Water Quality Working Group

**[Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP)]{.underline}**

## Subcommittee

# Meeting Minutes - 05/03/00

**Next LTIMP Meeting:**

[**WEDNESDAY June 7**, **2000**]{.underline} --

**@[10:30am to 1:00]{.underline} pm** (NOTE different time)

@ **[City of South Lake Tahoe Council Chambers]{.underline}** --

1900 Lake Tahoe Blvd (2 blocks west of the "Y") in South Lake Tahoe, CA

***[In Attendance (20 -- 13 affiliations):]{.underline}***

Troy **Alexander**, EDOT \* + Steve **Bachman**, CTC +

Catherine **Beitia,** CALTRANS/CSUS Larry **Benoit**, TRPA +

Kim **Carr,** CTC + Robert **Erlich,** Lahontan RWQCB \*

Melanie **Green**, USFS-LTBMU + Chris **Herencia**, CALTRANS/HQ

Mark **Hoefer**, JWA Lauri **Kemper**, Lahontan RWQCB

Virginia **Mahacek**, Entrix + Sean **Penders**, CALTRANS

John **Kleppe**, UNR-EE + Steve **Kooyman**, City SLT \* +

Dan **Peterson**, CALTRANS Jim **Philipp**, CALTRANS

Tim **Rowe**, USGS \* + Jenny **Scanland**, NDSL-NTRT

Amir **Soltani**, NDOT \* Russel **Wigart**, City SLT +

Brian **Wilkinson**, CTC + Paul **Wisheropp**, Entrix +

> \* - Attended previous meeting (4/5/00)
>
> \+ - Attended Site Visit

1)  [**Site Visit -** **Operation of a USGS stream gage-**]{.underline}
    at Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe USGS gage (#10336610) by
    Tim Rowe, USGS. 12 people showed up to hear discussion of operation
    of a gaging station.

2)  **[Report of the new California Migden Bill]{.underline} -- ["Clean
    Water Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Act" (SB709)]{.underline}
    -- Robert Erlich, Lahontan RWQCB**

> SB 709 was enacted in California on 1/1/00. This bill provides for
> mandatory minimum penalties, recovery of economic benefits, and
> pollution prevention plans (PPP's) or supplemental environmental
> projects (SEP's) for certain NPDES violations. Legal interpretation is
> that this bill applies to effluent discharge to surface water.
> Sampling points above treatment areas are not considered discharge to
> surface waters.
>
> There is a \$3,000 mandatory minimum penalty for each serious
> violation and \$3,000 mandatory minimum penalty for effluent
> limitations and other violations if 4 or more in six months. Serious
> violations include 40% above numeric effluent limitations in group I
> (bod, tss, minerals, nutrients, & iron) pollutant and 20% above group
> II (some metals and organics) pollutant.
>
> Lake Tahoe is the only region in California currently with numeric
> stormwater effluent limits. Runoff objectives for surface waters at
> Lake Tahoe are 0.5 mg/L Total Nitrogen, 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus, 0.5
> mg/L Total Iron, 2.0 mg/L Grease and Oil, and 20 NTU Turbidity.
> Exemptions are act of war, unanticipated grave natural disaster, and
> intentional act of a 3^rd^ party.
>
> State and Regional Board still have questions on implementation and
> effects of this law. More updates will follow as many see changes in
> this law in the near future.

After discussing SB709 implementation with SWRCB legal staff on 5/5/00,
please note the following four clarifications and corrections to the
5/3/00 presentation to the LTIMP subcommittee. This is a new law; we
will seek more clarifications as we learn how the law is applied and
will notify you if these interpretation change.

*1. Q: Does violation of multiple constituents in a single sample
constitute multiple violations?*

*A: Generally yes. Though Section 13385(f) in California\'s
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act states that \"For purposes of
this section, a single operational upset that leads to simultaneous
violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a
single violation\", this definition predated SB709, and the
interpretation of this section must be consistent with the federal Clean
Water Act section 309(c)(5), 33 U.S.C. section 1319(c)(5). EPA defines
\"single operational upset\" as: \"an exceptional incident which causes
simultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the result of a knowing act
or omission), temporary noncompliance with more than one Clean Water Act
effluent discharge pollutant parameter. Single operational upset does
not include . . . noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly
designed or inadequate treatment facilities.\" See EPA Guidance
Interpreting \"Single Operational Upset.\"*

*This Guidance further defines an \"exceptional\" incident as a
\"non-routine malfunctioning of an otherwise generally compliant
facility.\" While a 100-year storm may be an \"exceptional\" incident, a
1-year storm is not an exceptional event for stormwater conveyance
and/or treatment facilities that are under an NPDES stormwater permit
and are supposed to treat stormwater.*

*Merely because more than one effluent limitation is violated does not
mean that a \"single operational upset\" occurred. The discharger has
the burden of demonstrating that a \"single operational upset\"
occurred. For the purposes of determining the number of violations under
CWC section 13385(h) and (i) which were inserted by SB709, the Regional
Boards should apply EPA\'s Guidance in determining whether a \"single
operational upset\" has occurred.*

*Additionally, the single operational upset rule applies to multiple
violations of the same effluent limitation. For example, where an
\"exceptional\" incident that meets the definition of a \"single
operational upset\" causes an effluent limitation to be violated for 10
days, one violation would be counted for purposes of assessing a
mandatory minimum penalty. Conversely, each violation would be counted
where the violations stem from an incident that does not constitute a
\"single operational upset.\"*

*2. Q: When can supplemental environmental projects (SEP) or pollution
prevention plans (PPP) be used as an alternative to a mandatory
penalty?*

*A.: For the first serious violation in a six month period, the state or
regional board may elect to require the discharger to spend an amount
equal to the \$3,000 penalty for a SEP or a PPP.*

*3. Q: Do NPDES Municipal permitees have responsibility for commingled
runoff?*

*A.: Yes, if the discharge to surface water carries commingled runoff
from two NPDES permitees, they may be jointly liable. Cities and
counties have various tools available to improve the water quality of
runoff from public and private land within their jurisdiction, so that
numerical effluent limitations are not violated.*

*4. Q: Are violations of the Tahoe Basin numerical effluent standard for
turbidity subject to a mandatory violation.*

*A.: Not at this time. Turbidity is not listed by EPA as a Group 1 or
Group II Pollutant. While we assumed that turbidity could be considered
as an Other pollutant within the Group 1 Solids category, it could be
argued that turbidity does not measure solids.*

3)  **[NDOT Storm-water Monitoring Program]{.underline} -- Amir Soltani,
    NDOT**

NDOT has 40 miles of roadway in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Problems with
projects include limited right-of-way, utilities, historical
preservations, and being able to get projects done in one season. Note
that Gaming Alliance wants to limit construction during prime tourist
summer months (July & August), which would further impact the
construction season. Projects usually involve cut slopes and fill
slopes, which can be handled with riprap, but there is limited space for
treatment. The 2008 plan is just a wish list, as NDOT would need to be
in Basin till 2020 to get all proposed projects done.

Need better connection between research, monitoring and implementation
agencies. Need joint regional monitoring with other projects. Usually it
takes too long for Research agencies to come with recommended standards.
JWA is currently doing monitoring for NDOT.

There is a big problem of maintenance of projects. One example is when
treatments are pumped out; there is limited room to dump the waste. If
waste will need to be hauled out of Basin in the future, this will
greatly add to O&M costs.

4)  **[CALTRANS Storm-Water Monitoring Program]{.underline} -- Dan
    Peterson, CALTRANS**

Caltrans has 66 miles of roadway in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Caltrans has a
Storm Water Management Plan statewide dealing with source and treatment
control. Only three treatment controls are available and they are
detention basins, infiltration, and sand traps. Problem is lack of room,
with only linear right-of-ways, to put in basins need to cover design
events. The limited basins then cannot achieve effluent standards.

Need to know what to target for and also overall BMP performance (what
does and does not work). Also need to look at new methods (BMP's) and
have special BMP pilot studies. Some BMP's can be expensive, require
large areas and then require expensive maintenance. Time needed to
monitor BMP's is at least two years. Also need to figure out what types
of storms are filling basins.

Need regional solutions and combine, not separate, efforts in
cooperative agreements. Problems also cited with meeting 2008 deadline.
Maintenance and safety issues along the highway and in confined spaces
also big concerns. Pending projects include South Lake Tahoe, Silver
Tip-Rubicon, Meyers, Echo Summit, Placer Co-Hwy 28, and Kings Beach.

Notes by Tim Rowe, USGS, 5/30/00

***Next LTIMP Subcommittee Meeting*:**

[**WEDNESDAY June 7**, **2000**]{.underline}

**[10:30am to 1:00]{.underline} pm** (note different time)

@ **City of South Lake Tahoe Council Chambers** --

1900 Lake Tahoe Blvd (2 blocks west of the "Y") in South Lake Tahoe, CA

##### AGENDA

1)  **[Further Status Report of the new California Migden
    Bill]{.underline} -- Lauri Kemper (?), Lahontan RWQCB**

2)  **[Highway Storm-water Runoff Monitoring Protocol]{.underline} (see
    attachment) -- various**

3)  **[Status of Trout Creek Restoration Project Monitoring
    Manual]{.underline} -- Steve Kooyman, City of South Lake Tahoe**

4)  **[Status of TRPA's Urban runoff/Wetlands efficiency Grants
    -]{.underline} Rita Whitney, TRPA**

    a.  **Maximizing Wetland Restoration Project Benefits (see
        attachment)**

    b.  **Evaluation of wetland Removal Efficiency in Treating Urban
        Storm-water (see attachment)**

5)  **[Trout Creek and Upper Truckee River -- Below Lake Tahoe Blvd
    (Hwy 50) Pre-project Sampling Overview]{.underline} -- Virginia
    Mahacek, Entrix**

6)  **[Status of Data/Map format subcommittee]{.underline} -- Steve
    Patterson, EDAW**

7)  **[Project Review Protocol]{.underline} -- various**

> **[ATTACHMENTS:]{.underline}**

### Evaluation of highway storm-water runoff projects - Preliminary Summary

###  by DRI, UCD-TRG and USGS 

### Evaluation of Wetland Removal Efficiency in Treating Urban Stormwater (Stormwater Treatment and Wetland Relationships) - by Larry Benoit, TRPA

1)  **[Maximizing Wetland Restoration Project Benefits -- by
    TRPA]{.underline}**