenditures for fiscal 2008-09, and the approved budget amounts for fiscal 2009-10 and fiscal 2010-11. This allows a comparison of cost allocations versus expenditures and an evaluation of budget changes between years. Most budget items are similar to the past year, while the budgets for the Big Bear TMDL decreased and the cost of administration increased for fiscal 2008-09.

Figure 1.4.5 shows the relative cost proportion of program elements within the approved budget for fiscal 2008-09.

Figure 1.4.4 Comparison of Areawide Program Budget and Expenditures



Figure 1.4.5 Areawide Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-10


Section 2 MS4 Solution

Section 2 Program Status 2.1 MS4 Solution The MS4 Database Subcommittee and the Consultant (CDM) continued to develop and refine the database. The MS4 Database facilitates tracking and reporting of all Stormwater Program activities, including inspections, municipal activities, outreach and fiscal data. The MS4 Database is available to all Permittees via the World Wide Web, and has the capability for inspection data to be entered in real time using mobile data devices. The Stormwater Program has granted limited access to Regional Board staff for review of permittee data. Configuration and implementation of the CityWorks® municipal work management software was begun in late 2005. Although it was anticipated to have this program operational by early 2007, it has been delayed due to a delayed release of the required ESRI GIS software, and by the need to purchase and configure the needed hardware. Several additional unanticipated glitches were encountered in fiscal 2008-09, including the need to upgrade supporting software to newer versions (such as from Soquel 2000 to Soquel 2005). Continued software compatibility problems have delayed the implementation of Cityworks even further. We have contracted with RBF consulting to host the website and to maintain the MS4 database. We expect all elements will be operational by the end of 2011.

2.2 Illegal Discharge Program The Illegal Discharge Program consists of two components: illicit connections and illegal discharges. Permittees survey all publicly maintained inlets, open channels and basins once each permit year, identify permitted connections, and eliminate or, if appropriate, permit any illicit connections. Through the storm drain connection permit process, Permittees can in part monitor and control the quality of discharges entering the storm drain system. Permittees are also required to implement a surveillance strategy and mechanism for responding to reports of illegal discharges.

The fourth-term Permit require the Permittees to develop a ”pro-active” illicit discharge detection and elimination program based on the Guidance Manual for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination from the Center for Watershed Protection, or similar program. As the Permittees develop the new required IC/ID program, they will continue to implement the existing program.

2.2.1 Illicit Connections

Reconnaissance surveys for illicit connections, which had been ongoing from fiscal 1992-93, were completed during fiscal 1996-97. Initial inspections of all drainage facilities (above and below ground) were completed for the permit area. The surveys were performed by field inspections or videotaping of approximately 642 miles of facilities (including underground facilities), identifying all connections, and cross-referencing the connections with engineering plans and existing permits. A total of 1,947 undocumented connections were identified during the initial reconnaissance survey. All 1,947 undocumented connections identified during the initial survey were resolved, either through removal or permitting.



The Permittees reported a total of approximately 950 miles of facilities (including underground facilities) in the MS4 Database this year. When new facilities are constructed, inspections are conducted to make sure that all connections are permitted and authorized. The figures below reflect the best available estimates of percentages inspected and cleaned for open channels and underground drains.

Permittees continue to monitor for illicit connections through routine inspections performed as a part of maintenance activities. In addition, illicit connections are difficult to establish because they typically require entry and/or construction in the public right-of-way. Permittee staff are trained to observe these activities, and to report unauthorized construction to their respective department or NPDES Coordinator for action. Based on the level of inspections performed in previous years and the minimal number of undocumented connections found, complete inspections on an annual basis are not deemed to be necessary. The Permit (Section XIV.9) requires Permittees to inspect all inlets, open channels and basins once each reporting year, to maintain at least 80% of the drainage facilities each year, and to maintain 100% within a 2-year period. Underground facilities are not subject to these inspection/maintenance requirement timelines.

Figures 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 show the percentage of open channel, underground storm drain, inlet (catch basin), and basins inspected and cleaned during this reporting year, by Permittee. Figure 2.2.1 shows that 15 Permittees inspected 100% of open channels, one inspected 85%, one inspected 19%, and one inspected 14%. Figure 2.2.1 also shows that 10 Permittees cleaned 100%, four Permittees cleaned 50-81%, and four cleaned between 10 and 40%. FCD cleaning data reflect limited maintenance activities due to a transition to a new systemwide maintenance permit and new reporting system. More routine maintenance has been delayed pending the issuance of regulatory permits. Figure 2.2.2 shows that four Permittees inspected 100% of underground storm drains, (the Permittees have determined that inspections of underground facilities are not needed annually), one inspected 50%, and the rest inspected 35% or less. Two Permittees cleaned 100% of their underground storm drains, one cleaned 75%, while the others reported cleaning from 50% or less of these facilities. Figure 2.2.3 shows that ten Permittees inspected 100% of their storm drain inlets; four inspected 80 - 97%; three inspected 29% or less; and one reported having no inlets. Six Permittees reported cleaning 100% of their inlets, four reported cleaning 75-97%, seven reported cleaning 30% or less, and one reported no inlets.



Figure 2.2.1 Percentage of Open Channels Inspected and Cleaned In Fiscal Year 2009-10

Figure 2.2.2 Percentage of Underground Storm Drains Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10



Figure 2.2.3 Percentage of Storm Drain Inlets Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10

Figure 2.2.4 Percentage of Debris/Detention Basins Inspected and Cleaned in Fiscal Year 2009-10



Figure 2.2.4 shows that fourteen Permittees inspected 100% of their debris and detention basins, one Permittee inspected 74%, and three report no basins in their jurisdiction. Ten Permittees cleaned 100% of their basins, three cleaned from 50 – 75%, two cleaned under 10%, and three reported no basins in their jurisdiction.

Figure 2.2.5 Percentage of Areawide Drainage Facilities Inspected by Reporting Year

In an areawide comparison by facility type, Figure 2.2.5 shows that the highest level of inspection is for “open” facilities such as detention basins, inlets, and channels, where illicit connections are easier to establish, but also easy to locate and abate. It also compares the level of inspection between previous reporting years and this year. It should be noted that the percentages for fiscal 1995-96 (1996 reporting year) are cumulative figures from fiscal 1992-93 to fiscal 1995-96. Natural watercourses and culvert crossings in the City of Big Bear Lake are inspected and cleaned annually before the winter season.

Figure 2.2.6 summarizes the percent of drainage facilities cleaned by Permit year. There were similar, but slightly fewer facilities cleaned this year compared to last. This is directly related to the low levels of precipitation that occurred during the wet season last year and this year compared to precipitation in average or greater years.



Figure 2.2.6 Percentage of Drainage Facilities Cleaned by Reporting Year

2.2.2 Illegal Activities

The Permittees have developed a program for reporting and responding to notifications of illegal discharges, spills, and dumping. Notifications of illegal discharges are reported by other agencies, the public, police departments, fire departments, maintenance workers, and through the inspection program. Percentages of notifications by reporting source are shown in Figure 2.2.7. This year’s reporting sources were similar to last year with continued strong participation by agency staff and private parties. Due to new reporting forms in the MS4 Database, there is a large category labeled “other,” which includes reports from private parties, spill hotline, and other agencies. These “other” reporting sources will be further described in future reports if possible.

Several Permittees participate in the San Bernardino County Environmental Crimes Task Force. This Task Force pursues and coordinates enforcement of illegal discharges and dumping with multiple involved agencies, including San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office, California Department of Fish & Game, EPA, and the Regional Board.



Figure 2.2.7 Areawide Summary of Reporting Sources for Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events

Figure 2.2.8 shows the proportion of spills, debris dumping, sewage discharges, and illegal discharges for fiscal 2009-10. These categories have been modified since fiscal 2003-04, due to the implementation of the MS4 Database, but the proportions of spills and discharge each year have been roughly similar. This year there were a higher proportion of “discharge” events and fewer “spill” events than in fiscal 2008-09. Reports of illegal discharges, spills and dumping are immediately responded to and documented. Reports of illegal discharges are electronically and consistently stored for documentation and ease of access. The MS4 Database can serve as a comprehensive database for these incidents for all Permittees. Several Permittees are still transitioning to the full use of the MS4 Database, and may document illegal discharge/dumping/spill events separately. The numbers reflected in the charts below have been certified by the Co-Permittees as accurately reflecting their data for illegal activities. The attached CD ROM contains any such supplemental data that was submitted by the Permittees. As shown in Figure 2.2.9, the number of events per year generally increased between 1996 and 2001, with a high of 384 in 2001, and a high of 384 on 2007, with 333 events reported this year.



Figure 2.2.8 Types of Areawide Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events

Figure 2.2.9 Areawide Illegal Discharge/Dumping/Spill Events by Reporting Year



Figure 2.2.10 shows the types of enforcement actions used by the Permittees to address illegal discharges/spills/dumping in FY 2009-10. Approximately 70% of the events required no enforcement, or were handled with verbal enforcement and education. Approximately 30% of the events warranted higher levels of enforcement including Notices of Correction, Notices of Violation, assessment of clean up costs, referral to the Regional Board or stop-work orders.

Figure 2.2.10 Areawide Make-up of Illegal Discharge Enforcement Types

2.3 Programs for Industrial and Commercial Sources During fiscal 1996-97, the Co-Permittees determined the total number of industrial and commercial businesses using available information. They have since been screening the list to determine which businesses, based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, have the potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system. Under the third-term Permit, the Permittees were required to develop inventories of commercial and industrial facilities in their jurisdictions by July 1, 2003. The facilities in these inventories were to be prioritized and



an inspection schedule established based on the prioritization. Excluding the Principal Permittee, which does not have businesses, in fiscal 2009-10 the 17 Co-Permittees reported 10,418 commercial businesses, 2,764 non-General-Permitted industrial facilities, and 688 General-Permitted industrial facilities. The ratio of the number of businesses inspected to the total number of facilities varies considerably among Permittees.

2.3.1 Industrial Facilities

Of the 1,204 total industrial facility inspections, violations were found during 585 (49%) of these inspections (Note that this is not equivalent to the number of facilities with violations—facilities may have had multiple inspections with or without violations). This is similar to fiscal 2008-09, when violations were reported for 47% of total industrial inspections. Figure 2.3.1 shows the breakdown of the severity of these violations. Approximately 53%of the violations required Notices of Correction and another 30% required Notices of Violation to help achieve compliance. Verbal enforcement was used in approximately 15% of these cases. A few sites warranted more severe enforcement including Stop-Work Orders and Administrative Actions. The MS4 Database now serves as a comprehensive database for all Permittees. A few Permittees are still transitioning to the full use of the MS4 Database, and in the interim may document industrial facilities separately. The numbers reflected in the charts below have been certified by the Co-Permittees as accurately reflecting their industrial facility data. Industrial facility databases from the MS4 Database, and any supplemental data submitted by the Permittees may be found in the attached CD-ROM.

Figure 2.3.1 Areawide Make-up of General and Non-General Industrial Violations



Figure 2.3.2 Total Industrial Facilities by Permittee

Figure 2.3.3 General Permitted and Non-General Permitted Industrial Facilities by Permittee



Figure 2.3.2 shows the total number of industrial facilities by Permittee, and Figure 2.3.3 shows the number of industrial facilities with a Statewide General Industrial Stormwater Permit (General Permitted Facilities) and those without (Non-General Permitted Facilities) by Permittee.

Figure 2.3.4 shows the number of General Permitted industrial facilities, by priority, for the individual Permittees. Figure 2.3.5 shows the numbers of inspections and inspections with violations, by Permittee, for General Permitted industrial facilities. Figure 2.3.6 shows the number of Non-General Permitted industrial facilities, by priority, for the individual Permittees. Figure 2.3.7 shows the numbers of inspections and inspections with violations, by Permittee, for Non-General industrial facilities. Of 700 inspections at 645 (23%) Non-General Permitted sites, 301 (43%) inspections reported violations. Of 504 inspections at 436 (64% of total facilities) General-Permitted sites, 284 (56%) reported violations. While there are differences in the ratio of violations to inspections among the Permittees, a considerable proportion of the facility inspections find non-compliance. The percentage of inspections with violations was very similar to fiscal 2009-10. Non-compliant facilities require considerable follow-up effort by the Permittees to bring them into compliance.

There may be differences in the numbers of businesses with General Permits as reported in the State Board database compared to the numbers reported by the various Co-Permittees. This is possible with businesses that are located in unincorporated County areas; yet, may have street addresses which include the City name. The Cities will typically not inspect, or report on those businesses that are outside of their jurisdiction. Such businesses may be found in the SBC inspection records.

FCD has no Commercial/Industrial inspection jurisdiction. However, partial inspections and site information may be recorded in the MS4 Database when a business impacts a facility directly, especially if any illegal discharge activity is observed or suspected. The District also assures inspection compliance at our facility sites when there is NOC-covered construction activity.

The Permittees are committed to outreach programs to inform and educate businesses (general permit sites and non-general permit sites). At the same time, Co-Permittees’ non-stormwater inspection staff (e.g., Fire Department, Environmental Health & Safety personnel, etc.) are also being trained to include a stormwater inspection component as a part of the existing inspection programs.



Figure 2.3.4 General Permitted Industrial Facilities and Priorities by Permittee

Figure 2.3.5 Permitted Industrial Facility Inspections and Violations by Permittee



Figure 2.3.6 Non-General Permitted Industrial Facilities and Priorities by Permittee

Figure 2.3.7 Non-General Permitted Industrial Facility Inspections and Inspections with Violations by Permittee



2.3.2 Commercial Facilities

The Permittees conducted 3,628 inspections, with 1,196 (33%) inspections reporting violations cited; a total of 3,319 (32%) commercial businesses were inspected. Of the 3,314 commercial facility inspections conducted in fiscal 2008-09, violations were found during 1,035 inspections (38%) (Note that this is not equivalent to the number of facilities with violations—some facilities may have had multiple inspections with violations). Figure 2.3.8 shows the total number of commercial facilities by priority, by Permittee, and Figure 2.3.9 shows the number of inspections and inspections with violations by Permittee. While there are differences in the ratio of violations to inspections among the Permittees, the implication is that relatively large numbers of facility inspections find non-compliance. Figure 2.3.10 shows the type and severity of the enforcement issued for commercial facility violations. Approximately 76% were moderate violations requiring Notices of Correction, 16% were minor violations resulting in verbal enforcement and education, and 8% were more severe and warranted Notices of Violation. Two sites were charged for clean-up costs.

The MS4 Database has the capacity to serve as a comprehensive database for all Permittees. However, Permittees are still transitioning to the full use of the MS4 Database, and, in the interim, may document commercial facilities separately. The numbers reflected in the charts below have been certified by the Co-Permittees as accurately reflecting their total inspections. Commercial facility databases from the MS4 Database, and any supplemental data submitted by the Permittees may be found in the attached CD-ROM.

Figure 2.3.8 Total Commercial Facilities by Priority by Permittee



Figure 2.3.9 Commercial Facility Inspections and Violations by Permittee

Figure 2.3.10 Wide Make-up of Violations from Commercial Facility Inspections



2.4 New Development and Redevelopment Programs The Co-Permittees have existing programs to address stormwater quality in conditions of approval for new development and redevelopment projects. The Principal Permittee does not have land-use authority, and, therefore, does not regulate new development and redevelopment. Stormwater issues are generally addressed via general plan and master plan/specific plan policies and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review processes. Because there was no uniformity in the review process, model uniform guidelines were developed beginning in fiscal 1997-98, and were adopted in fiscal 1999-00, and Co-Permittees began implementing the guidelines during fiscal 2000-01. These guidelines were revised in fiscal 2003-04 and are described in Section 2.5.2 below.

The third-term Permit (Section XII.A.6) required the Co-Permittees to review their CEQA review processes by February 15, 2003, to ensure that stormwater issues were properly considered, and required all actions found necessary by the review to be completed by February 15, 2004. The Permit (Section XII.A.7) also required the Co-Permittees to review their general plan and related documents to ensure that watershed protection principles and policies are properly considered and incorporated into these documents. Table 2-1 shows the various methods currently being used by the Permittees to address stormwater quality issues during project planning and design stages.

Table 2-1 Methods Used to Address Stormwater Quality during Project Planning and Design Stage

Perm

ittee

WD

ID R

equi

red

Prio

r to

Is

suin

g Pe

rmits

for

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

tes a

nd

Indu

stri

al F

acili

ties?

Are

Sto

rmw

ater

Issu

es

Add

ress

ed in

Gen

eral

Pla

n an

d C

EQ

A P

roce

ss?

Are

Sto

rmw

ater

Pro

tect

ion

Prin

cipl

es a

nd P

olic

ies

Inco

rpor

ated

into

Gen

eral

Pl

an?

Hav

e G

radi

ng a

nd E

rosi

on

Con

trol

Ord

inan

ces B

een

Rev

eiw

ed a

nd R

evis

ed if

N

eces

sary

to R

educ

e E

rosi

on?

Has

a L

ocal

WQ

MP

Bee

n D

evel

oped

? Big Bear Lake Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Chino Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Chino Hills Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Colton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Fontana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Grand Terrace No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Highland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Loma Linda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Montclair Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ontario Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes



Perm

ittee

WD

ID R

equi

red

Prio

r to

Is

suin

g Pe

rmits

for

Con

stru

ctio

n Si

tes a

nd

Indu

stri

al F

acili

ties?

Are

Sto

rmw

ater

Issu

es

Add

ress

ed in

Gen

eral

Pla

n an

d C

EQ

A P

roce

ss?

Are

Sto

rmw

ater

Pro

tect

ion

Prin

cipl

es a

nd P

olic

ies

Inco

rpor

ated

into

Gen

eral

Pl

an?

Hav

e G

radi

ng a

nd E

rosi

on

Con

trol

Ord

inan

ces B

een

Rev

eiw

ed a

nd R

evis

ed if

N

eces

sary

to R

educ

e E

rosi

on?

Has

a L

ocal

WQ

MP

Bee

n D

evel

oped

?

Rancho Cucamonga Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Redlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rialto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

San Bernardino Yes Yes Yes Yes No

San Bernardino County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

SBC Flood Control District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Upland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yucaipa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A=Not Applicable; N/R=Not Reported

The fourth-term Permit (Section XI.B.2) requires the Permittees to again review the “watershed protection principles and policies…in its planning procedures…” The Permittees are working individually to meet this requirement, and results will be reported next year.

2.4.1 HCOC Map (Erosion-Control BMP Effectiveness Study)

The Permit (Section XII.A.11) required the Permittees to submit a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of a group of selected erosion-control BMPs by November 15, 2003. This proposal was submitted, as required, in November 2003. However, as reported in the fiscal 2005-06 Annual Report, the District has instead substituted for the erosion BMP study a project to map the channels and stream reaches in our area and identify any that may be subject to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC). Project kickoff was in February 2006, and mapping of District Zones 1, 2, and 3 has been completed. The entire District system in the Santa Ana Watershed area of San Bernardino County will be mapped and characterized from the HCOC perspective, to identify reaches that may require protection from runoff from development projects. The mapping has been completed, and is undergoing final quality control review and revision. A field assessment method has been developed and field assessments were conducted in late 2008-early 2009. The map is accessible via the World Wide Web. The final project stage is characterizing the drainage system and identifying the reaches that may be susceptible to impacts from changes in runoff volume and timing, and was expected to be completed by June 2010, however, the final characterization is still ongoing. Upon completion, the Permittees will prioritize the potentially susceptible reaches for follow-up evaluations.



The fourth term Permit requires the development of a Watershed Action Plan (WAP) (Section XI.B) that “integrates water quality, stream protection, stormwater management, water conservation and re-use, and flood protection, with land use planning and development processes.” This work has been underway since February 2010, and is on schedule to be completed by the due date of January 29, 2011, for the WAP, Phase 1. The WAP builds significantly upon the basic mapping of the HCOC map.

2.4.2 Water Quality Management Plan

The Permittees are implementing the WQMP as required, for development projects that meet the criteria. There have been numerous questions regarding pollutants of concern, HCOCs, and BMPs posed by developers and Permittee staff. To address these concerns, the Permittees are reviewed the WQMP Guidance and Template as part of the ROWD development and Permit renewal process. The Permitteees are in the process of rewriting the WQMP under the leadership of the New Development Subcommittee. The review and revision of the WQMP Guidance will address any new or revised provisions in the fourth-term Permit. The new WQMP will also be strongly linked to the WAP and to the LIPs.

2.4.3 Construction

The Co-Permittees are required to develop and maintain an inventory and database of construction sites in their jurisdictions, and to submit copies of these databases with each Annual Report. The MS4 Database serves as a comprehensive database (including construction sites) for all Permittees. A few Permittees are still transitioning to the full use of the MS4 Database, and may document construction sites separately. The numbers reflected in the charts below have been certified by the Co-Permittees as accurately reflecting their construction site data. Construction site databases from the MS4 Database, and any supplemental data submitted by the Permittees, may be found in the attached CD-ROM.

Permittees prioritize and inspect construction sites to determine compliance with their ordinances. During construction activities, Co-Permittees use their local grading ordinances as a mechanism to control activities of developers during grading operations to prevent sediment from entering storm drain systems. Issues related to prevention of potential pollutants from other activities associated with construction may also be addressed by general conditions or special provisions of contract documents.

The Permittees are required to develop a risk-based scoring system to prioritize construction, industrial, and commercial facilities to determine the frequency of inspections, by July 29, 2011. Until the risk-based system is approved, the third-term Permit system prioritization will be used.

The third-term Permit requires that during the wet season, all high priority sites must be inspected once a month, medium priority sites must be inspected twice per wet season, and low priority sites must be inspected at least once per wet season. The Permittees reported a total of 1,659 construction sites in fiscal 2009-10. Figure 2.4.1 shows the total numbers of construction sites and priorities by Permittee. Figures 2.4.2 through 2.4.6 show the number of General and Non-General permitted sites, and numbers of inspections and inspections with



violations for General and non-General permitted construction sites by Permittee. There were 379 inspections at 127 (32% of total sites) General permitted construction sites with violations found during 172 (45%) inspections, and 739 inspections at 333 (45% of total sites) non-General permitted sites with violations found during195 inspections (26%).

Figure 2.4.7 shows the makeup of enforcement types used by the Permittees to address construction site violations for General and non-General permitted sites combined. Notices of Correction accounted for the majority (73%) of enforcement actions for construction sites. Notices of Violation accounted for 10% of enforcement actions, and verbal enforcement accounted for approximately 14% of the actions. The number of inspections and ratio of violations to inspections varies by Permittee, in part due to differing definitions of inspections and violations. The Stormwater Program is working toward greater consistency in inspections, violations and reporting construction program results. As with the industrial and commercial inspections, significant follow-up effort is required to bring these facilities into compliance.

Figure 2.4.1 Total Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee



Figure 2.4.2 General and Non-General Permitted Construction Sites by Permittee

Figure 2.4.3 General Permitted Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee



Figure 2.4.4 General Permitted Construction Site Inspections and Inspections with Violations

Figure 2.4.5 Non-General Permitted Construction Sites and Priorities by Permittee



Figure 2.4.6 Non-General Permitted Construction Site Inspections and Inspections with Violations

Figure 2.4.7 Areawide Make-up of General and Non-General Construction Site Enforcement Types



A construction video was developed for fiscal 2001-02 as an educational tool for engineers, contractors, developers, and inspectors. This video shows various BMPs that should be implemented at construction sites to minimize the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. Copies of the video are made available to developers and contractors as an educational tool for their employees. The video has also been shown at various NPDES related workshops and seminars. Field and classroom training for construction staff was provided along with the online training materials (see Section 2.6.5), and the Permittees are kept informed of any construction-related training available in the area, such as training conducted by Regional Boards or neighboring stormwater programs.

Some construction projects require CEQA review processes, which must consider stormwater quality issues. Additionally, for projects that disturb at least one acre of land, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the Regional Board to obtain coverage under the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. All of the Co-Permittees require proof of submittal of an NOI prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for projects subject to the General Permit.

2.5 Public Agency Activities Programs The Permittees perform activities that may have impacts on stormwater quality. These activities include, but are not limited to, the construction and maintenance of streets, the maintenance of public facilities, and the construction and maintenance of flood control facilities and corporation yards. The Permittees have identified major sources of possible pollutants associated with these activities and have developed BMPs that are implemented by each Permittee. Stormwater BMP Handbooks, prepared in conjunction with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) , are used as guidance documents in training public employees and implementing site-specific BMPs. CASQA conducted a series of training sessions for their BMP handbooks, which were well-attended by Permittee staff in 2003. As of June 2004, 838 agency staff members, representing all the Permittees, had been trained on stormwater issues. Over 520 key Permittee staff were trained in the past two reporting years through in-house training, videos, and various outside sources, and the online training program (Section 2.5.5). Over 586 other Permittee staff were trained in stormwater issues during this reporting year.

Previous Annual Reports reported the number of municipal construction projects that filed Notices of Construction, and other municipal facilities with General Industrial Permits (please refer to fiscal 2003-04 Annual Report, Figure 2.5.1). However, the MS4 Database tracks those projects in the same manner as all other construction sites, and this report includes them in the construction section. Municipal facilities and inspections are shown in Figure 2.5.1. During fiscal 2009-10, ten Permittees inspected all of their facilities at least once, three inspected between 48 and 74%, three inspected 24% or less, and one inspected 0% (the Flood Control District has only two facilities, which are shared by County road operations. County staff inspect and report on these facilities).



Figure 2.5.1 Municipal Facility Inventory and Inspection by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2008-09

2.5.1 Storm Drain System

In addition to reducing pollutants in stormwater, it is the policy of each Permittee to prevent sewage from entering the storm drain system. Spill response procedures have been developed and implemented for immediate response to notifications of sewage spills, proper disposal of the sewage, and documentation of each occurrence. Standard operating procedures and spill response plans have been evaluated and are considered adequate by a majority of the Permittees. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has the standard operating procedures for spill response on file from the Cucamonga County Water District, the entity owning the sewer system.

In May 2009, a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) agreement, for coordinated response to sewer overflows, was entered into with the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Upland, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, VVWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency. The City of Loma Linda has approved a new Sewer System Management Plan.

2.5.2 Corporation Yards

Generally, corporation yards are used by the Permittees to service and maintain vehicles and equipment, and to provide storage for materials associated with municipal operations. Currently, the Permittees are implementing preventative measures such as “good housekeeping” practices, proper sheltering of stored materials, on-site retention of pollutant discharges, and personnel training. A complete list of BMPs associated with corporate yard activities is included in the CASQA Municipal BMP manual.



2.5.3 Street and Road Maintenance

Street sweeping is recognized as an effective practice for preventing pollutants swept or blown into the streets from entering the storm drain systems. Most Co-Permittees have street sweeping programs in place that service virtually every curb-mile of street each year. Co-Permittees believe that this effort is having a substantial beneficial impact on stormwater quality. Figures 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 illustrate the extent and percentage of curb-miles swept every year, by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. For some Permittees, the relative miles swept per land use are estimated because street sweeping is scheduled and tracked based on type of street or intensity of street use.

Co-Permittees reported an inventory of approximately 7,997 curb-miles of streets, with nearly 100% swept at least once this year. Several Permittees sweep streets as frequently as once per week in some areas. The County does not have a formal street sweeping program because most paved county roads are rural, without curb and gutter. Street sweeping in County areas may be conducted sporadically in response to reported problems. This year a total of over 3,087 tons of sediment and debris were removed by street sweeping, based on the test area results reported by Permittees. Figure 2.5.4 provides an estimate of the tonnage of sediment and debris removed by street sweeping activities by land use. RAC conducted a study in June 2009, to characterize the waste collected from street sweeping, and found that 99% was green waste.

A significant portion of streets in the SBC unincorporated areas do not have curbs & gutters, but have natural earthen and asphalt swales, which are not suitable for street sweeping. Swales provide water quality benefits, such as stormwater and trash collection, and trapping of sediment. Additional benefits of the use of swales include: treatment of pollutants along roadways, reduced flow volume and velocity, and infiltration. Swales are regularly maintained and cleaned by the County. However, there are some unincorporated areas which do have regular curb and gutter, and would benefit from being swept. As part of the ongoing GIS efforts, SBC plans to develop a data layer to track those streets which do have ‘sweepable’ curb miles. The data will be used to improve street sweeping efforts in those unincorporated areas.



Figure 2.5.2 Street Sweeping: Inventory of Curb-Miles by Permittee

Figure 2.5.3 Street Sweeping: Percent Curb-Miles Swept by Permittee During Fiscal Year 2009-10



Figure 2.5.4 Street Sweeping: Tonnage of Sediment and Debris Removed per Curb-Mile in Test Area

2.5.4 Drainage Facilities

Proper operation and maintenance of flood control/drainage facilities can significantly benefit stormwater quality. The Co-Permittees’ municipal drainage facilities generally consist of detention and retention basins, small open channels and ditches, gutters and inlets, and underground facilities. These local facilities convey runoff into larger flood control facilities (e.g. channels, detention basins, debris basins, and underground facilities) that are typically operated and maintained by the District. Section XIV of the third-term Permit and Section XIII.C of the fourth-term Permit requires the inspection of all inlets, open channels and basins once each reporting year and maintenance of at least 80% of drainage facilities on an annual basis, with 100% maintained in a two-year period. Maintenance of drainage facilities in the unincorporated County areas is performed by District staff as directed by the County. Figure 2.5.5 shows the percentage of drainage facilities cleaned by Permittees, by type, for fiscal 2009-10. The FCD was again unable to perform its regular level of maintenance on many facilities, pending negotiation of agreements with State and Federal environmental regulatory agencies.

Figure 2.5.6 shows the volume of debris removed from drainage facilities by Permittee. This year, approximately 12,164 cubic yards of materials were removed from drainage facilities by the Permittees. Approximately 18% of inlets, 19% of open channels, 2% of underground drains, and 28% of debris/detention basins have been cleaned by the Permittees. However, measurement of debris collected from drainage facilities is problematic. Many Permittees report best estimates of debris, contract out some of their maintenance to other Agencies, or do not collect volume or weight data. Also, it is difficult to characterize, by volume or weight, trash-like debris such as shopping carts, couches, and tires, all of which may be removed from



local drainage facilities. A few Cities have intiated or expanded internal programs to collect more accurate data, such as collecting catch basin facility locations by GPS (ONT), and by increased budgets for inspection and maintenance of underground facilities (YUC).

The Permit (Section XIV.9) also requires the Permittees to annually evaluate the inspection and maintenance frequency for all or for portions of their drainage facilities. Most Permittees did not propose increased inspection or maintenance frequencies based on these evaluations. Results of individual Permittee evaluations are shown in Table 2-2.

Figure 2.5.5 Percentage of Drainage Facilities Cleaned by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2009-10



Figure 2.5.6 Volume of Debris Removed from Drainage Facilities by Permittee for Fiscal Year 2009-10



Table 2-2 Permittee Inspection and Maintenance Procedure Review

Perm

ittee

Park

s & R

ec.

Mai

nt.P

ract

ices

R

evie

wed

?

Park

s & R

ec.

Mai

nt.P

ract

ices

M

odifi

ed?

Floo

d C

ontr

ol/D

rain

age

Mai

nt.P

ract

ices

R

evie

wed

?

Floo

d C

ontr

ol/D

rain

age

Mai

nt.P

ract

ices

M

odifi

ed?

Oth

er P

ublic

Fac

. M

aint

.Pra

ctic

es

Rev

iew

ed?

Oth

er P

ublic

Fac

. M

aint

.Pra

ctic

es

Mod

ified

?

Sew

age

Spill

SO

Ps

Rev

iew

ed?

Big Bear Lake Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Chino Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Chino Hills Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Colton Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Fontana Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Grand Terrace Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Highland Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Loma Linda Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Montclair Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Ontario Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Rancho Cucamonga Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Redlands Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Rialto Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

San Bernardino No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

San Bernardino County Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

SBC Flood Control District N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes

Upland Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Yucaipa Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes



As shown on Figure 2.5.7, an effort was made to characterize material cleaned from storm drain facilities. Nearly 100% of material was characterized by visual observations. Generally, the composition of material cleaned by Permittees was approximately 32% organic matter, 36% sediment, and 27% litter/trash, with approximately 5% non-characterized “other” material. There was continued low rainfall amount during fiscal 2009-10 and therefore a smaller proportion of sediment was deposited and required removal.

The data presented in the Figure 2.5.7 is approximate. Most of the Permittees have not had a mechanism in place to more accurately record the quantity and composition of material cleaned from drainage facilities. The Permittees are continuing to formulate a way to schedule, manage, and track MS4 maintenance. The proposed manner of accomplishing this goal is through the implementation of the MS4 Database and the Cityworks® program (described in Section 2.1).

Figure 2.5.7 Approximate Composition of Material Removed from Drainage Facilities Areawide

2.5.5 Training Programs

Training of public agency personnel regarding public agency activities is an important element in the Stormwater Program. Stormwater pollution prevention training includes the following activities: storm drain facility operation and maintenance; maintenance of corporation yards; maintenance of parks and recreation facilities; inspection of construction and industrial activities; waste management practices; maintenance of public roads; use of pesticides and herbicides, and operation and maintenance of other public facilities. BMPs for most of these



activities are included in the CASQA Municipal BMP Manual. Employees are made aware of the need for cooperation and coordination of various department activities to protect stormwater quality.

Two separate 4-hour training programs were developed during fiscal 1999-00 (referred to as MAPPS (Municipal Activities Pollution Prevention Strategy) training). These programs focused on construction and maintenance activities and were developed for supervisory level personnel. Training classes were videotaped with the intent to provide the tapes to the Permittees so that training could be provided to appropriate staff members. The MAPPS videos are still available for use, but the Training Subcommittee continues to develop new and improved training materials, to conduct training seminars, and to inform the Permittees of local and regional training opportunities outside the Stormwater Program. This includes the purchase of additional focused training videos. The Permit requires that training shall be provided to municipal staff annually, and that key staff shall attend at least three training sessions during the five-year Permit term. Figure 2.5.8 summarizes the number of key staff trained during the last two years, by Permittee. Note that the MS4 Database has been modified to provide the functionality to accurately provide numbers of “active” key staff. The Permit does not specify training for non-key staff, but the Permittees believe it is useful to educate other staff that may encounter stormwater issues. Figure 2.5.9 summarizes the number of non-key staff educated in general stormwater principles during the reporting year. Figure 2.5.10 shows Permittee training events and staff trained in addition to areawide training events. Some of these were conducted by the Permittees and others were outside events.

The Training Subcommittee continued updating permit-mandated training for Co-Permittee staff during fiscal 2009-10. In order to improve access to stormwater training, the Training Subcommittee has developed an online stormwater training program that became active in July 2004. The online training program comprised separate modules for: general stormwater; commercial/industrial inspections; construction inspections; public agency maintenance activities; and WQMP review processes. In 2007, the online service provider that hosted the online training was no longer able to support the application, and a replacement service has not yet been developed. Therefore we have placed the training materials on our areawide Program Website so they can still be used by the Permittees. The online/website-based training continued to be supplemented by various other training efforts, including live presentations, on the job site visits and tailgate meetings by the Permittees.



Figure 2.5.8 Summary of Key Staff Trained

Figure 2.5.9 Summary of Non-Key Staff Provided with Stormwater Education



Figure 2.5.10 Additional Training Events and Staff Trained by Individual Permittees

The Training Subcommittee continued to operate a training library, which lends training packets to member agencies. Each training packet includes a training DVD, handouts, quizzes, certificates and sources for additional information. The topical areas covered by the training packets include: municipal field maintenance staff, construction BMP implementation and industrial/commercial BMP implementation.

The Areawide Program in conjunction with the training subcommittee focused on continuing the training effort for member agency staff based on the ROWD, until January, 2010. The Training Subcommittee is currently working to enhance the training program to meet the new requirements of the fourth-term Permit. The following training events took place within the reporting period and are summarized below in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 Live Training Seminars Conducted by the Areawide Program in FY 2009-10

Course Title Course Description Target Audience

Course Length

Total Staff

Trained

Compliance Alliance Field and classroom training for Construction and Inspection BMPs.

Construction Inspectors

7 hours, 7/30/2009 88

CESSWI Review Course

The Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector

Storm water management professionals.

8 hours training,

4 hours test, 53



Course Title Course Description Target Audience

Course Length

Total Staff

Trained Certification Program (CESSWI) by EnviroCert International, Inc. for certification in erosion and sediment control.

6/7-8/2010

Post-Fire Remediation

Construction BMP's and Post-Fire Remediation techniques

Agency Public Works Field Staff

8 hours, 10/14/09 29

CASQA Meeting Webcast

CASQA's quarterly meeting focused on the new General Construction Permit. Permittees participated via the webcast presented to the group at the DPW building. The meeting originated in Sacramento.

Agency Public Works and Planning Staff

6 hours, 9/10/09 26

CASQA Conference Webcast

CASQA Pre-Conference Webinars - Varied between Construction Permit, LID, and NPDES Program topics

Agency Public Works and Planning Staff

8 hours, 10/28/09 13

The online training, training library and program training events were supplemented by various other out-of-program training.



2.6 Residential Programs Stormwater pollution can be reduced by controlling the discharge of potential pollutants at their source. Activities in residential areas that may be sources of pollutants include vehicle washing, gardening, home maintenance, illegal dumping, pet ownership, and swimming pool/spa maintenance.

The Stormwater Program has developed and distributed fact sheets, brochures, and flyers, informing residents about the program. It coordinates with the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program to develop informational material for participation in the Program. The number of participants depositing materials at the HHW collection sites was approximately 35,489, over 4,000 more than last year. The 2.75 million pounds of HHW collected in fiscal 2009-10 was also proportionately larger than the amount collected in fiscal 2008-09. Figure 2.6.1 shows the quantities of various HHW products collected. Figure 2.6.2 shows the total amount of HHW collected, by year, since 1996. Generally there was a steady increase in the amount collected until reporting year 2008-09. This reduction in collected waste may reflect the significant downturn in the economic conditions. The Stormwater Program, the HHW Collection Program, and the Recycling Program continued to reach out to the public to reuse, recycle, and buy only what is needed. Hopefully, the continued participation in the HHW program reflects the positive impact of the outreach. The HHW Collection Program has a 24-hour hotline for reporting illegal dumping. This toll-free number is printed on all literature developed for the Stormwater Program. Citizens with questions about the Stormwater Program or desiring information related to a violation of the Program can call this number.

Figure 2.6.1 Areawide Total of Household Hazardous Waste Collected by Waste Type



Figure 2.6.2 Total Household Hazardous Waste Collected Annually, 1996-2011

2.7 Public Information and Participation

2.7.1 Purpose

Stormwater pollution has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one of the main causes of water contamination across the nation. S. Groner Associates, Inc. (SGA) and the Stormwater Program have worked to reduce the amount of pollutants – including pesticides, fertilizers, paint, and bacteria – that are discharged into the stormdrain system and end up in our rivers, beaches and oceans. The purpose of the program has been to implement a public education campaign that encourages residents and businesses to adopt pollution prevention practices.

*The appendix referred to in the following subsections is included on the CD-ROM as Public Education Appendix.

2.7.2 Program Goals

The Stormwater Program’s goals consist of continuing to increase awareness of stormwater pollution and its impact on our environment; continuing to educate residents and businesses on how to change their behavior to minimize pollution; and maintaining compliance with the Permit. On behalf of the Stormwater Program, SGA has carried out several projects including non-media outreach, materials production, events, school education, media/online outreach, and more. For fiscal 2009-10, SGA implemented commitment letters into their non-media



outreach project where staff was able to collect signed commitments from store employees to relay stormwater pollution prevention information to customers. SGA also developed a new set of outreach materials that were designed specifically to minimize the spread of bacteria related items that contribute to local stormwater pollution. At 2009-2010 events, SGA executed a rain barrel contest that encouraged residents to sign up to receive the program’s e-Updates and have a chance to win a free rain barrel to reuse rainwater at their home. The program also created a new hotline for residents to call regarding local illegal dumping. The hotline was written and recorded in both English and Spanish to accommodate the majority of County residents. SGA also developed a facebook page to further engage program stakeholders and sent out quarterly emails (i.e. e-Updates) to dog owners, gardeners and general residents to provide program information and resources via an online source.

2.7.3 Strategy

SGA has collaborated with the Stormwater Program’s Public Education Subcommittee on the development and implementation of several initiatives supporting stormwater pollution prevention. This annual report summarizes the projects SGA carried out from July 2009 to June 2010 on behalf of the Stormwater Program and features the following highlights:

Non-Media Outreach: Received commitment letters from over 175 store employees. Materials Production: Developed and designed 3 new bacteria outreach pieces and

revised and redesigned 4 material pieces from other local programs. Events: Educated over 778 residents at 2 regional and 2 pet events. School Education: Educated over 6,032 students via school presentations and cleanups. Media: Doubled newsletter subscribers to over 1,070 in just over one year

2.7.4 Non-Media Outreach

To deliver the stormwater pollution prevention message, SGA executed a comprehensive set of non-media outreach activities on behalf of the Stormwater Program. This included forming partnerships with garden centers/nurseries, paint stores, hardware stores, home improvement stores (HIS) and pet facilities. The partnerships provided opportunities for the program to educate residents/customers and employees on pollution prevention tips and provide valuable resources to the public.

Forging Store Partnerships: Store Outreach, Program Materials & Commitment Letters

On behalf of the Stormwater Program, SGA conducted store outreach throughout the Permit area via established partnerships to provide the public program materials and resources that included fact sheets, tearsheets, tip cards, shelftalkers and posters (See Appendix A Store Outreach Photos). These materials not only contained program messaging but they also promoted the (800) CLEANUP hotline and the sbcountystormwater.org website. The fact sheets that explained stormwater pollution prevention tips were given to store staff as a way of educating them on the program. Also, tearsheets that listed locations of household hazardous waste centers, as well as hours of operation, were placed on store counters and checkout stands. SGA also provided each store tip cards that provided easy-to-follow pollution prevention tips and these were placed on counters in the appropriate section. Shelftalkers,


http://www.sbcountystormwater.org/


with tearsheets attached, provided the same information and were placed in the appropriate aisles relating to the specific pollutant. This allowed customers to tear off individual sheets and take the information with them. Additionally, the program utilized two (2) types of posters, one poster encouraged the proper disposal of household hazardous waste and another poster placed in pet facilities encouraged pet owners to pick up after their pets in order to prevent pollution.

In addition, owners, managers and employees were educated on stormwater pollution. Once educated, the staff, seen as experts by the customers, served as catalysts to spread the stormwater pollution prevention message to “do-it-yourselfers” who may be unintentionally engaged in various polluting activities during their home projects, or pet owners who may not be picking up after their dog(s), resulting in pollution. By having staff deliver the stormwater pollution prevention message, the program has the advantage of “the messenger” constantly being at the customers’ disposal, thereby being able to effectively reach, and educate, a large group of potential polluters. Additionally, SGA asked store employees to sign commitment letters as a way of showing their commitment to passing along program information and resources to residents that visit the establishment (See Appendix A Commitment Letters).

SGA visited 130 stores and educated 239 employees regarding the program and its initiatives. SGA was able to collect 176 signed commitment letters from employees and received 40 employee emails to add to the e-Update sign-up list (See Appendix A Store Outreach Results).

Spreading Pollution Prevention Resources: HIS Tablings

SGA also conducted non-media outreach via tablings in front of HIS stores (See Appendix A HIS Tabling Photos). There were a total of 5 tablings that were scheduled, with each taking place in a different city. At the tablings, SGA provided outreach materials to residents in their community with the stormwater pollution prevention message. Tabling staff also took the time to speak with each resident regarding the location of their nearest HHW collection site and encouraged those who stopped by the table to sign up and receive the program’s free e-Updates.

545 residents were reached at the 5 tablings SGA conducted and 470 tearsheets with local HHW disposal information were distributed (See Appendix A: HIS Tabling Results).

2.7.6 Material Production

SGA is currently producing two new pieces of full-page handout material addressing the issue of bacterial TMDLs. These handouts were created with the combination of comprehensive research and a thorough evaluation of pollution prevention BMPs, creating outreach material that resonates with the public.

In addition to the two handouts, a door hanger is also in production for the Permittees to use as an educational tool for stormwater pollution awareness. For this piece, SGA repurposed content from a compilation of materials. Made to be versatile, it not only offers general water quality protection BMPs, but also allows the inspector to note potential water quality concerns and directly identify the appropriate BMP to use.



SGA also took the liberty of revamping and modifying 3 already existing outreach pieces to add to the Stormwater Program’s new line of bacteria materials. All 3 materials were taken from other municipality based programs, and the Stormwater Program’s “look”, resources and program contact information were applied to create finished products.

The 3 pieces served to prevent stormwater pollution while targeting 3 different sources of bacteria: Horse Manure (City of Rancho Cucamonga), Fats Oil & Greases (Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)), and Septic Systems (City of Malibu). (See Appendix B: Materials – Bacteria Outreach).

SGA worked diligently with the Public Education Subcommittee to identify the right tone of the pieces and integrated feedback received from the target audience prior to entering the design stage. SGA developed several concepts and submitted them for the Stormwater Program to review, allowing each committee member the opportunity to incorporate information that is most relevant in educating their communities. The materials will be offered in both English and Spanish, effectively reaching the predominant San Bernardino County demographic.

As easy as 3 BMPs: Commercial Trash Enclosures Handout

Prior to developing this material, SGA began by conducting research to produce an educational piece that is both operative and simple. By speaking with a mall operations manager, SGA uncovered that, though the center’s maintenance guidelines cover the protection of water quality as part of daily routine, retail managers at the center are unaware of what stormwater pollution actually is. He suggested creating a piece that is easy to understand and to the point. SGA also found that independently-owned restaurant maintenance procedures and condominium CC&R and apartment rules do not include or lack water-quality specific BMPs with regards to their trash enclosures.

In the text development stage, two options were presented: a full-page handout and a sticker (to be adhered to the trash bin or trash enclosure area). Based on Public Education Subcommittee feedback, the option for a handout was chosen. Though, because there is a potential for the stickers to be implemented in the future, the design element focusing on the 3 BMPs can be reused and printed in the form of a sticker at a later date (See Appendix B: Materials – Bacteria Outreach).

Generally, the message this handout conveys is a reminder that preventing stormwater pollution is as easy as:

1. Putting trash inside the bin 2. Closing the lid 3. Keeping toxics out

It also presents additional tips reminding the target audience of maintenance-related BMPs like sweep frequently, instead of hosing down and fix leaks immediately. This material is currently being finalized.



Simple ways to be responsible: Portable Toilet Businesses Handout

This full-page handout also began with research involving conversations with portable toilet businesses operators and the trade organization, Portable Sanitation Association International (PSAI).

As a whole, the people we spoke with were receptive to the messages but were not exactly sure what stormwater pollution was or how their business fit in, so by simplifying the tips to be applied “when delivering” and “when servicing” portable toilets, the BMPs are made easier to understand. The companies cover some water-quality related issues in their training, but have done so in an informal manner and so have not utilized any printed material.

SGA was also able to connect with the industry’s major trade organization, the Portable Sanitation Association International, and found that they do not offer specific water-quality related material outside of spill handling. Their material simply covers how to contain a spill and though these tips are important, the procedure does not specifically mention keeping the spill away from storm drains.

This information prompted SGA to create the tone of the piece to reflect the simple steps involved in maintaining a responsible business. Prior to designing the piece, we reviewed a text draft as well as a preliminary drawing with PSAI’s lead expert and received valuable feedback which was then incorporated into the latest design(See Appendix B: Materials – Bacteria Outreach).

In addition to including relevant tips, SGA has also integrated a bold illustration to reflect the tips regarding delivery of portable toilets. This visual representation covers three primary BMPs:

1. Anchor to the ground 2. Use a containment tray 3. Set up 50 ft. away from catch basin or waterway

The companies we have reached out to, as well as PSAI, have expressed interest in receiving copies of our material once finished. This is a great indicator that they are on board with learning more about stormwater pollution and are keeping abreast with incorporating applicable best management practices into their businesses. This material is also currently being finalized.

Offering quick solutions: Water Quality Alert Door Hanger

Another piece SGA currently has under production is a door hanger that delivers the important message of neighborhood water quality concern. This door hanger offers two important pieces of information. First, it notifies the resident of a water quality notice. Secondly, it allows the inspector noting the concern to direct the resident to take an actionable step to resolve the issue.

Unlike a traditional single page door hanger, SGA developed this piece as a fold-out, allowing enough space flexibility to include elements like inspector notes, business card insertion, and



detailed stormwater pollution information concerning County and City water quality laws(See Appendix B: Materials - Bacteria Outreach). The back side of this piece features a set of useful BMPs relating to working outdoors, borrowed from Think Blue, City of San Diego. In the interior, the list of water quality concerns and additional language was partially adapted from a door hanger produced by the City of Upland.

Once again, SGA worked attentively with the committee to incorporate all applicable concerns by providing several material options as well as incorporating text feedback into each option presented. SGA is also finalizing this piece at the present time.

Be Part of the Solution: Horse Manure BMP Brochure

The City of Rancho Cucamonga shared with the program their Horse Manure BMP brochure as a way for the Stormwater Program to reach out to County residents regarding proper horse care and stormwater pollution prevention. The brochure reaches out to horse owners and informs them of ways to prevent their horse’s waste from being included in urban runoff.

The Horse Manure BMP brochure that was shared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been condensed and revamped to provide horse owners the most valuable horse-care information and also to fit more closely in line with the design aesthetic of the Stormwater Program. The soon to be finished material will provide tips and information on the problem of horse manure bacteria contributing to stormwater pollution, how residents can be part of the solution and information on pesticide and toxic waste disposal.

It’s Easier than You Think!: Fats, Oil & Grease (FOG) Magnet

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provided the program with a magnet design that includes tips for restaurants and businesses who are disposing of Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG). The idea is for restaurants to post the magnet in their kitchen where the specific bacteria disposal is taking place. Aside from the nature of the material being convenient for businesses, the content of the magnet is also a great visual piece as several images model restaurant staff disposing of FOG in both the wrong way and the right way.

The Stormwater Program plans on targeting restaurants and food suppliers in the County to make sure they are abiding by such tips and disposing of grease in the proper manner to protect our local waterways.

Three Reasons to Care: Septic Systems Brochure

The proper care of residential septic systems also has been cited as a contributor to preventing bacteria spread and stormwater pollution. Aside from environmental benefits, properly maintaining a septic system will also protect property value and is courteous to neighbors.

SGA modified and revamped the City of Malibu’s Septic System brochure, for use by the Stormwater Program in educating homeowners on maintaining their systems to prevent stormwater pollution. Again, the material was condensed and actually developed in the form of a booklet to deliver to residents. The booklet highlights the proper maintenance of septic systems, water conservation tips and the main reasons to take care of your septic system.



2.7.7 School Education

Environmental education promotes public awareness and increases knowledge of environmental issues. The earlier that environmental education is provided, the more likely that it will have a strong effect on an individual’s values, and in turn, one’s lifestyle choices. As such, SGA, the Malibu Foundation for Environmental Education and the Stormwater Program performed outreach to elementary school students by offering pollution prevention presentations to schools throughout the area.

Providing an Early Start to Pollution Prevention with Youth: Elementary School Presentations & Cleanups

The Malibu Foundation for Environmental Education conducted the presentations in two different types of settings, classroom and assembly (See Appendix D: Elementary School Presentation Photos). The classroom presentation is geared toward an individual grade level; whereas, the school assembly is intended to reach the entire school population. The program allowed the schools the flexibility of choosing which setting they preferred.

The presentations introduced students to stormwater pollution and the impact that their actions have on the environment. It stressed responsibility and awareness within communities and the ways in which students can help improve their surroundings. The content of the presentation consisted of an interactive slideshow which connects students with their surroundings, teaching them about the stormdrain system and how litter in San Bernardino County impacts rivers, beaches and oceans. The presentations are also a call to action. Students were encouraged to put in to practice the lessons they’ve learned by hosting their own cleanup event.

For fiscal 2009-10, the Stormwater Program visited a total of 16 schools and educated 6,032 students (See Appendix D: Elementary School Presentation Results). 3 of the schools conducted cleanups on campus where 501 students participated in the cleanups and approximately 63 lbs of trash was collected (See Appendix D: Elementary School Cleanup Results).

2.7.8 Website Encouraging Dialogue: Stormwater Program Facebook Page & Special Promotions

The Stormwater Program facebook page (www.facebook.com/sbcountystormwater) is used as a social media tool to further engage the program’s growing list of county-wide stakeholders. Currently, the facebook page has close to 70 fans, since launching October 2009. The page allows facebook users to get the latest on program news, share thoughts and photos, ask questions and connect with other eco-minded county residents (See Appendix H: Facebook Page).

The facebook page not only offers an opportunity for dialogue with fans through posting trend updates, calendar events of ways to get involved and other program news items, but also initiates and leverages incentives such as photo contests and special raffles to encourage users to both join and interact with the page. Incentives are powerful mechanisms to encourage the adoption of sustainable pollution prevention practices, particularly when motivation to engage in those activities is low, or when individuals are not engaging in the activity as effectively as


http://www.facebook.com/sbcountystormwater


they could. The program has activated various incentives through the course of the year to reward positive behavior and make both the reward and behavior as visible as possible by recognizing efforts in front of others.

A few such online engagement promotion examples include: three dog owners contests to encourage people to (1) share photos of their pets dressed up for Halloween (2) post “I pick up after my pooch” on the wall for a free doggie bag container and (3) share one way their furry friends are going easy on the earth; one general stakeholders facebook promotion contest awarding two free movie tickets to Disney’s OCEANS for the fan who posted why he/she cares about water quality to the facebook wall (See Appendix H: General Stakeholder’s e-Update Promotions Example). The value of this promotions model is that it fosters a fun, two-way communication with the program audience and encourages fans to share their positive BMP-focused behaviors on the program page. In addition, the facebook page integrates other social media tools by including an option to sign-up for the Stormwater Program’s electronic newsletter and posts updates each time there is a newsletter send-out.

Keeping Stakeholders in the Loop: Stormwater Program’s Electronic Newsletter

The electronic newsletter, also coined “e-Updates”, features snapshots about projects, highlights community achievements and events, and engages the public to keep stakeholders connected to the Stormwater Program in a way that is exciting and relevant. Booths at community events, meetings, presentations, etc. have been perfect settings for collecting email addresses. The collection of e-Newsletter sign-ups has been an intrinsic part of all of our outreach with new email addresses being collected during one-on-one meetings, public meetings, presentations as well as on the website and facebook page. The purpose is to ensure that people the program meets face-to-face are then invited to become part of the Stormwater Program’s online community.

Since the first newsletter went out to an initial 500 subscribers in October 2009, the list has doubled to over 1,070 in less than one year. While the industry’s average open rate for e-Newsletters is 23%, the program’s e-Newsletters have collectively garnered a 27.4% open rate. The goal is to make sure that all of the online outreach is working cohesively. As such, the newsletter is the glue that solidifies the connection between all the other social media tools including the facebook page and YouTube channel.

Additionally, the program strategically categorizes subscribers into different stakeholder categories (i.e. 651 gardeners, 651 dog owners, and 1070 general) which enables the program to reach out to each key audience group with different, targeted pollution prevention messages through customized newsletter content (See Appendix H: Online Engagement: e-Updates Sign-Ups).

In the last year, those stakeholders who are also gardeners received one gardening focused e-Update which promoted local gardening workshops, reminders about strategic application of fertilizers and pesticides, and opportunities for stakeholders to share their own gardening tips (See Appendix H: Garden Guru’s Solution e-Update). The program also sent out three pet owners e-Updates. Each issue focused on picking up after one’s pooch, special promotions tied back to bacteria BMP messages and a “Pawsitive Partner” feature that showcased a quarterly regional partner such as H.O.P.E (to promote their Doggone Walk-a-thon Fundraiser, and Upland



Animal Shelter to help dogs up for adoption, find a home) (See Appendix H: Dog Owner’s e-Update). Not only do stakeholders receive information about general stormwater news, such as the two facebook promotions sent to all stakeholders during the year (See Appendix H: General Stakeholder’s e-Update Promotions example), but they also get information about issues that they are most inclined to care about through this filtering mechanism.

We’re on TV! Stormwater Program’s YouTube Channel

The Stormwater Program’s YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/user/sbcountystormwater) was launched in February 2010 and used as a social media tool to present stormwater related videos online. The channel offers quick access to online videos and links to share the videos. Thus far, the channel has eight videos and similar to the other social media tools, it offers an opportunity for viewers to comment or give feedback on stormwater material. These videos cover event clips including several from the Frontier Park Earth Day Event tabling and highlight Curiosity Quest (see 2.7.11, below) clips focused on key BMP messages. The Stormwater Program’s YouTube Channel allows for a positive visual association with the program and attracts new interest. Since launching just 6 months ago, the channel has since attracted 665 total video views and 150 channel views (See Appendix H: YouTube Channel).

Building a Communications Bridge: Synchronizing Social Media

These three social media tools work in tandem with one another, making the campaign more effective than if each operated in isolation. They serve as a valuable resource because these mediums replace a top down communication structure with a more lateral way of disseminating information. Online engagement keeps people engaged after the first program encounter, whether in person or online, and then further mobilizes them to take action for a cleaner San Bernardino County.

2.7.9 Hotline

Meeting Permit Requirements Creatively and Effectively: Illegal Dumping Hotline

In no uncertain terms, the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino states:

“The Permittees shall continue to maintain a hotline telephone number and website to allow the public to report illegal dumping… [it] shall be listed in the governmental pages of all regional phone books and on the Permitees’ website.”

Previously in use for the County of San Bernardino was the number “1 800 CLEANUP” which included information about where to dispose of household hazardous waste, but did not have a clear way of reporting illegal dumping. To meet the Permit requirements and to best service the San Bernardino County residents, SGA’s task became the researching of different hotline options and the implementation of the Committee’s selection.

SGA identified and researched several hotline options including the creation and maintenance of a private line, the use of national crime hotlines such as “We Tip” and regional environmental hotlines such as “1 877 WASTE18.” This information was presented to the Committee with a list of pros and cons. After choosing to create its own hotline option, SGA


http://www.youtube.com/user/sbcountystormwater


researched different options for phone services as well as available toll free numbers. This information was presented to the Public Education Subcommittee in a table. After selecting the number “877 WASTE18” to symbolize the 18 members of the Stormwater Program as well choosing to operate through the provider “Phone People,” SGA crafted and recorded English and Spanish versions of the hotline greetings, uploaded them onto the service and established the email address [email protected] which receives audio files and transcripts of all messages left. Additionally, SGA has entered into a contract with Yellow Book of San Bernardino to include 1877 WASTE18 in their online section, as well as the 2010-11 editions of the White Pages and Yellow Book to be printed in February of 2011.

English Version of Final Script:

Thank you for calling the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program’s illegal dumping hotline. If this is an emergency, where public health and safety is in danger, please hang up and dial 911, otherwise leave a detailed message with a description of the incident along with the address and city where the incident took place. Please leave your name and contact information should we have any follow-up questions. Please note that your contact information will be kept confidential. Thank you.

Spanish Version of Final Script:

Gracias por llamar a la línea de emergencia de desechos ilegales del Programa de Aguas Pluviales del Condado de San Bernardino. Si esto es una emergencia, y la salud y seguridad públicas están en peligro, por favor cuelgue y llame al 911. De lo contrario deje un mensaje detallado con una descripción del incidente junto con la dirección y ciudad donde el incidente tuvo lugar. Por favor deje su nombre e información para contactarle en caso de que tengamos más preguntas. Su información de contacto permanecerá confidencial. Gracias.



2.7.10 Regional Events

In order to reach “do-it-yourselfers”, SGA targeted several regional events where the prime audience would be present. The regional events provided an opportunity to relay the stormwater pollution prevention message by speaking one-on-one to event attendees and distributing stormwater pollution educational materials to residents. Residents that attended these events were also encouraged to sign up and receive Stormwater Program’s e-Updates to stay in tuned with program initiatives and resources. This year, the Stormwater Program participated in 5 different events.

Increasing Program Awareness: Regional Events

This fiscal year, SGA participated in the September 17-20, 2009 Route 66 Rendezvous, the April 10, 2010, Frontier Park Earth Day event (See Appendix C: for Event Results & Photos) and the May 27-31, 2010, National Orange Show Festival.

SGA partnered with the City of San Bernardino and SBC HHW to attend the September 17-20, 2009 Route 66 Rendezvous in Downtown San Bernardino. Route 66 is an event that showcases some of the most glamorous cars in Southern California and also includes activities for the family that attracts many residents from the County. The Stormwater Program shared a booth with the City and the County HHW program through the partnership that was established. At the event the program setup their brand new stormwater display that was created the past fiscal year and also promoted the new rain barrel contest where residents could provide their email to receive free e-Updates from the program and also win a free rain barrel for their home. Also, staff distributed program tearsheets and tip cards for residents to receive HHW disposal and pollution prevention information as they stopped by the booth. At Route 66, the program educated around 700 residents, distributed 550 tearsheets and collected 298 e-Update sign-ups.

SGA also attended the April 14, 2010 Frontier Park Earth Day event in Rancho Cucamonga. At this event the program once again setup their new stormwater event display and promoted the rain barrel contest. Aside from collecting email addresses and distributing program materials, staff at the event also taught residents how to turn an old t-shirt into a reusable tote bag. The activity received positive comments from event attendees and supported the program’s objective of reducing plastic bag usage and thereby minimizing litter caused by disposable products. Overall, the staff at the event educated approximately 270 residents and received 94 e-Update sign-ups.

SGA and the Stormwater Program partnered with San Bernardino County Department of Public Works (Solid Waste Management Division) to participate in the May 27-31, 2010, Festival at the National Orange Show. The Festival takes place annually and includes vendors, family activities and fair rides for the public to enjoy. Instead of providing staff at this event, the program passed along materials and the rain barrel promotion display to the Solid Waste Division, as they assisted the program in collecting 42 resident emails.



Reminding Residents to Pick Up After Their Dog: Pet Events

As a way of reaching out to dog owners and educating them on the pollution effects of pet waste, SGA attended and staffed a booth at the November 14, 2009, Helping Out Pets Everyday (HOPE) 5K Doggone Walk-A-Thon (See Appendix C: Event Results & Photos). After registering their dogs for the charity walk, residents attending this event had the opportunity to stop by the Stormwater Program’s booth and receive free doggie bags in exchange for signing commitment letters to pick up after their pet.

SGA also took the opportunity to promote their pet photo contest at the event and conducted pet surveys that assessed pet owner behaviors such as, how often residents walk their dogs, how often they pick up after their dog, do they take their dog to the dog park, etc. Staff educated 52 residents and received 52 signed commitment letters and completed pet surveys.

On May 17, 2010, SGA also attended and staffed the HOPE Adoption Faire (See Appendix C: Event Results & Photos). This Pro-Bono task allowed SGA to increase their outreach to dog owners during the fiscal year and receive additional commitments from residents to pick up after their pet. At the adoption faire, staff educated approximately 90 dog owners and received a total of 90 signed commitment letters and 20 e-Update sign-ups.

2.7.11 Media

The Stormwater Program partnered with the Riverside County Stormwater Program and the public television production company Curiosity Quest to produce a 30 minute video as part of a series known as “Curiosity Quest Goes Green.” The video focused on pollutant sources and behaviors found in residential settings and provided guidance to prevent pollution from getting into stormwater and dry weather runoff. The program was aired on the local public television station KVCR on October 16 and 18, and we estimate that the video was viewed by up to 40,000 people. The segments of the video are now viewable via “YouTube” through our website.

Paid media such as radio and newspaper were placed on hiatus in favor of the use of trash truck placards used by several Permittees, including Montclair and San Bernardino, the curiosity quest video, and continued improvement of website effectiveness. The risk analysis indicates that the bacteria TMDL sources should be a priority target for outreach.

2.7.12 Program Evaluation

It is also essential that the program evaluates its success and ability to reach the eyes of county residents. Along with measuring success, it is vital that a plan is developed to make sure that the program is well executed the following Fiscal Year.

Goals • Develop an impressions report that summarizes the Stormwater Program’s reach in the

communities. • Develop a plan for executing the program in fiscal 09-10.



Results • Compiled impressions report that measures the reach of the program to the public and

suggests future ways of gauging impression counts. • Met internally to discuss budget and layout goals, objectives and plan for executing the

program in fiscal 2009-10. 2.8 Individual Permittee Outreach Figure 2.8.1 shows the number of stormwater outreach events conducted by individual permittees during fiscal 2009-10. Twelve Permittees reported a total of 72 events. Figure 2.8.2 shows the types of events and the impressions produced. Over 24,000 impressions were added to the outreach effort by these Permittee events. Importantly, many of these impressions are face-to-face, carry a much greater impact, and are likely to be more effective increasing knowledge and changing behavior than other forms of outreach.

Figure 2.8.1 Non-Areawide Outreach Events Conducted by Individual Permittees



Figure 2.8.2 Individual Permittee Outreach Event Types and Total Impressions


Section 3 County of San Bernardino 2009-10 Stormwater Monitoring Program


The District conducts an extensive monitoring program to support water quality management on behalf of the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program and to comply with the third-term Permit. A revised IWMP is under development as required by the fourth-term Permit but will require Regional Board review and approval prior to being implemented. Results from fiscal 2009-10 monitoring conducted by the District are presented in this section.

This section is organized to address the following efforts:

Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Studies

TMDL Monitoring Programs Progress

Water Quality Monitoring Program

Background Bacterial Indicator Studies

Pilot Pollutant Source Investigation and Control Plan

Recommendations and Conclusions

3.1 Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Studies As a result of the increasing regulatory focus and the lack of scientific knowledge base, both stormwater regulators and municipal stormwater management agencies throughout southern California have developed a collaborative working relationship. The goal of this relationship is to develop the technical information necessary to better understand stormwater mechanisms and impacts, and then develop the tools that will effectively and efficiently improve stormwater decision-making. There was early recognition by individuals and agency representatives that these issues are oftentimes not localized, but typically cross watershed and jurisdictional boundaries. This relationship culminated in a formal letter of agreement, signed in 2000 and again in 2009, by all of the Phase I municipal stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lead permittees and the NPDES regulatory agencies in southern California to create the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC).

Agencies comprising the SMC are listed below.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region California Department of Transportation, Caltrans City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles, Watershed Protection Division



County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Dept. County of San Diego Stormwater Management Program Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Bernardino County Flood Control District Southern California Coastal Water Research Project State Water Resources Control Board Ventura County Watershed Protection District

The first project supported by the SMC was to develop a five-year Research Agenda. The research agenda, published in 2001, consisted of 15 unique projects developed around three main foci: 1) developing a regional monitoring infrastructure; 2) understanding stormwater runoff mechanisms and processes; and 3) assessing receiving water impacts. The SMC has made significant progress implementing the Research Agenda. Ten of the 15 projects have been started and of these ten, most have been virtually completed. Project accomplishments, which the County of San Bernardino participated in, during fiscal 2009-10 are listed below, and described in detail in the attached SMC Annual Report (Appendix 3-1).

3.1.1 Bioassessment Monitoring Program

The goal of this study is to implement a coordinated, integrated regional bioassessment monitoring program. Previously, the SMC, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) had worked together to design an optimal monitoring program that satisfied local needs and simultaneously provided information that could be combined to make regionwide assessments.

The 2009-10 fiscal year was the second year of a five-year project. In the first year, over 110 sites were sampled between Ventura and San Diego counties for biological communities, water quality, physical habitat, and riparian condition. Preliminary results indicated that approximately 50% of the stream miles in southern California have healthy biological communities and the extent of chemical contamination appears lower than previously thought. Sampling for the second year of the study is complete and samples are currently undergoing analyses.

3.1.2 Stormwater Data Compilation Study

In order to better assess water quality, SMC and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) have been developing the necessary infrastructure to support data sharing between member agencies for several years. To date, SMC has compiled more than 600,000 data records. Initial analysis of the data indicated that additional flow data would aid SMC in calculating contaminant loads to waterbodies. Accordingly, SCCWRP staff are working with SMC agencies to update data submittal procedures for the upcoming storm season to improve load estimation.



3.1.3 Laboratory Intercalibration Study

A goal of the SMC is to compile monitoring data from separate monitoring programs to make regionwide assessments. The Stormwater Data Compilation Study is part of this effort, but data generated by different laboratories used by member agencies must be comparable for optimal results. Despite all SMC laboratories being State-certified, previous intercalibration studies for total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, and trace metals demonstrated inter-laboratory coefficients of variation in excess of 100%. Previously, the SMC conducted two laboratory intercalibrations, due to which variability was reduced to less than or equal 20%. These intercalibrations lead to the development of a performance-based Guidance Manual that defines the sensitivity, accuracy, and precision necessary for analyzing samples for any SMC agency. A third laboratory intercalibration was performed during fiscal 2009-10 to fill in missing information and to make the Guidance Manual an adaptive and effective document. The third intercalibration included using more laboratories, analyzing a dry weather runoff event as well as a wet weather runoff event, and increasing the number of constituents analyzed. The SMC is pursuing a future interlaboratory calibration agreement to maintain the periodicity of the intercalibration events, add further constituents, and increase the quality and comparability of toxicity measurements.

3.1.4 Hydromodification Study

The process of urbanization has the potential to affect stream characteristics by altering watershed hydrology through the increase of impervious surfaces. Increased impervious surface area within a watershed reduces the infiltration capacity of the watershed, thereby increasing the runoff volume and runoff rates. This process has been termed hydromodification. Hydromodification can result in adverse effects to stream habitat, surface water quality, and water supply. In response to the effects of hydromodification, state and local agencies are developing standards and management approaches to control and/or mitigate the effects of hydromodification on natural and semi-natural stream courses. The goal of the Hydromodification Study is to develop a series of tools to support implementation of hydromodification management measures. Specifically, the study aims to provide approaches for answering the following questions: 1) Which streams are at the greatest risk from the effects of hydromodification? 2) What are the anticipated effects in terms of increased erosion, sedimentation, or habitat loss, associated with increases in impervious cover? 3) What are some potential management measures that could be implemented to offset hydromodification effects and how effective are they likely to be?

Several milestones were reached during fiscal 2009-10. First, a review of mapping and classification literature was completed to serve as the foundation for the classification system developed by this project. Second, an extensive field campaign was completed to obtain information on channel condition, hydraulics, sedimentary characteristics, and other attributes of over 30 stream segments across various landscape settings. Third, drainage basins were delineated for all sites and several essential stream metrics were quantified. Finally, several tools were developed to support the processing of field data and for classification and extrapolation of flow duration curves from gaged to ungaged sites.



3.1.5 Low Impact Development Study

The Low Impact Devlopment (LID) Guidance Study is being conducted to develop a comprehensive program to incorporate LID strategies and techniques into the planning and design of public and private sector projects. The LID Study will develop a model program for localities in California that are interested in adopting LID strategies. The LID study has:

• Developed interim guidance and training for LID implementation;

• Determined effectiveness of LID for reduction of pollutant loads and hydrologic changes in southern California;

• Developed guidelines on specifications and standards for project design and review;

• Developed final guidance and training materials using field data; and

• Conducted training workshops in southern California.

SMC and the California Stormwater Quality Association plan to continue updating the LID Guidance Manual and provide training sessions, as well as continue monitoring, through the spring of 2012.

3.2 TMDL Monitoring Programs Progress During fiscal 2009-10, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program continued implementing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) monitoring programs for the Middle Santa Ana River (MSAR) Bacteria Indicator TMDL and the Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL for Dry Hydrological Conditions.

MSAR TMDL

The MSAR Bacteria Indicator TMDL addresses beneficial use impairments in the MSAR watershed due to high bacteria indicator levels. The Bacteria Indicator TMDL was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in May 2007, and the monitoring program was initiated in July 2007. The MSAR Bacterial Indicator Task Force is comprised of members who work jointly to implement requirements of the TMDL and includes the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, County of Riverside, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, Milk Producers Council, Chino Basin Watermaster Agricultural Pool, US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, and the Cities of Chino Hills, Upland, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Chino, Fontana, Norco, Corona, and Riverside. TMDL monitoring is conducted according to the Watershed Wide Monitoring Plan (WWMP).

Results from WWMP conducted during the 2009-2010 wet season were reported in the MSAR Bacteria Indicator TMDL Analysis Report in April 2010. Results from dry season monitoring during 2009 were presented in the MSAR Bacteria Indicator TMDL 2009 Dry Season Report in December 2009 and are briefly summarized below.



During the 2009 dry season, sampling events were performed for twenty weeks between May 30 and October 10. Standard water quality parameters were measured, including TSS, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, water temperature, flow, and conductivity, and samples were collected for the bacterial indicators E. coli and fecal coliform. Monitoring occurred at five locations in the MSAR watershed that were selected as watershed-wide compliance monitoring sites. In general, the 2009 dry season fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean concentrations were lower than those observed during 2007 and 2008 dry weather monitoring. The lowest bacterial concentrations were observed at the Prado Park Lake outlet and Santa Ana River sites while highest concentrations were observed at the Chino Creek and Mill-Cucamonga Creek sample sites. Fecal coliform geometric mean exceedance frequency was very low at the Santa Ana River sites (0% to 6%) and Prado Lake (6%). For these same sites, the E. coli geometric mean exceedance frequency ranged from 44% for the Santa Ana River sites to 0% at the Prado Lake site. In contrast, the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean exceedance frequencies were 88% for Chino Creek and 100% for Mill-Cucamonga Creek.

Big Bear Lake TMDL

The County of San Bernardino is also involved in the Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL for Dry Hydrological Conditions. The Nutrient TMDL addresses beneficial use impairment in Big Bear Lake that is attributed to excessive phosphorus, and was approved by the U.S. EPA on September 25, 2007. The District is part of the Big Bear Lake TMDL Task Force, which includes the City of Big Bear Lake, California Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, the County of San Bernardino, and Big Bear Mountain Resorts.

The Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL Compliance Program Watershed-Wide Monitoring Plan was approved by the Regional Board on July 18, 2008 The Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force egan sampler training for the watershed monitoring, per the Plan, in May 2009. The monitoring plan specifies tributary monitoring efforts near the mouths of 303(d) listed tributaries to Big Bear Lake, including Rathbun Creek, Summit Creek, Grout Creek, Knickerbocker Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Bear Creek Outlet (Dam Outlet). Monitoring occurred between July 2009 and December 2009 and included the following constituents (Table 3-1):

Table 3-1 Sampled Constituents

Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen Nitrogen Kjeldahl Total Phosphorus Ortho-phosphate (SRP) Total Dissolved Phosphorus

Temperature

Total Suspended solids Turbidity Concentration pH Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity Total Alkalinity Hardness Bicarbonate BOD Carbonate COD Calcium DOC Hydroxide



Total Organic Carbon Magnesium Volatile Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Nitrogen

The data collected are used to characterize water quality conditions within the watershed and to evaluate compliance with TMDL wasteload allocations/load allocations/ numeric targets and are presented in the 2009 Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL Annual Water Quality Report.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring Program

The stormwater and receiving water monitoring performed during fiscal 2009-10 was conducted under the Monitoring and Reporting Program required by the third-term Permit. The fourth-term Permit contains a revised Monitoring and Reporting Program that requires an updated IWMP. The IWMP is expected to be adopted in 2011 with monitoring to begin in 2011-2012.

3.3.1 Site Descriptions

During fiscal 2009-10, three stormwater discharge sites and two receiving water sites were monitored. Site characteristics for fiscal 2009-10 monitoring stations are summarized in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. A map of these sites is provided as Figure 3.3.1. The three stormwater discharge monitoring sites were selected to provide data to characterize runoff from urban development and agricultural practices. Samples for Sites 2 and 3 (stormwater discharge sites) were collected from within Cucamonga Creek. Although the creek is concrete-lined as it passes through the urban area, it nonetheless constitutes a receiving water body; therefore, Sites 2 and 3 are technically receiving water monitoring sites. However, they are considered to be stormwater discharge sites for the purpose of this monitoring effort. The creek water at Site 2 is predominantly composed of urban runoff, though some portion of the creek flow at this location is also derived from upstream open space/rural and residential land uses. Similarly, although the predominant land use in the vicinity of Site 3 is agricultural, the creek flow at Site 3 is affected by a mixture of land uses, including urban, open space/rural and discharge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant located between Sites 2 and 3. Site 5 is a stormwater discharge monitoring station; the samples for Site 5 are collected from within the constructed storm drain system (via a maintenance hole) prior to discharge to the receiving water. The two receiving water sites were located on the Santa Ana River at Hamner Avenue (Site 8 or R-1) and upstream of the Seven Oaks Dam tributary (Site 10 or R-3). However, the sampling location for Site 8, was moved from the Hamner Avenue Bridge approximately 1 mile upstream to near Pedley Avenue (now referenced as Site 8-A). There are no major tributaries or outfalls to the river between these the Hamner Avenue Bridge and Pedley Aveneue sites. The Seven Oaks Dam tributary site has remained in the same location.



Figure 3.3.1 Santa Ana River Basin Sampling Sites



Table 3-2 Stormwater Monitoring Site Characteristics

Site No. Location Primary Land Use Nearest SBCFCD Rain

Gauge

Rain Gauge Station Number

2a Cucamonga Creek @ Hwy 60

Commercial and Industrial Ely Basins 2866

3a Cucamonga Creek @ Hellman Ave. Agriculture Chino County Airport 1360

5 Stormwater pipe @ Hunts Lane north of

Hospitality Lane

Commercial and light industrial SBCFCD Office 2001B3

Note: a. Samples collected from these sites are technically considered to be from receiving waters.

Table 3-3 Receiving Water Monitoring Site Characteristics

Site No. Location Primary Land Use Nearest SBCFCD Rain

Gauge

Rain Gauge Station Number

R-1 (8-A)

Santa Ana River at Pedley

Urbanized (alternate to Site 8, with better access)

Chino County Airport 1360

R-3 (10)

Santa Ana River upstream of Seven Oaks

Dam tributary Open/Rural Santa Ana P.H. 3162

3.3.2 Precipitation

Daily precipitation recorded at Weather Station 2866 (located at the Ely Basins) and the dates of the monitored events for fiscal 2009-10 are depicted in Figure 3.3.2. Rainfall varies significantly between rain gauge locations, so a summary of total monthly rainfall during the 2009-10 stormwater monitoring season is shown in Table 3-41 for SBCFCD rain gauge stations located near the monitoring sites, as listed in Table 3-2 and 3-3. The water year begins in October and ends in September. As compared to historic data from water years 1980 to 2008, which is considered reliable data, the 2009-10 water-year rainfall was approximately 80% of the annual average.2 Accordingly, water-year 2009-10 (October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010) is considered a dry year.

1 Daily precipitation data for all SBCFCD rainfall gauging stations can be retrieved from the SBCFCD website: http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/trnsprtn/pwg 2 Rainfall data analyzed from the SBCFC rainfall gauging stations for the 2009-2010 water year were not complete. Station 1360: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-9/8/2010; Station 1376: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-5/22/2010; Station 2361: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-9/14/2010; Station 2820: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-6/3/2010; Station 2866: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-9/30/2010; Station 3162: Data analyzed for the period of 10/1/2009-9/7/2010. San Bernardino County Stormwater Program November 15, 2010 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report Page 79

http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/trnsprtn/pwg


Figure 3.3.2 Daily Precipitation and fiscal year 2009-10 Monitoring Events

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10

Tot

al to

Dat

e, in

ches

Daily

Tot

al, i

nche

s

Date

Daily Total Total to Date

Wet Weater Event 1

10/14/2009

Wet Weater Event 2

12/7/2009 - 12/8/2009

Wet Weater Event 3

1/18/2010 - 1/20/2010, 1/22/2010

Wet Weater Event 4

3/7/2010



Table 3-4 Inches of Rainfall in Drainage Area for FY 2009-10

SBCFCD Rain Gauge Stations 2866 1360A 1376 2820 2361 3162 Month Ely Basins Chino

Airport Cucamonga Creek @ Baseline

SBCFCD Offices

Del Rosa Fire Dept.

Santa Ana P.H.

Oct-09 0.28 0.37 0.86 0.04 0.08 0.05 Nov-09 0.23 0.03 0.94 0.47 0.76 0.28 Dec-09 0.99 2.87 4.03 2.88 2.79 2.00 Jan-10 6.97 6.28 7.33 5.86 4.89 5.55 Feb-10 4.73 5.17 5.65 3.51 3.37 3.80 Mar-10 0.39 0.46 0.63 1.85 0.68 0.86 April-10 0.71 0.71 1.25 1.18 1.42 1.69

Total Inches 15.75 15.89 20.69 15.79 13.99 14.23

A comparison of sample collection dates to the seasonal precipitation record indicates that during the 2009-10 wet season, data from four representative storms were successfully captured. Wet weather event sampling criteria specify that ideally no more than 0.1 inch of rain can fall during the 72 hours preceding a monitored event. Additionally, the minimum rainfall event level that constitutes a wet weather event is 0.25 inch measured at the Ely Basins Station (2866). Antecedent rainfall conditions for the 2009-10 sampling events are provided in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Antecedent Rainfall Conditions for the 2009-10 Monitoring Events1

Wet Weather Event 1

Wet Weather Event 2

Wet Weather Event 3

Wet Weather Event 3

Date of Monitoring 10/14/2009 12/7/2009 – 12/8/2009

1/18/2010 – 1/20/2010, 1/22/2010

3/7/2010

Date of First Rain 10/14/2009 12/7/2009 1/17/2010 3/6/2010

Date of Last Rain 10/14/2009 12/7/2009 1/22/2010 3/7/2010

Total Rainfall for this event2 (in.) 0.28 0.91 6.58 0.31

Date of last precipitation 3/22/2009 11/28/2009 12/22/2009 3/4/2010

Time since last precipitation 207 days 9 days 26 days 2 days

Date of last storm ≥ 0.1 in. 3/22/2009 11/28/2009 12/22/2009 2/27/2010

Time since last storm ≥ 0.1 in. 207 days 9 days 26 day 7 days

Date of Last Storm ≥ 0.25 in. 2/17/2009 10/14/2009 12/12/2010 2/27/2010

Time since last storm ≥ 0.25 in. 240 days 54 days 36 days 7 days

Cumulative rainfall for season (in.)3 0.28 1.42 9.42 15.04 Note: 1 = Wet season data from Weather Station 2866 (Ely Basins) 2 = The precipitation was totaled for the entire storm, not the event monitoring period. 3 = Wet season totals from October 1, 2009



3.3.3 Sample Collection

In fiscal 2009-10, the County used flow-paced automatic samplers at Sites 2, 3, and 5 to obtain Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs). Site 2 and Site 3 were monitored during four wet weather events and Site 5 was monitored during three wet weather events. The County also monitored three wet weather events at Site 8 and Site 10. The County utilized grab sampling at these receiving water sites. Samples were not taken at Site 5, Site 8, and Site 10 during the first Wet Weather Event because there was not enough precipitation in the upper portion of the watershed where those sites are located. Therefore, a fourth storm was monitored to ensure three wet weather events were conducted for all sites. A summary of the sites sampled during each Wet Weather Event is given in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Samples Collected During the 2009-10 Wet Season

Monitoring Event Monitoring Date(s) Monitoring Sites

2 3 5 8 10 Wet Weather Event 1 10/14/2010 CF CF NS NS NS Wet Weather Event 2 12/7-12/8/2010 CF CF CF G G Wet Weather Event 3 1/18-1/22/2010 CF CF CF G G Wet Weather Event 4 3/7/10 CF CF CF G G

Notes: CF: Flow-Paced Composite Sample G: Grab Sample NS: Samples were not collected at this site. 3.3.4 Comparison of Results to Water Quality Objectives

This section presents water quality monitoring data, compares San Bernardino County Stormwater Program data to relevant water quality objectives and criteria. Water quality data from the 2009-10 monitoring season were compared with the California Toxics Rule (CTR) and the 1995 Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Sites 2 and 3 are located in Cucamonga Creek and for the purposes of this comparison it was assumed that Basin Plan water quality objectives (WQOs) for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River may be applied to Cucamonga Creek. Accordingly, the relevant WQOs are presented in Table 3-7 for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River, corresponding to Sites 2, 3, and 8, and Table 3-8 for Reach 6 of the Santa Ana River, corresponding to Site 10. CTR objectives for metals are adjusted for receiving water hardness for each sample; the metals objectives were calculated individually for these comparisons using the hardness value for each sample from the 2009-10 stormwater season.

Results of the water quality monitoring program are given in Tables 3-9 to 3-13. Only monitoring sites located within receiving waters are compared to WQOs, consequently Site 5 is not compared to WQOs. Bold values in sample columns of Tables 3-9 to 3-13 indicate values greater than the WQOs. This comparison is primarily to provide a preliminary assessment of the stormwater quality and not intended to assess compliance with water quality standards. WQOs apply to the receiving water and paired monitoring of the receiving water and outfall that discharges to the receiving water is required to assess whether the discharge is causing or contributing to an exceedance of WQOs.



Table 3-7 Water Quality Objectives for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River (Sites 2, 3, and 8)

Water Quality Objectives

Constituent Units Basin Plan

Note on Beneficial

Use

Basin Plan

Objective

California Toxics Rule (CTR)a Basin Plan Metals Site

Specific Objectivesb

Acute Fresh water

Aquatic Life

Chronic Freshwater

Aquatic Life

Human Health

(Water and Organisms)

CTR Lowest Criteria

Conventional

COD mg/L Waterbody-specific 30 — — — — —

pH pH units All 8.5 — — — — —

TDS mg/L Waterbody-specific 700 — — — — —

TSS mg/L Narrativec 30 — — — — — Metals (Total Recoverable)

Ag μg/L — 0.4-109.7 — — 0.4-109.7 — As μg/L — 340 150 — 150 — B μg/L AGR 750 — — — — — Cd μg/L LWRM — 0.9-39.3 0.8-11.1 — 0.8-11.1 0.38-5.1 Crd μg/L — 16.3 11.4 — 11.4 — Cu μg/L LWRM — 3.8-85.2 2.9-48 1300 2.9-48 3.6-60.8 Hg μg/L — — — 0.05 — Pb μg/L LWRM — 14-936.9 0.5-36.5 — 0.5-36.5 1.02-60.9 Se μg/L — — 5.0 — 5.0 — Zn μg/L — 37-608 37-608 — 37-608 —

General Minerals Total Hardness mg/L Waterbody-

specific 350 — — — — —

Na mg/L Waterbody-specific 110 — — — — —

Other

SO4 mg/L Waterbody-specific 150 — — — — —

Cl mg/L Waterbody-specific 140 — — — — —

F mg/L MUNe 0.8 — — — — — P-Total mg/L Narrativef 0.1 — — — — — NO3-N mg/L MUN 10 — — — — —

Microbiology

Total Coliform MPN/ 100 mL MUN 100g — — — — —

Fecal Coliform

MPN/ 100 mL REC1 400 — — — — —

Notes: Beneficial uses: AGR: Agricultural Supply; LWRM: Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat; MUN: Municipal and Domestic Supply; REC1: Water Contact Recreation a. CTR metals objectives were calculated using the lowest and highest total hardness values for Sites 2, 3, and 8, and are shown as the range of criteria. b. Basin Plan Metals Site-Specific Objectives (SSOs) were calculated using the following equations with TH = total hardness in mg/L. The lowest and highest sample total hardness values were used to calculate the range of criteria.

Cadmium: Cd SSO = 0.85[e[0.7852*ln(TH)-3.490]] Copper: Cu SSO = 0.85[e[0.8545*ln(TH)-1.465]] Lead: Pb SSO = 0.25[e[1.273*ln(TH)-3.958]] c. TSS: Technology-based objective for wastewater discharges (narrative standard surrogate). d. The Chromium VI CTR objective is used to assess compliance for all chromium species. e. Fluoride: Based on annual average of maximum daily air temperature, 78°F (25.6°C), which corresponds to Basin Plan narrative objective of 0.8 mg/L for temperature range 21.5-26.2°C. f. Total phosphorus: Recommended objective obtained from Gold Book for the prevention of excessive algal growth due to phosphorus compounds (narrative standard surrogate). g. Pursuant to US EPA’s Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, adequate disinfection and regular monitoring of MUN waters are now required, making the existing MUN objective obsolete and unnecessary.



Table 3-8 Water Quality Objectives for Reach 6 of the Santa Ana River (Site 10) Water Quality Objectives

Constituent Units

Basin Plan Note on

Beneficial Use

Basin Plan

Objective

California Toxics Rule (CTR)a

Acute Freshwater Aquatic Life

Chronic Freshwater Aquatic Life

Human Health (Water

and Organisms)

CTR Lowest Criteria

Conventional

COD mg/L Waterbody-specific 5 — — — —

pH pH units All 8.5 — — — —

TDS mg/L Waterbody-specific 200 — — — —

TSS mg/L Narrativeb 30 — — — — Metals (Total Recoverable)

Ag μg/L — 2.7-3.6 — — 2.7-3.6 As μg/L — 340 150 — 150 B μg/L AGR 750 — — — — Cd μg/L LWRM — 3.5-4.2 2.0-2.3 — 2.0-2.3 Crc μg/L — 16.3 11.4 — 11.4 Cu μg/L LWRM — 11.2-13.2 7.6-8.8 1300 7.6-8.8 Hg μg/L — — — 0.05 Pb μg/L LWRM — 60.5-75.5 2.4-2.9 — 2.4-2.9 Se μg/L — — 5.0 — 5.0 Zn μg/L — 98.1-113.7 98.1-113.7 — 98.1-113.7

General Minerals Total Hardness mg/L Waterbody-

specific 100 — — — —

Na mg/L Waterbody-specific 30 — — — —

Other

SO4 mg/L Waterbody-specific 20 — — — —

Cl mg/L Waterbody-specific 10 — — — —

F mg/L MUNd 0.8 — — — — P-Total mg/L Narrativee 0.1 — — — — NO3-N mg/L MUN 10 — — — —

Microbiology

Total Coliform MPN/100 mL MUN 100f — — — —

Fecal Coliform MPN/100 mL REC1 400 — — — —

Notes: Beneficial uses: AGR: Agricultural Supply; LWRM: Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat; MUN: Municipal and Domestic Supply; REC1: Water Contact Recreation a. CTR metals objectives were calculated using the lowest and highest total hardness values for Site 10, and are shown as the range of criteria. b. TSS: Technology-based objective for wastewater discharges (narrative standard surrogate). c. The Chromium VI CTR objective is used to assess compliance for all chromium species. d. Fluoride: Based on annual average of maximum daily air temperature, 78°F (25.6°C), which corresponds to Basin Plan narrative objective of 0.8 mg/L for temperature range 21.5-26.2°C. e. Total phosphorus: Recommended objective obtained from Gold Book for the prevention of excessive algal growth due to phosphorus compounds (narrative standard surrogate f. Pursuant to US EPA’s Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, adequate disinfection and regular monitoring of MUN waters are now required, making the existing MUN objective obsolete and unnecessary.



Table 3-9 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 2 (Flow-Paced Composite)

Constituents Units Wet Weather Event 1

Wet Weather Event 2

Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Lowest WQOb

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Conventional

BOD mg/L 18 <20 <10 8e 10 12 COD mg/L 79 96 200 53 35 49 30 pH std. units 7.6 6.9 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.8 8.5 EC µmhos/cm 140 80 100 100 98 100 TDS mg/L 76 56 84 78 78 50 700 TSS mg/L 45 66 480 180 86 35 30 O&G mg/L <2.5 <5.0 <5.0 <2.5 NV NV

Metals (Total Recoverable) Ag µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1.1/0.4/2.9,1.0,0.6/0.4

As µg/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 150 B µg/L <100 <100c <100c <100 <100c <100 750 Ba µg/L 32 38 190 87c 47 25 Cd µg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 1.4/0.8/2.1,1.3,1.1/0.9

Co µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Cr µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 11.4 Cu µg/L 29 27 32 17 10 13 5.0/2.9/7.9,4.6,3.7/3.0

Fe µg/L 1,500 1,900 18,000d 8,500d 3,700 990 Hg µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.05 Mn µg/L 52 53 350 130 63c 23 Pb µg/L <10 <10 12 <10 <10 <10 1.2/0.5/2.5,1.1,0.8/0.6

Se µg/L <5.0 <5.0d <5.0 <5.0 <5.0d <5.0 5.0 Zn µg/L 180 230 160 73 55 58 64.3/37/101.3,59.8,48/39.5

General Minerals

Total Hardness mg/L CaCO3

48 25 82 44 34 27 350

Ca mg/L 15 7.8c 20 11 9.6c 8.8 Mg mg/L 2.5 1.4c 7.9 3.7 2.4c 1.1 Na mg/L 7.1 4.6c 7.6c 7.9c 7.6c 8.9 110 K mg/L 3.4 2.3 5.4 3.4 2.4 1.9

Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO3

35 21 33 25 24 25

OH mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 CO3 mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 HCO3 mg/L 43 26 40 31 29 30



Table 3-9. 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 2 (Flow-Paced Composite) cont.


Wet Weather Event 2

Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4

Lowest WQO

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Other SO4 mg/L 7.4 3.0 4.3 6.5c,d 4.1 6.2c,d 150 Cl mg/L 6.5c 2.5 4.0 9.0c 7.3d 5.3 140 F mg/L 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 P-Ortho mg/L 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.062 <0.050 P-Total mg/L 0.51 0.41 0.1c 0.41 0.25 0.15 0.1 NH4-N mg/L 1.0 0.84 0.37 <0.10 <0.10 0.46 NO2-N mg/L 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NO3-N mg/L 1.5 0.45d 0.50 0.54 0.34 0.93 10 TKN mg/L 2.6 2.2 1.8 0.94d 0.86 1.2d N-Total mg/L 4.2 2.6 2.3 1.5 1.2 2.1

Bacteria Total Coliform MPN/100mL 90,000 50,000 50,000 160,000 13,000 100,000f 100 Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 13,000 1,300 3,000 8,000 400 2,900 400 E. Coli MPN/100mL 3,000 1,300 3,000 8,000 400 2,600f Enterococcus MPN/100mL 24,000 11,000 11,000 50,000 3,000 6,700f Fecal Streptococcus MPN/100mL 24,000 30,000 11,000 >=160,000 8,000 NV

Notes: NV = No value reported. “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. a. Wet Weather Event 3 occurred between January 18, 2010 and January 22, 2010 with three sampling events during this period. b. The lowest WQOs were calculated for each Event using the CTR equations which are dependent on each Event’s total hardness. The SSO equations were not used because the equations contain old values that have since been updated. Furthermore, the only site-specific element of the equation is the conversion factor used to obtain dissolved metals concentrations which is not required when calculating the lowest WQO for total recoverable metals. Lowest WQO values are presented for Wet Weather Event 1/Wet Weather Event 2/Wet Weather Event 3/Wet Weather Event 4. c. EST-CAL: The analyte concentration is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. d. EST-LL-MS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to matrix spike recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. e. EST-MSD: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to the relative percent difference (RPD) value for the matrix spike duplicate not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. f. Sample received past regulatory holding time.





Wet Weather Event 2


Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3 Conventional

BOD mg/L 23 <20 <10 <5e <10 <5 COD mg/L 86 80 71 76 53 29 30 pH std. units 7.8 7.2 7.4 8.4 7.7 7.9 8.5 EC µmhos/cm 180 140 61 110 120 87 TDS mg/L 110 72 38 59 68 42 700 TSS mg/L 73 130 170 440 94 25 30 O&G mg/L <2.5 <5.0 <5.0 <2.5 NV NV Metals (Total Recoverable)

Ag µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1.9/1.8/0.6,2.3,1.0/0.4

As µg/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 150 B µg/L <100 <100c <100c <100c <100c <100 750 Ba µg/L 53 73 65 98 47 <20 Cd µg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 1.8/1.7/1.0,1.9,1.3/0.9

Co µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Cr µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 11.4 Cu µg/L 26 24 18 23 13 1.9 6.5/6.2/3.5,7.0,4.7/3.0

Fe µg/L 2,600 4,500 5,200d 7,500d 3,100 770 Hg µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.05 Mn µg/L 72 110 99 160 67c 20 Pb µg/L <10 <10 <10 11 <10 <10 1.8/1.7/0.7,2.1,1.2/0.6

Se µg/L <5.0 <5.0d <5.0 <5.0 <5.0d <5.0 5.0 Zn µg/L 120 160 98 130 58 27 83.2/79.9/45.6,90.7,60.9/38.3

General Minerals


65 62 32 72 45 26 350

Ca mg/L 20 18c 8.4 20 13c 8.2 Mg mg/L 3.8 4.1c 2.6 5.5 3.0c 1.3 Na mg/L 9.5 7.2c 3.2c 6.3c 6.7c 5.6 110 K mg/L 5.6 4.4 2.8 4.3 3.2 2.0


44 41 17 40 36 25

OH mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 CO3 mg/L <3.0 <3.0 21 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 HCO3 mg/L 54 50 61 49 44 30




Constituents Units Wet Weather

Event 1 Wet Weather

Event 2 Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather

Event 4 Lowest WQO Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3 Other SO4 mg/L 8.8 4.5 2.8 4.4c,d 4.0c,d 3.8 150 Cl mg/L 11c 5.3 2.4 5.7c 6.5d 4.5 140 F mg/L 0.2 <0.10 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 P-Ortho mg/L 0.33 0.23 0.12 0.16 0.1 0.076 P-Total mg/L 0.66 0.57 0.42c 0.62 0.32 0.18 0.1 NH4-N mg/L 0.96 0.59 0.22 0.23 <0.10 0.35 NO2-N mg/L 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NO3-N mg/L 1.6 0.81 0.32 0.47 0.38 0.56 10 TKN mg/L 2.9 2.0 1.3 0.71 0.96 0.70d N-Total mg/L 4.7 2.6 1.6 3.4 1.3 1.3

Bacteria Total Coliform MPN/100mL >=160,000 50,000 90,000 90,000 160,000 160,000f 100 Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 50,000 30,000 11,000 5,000 22,000 3,800 400 E. Coli MPN/100mL 5,000 3,000 11,000 5,000 22,000 3,500f Enterococcus MPN/100mL >=160,000 10,000 30,000 17,000 30,000 7,600f Fecal Streptococcus MPN/100mL 22,000 30,000 50,000 >=160,000 >=160,000 NV

Notes: NV = No value reported. “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. a. Wet Weather Event 3 occurred between January 18, 2010 and January 22, 2010 with three sampling events during this period. b. The lowest WQOs were calculated for each Event using the CTR equations which are dependent on each Event’s total hardness. The SSO equations were not used because the equations contain old values that have since been updated. Furthermore, the only site-specific element of the equation is the conversion factor used to obtain dissolved metals concentrations which is not required when calculating the lowest WQO for total recoverable metals. Lowest WQO values are presented for Wet Weather Event 1/Wet Weather Event 2/Wet Weather Event 3/Wet Weather Event 4. c. EST-CAL: The analyte concentration is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. d. EST-LL-MS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to matrix spike recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. e. EST-MSD: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to the RPD value for the matrix spike duplicate not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. f. Sample received past regulatory holding time.





Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3

Conventional BOD mg/L 10 23 7 <10 12 COD mg/L 94 160 130 120 67 pH std. units 7.4 7.0 7.3 7.4 7.1 EC µmhos/cm 440 100 45 74 81 TDS mg/L 310 80 36 66 49 TSS mg/L 100 120 700 330 62 O&G mg/L <2.5 <5.0 <5.0 NV NV Metals (Total Recoverable) Ag µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 As µg/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 B µg/L <100b <100b <100b <100b <100 Ba µg/L 54 41 71 87 31 Cd µg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Co µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Cr µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Cu µg/L 23 29 35 34 18 Fe µg/L 1,300 2,600c 5,800c 14,000 2,100 Hg µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Mn µg/L 48 74 130 280b 60 Pb µg/L <10 <10 21 25 <10 Se µg/L <5.0c <5.0 <5.0 <5.0c <5.0 Zn µg/L 140 200 310 230 130 General Minerals Total Hardness mg/L CaCO3 170 40 37 57 27 Ca mg/L 53b 12 10 12b 8.2 Mg mg/L 10b 2.4 2.9 6.2b 1.6 Na mg/L 19b 6.4b 2.6b 5.0b 4.2 K mg/L 4.6 3.1 2.4 4.2 1.8 Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO3 130 29 21 23 20 OH mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 CO3 mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 HCO3 mg/L 150 35 26 28 24





Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3

Other SO4 mg/L 39 6.4 2.4 3.4b,c 4.9 Cl mg/L 14 3.2 1.3 2.8C 3.3 F mg/L 0.3 0.1 NV <0.10 0.1 P-Ortho mg/L 0.11 <0.050 <0.050 0.14 <0.050 P-Total mg/L 0.23 0.27b 0.50 0.78 0.25 NH4-N mg/L 0.19 0.43 <0.10 <0.10 0.64 NO2-N mg/L 0.42 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NO3-N mg/L 2.4 0.45 0.20 0.34 0.72 TKN mg/L 1.7 2.3 1.4c 2.3 1.7c

N-Total mg/L 4.5 2.8 1.6 2.6 2.4 Bacteria

Total Coliform MPN/100mL >=160,000 >=160,000 >=160,000 13,000 130,000d

Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 800 3,000 11,000 1,700 690 E. Coli MPN/100mL 200 1,100 11,000 1,700 630d

Enterococcus MPN/100mL 3,000 13,000 90,000 5,000 1,900d

Fecal Streptococcus

MPN/100mL 9,000 50,000 >=160,000 24,000 NV

Notes: NV = No value reported. “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. a. Wet Weather Event 3 occurred between January 18, 2010 and January 22, 2010 with three sampling events during this period. b. EST-CAL: The analyte concentration is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. c. EST-LL-MS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to matrix spike recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. d. Sample received past regulatory hold time.



Table 3-12 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 8 (Receiving Water Grabs)



Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3 Conventional BOD mg/L <20 <5 <10 <10 <10 COD mg/L 130 31 190 340 110 30 pH std. units 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.9 7.8 8.5 EC µmhos/cm 480 740 410 270 530 TDS mg/L 310 430 300 290f 300 700 TSS mg/L 110 75 1,500 6,200 430 30 O&G mg/L <2.5 <2.5 3.5 <2.5 <2.5 Metals (Total Recoverable) Ag µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 8.2/13.4,18.3,44c/11.2

As µg/L <5.0 <5.0 5.5 13 <5.0 150 B µg/L 130 190d 120d 130d 140 750 Ba µg/L 110 41 260 920 120 Cd µg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3.4/4.2,4.9,7.3c/3.9

Co µg/L <10 <10 21 88 <10 Cr µg/L <20 <20 46 190 <20 11.4 Cu µg/L 27 <10 54 210 28 13.2/16.9,19.7,30.5c/15.4

Fe µg/L 6,500 580 37,000e 180,000 17,000 Hg µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.05 Mn µg/L 720 90 990 4,100d 550 Pb µg/L 14 <10 38 140 17 5.3/7.7,9.7,18.6c/6.7d

Se µg/L <5.0 <5.0e <5.0 <5.0e <5.0 5.0 Zn µg/L 130 20 200 640 90 170/215.6,251.6,387.8c/197

General Minerals


150 200 240 680 180 350

Ca mg/L 43 61d 59 140d 48 Mg mg/L 9.7 12 21 81d 14 Na mg/L 41 67 38d 23d 45 110 K mg/L 10 10 12 37 9.2


110 160 100 180 120

OH mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 CO3 mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 HCO3 mg/L 130 200 12 220 150



Table 3-12. 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 8 (Receiving Water Grabs), cont.


Wet Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Lowest WQO Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3

Other SO4 mg/L 38 66 41d,e 21d,e 43 150 Cl mg/L 42 74 43d 18e 48 140 F mg/L 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 P-Ortho mg/L 0.76 0.96 0.36 0.22 0.54 P-Total mg/L 1.4 1.2d 3.6 4.9 1.4 0.1 NH4-N mg/L 0.40 <0.10 0.01 0.12 0.15 NO2-N mg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NO3-N mg/L 3.2 5.6 2.2 1.1 3.0 10 TKN mg/L 3.0 0.54 3.0e 5.9 1.5e N-Total mg/L 6.2 6.1 5.1 7.0 4.5 Bacteria Total Coliform MPN/100mL >=160,000 >=160,000 160,000 90,000 >=160,000 100 Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 24,000 3,000 5,000 8,000 3,800 400 E. Coli MPN/100mL 8,000 2,300 5,000 5,000 3,400 Enterococcus MPN/100mL 160,000 3,600 11,000 13,000 9,100 Fecal Streptococcus MPN/100mL >=160,000 17,000 160,000 90,000 NV

Notes: “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. NV = No value reported. a. Wet Weather Event 3 occurred between January 18, 2010 and January 22, 2010 with three sampling events during this period. b. The lowest WQOs were calculated for each Event using the CTR equations which are dependent on each Event’s total hardness. The SSO equations were not used because the equations contain old values that have since been updated. Furthermore, the only site-specific element of the equation is the conversion factor used to obtain dissolved metals concentrations which is not required when calculating the lowest WQO for total recoverable metals. Lowest WQO values are presented for Wet Weather Event 2/Wet Weather Event 3/Wet Weather Event 4. c. Ambient hardness value was greater than the recommended value for calculating CTR WQOs. A default value of 400 mg/L of CaCO3, as outlined in the CTR, was used in the calculations. d. EST-CAL: The analyte concentration is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. e. EST-LL-MS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to matrix spike recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. f. EST-MSD: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to the RPD value for the matrix spike duplicate not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria.



Table 3-13 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 10 (Receiving Water Grabs)


Dry Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Lowest WQOb

Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3 Conventional BOD mg/L <5 12 <10 <10 <5 COD mg/L 38 <10 110 60 13 5 pH std. units 8.2 8.1 8.0 5.8 7.9 8.5 EC µmhos/cm 270 260 210 2.9 220 TDS mg/L 170 140 160 130f 170 200 TSS mg/L <5 12 210 190 <5 30 O&G mg/L 2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 Metals (Total Recoverable) Ag µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 3.6/3.6,3.1,2.7/2.7

As µg/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 150 B µg/L <100 <100d <100d <100d <100 750 Ba µg/L <20 <20 <20 24 <20 Cd µg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.3/2.3,2.2,2.0/2.0

Co µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Cr µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 11.4 Cu µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 8.8/8.8,8.2,7.6/7.6

Fe µg/L <50 <50 1,400e 2,500 68 Hg µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.05 Mn µg/L <10 <10 51 85d <0.98g Pb µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 2.9/2.9,2.6,2.4/2.4

Se µg/L <5.0e <5.0 <5.0 <5.0e <5.0 5.0 Zn µg/L <10 <10 <10 40 <10 114/112.7,105.4,98.1/98.1

General Minerals


94 93 86 79 79 100

Ca mg/L 29 29d 26 24d 25 Mg mg/L 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5d 4.1 Na mg/L 17 17 14d 13d 14 30 K mg/L 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.9


100 100 87 73 89

OH mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 CO3 mg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 HCO3 mg/L 130 130 110 89 110



Table 3-13. 2009-10 Wet Weather Results for Site 10 (Receiving Water Grabs), cont.


Dry Weather Event 3a Wet Weather Event 4 Lowest WQO Sampling 1 Sampling 2 Sampling 3

Other SO4 mg/L 17 19 11 10d,e 10 20 Cl mg/L 4.5 6.1 4.5e 4.1 10 F mg/L 0.5 0.4 4.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 P-Ortho mg/L <0.05 <0.05d <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 P-Total mg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.14 0.22 <0.05 0.1 NH4-N mg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NO2-N mg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.14 <0.10 NO3-N mg/L <0.10 0.27 0.95 1.2 0.36 10 TKN mg/L 0.13 0.33 0.47e 0.75 0.41e N-Total mg/L <0.40 0.60 1.4 2.1 0.77 Bacteria Total Coliform MPN/100mL 500 300 900 1,700 200c 100 Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 4.0 8.0 130 <200 <110 400 E. Coli MPN/100mL 4.0 8.0 30 <200 <100c Enterococcus MPN/100mL 220 2.0 50 400 <100c

Fecal Streptococcus

MPN/100mL

220 22 170 400 NV

Notes: NV = no value reported. “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. a. Wet Weather Event 3 occurred between January 18, 2010 and January 22, 2010 with three sampling events during this period. b. Lowest WQOs were calculated for each Event using the CTR equations which are dependent on each Event’s total hardness. Lowest CTR WQO values are presented for Wet Weather Event 2/Wet Weather Event 3/Wet Weather Event 4. c. Sample received past regulatory holding time. d. EST-CAL: The analyte concentration is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. e. EST-LL-MS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to matrix spike recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. f. EST-MSD: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to the RPD value for the matrix spike duplicate not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria. g. EST-LL-LCS: The analyte concentration is an estimated value due to the recovery not meeting laboratory acceptance criteria.



Comparisons of data from Sites 2 and 3 to the lowest WQOs for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River are shown in Tables 3-9 and 3-10. Comparisons of the data from Site 8 to the lowest WQOs for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River are provided in Table 3-12, and comparisons of the data from Site 10 to the lowest WQOs for Reach 6 of the Santa Ana River are provided in Table 3-13. Site 5 is excluded from this analysis because receiving water WQOs do not apply.

Results compared to WQOs identified COD, TSS, copper, lead, zinc, total phosphorus, total coliform, and fecal coliform as pollutants of concern (POCs). The maximum values for COD and TSS exceeded objectives at all sites. Also, maximum values for fecal coliform exceeded objectives at Site 2 for all events except Sampling 3 of Event 3, for all events at Site 3, and all events at Site 8. Fecal coliform maximum values were below objectives for all events at Site 10.

Each of these constituents has been previously identified as a POC within the program. To address these POCs, a Pilot Pollutant Source identification and Control Plan has been developed as discussed in Section 3.6.

In general, the urban-influenced receiving water sites (Sites 2, 3, and 8) recorded higher maximum concentrations for metals, nutrients, and conventional constituents than the upstream Santa Ana River site (Site 10). More details on this finding were provided in Section 3.3.3 of the 2005-06 Annual Report. A comparison of the maximum and median values for data collected 2000-2006 with the Basin Plan and CTR WQOs, as well as EPA stormwater benchmarks, was included in the 2006 Report of Waste Discharge.

3.3.5 Comparison of Wet Weather Event Maxima

Figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 show the percent of constituents that were at their maximum concentration of the sampling season during each event. For example, during Wet Weather Event 2, the maximum concentration during the wet season occurred for 3% of constituents at Site 2 and Site 3, for 55% of constituents at Site 5, for 36% at Site 8, and for 33% at Site 10. It should be noted that Sites 5, 8, and 10 were not sampled during Event 1 due to insufficient flow. Figure 3.3.3 shows constituent maxima for all constituents monitored other than bacteria while Figure 3.3.4 shows constituent maxima for bacteria only, because bacteria concentrations follow different patterns than other constituents.



Figure 3.3.3 Distribution of Pollutant Maximum Concentrations during FY 2009-2010

Figure 3.3.4 Distribution of Bacteria Constituent Maximum Concentrations during FY 2009-10

42%

3%

48%

6%

64%

3%

33%

0% 0%

55%

42%

3% 0%

36%

64%

0% 0%

33%

64%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

WWE 1 WWE 2 WWE 3 WWE 4Perc

ent A

nnua

l Con

stitu

ent M

axim

a pe

r Eve

nt

Wet Weather Events

Distribution of Pollutant Maximum Concentrations FY 2009-2010

Site 2

Site 3

Site 5

Site 8

Site 10

0%

20%

60%

20%

33%

0%

50%

17%

0% 0%

80%

20%

0%

60%

40%

0% 0% 0%

80%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

WWE 1 WWE 2 WWE 3 WWE 4

Perc

ent A

nnua

l Con

stitu

ent M

axim

a pe

r Ev

ent

Wet Weather Events

Distribution of Bacteria Maximum Concentrations FY 2009-2010

Site 2

Site 3

Site 5

Site 8

Site 10



3.3.6 Comparison with Stormwater Data

For the purposes of assessing the data generated through the County of San Bernardino monitoring program, stormwater quality data collected from February 1994 through January 2010 are compared to similar data sets from national and regional studies. Median values from San Bernardino commercial/industrial data are compared to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) data, National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD)3 data, and results from other southern California communities. NURP data was collected throughout the U.S. between 1979 and 1983. The NSQD was filtered to consist of data from EPA Region 6, which is the arid southwest, and of runoff samples from commercial or commercial/industrial drainagesheds. The NSQD comprises more recent data collected from 1992 to 2001. Included in the NURP and NSQD comparison are the constituent medians, high (95th percentile), and low (5th percentile) values for eleven of the twelve constituents reported in the NURP study and corresponding constituents from the NSQD. Also included in this comparison are median results of stormwater monitoring for commercial/industrial land uses from Ventura County.

For the purposes of this analysis, summary statistics from one commercial/industrial stormwater discharge characterization site (Site 5) were used. Although Site 2 is designated as a commercial/industrial site, the sample intake is located in Cucamonga Creek and receives runoff from undeveloped, rural, and residential areas upstream of the sampling location. Therefore, Site 2 is not entirely representative of commercial/industrial runoff. For these reasons, Site 2 data were not included in this comparison. The comparison of Site 5 commercial/industrial runoff data to corresponding NURP and NSQD values is presented in Table 3-14. Values that fall outside the NURP 5th percentile or 95th percentile values are shown in bold. Values that fall outside the NSQD 5th percentile or 95th percentile values are shown in italics.

Data specifically representing discharges from residential and open space land uses were not collected during fiscal 2009-10. A comparison of the County of San Bernardino residential and open space land use data (1994-2000) to NURP values can be found in the 1999-2000 Annual Report.

3 Pitt, Robert. 2008. National Stormwater Quality Database Version 3. University of Alabama http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Research/ms4/mainms4.shtml


http://unix.eng.ua.edu/%7Erpitt/Research/ms4/mainms4.shtml


Table 3-14 Comparison of San Bernardino Runoff Data with National and Local Stormwater Data for Median Commercial/Industrial EMC Values

National Urban Runoff

Program Data (EPA Zone 6)

National Stormwater Quality Database

Ventura Countya County of San Bernardino Site 5

Constituent Units Median 5% 95% Median 5% 95% 1994- 2006b

2006- 2007c

2007- 2008d

2008- 2009d,e

2009- 2010d,i

BOD mg/L 9 6 15 36 9 143 12 24 22 10 36f - 42 <10 - 23 COD mg/L 57 31 106 203 85 485 81 165 100 50 260 - 470 67 - 160 TDSg mg/L 76 23 256 97 30 320 119 130 120 81 100 - 140 36 - 310 TSS mg/L 69 21 232 75 11 509 211 141 150 12 320 - 430 62 - 700 Cu µg/L 29 9 93 12 4 43 36 30 20 28 66 - 100 18 - 35 Pbh µg/L 20 7 55 10 3 36 12 20 36 12 <0.4 - 20 <10 - 25 Zn µg/L 230 54 950 188 79 450 171 250 110 76 360 - 680 130 - 310 Dissolved P mg/L 0.08 0.03 0.23 0.28 0.07 1.12 0.33 0.13 0.32 0.08 NV NV Total P mg/L 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.45 0.16 1.25 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.7 – 1.0 0.23 - 0.78 NO2+NO3 mg/L 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.88 0.27 2.88 0.9 1.4 1.8 0.6 0.7 - 1.5h <0.10 - 0.69 TKN mg/L 1.2 0.6 2.3 3.37 1.26 9.01 3.0 3.4 5.8 1.5 4.1 – 6.9 1.4 - 2.3 Notes: NV = No value reported. “<” means that the constituent was not detected at the Reporting Limit. Bold numbers in cells indicate that the value is outside the range of NURP 5th and 95th percentile values. Italic numbers indicate that the value is outside of the range of NPDES Phase I 5th and 95th percentile values. a. Medians of data collected 1993 to 2004 b. Median of all main program monitored events by time composite from February 1994 through April 2006. c. Both time composites and flow composites were collected in 2006-2007. Medians given are for the combination of data from both methods. d. Collected by flow-composite. e. Two of the three Wet Weather Events were captured at Site 5 in FY 2008-09. Accordingly, a range of results, rather than the median, is given. f. Sample received past regulatory holding time. g. NURP TDS values were obtained from recent studies conducted at several NURP sites (CDM, 1992). h. NURP lead values were derived from recent studies based on NURP values (Palmstrom, 1990). i. Three Wet Weather Events were captured at Site 5 in FY 2009-10. Accordingly, a range of results, rather than the median, is given.



As shown in Table 3-14, County of San Bernardino commercial/industrial (Site 5) values in most cases fell within the range of concentrations described by NURP prior to fiscal 2008-09. In fiscal 2008-09, San Bernardino County exhibited some relatively high values for several constituents. However, each of the constituents exceeding NURP 95th percentile values are being investigated in the Pilot Program Source ID and Control Plan described in Section 3.6 except total dissolved solids (TDS). The intent of this Plan is to specifically address these POCs within the Site 5 catchment area. Furthermore, values that fell outside of the range of concentrations described by NURP in FY 2008-09 rarely fell outside of the range described by NSQD. This may be because the NSQD is more representative of local arid conditions in the southwest. Values from fiscal 2009-10 less often fell outside the NURP 95th percentile and only once exceeded the NSQD range.

3.3.7 Data Quality Assessment and Quality Control

The water quality data acquired during the water quality monitoring program underwent laboratory quality assessment and quality control (QAQC). The QAQC performed by the laboratory include matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, laboratory control samples (LCS), LCS duplicates, and method blanks. The footnotes in Tables 3-8 to 3-12 indicate any QAQC qualifications due to QAQC sample results.



3.4 Background Bacterial Indicator Studies As part of its current TMDL effort, the Santa Ana Regional Water Board is considering the incorporation of E. coli targets for the MSAR Basin. Important to the implementation of this TMDL is an understanding of background indicator bacteria levels in the watershed. To provide insight into this understanding, supplemental indicator bacteria studies were conducted.

Background bacteria samples were collected quarterly from August 2000 to March 2010 during dry weather (<0.1 inch precipitation), but due to availability, only data from December 2003 to March 2010 are presented here. The samples were collected from three sites with no direct impact from urban runoff, sanitary sewer systems, or POTW discharge. The Cucamonga Canyon Site and Seven Oaks Dam Site are downstream of forest land. The Seven Oaks Dam Site is located upstream of the dam and corresponds to stormwater monitoring Site 10. The Forest Falls Site is downstream of forested areas with few permanent campsites. The locations of these three background bacteria monitoring sites are indicated in Figure 3.3.1. The number of samples exceeding the fecal coliform (REC-1 beneficial use limit of 400 MPN/100 mL) and total coliform (MUN beneficial use limit of 100 MPN/100 mL) Basin Plan daily maximum limits at each site is provided in Table 3-15. A summary of concentrations of all indicator organisms at individual sites is presented in Table 3-16.

Table 3-15 Number of Samples Exceeding Basin Plan Daily Maximum Limits, 2003-2010

Indicator Organism

Monitoring Site Seven Oaks Dam (Site 10)

Cucamonga Canyon

Forest Falls

Fecal Coliform 0/23 1/24 0/23 Total Coliform 12/23a 12/24 5/23b

Note: a. The numbers shown in the Table represent number of exceedances/total number of samples. b. A few samples at this site were reported as non-detect at a detection limit of 200 MPN/100 mL. These results were not counted as an exceedance. Table 3-16 Summary Statistics of Indicator Bacteria Concentrations (MPN/100 mL) for Samples Taken 2003-2010

Indicator Organism

Monitoring Site

Seven Oaks Dam (Site 10)

Cucamonga Canyon Forest Falls

Geometric

Mean Max Min n

detected Geometric

Mean Max Min n

detected Geometric

Mean Max Min n

detected E. Coli 6.3 200 <2 15 2.7 200 <2 15 14.6 130 <2 10 Enterococcus 22 900 2 21 17 200 2 22 14.1 500 <2 16 Fecal Coliform 9.8 200 <2 13 5.9 500 <2 13 12.2 130 <2 11 Fecal Streptococcus 105 >=1600 <2 19 66 800 8 20 48 1600 <2 17 Total Coliform 123 >=1600 7 22 130 5000 11 24 48 500 8 22



3.5 Pilot Pollutant Source Investigation and Control Plan In fiscal 2003-04, the County evaluated historical monitoring data to identify pollutants present in urban runoff discharges and in local receiving waters that warranted additional attention. An evaluation matrix was created based on constituent concentrations relative to regulatory thresholds along with the NPDES Permit requirements and other known concerns to identify POCs in stormwater runoff from the urban area covered by the Stormwater Program. The methodology, POC matrix, and discussion were provided as an attachment, “Identification of Pollutants of Concern,” in the fiscal 2003-04 Annual Report.

As a result of the POC identification effort described above, the District initiated a Pilot Pollutant Source Investigation and Control Plan (Plan). The Plan centers around urban discharge monitoring Site 5 (see Figure 3.6.1), which has a relatively small catchment area. POCs identified in the 2003-04 effort and addressed in the Plan include:

• Escherichia coli (E. coli) • Fecal and total coliform • Zinc • Copper • Lead

The overall source investigation and control process includes the following steps:

• Identify general sources and pathways of POCs • Compile and review data from local agencies and studies, including County of San

Bernardino monitoring data, industrial permit data, illegal discharge and illicit connection information, and other relevant data to identify potential additional local sources

• Gather land use information and create a drainage map of the Santa Ana River watershed proximate to stormwater monitoring Site 5

• Determine need for additional monitoring and develop monitoring plan • Inspect local commercial and industrial businesses • Identify and implement BMPs at POC sources

During fiscal 2007-08, a detailed field reconnaissance and drainage mapping effort was initiated in collaboration with the California State University San Bernardino Water Resources Institute. This effort resulted in the delineation of the Site 5 drainage area (See Figure 3.6.1). A preliminary land use characterization was conducted through aerial photos and field reconnaissance.

In fiscal 2007-08, a “Site 5 Sampling Plan” (Sampling Plan) was developed. The following additional POCs were chosen for monitoring:

• Nutrients (Total nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus) • COD • TSS



The Sampling Plan selected seven locations for sampling in order to identify general sources and pathways of POCs in the catchment of Site 5. The sites selected for sampling consist of six catch basins and one Caltrans drainage channel. Six of these sites are considered possible point sources for POCs. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 3.6.2.

In fiscal 2008-09, three storms were sampled. Samples were collected during storms on February 5th, 13th, and 16th, 2009 for all specified constituents. The next steps for the Plan are to evaluate the data collected (attached as Site 5 Constituent Charts), and continue to move forward with implementing the Plan.



Figure 3.6.1 Drainage Map of Site 5, Verified through Storm Drain Map Evaluation and Field Reconnaissance.



Figure 3.6.2

Drainage Map of Site 5, with sampling locations indicated.


Section 3 2009/10 Stormwater Monitoring Program

3.6 Summary and Recommendations County of San Bernardino successfully monitored four wet weather events in fiscal 2009-10. Wet weather events were sampled at both urban discharge and receiving water sites and the dry weather event was monitored in receiving water sites. Wet weather event monitoring included early-, mid-, and late-season storms; total precipitation for the wet season was approximately 80% of the average, based on available records. Stormwater runoff monitoring results have been compiled and analyzed to characterize stormwater discharges and receiving waters from sites within the Santa Ana River drainage of the County of San Bernardino. The results of this analysis provide information on the quality of stormwater runoff and its effects on receiving waters within the study area.

The character of the stormwater runoff in the Permit area, as measured by median and mean EMC values of selected constituents, has been compared to other stormwater characterizations, both nationally and within California. In general, stormwater quality in the Santa Ana River drainage area of San Bernardino County is comparable to that of other drainage areas. Constituent levels in stormwater runoff from commercial/industrial land uses are similar to nationally reported values for the majority of constituents.

Based on elevated levels detected throughout the stormwater monitoring program, the following pollutants of concern have been identified for Cucamonga Creek and the Santa Ana River:

• Indicator Bacteria (total and fecal coliform) • Metals (copper, lead, and zinc) • Nutrients (phosphorus, nitrate, TKN) • Organic material (i.e., COD and BOD) • Sediment (i.e. TSS)

Recommendations include further development of the Source Identification and Control Plan to address POCs at Site 5. In addition, while the SMC is working to improve data quality with its Laboratory Intercalibration Study, San Bernardino should also further its efforts to internally improve data QAQC. Finally, the IWMP that is currently being developed will be more robust than the current Monitoring Program. This will aid in further developing an effective watershed and key environmental resources management program.


Section 4 Overall Program Effectiveness

Section 4 Overall Program Effectiveness Stormwater Program effectiveness can be measured by documenting implementation of BMPs and potentially by measuring changes in stormwater quality. Implementation of BMPs and other Permit or ROWD/MSWMP requirements can be verified and documented (see Sections 1.3 – 2.8, above) , with an underlying belief that water quality will be improved by these actions. However, measured changes in stormwater quality have been much more difficult to discern. This is probably due to numerous confounding factors (such as variable hydrology and aerial deposition). We are also working within a region that is already heavily urbanized, and has been experiencing rapid population growth and expansion of the urbanized area. We attempt to determine trends in water quality monitoring results to determine if the constituent concentrations are increasing or decreasing over the long term. If constituent concentrations were found to decrease, we could attribute the improvement to BMP implementation, although we lack sufficient data to make a causal connection. The monitoring data compiled by the program to date have not been found to demonstrate such a trend, therefore this report focuses on program effectiveness from the perspective of program implementation rather than trends in analytical sample results.

Implementation of BMPs does result in quantifiable pollution reduction. For example, the street sweeping program this year prevented over 3,000 tons of material from entering the MS4 system based on the total miles swept and the test debris data. In addition, over 35,000 cubic yards of material were directly removed from drainage facilities. At least 333 discharge/dumping/spills were reported and variously cleaned or stopped. If each discharge prevented or cleaned 100 gallons of polluted material, then approximately 33,000 gallons of polluted material was prevented from entering the MS4 system.

The first full year of monitoring for the MSAR TMDL was completed in 2007-08, and continued in 2008-09, and in 2009-10. Monitoring results (included on CD-ROM as MSAR Watershed Bacterial Indicator Triennial Report, of February 15, 2010) indicate that in general, the frequency of compliance with single sample criteria has improved during the dry season between 2007 and 2009. Improvements in compliance with geometric mean criteria have been observed at Prado Park Lake and both Santa Ana River sites. However, compliance improvements have not been found at the Chino Creek and Mill-Cucamonga Creek sites. These results indicate that the MSAR Task Force will continue to follow-up using the risk-based approach to source identification and control, as identified in the USEP.

This Annual Report bridges the transition from the third-term Permit to the fourth-Term Permit. Since many of the requirements of the fourth-term Permit have not yet been submitted or required to be implemented, most of this report concerns requirements of the third-term Permit. The fourth-term Permit specifies that the Annual Report shall include the following:

1. A review of the status of program implementation and compliance (or non-compliance) with the schedules contained in this Order;

This is described primarily in Section 2.

2. An assessment of the effectiveness of control measures established under the illicit discharge elimination program and the Municipal Storm Water Management Plan (MSWMP). The effectiveness may be measured in terms of



how successful the program has been in eliminating illicit/illegal discharges and reducing pollutant loads in storm water discharges:

This is described primarily in Section 2.2.

3. As assessment of control measures and their effectiveness in addressing pollutants causing or contributing to an exceedance of water quality objectives in receiving waters that are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The effectiveness evaluation shall consider changes in land use and population on the quality of receiving waters and the impact of development on sediment loading within receiving waters and recommend necessary changes to program implementation and monitoring needs.

This is addressed in Section 4, below, and is ongoing. This part of the Santa Ana Watershed has few receiving waters listed as impaired by sediment. However, in such areas, the Permittees require more stringent consideration of BMPs deployed on construction projects, and ensure that post-construction BMPs also address sediment. All projects must address 303 (d) listed pollutants with BMPs that have medium or high effectiveness for those pollutants.

4. The annual report shall include an overall program assessment. The Permittees are encouraged to use the program assessment methodology described in the 2006 ROWD. The Permittees should determine, to the extent practicable, water quality improvements and pollutant load reductions resulting from implementation of various program elements. The Permittees may also use the “Municipal Storm Water Program Effectiveness Assessment Guidance” developed by the California Storm Water Quality Association in May 2007 as guidance for assessing program effectiveness at various outcome levels. The assessment should include each program element required under this Order, the expected outcome, and the measures used to assess the outcome. The Permittees may propose any other methodology for program assessment using measurable targeted outcomes.

The overall program is assessed in Section 4, below.

5. The annual report shall include a status report on the development and implementation of the Hydromodification Monitoring Program developed as part of the WAP.

The WAP, Phase 1, is not due to be completed until January 29, 2011, and the Hydromodification Monitoring Program (HMP) is not due for completion until Phase 2 of the WAP. So far, we have mapped all drainage systems in the watershed area, and have characterized a subset of those that are not improved regarding their susceptibility to hydromodification. We expect to complete this characterization in 2011, and develop a prioritization approach for protection or potential rehabilitation of such reaches. This prioritization will inform development of the HMP.

6. Each Permittee shall develop, update, implement, and review its local implementation plan (LIP) to address program modifications and improvements identified during the program assessment.

The District submitted the Model LIP on July 29, as required, and all the Permittees are now developing their individual LIPs based on the Model LIP.

7. A summary and analysis of monitoring results from the previous year and any changes to the monitoring program for the following year;

The monitoring results are described in Section 3, above.



8. A financial summary report as described in Section XIX.B of this order; including: a. Each Permittee’s expenditures for the previous fiscal year; b. Each Permittee’s budget for the current fiscal year; c. A description of the source of funds.

Fiscal data are summarized in Section 1.4.

9. A draft workplan which describes the proposed implementation of the LIPs, and MSWMPs for next fiscal year. The workplan shall include clearly defined tasks, responsibilities, and schedules for implementation of the storm water program and each Permittee’s action plans for the next fiscal year;

Section 5 describes the expected tasks to be accomplished during reporting year 20010-11. The schedule for these tasks is primarily dictated by the fourth-term Permit and by the TMDLs. For example, the draft CBRP must be submitted by December 31, 2010, and Phase 1 of the WAP is due to be submitted January 29, 2011. Since the LIPs are not yet finalized, it is premature to include Permittee action plans or other requirements related to the LIPs.

10. Major changes to any of the previously submitted plans/policies; and

The fourth-term Permit requires several new and revised plans and policies. These reviews and revisions are in process and will be reported when appropriate.

11. An assessment of the Permittees compliance status with the Receiving Water Limitations, Section VI of the Order, including any proposed modifications to the MSWMP and WQMP if the Receiving Water Limitations are not fully achieved.

Section 3 evaluates compliance with receiving water limitations by comparing stormwater data to other metrics. As in previous reports, we have noted that there are elevated levels of some pollutants in some areas. These pollutants, in priority order, are bacterial pathogen indicators, metals, and nutrients. These are being addressed by TMDLs, and by the pilot source investigation at Monitoring Site 5. Any appropriate modifications to program documents will be made as needed.

Big Bear TMDL

Monitoring in the lake is being conducted in accordance with the approved Monitoring Plan (Regional Board Resolution No. R8-2006-0023).

For the May to December 2009 period, Big Bear Lake TMDL compliance monitoring was conducted by Big Bear Municipal Water District (BBMWD). Data were collected and analyzed in order to address: (1) determination of compliance with phosphorus and chlorophyll a numeric targets; (2) determination of compliance with the existing total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) objective; and (3) refinement of the in-lake model for the purposes of TMDL review and development.

Monitoring in the tributaries is being conducted in accordance with Water Quality Control Plan (Regional Board Resolution No. R8-2006-0023) for the Santa Ana River Basin as modified by the Regional Board-approved Monitoring Plan (May 2009).



The compliance monitoring program for Big Bear Lake was initiated in July 2009, and samples were collected monthly at tributaries with active flow between July and December, 2009. Field monitoring was directed by Brown and Caldwell and conducted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District staff.

Pilot Source Investigation

In 2006, the District initiated a Pilot Pollutant Source Investigation and Control Plan, centered around urban discharge monitoring Site 5, which showed elevated levels of several pollutants. A detailed field reconnaissance and drainage mapping effort was initiated in collaboration with the California State University San Bernardino Water Resources Institute (See Figure 3.6.1), and a preliminary land use characterization was conducted . In 2008-09, a Sampling Plan selected seven locations for sampling in order to identify general sources and pathways of POCs in the catchment of Site 5. The sites selected for sampling consist of six catch basins and one Caltrans drainage channel. Six of these sites are considered possible point sources for POCs. Two wet weather events were successfully sampled in fiscal 2008-09 and data are currently undergoing analysis.

4.1 Program Areas The MSWMP attempts to address stormwater quality, using several program elements that target pollution prevention for known urban sources that are diverse and may be dispersed throughout the watershed. These program elements focus on:

• Residential Sources • Commercial, Industrial and Construction Sources • Public Agency Activities • Verification and Enforcement

There are several major program areas in the MSWMP that have been developed and implemented during the third-term Permit. These programs are well formed and understood, and reduce pollutants in urban runoff. The fourth-term Permit contains numerous new and enhanced requirements for the Permittees to develop and implement. Since these new elements are still under development, the effectiveness assessment will be limited to the program elements of the third-term Permit. These program areas are discussed below.

4.2 Illegal Discharges The illegal discharges program is ongoing. Over the reporting year, 333 discharge events were reported and investigated, compared to 336 the previous reporting year. Most were minor in nature and all were eliminated or permitted.

Through timely reporting and investigation, potential pollutants are prevented from entering storm drains and receiving waters. When mitigation or prevention BMPs are subsequently implemented, future potential spills may be prevented. As seen in Figure 2.2.9, the number of discharge events varies from year to year, but all are responded to. This documents an ongoing process of pollution prevention.



To prevent illegal dumping into streets and catch basins, Permittees maintain stenciling on catch basins with a "no dumping" messages. The Stormwater Program is also involved in the County DA’s environmental strike force regarding prosecution of illegal discharges.

4.3 Industrial and Commercial Sources? Industrial and commercial source inspections have occurred at a similar level as previous years. Co-Permittees have completed a listing of potential sources to be included for inspection. Over 12,500 businesses were identified for the inspection program. This year, the ratio of violations to inspections was approximately 47% for the industrial facilities, which was 10% lower than last year, and 38% for commercial sites, which is the same as last year. These continued findings of problems may be the result of better inspector training and increased compliance expectations due to enhanced inspector training. If the Permittees and Regional Board are successful in enforcing the requirements, we might expect a gradual decrease in the percent of violations found during inspections.

4.4 New Development and Redevelopment Co-Permittees implement the New and Redevelopment Program through various existing permitting processes. Each Permittee with land development authority reviews and approves development plans in its jurisdiction. Stormwater quality concerns are addressed by General Plan and CEQA requirements and by requiring most projects to prepare WQMPs. The Model WQMP includes stringent requirements to implement BMPs based on an analysis of pollutants of concern and hydrologic conditions of concern. All projects must implement site design, source control, and/or treatment BMPs to prevent pollution and to minimize stormwater impacts. These requirements continued throughout this reporting year. However, the fourth-term Permit requires major review and revision of the New Development and Redevelopment programs. This includes review and revision of the WQMP Guidance and Template to incorporate Low Impact Development principles, and the development of the WAP.

Construction sites are well-known as potential stormwater pollutant sources. Each Permittee is required to develop an inventory/database of construction sites in their jurisdiction and to prioritize and inspect these sites. Most Permittees have populated the construction section of the MS4 Database with their sites, their prioritizations, and their inspection records. The MS4 Database therefore serves as the required inventory and database. The Permittees are implementing these requirements, with construction sites being increasingly brought into compliance.

4.5 Public Agency Activities During this reporting year:

Co-Permittees reported an inventory of approximately 7,997 curb-miles of streets, with nearly 100% swept at least once this year. Several Permittees sweep streets as frequently as once per week in some areas. The County does not have a formal street sweeping program because most paved county roads are rural, without curb and gutter, but street sweeping in County areas may be conducted sporadically in response to reported problems. This year a total of



over 3,000 tons of sediment and debris were removed from streets swept based on the test area results reported by Permittees.

This year, over 12,000 cubic yards of materials were removed from drainage facilities by the Permittees. Approximately 18% of inlets, 19% of open channels, 2% of underground drains, and 28% of debris/detention basins have been cleaned by the Permittees.

4.6 Residential Programs Information flyers, brochures and fact sheets have been prepared to educate the public about residential pollution sources. Permittees are using mass-mailings, radio, billboards, bus shelter posters, displays at libraries and public facilities, and school programs to increase public awareness.

A key effort is the education of the residents in the proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. Locations of disposal sites are heavily promoted by the County Fire Department. The number of participants depositing materials at the HHW collection sites was approximately 35,489, over 4,000 more than last year. The 2.75 million pounds of HHW collected in FY 2009-10 was also proportionately larger than the amount collected in fiscal 2008-09. Generally there was a steady increase in the amount collected until reporting year 2008-09. This may reflect the significant downturn in the economic conditions. The Permittees continued to provide outreach and public awareness of proper handling and disposal of these materials, some of which can contribute directly to stormwater pollution reduction.

4.7 Public Information and Participation The Public Education Program is closely tied to the Residential and Industrial and Commercial Programs. This continuously developing program is extensive and reaches tens of thousands of people each year. Various outreach methods, such as posters, e-billboards, brochures, newsletters, booth displays, etc., were utilized to increase public awareness (see Section 2.8 for details). It is expected that increased awareness will change polluting behaviors and gradually result in water quality improvements.

Public Education Program goals consist of continuing to increase awareness of stormwater pollution and its impact on the environment; continue to educate residents and businesses on how to change their behavior to minimize pollution; and to maintain compliance with the Permit. Projects this reporting year include non-media outreach, materials production, events, school education, media/online outreach, and others. For example, in fiscal 2009-10 commitment letters were used in a non-media outreach project, where staff were able to collect signed commitments from store employees to relay stormwater pollution prevention information to customers, developed new outreach materials designed specifically to reduce bacteria related local stormwater pollution, and had a rain barrel contest that encouraged residents to sign up to receive the program’s e-Updates and have a chance to win a free rain barrel to reuse rainwater at their home. A new hotline was created for residents to report local illegal dumping, and developed a facebook page to further engage program stakeholders and sent out quarterly email updates to dog owners, gardeners and general residents to provide program informa-tion and resources via an online source.



4.8 Program Management The Permittees evaluated the MSWMP and the existing management structure, as part of the process to develop a new ROWD as application for the fourth-term Permit. The recommended revisions for the MSWMP were submitted to the Regional Board for review with the ROWD in October 2006.

The evaluation of our MSWMP continued in FY 2009-10 due to the impact of other the recently adopted MS4 Permits, including the Ventura County Phase I MS4, the Santa Ana Region Orange County MS4, the “Regional” Phase I MS4 Permit being developed in the San Francisco Bay Region, and the revised statewide General Permit for Phase II MS4 programs.

With the adoption of the fourth-term Permit in January 2010, most of the efforts to review and revise the MSWMP have focused on developing the Model LIP that was described in Section 1. The Model LIP addresses all the new requirements of the fourth-term Permit and translates the requirements into individual Permittee implementation actions. The Permittees are require to adapt the Model LIP to their individual jurisdictions and get formal approval from their respective governing council or board by July 29, 2011. As program elements are revised or developed under the fourth-term Permit, the MSWMP and the individual LIPs will be revised accordingly.


Section 5 Program Activities for Reporting Year 2010-11

Section 5 Program Activities for Reporting Year 2010-11 5.1 Illegal Discharge Programs The Permittees will continue to implement the Illegal Discharges program as required by the third-term Permit. Documentation and tracking of illegal discharges has been improved by the new MS4 Database, and will be further enhanced by the work management functions that will be provided by the CityWorks® application. CityWorks® implementation has been significantly delayed, but we expect it to be online and working in early 2011.

The fourth-term Permit (VIII.A and .B) requires:

“A. The Permittees shall develop a pro-active IC/ID or illicit discharge detection and elimination program (IDDE) using the Guidance Manual for Illicit Discharge, Detection, and Elimination by the Center for Watershed Protection4 or any other equivalent program. Any illegal connections identified by routine inspections, the IDDE program, or dry weather screening and/or monitoring shall be investigated and eliminated or permitted within 120 days of discovery.”

“B. The Permittees’ IDDE program shall specify a procedure to conduct focused, systematic field investigations, outfall reconnaissance survey, indicator monitoring, and tracking of discharges to their sources5. The IDDE program(s) shall be linked to urban watershed protection efforts including: a) the use of GIS maps of the Permittees’ conveyance systems to track sources ; b) aerial photography to detect IC/IDs; b) municipal inspection programs of construction, industrial, commercial, storm drain systems, municipal facilities, etc.; c) analysis of watershed monitoring and other indicator data; d) watershed education to educate the public about illegal discharges; e) pollution prevention for generating sites; f) stream restoration efforts/opportunities; and g) rapid assessment of stream corridors to identify dry weather flows and illegal dumping.”

The Permittees also need to identify, in their LIP, specific staff positions that are responsible to implement the new/revised IDDE program. Although there is no specified completion date, the Permittees will begin developing the new/revised IDDE Program in fiscal 2010-11.

5.2 Industrial and Commercial Sources The Permittees will continue to develop their databases of facilities and implement inspection programs based on assigned priorities. Permittees will continue to train their staff and follow-up on observed noncompliance. Documentation and tracking of these facilities and inspections will continue to be documented with the MS4 Database. The inspection programs will be conducted per the third-term Permit requirements until the risk-based scoring system is developed as required by the fourth-term Permit at X.A.4:

4 USEPA (Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination - A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments) by the Center for Watershed Protection and Robert Pitt, University of Alabama, October 2004, updated 2005). 5 Table 2: Land uses, Generating Sites and Activities that Produce Indirect Discharges from IDDE, A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments, October 2004 CWP.



“Within 18 months of adoption of this Order, the Principal Permittee, in coordination with the Co-Permittees shall develop a risk-based scoring system to prioritize construction, industrial and commercial facilities and to determine the frequency of inspections. The scoring system shall consider factors including, but not limited to: the hazardous nature of materials used on site; potential for erosion and pollutant discharges, particularly such materials as pre-production plastic (nurdles) or pollutants for which the receiving water is impaired; site size and location including proximity to receiving water, history of spills and leaks; use of pollution control and prevention measures; and compliance history. The risk-based scoring system shall include criteria to identify the facilities as high, medium or low risk and shall be submitted to the Executive Officer for approval. The electronic database submitted with the annual report (see X.A.3, above) shall include the risk-based scores for each facility. The facility scores must be reviewed and updated annually, if necessary.”

This system will be developed and implemented during fiscal 2010-11.

5.3 New Development and Redevelopment The Permittees will continue to implement the requirements of the WQMP per the third-term Permit specifications, until the review and revision of the WQMP is completed and approved per the fourth-term Permit (Section XI).

The HCOC Map has been more than 95% completed and is available on the World Wide Web at www.sbcounty.permitrack.com/HCOC2/ . The map is available to the Permittees and Regional Board staff for evaluation and verification of drainage channel attributes. Once data and functionality has been fully reviewed and tested, the map will be made more widely available to stakeholders. Key tasks will be to review the HCOC designations with Regional Board staff and integrate the use of the HCOC Map into the project planning and review process.

The HCOC Map now serves as the base map from which the Watershed Action Plan (WAP) will be developed. The fourth-term Permit specifies the WAP requirements at Section XI.B. The tasks required for Phase 1 of the WAP are approximately 60% complete as of the date of this report, and all required tasks are under way.

In addition, the Permittees must (Section XI.E.4 and .5):

4. “The Permittees shall reflect in the Water Quality Management Plan Guidance and Template and require each priority development project to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or bio-treat6 the 85th percentile storm event (“design capture volume”), as specified in Section XI.D.6 above. Any portion of the design capture volume that is not infiltrated, harvested, used,

6 A properly engineered and maintained bio-treatment system may be considered only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at a project site (feasibility criteria will be established in the WQMP [Section XI.E.7]. Specific design, operation and maintenance criteria for bio-treatment systems shall be part of the model WQMP that will be produced by the Permittees.


http://www.sbcounty.permitrack.com/HCOC2/


evapotranspired or bio-treated7 onsite by LID BMPs shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XI.E.10 and/or Section XI.G, below.”

5. “Within 18 months of adoption of this Order, the Permittees shall review and update the Water Quality Management Plan Guidance and Template to incorporate LID principles (where feasible) and to address the impact of urbanization on downstream hydrology.”

The Permittees are currently reviewing the existing Model WQMP Guidance and Template and developing revisions to address all relevant requirements in the fourth-term Permit. The WAP and the revised WQMP will be closely coordinated.

Finally, the Permittees have begun developing BMP Guidance for public agency Road Projects as required by the fourth term Permit at XI.F

5.4 Public Agency Activities The Permittees will continue to implement BMPs for public agency activities as required by the third-term Permit, and any new requirements specified in the fourth-term Permit. This includes:

• Street sweeping programs

• Inspection and cleaning of inlets, open channels, and basins

• Characterization of street sweeping materials

• Implementation of appropriate BMPs for municipal activities

• Training of essential staff

5.5 Residential Programs Stormwater pollution from residential sources will be addressed primarily though the Public Education /Public Participation program, with education and outreach to residents by various media. Pollution prevention is accomplished and can be measured by metrics such as the amount of HHW collected (Section 2.6, above), and how many residents received outreach (see Sections 2.7 and 2.8, above). In addition, the Permittees will begin developing a new Residential Program as described in the Permit at X.E:

“Within 36 months of adoption of this Order, each Permittee shall, consistent with the MEP standard, develop and implement a residential program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from residential facilities to the MS4s and to prevent discharges from the MS4s from causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards in the receiving waters.”

The Residential Program will include enhanced inspection/monitoring activities, implementation of control measures for common interest areas, and encouraging the use of

7For all references to bio-treat/bio-treatment, see footnote 3.



weather-based evapotranspiration controllers to conserve water and reduce dry weather runoff.

5.6 Public Education and Participation The fourth-term Permit requirements are listed in the fourth-term Permit at Section X.II.A. The general directive is stated as:

“The Permittees shall continue to implement the public education efforts already underway as described in the 2006 ROWD/MSWMP and shall implement the most effective elements of the comprehensive public and business education strategy upon completion of the risk-prioritization strategy to this program element.”

Public Education and Participation will be coordinated and conducted by SGA for fiscal 2010-11. The program will continue the radio, newspaper, and poster advertising that will target English and Spanish speakers. The program has also sponsored a video production of residential pollution prevention behaviors with Public Television Station KVCR. The details of the outreach efforts are being determined by the Public Education Subcommittee. The Public Education Subcommittee will explore new approaches for creating impressions, evaluate potential improvements to the school presentations, and work to develop cooperative outreach efforts with other agencies and stormwater programs.

Goals for fiscal 2010-11 include:

Providing outreach materials to the Permittees as required by the fourth-term Permit

Coordinating and staffing regional education events

Providing classroom and assembly presentations at area schools

Continuing business outreach as described in Section 2.8

Developing new outreach strategies and coordination with other agency outreach efforts

5.7 Program Management The Program will continue to develop and implement the MS4 Database for use by all Permittees. The Database has improved documentation and tracking of all program activities and facilitates reporting needs. Necessary program elements will continue to be developed by the Subcommittees. The Permittees expect to add enhancements to the MS4 Database as needed to document applicable new requirements of the renewed Permit. The Cityworks® work-order management system will be implemented as soon as operational, expected in early 2011.

5.8 Monitoring Program During December 2004, and January through February 2005, the District met with Regional Board staff and developed a revised Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program (IWMP), as



described in the third-term Permit (Monitoring and Reporting Program, III.5). The revised 2005 draft IWMP was not finalized or approved.

The monitoring program is under evaluation and is being modified as required by the fourth-term Permit. New sampling equipment was purchased in 2005 and has been deployed. Additional equipment may be needed to implement the revised IWMP. Flow-Paced composite sampling has been used in preference to the previous First-Flush and Main Program approach. The program has evaluated constituents that may be contributing to exceedances of water quality objectives in wet weather. Source investigations for problematic constituents will be continued, either by the stormwater program alone or in collaboration with the SMC, CASQA, or other studies. The Site 5 source investigation and TMDL-related source evaluations will continue

We will also continue implementation of the regional Bioassessment Monitoring Program that is being conducted by a workgroup that includes SCCWRP and the State Water Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

Monitoring effort has increased substantially as a result of implementing the Middle Santa Ana River Pathogen TMDL. We expect to maintain this level of effort in fiscal 2010-11. We also initiated a monitoring program as required under the Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL for Dry Hydrologic Conditions (see attached CD ROM for monitoring summary reports).

The GIS-based mapping of the drainage system for the District was completed in fiscal 2006-07. However, some Permittees do not have individual GIS systems and the map for these areas may be less detailed. The GIS map now includes the Assessor’s parcel data within all city and county areas. The GIS map is also being made available to the Permittees via the World Wide Web. The program will continue to improve the map as required by the WAP in fiscal 2010-11.

5.9 TMDLs Required monitoring effort has increased substantially as a result of implementing the Middle Santa Ana River Pathogen TMDL. Continued implementation of the MSAR TMDL is expected to be required for a decade or longer. Significant funding will be needed to sustain the required effort.

This year, the District began development of the Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plan (CBRP) as required by the fourth-term Permit (Section V.2.D.i). The CBRP will describe, in detail, the specific actions that have been taken or will be taken to achieve compliance with the urban wasteload allocation under dry weather conditions (April 1st through October 31st) by December 31, 2015. The draft CBRP must be submitted to the Regional Board by December 31, 2010. Once approved, the CBRP will become the final Water Quality Based Effluent Limits for the MSAR TMDL.

The Big Bear Nutrient TMDL also requires monitoring and BMP implementation. Implementation of the Big Bear Lake Watershed-wide monitoring program began in July 2009. The City of Big Bear Lake has been monitoring water quality and implementing BMPs targeting bacterial contaminants in Knickerbocker Creek, and has been submitting separate reports on this effort to the Regional Board. BBMWD is expected to continue implmenting the



In-Lake Monitoring Program and the Aquatic Weed Managemement Program as required by the TMDL. Significant effort, and funding, will be required to continue this monitoring, with increased costs to the Areawide Program.

Implementation in the next several years will be guided by the Big Bear Lake—Lake Management Plan (now revised into the “TMDL Action Plan”) once approved by the Regional Board.

The WAP requires the development of objectives that include consideration of all impaired (per the 303(d) list) waters in the watershed. In addition to the approved TMDLs for pathogen indicators in the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed, and for Nutrients in Big Bear Lake during dry hydrologic conditions, the WAP will need to consider the impaired waters listed in Table 5-1, below.



Table 5-1 Waters on the 303 (d) list in San Bernardino MS4 Permit Area

WATER BODY TYPE

WATER BODY NAME

ESTIMATED SIZE AFFECTED

UNIT POLLUTANT REGION NAME

POTENTIAL SOURCES

PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION

Lakes/Reservoirs Big Bear Lake 2865.01 Acres Metals Santa Ana

Resource Extraction

2007

Lakes/Reservoirs Big Bear Lake 2865.01 Acres Copper Santa Ana

Resource Extraction

2007

Lakes/Reservoirs Big Bear Lake 2865.01 Acres Mercury Santa Ana

Resource Extraction

2007

Lakes/Reservoirs Big Bear Lake 2865.01 Acres PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

Santa Ana

Source Unknown 2019

Lakes/Reservoirs Prado Park Lake

89.5411 Acres Nutrients Santa Ana

Nonpoint Source 2019

Rivers/Streams Chino Creek Reach 1

7.76 Miles Nutrients Santa Ana

Agriculture 2019

Rivers/Streams Chino Creek Reach 1


Dairies 2019

Rivers/Streams Grout Creek 3.51 Miles Metals Santa Ana

Unknown Nonpoint Source

2007

Rivers/Streams Grout Creek 3.51 Miles Nutrients Santa Ana


2008

Rivers/Streams Knickerbocker Creek

1.98926 Miles Metals Santa Ana


2007

Rivers/Streams Knickerbocker Creek

1.98926 Miles Pathogens Santa Ana


2005

Rivers/Streams Lytle Creek 40.83 Miles Pathogens Santa Ana


2019



WATER BODY TYPE

WATER BODY NAME



POTENTIAL SOURCES


Rivers/Streams Mill Creek (Prado Area)


Agriculture 2019



Dairies 2019


1.58 Miles Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Santa Ana

Dairies 2019

Rivers/Streams Mill Creek Reach 1



2019

Rivers/Streams Mill Creek Reach 2



2019

Rivers/Streams Mountain Home Creek



2019

Rivers/Streams Mountain Home Creek, East Fork



2019

Rivers/Streams Rathbone (Rathbun) Creek


Snow skiing activities

2008




2008


4.68 Miles Sedimentation/Siltation Santa Ana

Snow skiing activities

2006


4.68 Miles Sedimentation/Siltation Santa Ana


2006



WATER BODY TYPE

WATER BODY NAME



POTENTIAL SOURCES


Rivers/Streams Summit Creek 1.54933 Miles Nutrients Santa Ana

Construction/Land Development

2008

Lakes/Reservoirs Big Bear Lake 2865.01 Acres Metals Santa Ana

Resource Extraction

2007



5.10 Training Program The Stormwater Program will continue to host stormwater training events based on the training needs of the member agencies. Training events planned for the next fiscal year include construction BMP and WQMP training, along with more training for LID (Low Impact Development) implementation. Additional training materials will be evaluated by the training subcommittee for inclusion in the stormwater library. The Stormwater Program website will also be evaluated for additional opportunities to enhance to available training information and training materials.

The fourth-term Permit requires the training program to be reviewed and updated as follows (Section XVI):

“Within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Order, the Principal Permittee, in coordination with the Co-Permittees, will update their existing training program to incorporate new or revised program elements related to the development of the LID program, revised WQMP, and establishment of LIPs for each Permittee. The updated training program includes a training schedule, curriculum content, and defined expertise and competencies for storm water managers, inspectors, maintenance staff, those involved in the review and approval of WQMPs, public works employees, community planners and for those preparing and/or reviewing CEQA documentation and for municipal contractors working on Permittee projects.

Within 36 months, the Permittees will update training program elements to incorporate new or enhanced stormwater program elements due for completion within 36 months of permit adoption.

By 48 months, the Permittees will have a completely revised training program that includes any enhanced or new program elements not previously addressed, including the WAP. “

The Training Subcommittee will be conducting a competitive bidding process in fiscal 2010-11 to select a professional services vendor to assist in developing the education program. The Permittees plan to conduct live training sessions on selected topics and videotape the sessions so they can be used for all Permittee staff.

5.11 Other Programs The Stormwater Program expects to continue participation in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), the SMC, the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force, and in the Task Forces for the Chino Basin and Big Bear Lake TMDLs. These efforts require significant a funding commitment and will be periodically evaluated for effectiveness in addressing stormwater issues and meeting Permit requirements.

Finally, the fourth-term Permit includes a significant number of program enhancements and deliverables to prepare. The Permittees will prioritize and accomplish tasks as needed to maintain compliance.


San Bernardino County Stormwater Program€¦ · Table of Contents TABLE OF...

Documents

Transcript of San Bernardino County Stormwater Program€¦ · Table of Contents TABLE OF...