Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management: A...

Institutional Aspects of UrbanRunoff Management:

A Guide for Program Developmentand

Implementation

A Comprehensive Review of the InstitutionalFramework of Successful Urban Runoff

Management Programs

Institutional Aspects of UrbanRunoff Management:

A Guide for Program Developmentand

Implementation

A Comprehensive Review of the InstitutionalFramework of Successful Urban Runoff

Management Programs

Produced by the:

Watershed Management Institute, Inc."Creating Practical Solutions for Complex Resource Challenges"

in cooperation with

Office of WaterU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

Region 5U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Chicago, Illinois

May, 1997

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and inputproviced by those individuals listed in the Indroduction regardingtheir programs. As can be seen from Appendix A, the question-naire was lengthy and required considerable time to complete.Thanks for your help.

Dedication

The Watershed Management Institute dedicates this book to allof the federal, state, regional, and local sediment and stomrwaterprogram staff whose lives are dedicated to attempting to protectpublic health, property, and resource values. Long hours, timeaway from family, and limited resources are unfortunately partand parcel of this effort, but these individuals willingly give ofthemselves to make our world more sustainable. Some timesyou feel alone in your efforts, but there are many people who arefacing the same problems and program evolution and growth ishappening.

This manual was funded by the United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency under grant X995387-01-1. Points of view expressed in this publicationdo not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. En-vironmental Protection Agency.

Copies of this book are available from the Watershed Management Institute

Watershed Management InstituteP.O.Box 14

Ingleside, MD 21644

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Index

Index

Topic Page

Executive Summary I

Introduction i

Chapter 1 - Federal Programs Affecting 1 - 1Urban Runoff Management

Background 1 - 1Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management 1 - 2

ProgramSection 402 NPDES Stormwater Permitting 1 - 4Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Source 1 - 8

Control ProgramOther Federal Programs Influencing Urban Runoff 1 - 10

Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 - 10U.S. Department of Agriculture 1 - 15U.S. Department of the Interior 1 - 18Federal Highway Administration 1 - 19Army Corps of Engineers 1 - 19National Oceanic and Atmospheric 1 - 20

Administration

Chapter 2 - Synopsis of Municipal, County, Regional, 2 - 1and State Urban StormwaterManagement Programs

Chapter 3 - Questionnaire Responses

General Programs Issues 3 - 2

Are the erosion and sediment control 3 - 2and stormwater managementprograms integrated

The impetus for program implementation 3 - 4

Stormwater Management 3 - 6

The basic goal of the Stormwater 3 - 6Management Program

Peak discharge performance standards 3 - 8Stormwater treatment performance standards 3 - 9

A Guide for Program Development and Implementation

Stormwater volume performance standards 3 - 10Basis of design criteria 3 - 10Exemptions and Waivers 3 - 13Practices favored 3 - 16Design assistance and guidance 3 - 18

availabilityManagement and source control 3 - 19

practicesAre source controls encouraged 3 - 20Land uses for which source controls are intended 3 - 21Favored source control practices 3 - 22Is detailed guidance available regarding 3 - 23

source controls

Erosion and Sediment Control 3 - 24

Rationale or philosophy of the erosion 3 - 24and sediment control program

Performance standards 3 - 25BMP design criteria, guidance, and 3 - 26

preferred practicesExemptions and waivers for erosion 3 - 28

and sediment control

Program Authority and Implementation Structure 3 - 30

Program implementation structure 3 - 30Project permitting procedures and 3 - 33

applicabilityComprehensive review of projects 3 - 36Are plan review checklists used? 3 - 37Are the erosion and sediment control 3 - 38

and stormwater mangementapprovals required prior toother approvals?

Inspection Procedures 3 - 39

Are inspections required during 3 - 40construction?

What is the frequency requirements 3 - 41for inspections?

Is a public agency responsible for 3 - 44inspections?

Is the inspection agency also the review 3 - 45agency?

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management IndexIs the inspection frequency and procedure 3 - 45

adequate for erosion/sediment control?

Program Funding 3 - 47

Program funding for erosion, sediment, and 3 - 47stormwater control

Program Staffing 3 - 50

Is staffing for the erosion and sediment 3 - 51control program adequate?

Is staffing for the stormwater management 3 - 52adequate?

Program Educational Aspects 3 - 54

Are educational programs a program 3 - 54element?

Are any of the educational programs 3 - 54mandated by law or regulations?

What are the intended audiences of the 3 - 55educational programs?

How many individuals (total) and how 3 - 57often are the educational programsgiven?

Program Compliance and Enforcement 3 - 59

Are there civil penalty provisions in the 3 - 60program?

Are there criminal penalty provisions 3 - 60in the program?

Other available enforcement options 3 - 61Are the penalty provisions adequate? 3 - 63Are as-built certifications required for 3 - 64

stormwater management?Are final inspections required for 3 - 65

stormwater management?

Maintenance of Stormwater Management Practices 3 - 66

Can you indicate the number of and types 3 - 66of practices constructed over thepast two years?

Does the program require maintenance of 3 - 68completed stormwater management


structures?Responsible maintenance entities. 3 - 68Are maintenance inspections done by a 3 - 69

public agency?Is there a dedicated funding source available 3 - 71

for maintenance activities?Are legal steps available in the event that 3 - 72

maintenance is not accomplished?Have legal steps ever been taken to facilitate 3 - 73

needed maintenance

Program Coordination with Related Programs 3 - 73

Is there significant coordination between the 3 - 74erosion and sediment control programand the stormwater managementprogram?

With what other programs is there significant 3 - 74coordination?

Are there conflicts with other programs 3 - 77which prevent or hinder effectiveprogram implementation?

Is there effective communication with federal 3 - 79agencies on related state and federalprograms?

Program Evaluation and Evolution 3 - 80

Are there measures of program success? 3 - 80What areas of improvement are needed 3 - 82

in the program?Are research projects underway and do 3 - 84

they have widespread applicability?Is monitoring a program component? 3 - 85Does the program address retrofitting to reduce 3 - 86

impacts from developed areas?Are watershed-specific approaches being used? 3 - 87

General Items 3 - 88

Program history of respondents 3 - 88Pitfalls to be avoided 3 - 89Weaknesses which impede program 3 - 92

implementationAny additional thoughts of the individual 3 - 94

respondent

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Index

Chapter 4 - Common Elements of Successful Urban 4 - 1Runoff Management Programs

General Institutional Framework Issues 4 - 2

Possible roles of various levels of government 4 - 2Should the erosion and sediment control 4 - 8

and urban runoff managementprograms be integrated?

Program goals 4 - 9

Stormwater management 4 - 10

Basic goals and performance standards 4 - 10Design criteria for runoff BMP's 4 - 11Exemptions, waivers, and variances 4 - 13Design assistance and guidance 4 - 14Management and source controls 4 - 15

Erosion and Sediment Control 4 - 17

Basic goals and performance standards 4 - 17Design criteria 4 - 18Exemptions and waivers 4 - 19Design assistance and guidance 4 - 20

Program Implementation Issues 4 - 20

Project permitting procedures 4 - 22Use of plan review checklists 4 - 24Linkage with other approvals 4 - 23Inspection procedures 4 - 25Inspection agency relationship to review agency 4 - 28

Program Funding 4 - 29

General appropriations 4 - 29Permit fees 4 - 30Dedicated funding sources 4 - 31

Program Staffing 4 - 33

Program Educational Activities 4 - 38

Are educational programs mandated 4 - 38by law or regulation?


Intended audience and frequency for 4 - 39educational programs

Program Enforcement and Compliance 4 - 42

Civil penalty provisions 4 - 43Criminal penalty provisions 4 - 44Other available enforcement options 4 - 44As-built certifications for stormwater systems 4 - 46Final inspections of stormwater 4 - 47

management systems

Maintenance of Stormwater Systems 4 - 47

Requiring maintenance of stormwater 4 - 48systems

Responsible maintenance entities 4 - 48Public agency inspection of stormwater 4 - 49

systemsFunding maintenance - the need for 4 - 51

dedicated revenuesLegal steps to assure maintenance is done 4 - 52

Coordination with Related Programs 4 - 52

Coordination between the erosion and 4 - 52sediment control program and thestormwater management program

Coordinating urban runoff programs with 4 - 52other related programs

Avoid conflicts with other programs 4 - 53

Program Evaluation 4 - 54

Measures of program success 4 - 54Research projects and monitoring 4 - 55

Program Evolution 4 - 59

Retrofitting to reduce impacts from 4 - 59developed areas

Watershed specific approaches 4 - 63

Conclusions 4 - 64

Appendix A - Sediment Control and Stormwater ManagementProgram Questionnaire

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management IndexAppendix B - Sediment and Stormwater Management

Program Summaries

City Programs

Alexandria, Virginia B - 2Austin, Texas B - 7Bellevue, Washington B - 10Fort Collins, Colorado B - 19Olympia, Washington B -24Orlando, Florida B - 30Seattle, Washington B - 35District of Columbia B - 40Winter Park, Florida B - 45

County Programs

Baltimore County, Maryland B - 50Clark County, Washington B - 55King County, Washington B - 60Kitsap County, Washington B - 66Maricopa County, Arizona B - 72Montgomery County, Maryland B - 77Prince George's County, Maryland B - 82Snohomish County, Washington B - 87Somerset County, New Jersey B - 92Washington County, Oregon B - 97

Regional Programs

Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B - 102Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission B - 107South Florida Water Management District B - 112Southwest Florida Water Management District B - 118Suwannee River Water Management District B - 124

State Programs

Delaware B - 130Florida B - 136Maryland B - 143New Jersey B - 148Pennsylvania B - 154South Carolina B - 160Virginia B - 166Washington B - 172

I

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Executive Summary

Executive Summary

This manual has been developed to assist those individuals who are charged with imple-menting urban control programs. The first three chapters provide background and programsurvey information which form the basis for recommendations which are presented in Chap-ter 4. Chapter 4 makes comprehensive recommendations for all aspects of urban runoff pro-gram implementation. Some of the more strongly made recommendations include:

General Institutional Framework Issues

Cooperation and partnerships among all levels of government are essential forsuccessful program implementation.The ideal approach to program implementation is for federal requirements to bethe broad mandates which necessitate state, regional, and local participation.Integrating erosion/sediment control with stormwater management can help toachieve highly desired multiple benefits, avoid duplicative review processes, andreduce overall administrative and construction costs.To maximize public support and cost-effectiveness, programs need to be multifac-eted, with program goals based on problems which are clearly recognized as im-portant and interrelated by the general public and elected officials.Public support is more likely if the general public clearly understands that urbanrunoff control personally benefits them, either through protection of their lives, home,property, aquatic resources or quality of life.

Stormwater Management

The basic performance standard should be to assure that post-development peakdischarge rate, volume, and pollutant loading doesn't exceed pre-development lev-els.Practices to control runoff volume are limited to either infiltration practices or reusepractices, thus limiting somewhat where volume control can be achieved.Exemptions and waivers should be kept to a minimum and make a statement thatall development must consider the urban runoff quality impacts as an essentialcomponent of site development.Training on the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of runoff qualitycontrol practices is an essential part of the much larger educational component ofa successful urban runoff management program.A detailed design manual helps to assure a consistent policy across political bound-aries reducing possible inequities. It also helps designers and contractors properlydesign and build BMP's.Source controls are an integral component of successful urban runoff programswhich can not be considered short term in nature. Guidance materials are essen-

II


tial since most people do not understand how their every day activities affect waterquality.

Erosion and Sediment Control

A basic goal of erosion and sediment control programs should be to minimize off-site impacts by following a philosophy of first preventing erosion and then maxi-mizing control of sedimentation onsite.BMP design criteria typically are based on a design storm. It is essential that longterm rainfall records be analyzed to determine the appropriate design storm.The threshold size of site disturbance for when approval is needed should berelatively small. This emphasizes that erosion and sediment control are integralsite development components and helps to minimize potential cumulative impactsof many smaller activities ongoing at any one time.Vegetative practices must include local considerations such as the types of plantmaterials and how they are best established and maintained.

Program Implementation Issues

Delegation of program authority is an approach that has strong advantages. Tominimize delegation problems, there must be a finite time period, followed by areview of program implementation performance, and a redelegation if warranted.The earlier in the design process that stormwater management requirements areconsidered, the more likely that the final design will meet program requirementsand be approved expediently.Submittal of a completed checklist should be required by the plan review agency toensure that the designer has gone through each item and included it as part ofinformation submittal.Stormwater design and approval should be coordinated with wetland and flood-plain protection programs, especially since these natural systems are an integralpart of a watershed's natural runoff management system.It is unlikely that public agencies will ever have enough inspectors. Creating state"Certified" private inspectors can reduce the frequency of public inspections andincrease compliance and program effectiveness.Stormwater practices need inspections during and after construction. Having apresence onsite at critical construction times helps avoid problems. Maintenanceinspections are essential to assure continued functioning of stormwater manage-ment practices, especially water quality treatment practices.

Program Funding

The three most common funding mechanisms are general appropriations, permitfees, and dedicated revenues, such as a stormwater utility fee.A major disadvantage of funding programs through permit fees is their direct de-pendence on the level of growth occurring at any one time.A major benefit of dedicated funding sources, such as a stormwater utility, is that,

III


once established, they are not subject to the annual budget considerations of gen-eral appropriations.The general public must understand exactly which activities and projects will befunded, and how they will personally benefit or be affected by implementation ofthe fee.

Program Staffing

By defining areas of importance, and the necessary resources which must be avail-able when they are needed, a jurisdiction can better recognize the short and longterm commitments that accompany approval of the program.Staffing for plan review must consider that design plans are rarely approved duringthe initial submission, with most projects needing at least two reviews before beingapproved.Many other programs, especially at the local level, have similar plan review andinspection requirements. Theoretically, staffing and funding resources of these pro-grams can complement and assist in implementing erosion and sediment controland stormwater management programs.Creativity and innovation are cornerstones of urban runoff management programs,especially in overcoming resource limitations which can threaten the program'seffectiveness.It is important to recognize areas where program implementation is weakest anddevelop innovative strategies to overcome these weaknesses.

Program Educational Activities

Educational programs aimed at individuals directly involved in program implemen-tation are essential. Relating the program's goals to outdoor, water related activi-ties, which often are enjoyed by attendees, can lead to a more personal commit-ment.Experience indicates that more creative, highly visual, hands-on, educational pro-grams are better received and achieve a higher level of learning.Educational programs aimed at the construction industry present a special chal-lenge because of the constant change of individuals employed.Public education must be pursued at every opportunity and location where there isa receptive audience. Without public education, support for the program will not bebroad based.

Program Compliance and Enforcement

Unfortunately, there always will be some persons who try to circumvent or avoidtheir responsibilities. Compliance and enforcement mechanisms must be availableto deal with these situations and to assure there is a level playing field.Programs with only one method of compliance and enforcement often can not prop-erly address the many different situations that arise during the land disturbanceand development process.

IV


The program should not rely on criminal penalties but rather on the variety of othertools which have proven effective. These include stop work orders, withholdingoccupancy permits or other permits, and performance bonds.An important aspect of the final inspection is to compare the as-built certificationand record drawings to the approved design plans to ensure they are consistent.

Maintenance of Stormwater Systems

Successful implementation of stormwater management practices requires atten-tion to good design, proper construction, and long term maintenance. Nationally,the largest weakness of urban runoff control programs is assuring long term per-formance of BMP's.While government, utilities, and many commercial or industrial property ownerswill maintain their stormwater systems, those maintained by property owner asso-ciations are seldom maintained properly.It is recommended that runoff systems serving residential properties be dedicatedto and accepted for maintenance by the government (hopefully with a stormwaterutility!)Few property owner association representatives or maintenance staff for commer-cial or industrial operations have the knowledge to inspect or maintain runoff struc-tures or practices. It is recommended that systems be inspected by a public agencyat least annually.Not planning for maintenance costs in the initial program setup will create majorfinancial problems in the future. Dedicated funding sources, such as stormwaterutility fees, can help prevent this problem.

Coordination with Related Programs

It is strongly recommended that erosion and sediment control and stormwater man-agement programs be administered as integrated programs under the same urbanrunoff control program umbrella.Conflicts between programs will never be totally avoided, but they can be reducedthrough effective communication, coordination, and cooperation.

Program Evaluation

Periodic evaluations are needed to measure program effectiveness and benefits.They can be used to help gain program support and to help it evolve into a morecomprehensive program.One of the biggest weaknesses of urban runoff programs is the sparsity of data onBMP performance and on the ecological effects of intermittent discharges.When developing urban runoff control programs there is no need to "reinvent thewheel". Similarities among programs around the country are not coincidental, but aresult of effective communication and technology transfer.Since monitoring programs are among the lowest priorities of urban runoff andenvironmental management programs, creativity is needed to increase collection

V


of information that can be used to evaluate environmental effects, or to assess theeffectiveness of practices or programs.

Program Evolution

Retrofitting presents many unique complex challenges - institutional, technical,and financial. Institutionally, retrofitting is best accomplished through watershedapproaches which emphasize regional facilities and nonstructural practices.It is important that coordination and communication occur early in the planning ofretrofit projects to avoid conflicts with other programs, jeopardizing both the projectand relations with other agencies or programs.Even wet detention systems can be retrofitted to improve their water quality treat-ment effectiveness. A $250 change to the outlet control and the Greenview Subdi-vision in Florida changed the system from a pollutant exporter to one with greaterthan 60% of the annual average loading.There is general recognition that program effectiveness can be improved throughcomprehensive watershed approaches, where all elements can be considered to-gether to maximize benefits and minimize costs.

Conclusions

Implementation of comprehensive urban runoff control programs which includeerosion, sediment, and stormwater management is not a painless or quick pro-cess. Problems will occur, mistakes will be made. Learn from them.The big C's of watershed management:

ComprehensiveContinuityCooperationCommon SenseCommunicationCoordinationCreativityCashCommitment

i

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Introduction

IntroductionAs urban runoff management programs continue to increase inscope and responsibility, information on the scientific and techni-cal aspects of these programs has grown accordingly. This is for-tunate, for such information is vital to the development, imple-mentation, and long term success of a new urban runoff manage-ment program. However, there are also significant institutionalaspects of urban runoff management which must receive equalattention from program developers. Unfortunately, despite con-tinued program growth at most levels of government, informationon the institutional aspects are not as readily available. This pub-lication helps address this imbalance. It provides stormwater pro-gram developers and implementers with a comprehensive pre-sentation of vital institutional issues which must be addressed.The information is based on a detailed review and analysis ofmore than thirty successful municipal, county, regional, and state urban runoff management programs. Hopefully, summarizing thisinformation in one document will help to minimize program de-velopment time and maximize a new program's potential for suc-cess.

The ultimate goal of any urban runoff management program is tominimize adverse impacts by managing the changes in stormwa-ter quantity and quality which accompanies urbanization. How-ever, this cannot be accomplished without having an effective,efficient, and comprehensive institutional foundation. There mustbe adequate legal authority, performance standards, design as-sistance and guidance, program funding and staffing, commitmentto enforcement, comprehensive approaches to research, and pro-gram evaluation and evolution. One program element that will bestressed in the document is the value that all surveyed local, re-gional, and state programs place on education. This is crucialsince citizen support for programs is influenced largely by theirawareness of stormwater management. Other issues that areintegral to long-term program success and evolution are water-shed approaches, use of nonstructural and structural controls,research, monitoring, and retrofitting existing developments. Allof these program elements must have a solid institutional founda-tion that must exist before any stormwater management practicesare constructed.

The targeted audience for this publication are the many munici-pal, county, regional, and state agencies and personnel who are

Institutionalarrangementsare criticalin protectionof waterquality andaquaticresources.

i

ii


ii

It is importantfor everyoneinvolved in thedevelopment,implementa-tion, and evo-lution of ur-ban runoffmanagementprograms tounderstandthey are notalone in theirefforts.

charged with developing and implementing baseline urban runoffcontrol programs. A baseline program is defined as one whichaddresses stormwater runoff impacts both during the short termconstruction phase of developments (through soil erosion and sedi-ment control measures) and after construction is completed(through implementing structural and nonstructural stormwatermanagement practices). This publication will also be useful toindividuals responsible for the administration and continued growthof established baseline programs.

Finally, regardless of a program's status, it is important for every-one involved in the development, implementation, and evolutionof an urban runoff management program to understand that theyare not alone in their efforts. A common thread identified through-out all of the successful programs reviewed for this publicationwas the sizeable amount of available program information andthe willingness of program staff to share it. As a result, no oneshould feel isolated in their efforts to address urban runoff prob-lems. Instead, we should understand that there are many indi-viduals and agencies throughout the country who are confrontedwith similar problems and who hope to achieve similar solutions.

Whether a stormwater discharge is a "point source" as defined bythe NPDES storm water permitting program or a "nonpoint source",the problems created by these systems and their management isthe same. Therefore, throughout this handbook certain terms willbe used interchangeably. Primarily, these terms include urbanrunoff which will also be called urban stormwater or stormwater,and urban runoff control which will also be called stormwatermanagement.

The foundation of this publication was the development and dis-tribution of a detailed questionnaire (Appendix A). It was sent tomunicipal, county, regional, and state program managers for re-sponse. A total of 36 questionnaires were distributed withresponses received from 32 agencies. The response rate is amaz-ing considering the questionnaire's size and the level of detailthat was requested. Each of the individuals took a substantialamount of time from their daily activities to complete the ques-tionnaire. In addition, all respondents requested copies of the fi-nal document to assist them and provide a form of evaluation inthe evolution of their program. These individuals were honest intheir responses and their assistance is greatly appreciated.

The programs selected for review are recognized as being excel-lent examples of programs and program structures at various lev-

iii


iii

The programmust havepoliticalsupport,which istranslatedinto fundingand othernecessaryprogramcomponents,if itis to beeffective.

els of government. Responses were received from nine cities, tencounties, five regional authorities, and eight states. It is recog-nized that there are good programs at the municipal, county, re-gional, or state level which were not included. The responsesreflect programs that, for the most part, have existed for sometime and which are located in various regions of the country. Theaverage length of time that these programs have existed is al-most 13 years. A lot can be learned from these programs.

The following agencies and individuals are acknowledged for theirinterest and time in completing questionnaires. Many receivedassistance from unnamed colleagues whose efforts are also greatlyappreciated.

Cities

Alexandria, Virginia - Warren Bell, P.E.Austin, Texas - Anne ScharlachBellevue, Washington - Phyllis VarnerFt. Collins, Colorado - Kevin P. McBride, P.E.Olympia, Washington - Mark BlosserOrlando, Florida - William Chamberlin, IISeattle, Washington - Cheryl PastonWashington, D.C. - Timothy J. KarikariWinter Park, Florida - David Pearce, P.E.

Counties

Baltimore, Maryland - Robert Wirth, P.E.Clark, Washington - Terry KeyesKing, Washington - Lorin ReineltKitsap, Washington - David DicksonMaricopa, Arizona - Catesby MooreMontgomery, Maryland - Rick BrushSnohomish, Washington - Joan M. LeeSomerset, New Jersey - Joseph J. Skupien, P.E.Prince Georges, Maryland - Stan E. WildesenWashington, Oregon - John Jackson

Regional Authorities

Northeastern Illinois PlanningCommission, Illinois - Dennis Dreher

South Florida WaterManagement District - Richard Rogers

iv


There arecommonthreads to allof these pro-grams whichmayprovide assis-tance to otheragencies intheir delibera-tions whenestablishingan urban run-off controlprogram.

Southwest Florida WaterManagement District - Charlie H. Miller

Suwannee River WaterManagement District - David W. Fisk

Urban Drainage and FloodControl District, Denver - Ben Urbonas, P.E.

States

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control - Robert BaldwinFlorida Department of Environmental Protection - Eric LivingstonMaryland Department of the Environment - Molly CannonNew Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee - Hunter Birckhead, P.E.New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Liz RosenblattPennsylvania Department of - Barb Beshore Environmental Resources - Dave JostenskiSouth Carolina Land Resources - K. Flint HolbrookVirginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - James EdmondsWashington State Department of Ecology - Helen E. Pressley

There are an infinite number of possible approaches and pro-gram elements that can be considered when developing and imple-menting an urban runoff control program. Each have their ownadvantages and disadvantages. The importance and applicabil-ity of any approach or element must be evaluated for each situa-tion. The bottom line is that almost any system will work if theindividuals involved in the program have a commitment to, andbelieve in the importance of, the program. Regardless of the bestof intentions, the program must have political support, which istranslated into funding and other necessary program support com-ponents. There are common threads to all of these programs whichmay provide assistance to other agencies in their deliberationswhen establishing an urban runoff control program.

Issues, program elements, and institutional arrangements will beanalyzed and discussed individually by jurisdictional level (cities,counties, regional authorities, states), and from an overall per-spective. There are results that are very common to cities but

v


Recommenda-tions will bebased on thecumulativeexperiences ofmany differentindividualsfrom differentbackgroundsand regions.

which are not necessarily true for counties, regional authorities,or states. The opposite is also true. The conclusions drawn forstate programs are not necessarily accurate for regional or localprograms. In many situations though, the results are applicablefor the whole range of government agencies. Very clearly, theseresults are important to consider in terms of further efforts thatshould be undertaken because of their broad applicability or trans-ferability.

Chapter 1 discusses various federal programs which may affectstate, regional, county, or municipal urban runoff control programs.The three primary programs are the National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permitting Program,the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program, and the Coastal ZoneAct Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Additionally, there areseveral other EPA programs established in the Federal CleanWater Act that may influence stormwater management programs.These include Section 314 (Clean Lakes), Section 401 (WaterQuality Certification), Section 404 (Navigable Waters), andGroundwater Injection Programs. The latter may significantly im-pact infiltration practice requirements. It is not the intent of Chap-ter 1 to exhaustively define all elements of various federal pro-grams but simply to acquaint individuals with these important pro-grams. If a reader desires additional information, the appropriateagency or program can be contacted for specific national or re-gional requirements.

Chapter 2 presents a brief introduction to the existing local, re-gional, and state baseline urban runoff control programs whichwere reviewed during this project. Detailed "Sediment Control andStormwater Management Program Summaries" for each of the 32programs are included in Appendix B. Unfortunately, a discus-sion of programs with more comprehensive watershed compo-nents is beyond the scope of this document. There are many dif-ferent approaches to program implementation and certain uniqueaspects of the individual programs will be highlighted and dis-cussed.

Chapter 3 presents the results of the questionnaires. Many of thequalitative responses to narrative questions, such as pitfalls orprogram weaknesses, are presented verbatim. However, theirsources are not attributed to provide anonymity to the individualswho were honest, at times painfully so, in their responses. Statis-tical analyses will also be provided wherever pertinent and quan-tifiable.

vi


Chapter 4 highlights common factors contained in the state, re-gional, and local programs and presents recommendations forurban runoff management program implementation. There are anumber of ways that a program can be set up. The recommenda-tions are not intended to be considered as minimum necessaryprogram elements, but rather to serve as a guide on issues whichshould at least be considered when establishing and implement-ing a program. The important aspect of this final chapter is thatthe recommendations are drawn from the cumulative experiencesof many different individuals and regions of the country. Their ex-pertise and experience can significantly assist others in initiationand implementation of urban runoff management programs.

1-1

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Federal Programs

Whether thegoals of ur-ban runoffand water-shed manage-ment pro-grams will beattained de-pends on therevision or"re-interpreta-tion" of exist-ing laws tomodernizethem andmake theirgoals moreconsistentwith later en-vironmentalprotectionlaws.

Chapter 1Federal Programs AffectingUrban Runoff Management

Background

Since passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972, numerousfederal programs that affect the management and protection ofwater resources have been implemented by a wide variety offederal agencies. Many of these programs have either a direct orindirect influence on the management of urban runoff, especially withrespect to reducing the adverse effects of urban runoff on aquaticsystems. Unfortunately, some of these programs, especially olderones, have legal authorities and goals which may impede the morerecent multiple goals of urban runoff management to minimize orprevent adverse environmental impacts. For example, the ArmyCorps of Engineers’ Section 205 Small Flood Control Program,implemented pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1948, promotesthe channelization and armoring of natural streams, creeks, andother waterways to increase their flood conveyance without consid-eration of the associated adverse environmental impacts on waterquality, habitat, or riparian areas. Whether the multiple goals ofurban runoff and watershed management programs will be attainedpartially depends on revision or "reinterpretation" of older laws tomake their goals more consistent with laws emphasizing environ-mental protection. Success will also depend on how well currentlaws and programs are integrated into a comprehensive watershedmanagement program.

This chapter briefly discusses many of the federal programs thatcan affect the management of urban runoff and other nonpointsources of pollution. Three federal programs have the greatestinfluence on the management of urban runoff - the Federal CleanWater Act (CWA) Section 319 Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram, the CWA Section 402 NPDES Stormwater PermittingProgram, and the Coastal Zone Management Act Section 6217Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program.

1-2


The NPS Pro-gram requireseach state toconduct state-wide assess-ments to iden-tify and as-sess watersimpaired orthreatened bynonpointsource pollu-tion and todevelop andimplement amanagementprogram forthese waters.

SECTION 319 NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The major federal program for protecting surface and groundwaters from nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is Section 319 of theFederal Clean Water Act (CWA). This program is the successorto the CWA Section 208 Areawide Water Quality Managementprogram conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Unlike theSection 208 program which primarily was a planning program,implementation is the primary objective of the Section 319 NPSprogram.

The 319 program requires each state to conduct statewideassessments to identify and assess waters impaired or threatenedby nonpoint source pollution and to develop and implement amanagement program for these waters. EPA reviews and ap-proves state assessment reports and management programs,provides technical assistance, and provides grants to states to helpfinance management program implementation and demonstrationprojects within targeted priority watersheds identified in the NPSmanagement plan.

The NPS assessment report identifies water bodies in the statewhich, without additional action to control nonpoint sources, cannotreasonably be expected to maintain or attain their beneficial uses.The report identifies, on a watershed basis, the categories, subcat-egories, and specific nonpoint sources of pollution which contributeto this impairment. The assessment is updated in conjunction withthe state’s Water Quality Assessment Report required underSection 305(b) of the CWA.

The state NPS management program is based on the needsidentified in the assessment report and describes the actions thestate will take to manage and control NPS pollution. Theseprograms typically encompass a wide variety of activities includingplanning, regulatory and non-regulatory programs, monitoring, dem-onstration projects and public education. Specifically, the state NPSmanagement programs should contain and result in:

The identification of best management practices(BMPs) for the control and reduction of specificallyidentified nonpoint sources of pollution and the im-provement of water quality.

The identification of NPS priority water bodies andtheir associated watersheds within which controlprograms and demonstration projects will be con-

1-3


The focus ofSection 319clearlyis onthe implemen-tation of NPScontrol pro-grams.

ducted.

The implementation of a variety of programmaticactions throughout the state to prevent, minimize, orreduce nonpoint sources of pollution.

The identification of federal programs and projectsthat the state wants to review for their consistencywith the state’s NPS management program and theestablishment of a mechanism to conduct this review.

A schedule containing annual implementation mile-stones and provisions for implementing BMPs at theearliest possible date.

The maintenance and achievement of state waterquality standards, the measure of success for allwater quality management programs.

The program has been relatively well funded, with funding levels inFY- 90, 91, 92 and 93 of $40, $51, $52.5 and $50 million. Fundingincreased to $80 million in FY94 and to $100 million in FY95 andFY96. In a lesson learned from the Section 208 program, duringwhich grant funds were used mainly for planning and developmentactivities, Section 319 specifies that grants can be used only for theimplementation of EPA approved state NPS management pro-grams. Specifically, federal grant funds can be used to institution-alize the NPS program within a state; to implement NPS manage-ment programs within targeted watersheds; to install NPS controlpractices at demonstration sites allowing education of potentialusers about the controls and promoting their acceptance; and toconduct ground water NPS assessment and management pro-grams.

The focus of Section 319 clearly is on the implementation of NPScontrol programs. However, the program does not contain minimumnational requirements for state NPS programs (i.e., all states willimplement programs to require use of BMPs on construction sitesor to treat runoff from new development), contains no nationalperformance standards for BMPs, and lacks provisions for requiringenforceable policies. Consequently, institutionalization of state NPSprograms has suffered because the national program has focusedon implementation of demonstration projects to control NPS pollu-tion within the priority watersheds.

However, the Section 319 program continues to evolve as states

1-4


Developmentof the NPDESstorm waterprogram pre-sented uniquechallengesbecause ofthe largenumber ofindividual dis-charges, thediffuse natureof thesources, andthe lack ofproven con-trol tech-niques in al-ready devel-oped areas.

and EPA gain experience in the development, refinement, andimplementation of nonpoint source management programs andactivities. In 1995, a States-EPA NPS Work Group was establishedto review the current program - its strengths, weaknesses, direc-tion, policies, and guidance. Work group recommendations arehelping to provide states with greater flexibility, improve the partner-ship between EPA and the states, to de-emphasize demonstrationprojects, to emphasize institutionalization of state NPS programs,and to continue the program's emphasis on implementation. Addi-tionally, Congress continues to support the program with recom-mended appropriations increasing between 1996 and 2001.

SECTION 402 NPDES STORMWATER PERMITTING

The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act prohibits point source dis-charges of pollutants to waters of the United States unless autho-rized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit. Initially, the focus of this permit program was on pointsource discharges of industrial and municipal wastewaters. How-ever, as controls for these sources were implemented it becameapparent that, to achieve the goals of the CWA, less traditional pointsources of pollution such as storm water discharges from industrialactivities and large urban centers also would have to be controlled.

In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress created newrequirements for storm water point sources by adding Section402(p) to the CWA. This requires EPA to develop a comprehensive,phased program for regulating storm water discharges under theNPDES program. The development of this program presents uniquechallenges because of the large number of individual discharges, thediffuse nature of the sources, their cumulative environmental ef-fects, the lack of proven control techniques for already developedareas, and limited federal, state and local resources.

Phase 1 of the program covers major industrial and municipalsources. EPA is currently assessing other potential sources to becovered under Phase 2. In November 1990, under Phase 1 of theprogram, EPA implemented NPDES storm water regulations for:

storm water discharges associated with industrialactivities falling within one of eleven industrial catego-ries defined by Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) Codes, including construction sites disturbingfive or more acres of land.

discharges from large municipal separate storm

1-5


The NPDESstorm waterpermit pro-gram directlyaffects over800 munici-palities and 47countiesacross thecountry.

sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 250,000or more, and for discharges from medium MS4sserving a population of between 100,000 and 250,000.

discharges which are designated by EPA or a NPDESdelegated state as needing a NPDES permit becausethe discharge contributes to a violation of a waterquality standards or is a significant contributor ofpollutants to waters of the United States.

MUNICIPAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS - The NPDES stormwater permit program directly affects over 800 municipalities and 47counties across the country. The municipal permit applicationprocess includes two parts. Part 1 is submitted 12 to 18 monthsafter notification by EPA or a delegated state (depending uponwhether the municipality is classified as a large or medium MS4).Part 2 is completed within 12 months after submission of the Part1 application.

The Part 1 application requirements include:

Mapping the municipal storm water managementsystem including the identification and location of allmajor and minor outfalls, landfills, hazardous wastestorage, transfer and disposal sites, industrial dis-charges, publicly owned lands, major structural con-trols, and waters of the United States.

Identifying sampling locations to conduct field screen-ing of storm water discharges to locate and identifyillicit connections and non-stormwater discharges.

Summarizing the municipality’s existing legal author-ity to regulate or control discharges into the municipalstorm water system and to identify deficiencies inlegal authority.

Identification of major storm water outfalls servingspecific land uses. These will be sampled to charac-terize the storm water discharges through stormevent sampling. A detailed sampling program to beundertaken during the Part 2 application process isdescribed in Part 1.

Description of existing storm water managementprograms including efforts to control illicit discharges,

1-6


New and ex-panded pro-grams are re-quired andmust includepublic educa-tion, inspec-tions and con-trol of dis-charges , re-quirements forurban runoffcontrol fromnew develop-ments, en-hanced opera-tion and main-tenance pro-grams, andmonitoring todetermine pro-gram effective-ness.

to address pollutants in storm water, and to maintainand operate the storm water system.

Identification of current storm water managementexpenditures and analysis of the community’s fiscalresources available to complete Part 2 of the applica-tion.

Part 2 of the application consists of a storm water managementprogram which is a series of activities the municipality will undertakeover the next five years to manage storm water and reduce thepollutant loading discharged from the MS4. This part of the applica-tion includes:

Analysis and summary of the sampling data obtainedfrom the storm water outfall characterization pro-gram, including calculation of annual and seasonalloadings.

Development and implementation of a program toeliminate illicit connections and to continue identifyingand eliminating them.

Development and implementation of new or expandedprograms to reduce the pollution loading dischargedfrom the MS4 to water bodies. This includes a widevariety of activities including public education; inspec-tions and control of discharges into the MS4; require-ments for erosion, sediment and storm water controlsat new developments; enhanced operation and main-tenance programs; and a monitoring program todetermine the effectiveness of these activities.

A strategy and time table to enhance existing legalauthorities to give local governments adequate au-thority to implement the activities in their storm watermanagement program.

A schedule containing annual implementation mile-stones for the activities set forth in the storm watermanagement program.

Identification of the fiscal resources available over thenext five years to implement the community’s stormwater management program.

1-7


The NPDESstorm waterregulationsrepresent avery compre-hensive pro-gram for con-trolling urbanand industrialstorm waterrunoff.

STORM WATER ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY OnSeptember 9 and 25, 1992, EPA issued general permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial and construction activi-ties. A general permit authorizes a discharge after a Notice of Intentis submitted to the regulatory agency provided all its requirementsare implemented. These general permits cover the majority of theestimated 125,000 industries and 10,000 constructions sites peryear that are required to get permits. In November 1993, EPApublished draft general permits for 25 different sectors of industrialactivities providing more industry specific storm water managementrequirements. Final multi-sector general permits will be imple-mented in 1995.

The storm water general permits for industrial activities require thedevelopment and implementation of a stormwater pollution preven-tion plan which includes:

development of a pollution prevention team.

description of sources on the site expected to contrib-ute pollutants to runoff.

implementation of source control practices such asgood housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spillprevention and response procedures, site and equip-ment inspections, and employee training.

implementation of BMPs to prevent erosion, minimizesedimentation, and manage runoff.

monitoring of storm water discharges and the imple-mentation of annual site compliance evaluations.

The NPDES storm water regulations represent a very comprehen-sive program for controlling urban and industrial storm waterdischarges. Unfortunately, fiscal and staffing resources for theprogram at both the federal and state level have been inadequate,especially for training on approaches and techniques that can beused to reduce the pollutant loading from storm water discharges.As with the control of all wet weather discharges, funding also isneeded for research on the design and effectiveness of BMPs, fordetermining the environmental effects of intermittent discharges, fordeveloping sediment assessment and quality guidelines, for refiningbiological community assessment techniques for use in individualstates, and for developing water quality standards applicable to wet

1-8


The purposeof Section6217 is to de-velop andimplement aprogram thatsupports theimplementa-tion of man-agement mea-sures for NPSpollution thatwill restoreand protectcoastal waters

The programis limited tocontrollingnonpointsource pollu-tion within thewatersheds ofcoastal waterbodies.

weather discharges. Most importantly, funding is needed toconstruct BMP demonstration projects, especially within communi-ties affected by the regulations, to educate citizens and increasesupport for local stormwater management programs.

SECTION 6217 COASTAL NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLPROGRAM

Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthori-zation Amendments (CZARA) of 1990 requires states with existingcoastal zone management programs to establish NPS programs incoastal areas. The coastal NPS program must be approved by EPAand by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). The program will be incorporated into existing state NPSmanagement programs developed pursuant to Section 319 of theCWA and state coastal zone management programs developedpursuant to Section 306 of the CZM Act. The purpose of Section6217 is to restore and protect coastal waters from NPS pollution.The program is limited to controlling nonpoint source pollution withinthe watersheds of coastal water bodies. The affected coastal areaboundary is determined individually for each state.

The program contains two unique aspects. First, it requires theimplementation of certain management measures (BMPs) andestablishes national guidance for these measures, including someminimum performance levels. Management measures are definedas economically achievable measures for the control of the additionof NPS pollutants from existing and new sources, which reflect thegreatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through theapplication of the best available NPS pollution control practices,technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or otheralternatives. Secondly, the program originally required the imple-mentation of enforceable policies to assure that the managementmeasures would be implemented. However, voluntary approachesare acceptable provided there is a mechanism to obtain implemen-tation if they are not successful in protecting water quality.

The program is administered jointly by EPA and NOAA. EPA isprimarily responsible for specifying management measures forcontrolling NPS pollution in coastal areas while NOAA is responsibleprimarily for programmatic requirements. The management mea-sures guidance document (commonly referred to as the “g” guid-ance) is an excellent compendium of information about BMPs usedto control nonpoint sources. For each management measure, thefollowing information is discussed:

1-9


Two uniquekeys to thisprogram arethe establish-ment of mini-mum nationalguidance formanagementmeasures in-cluding someperformancestandards andthe require-ment for en-forceable poli-cies.

a description of the categories of activities andlocations for which the management measureand its associated BMPs may be applicable.

a listing of the pollutants addressed and the expectedpollutant reductions achievable.

a description of the water quality benefits of imple-mentation.

a description of costs.

minimum performance standards are established forcertain BMPs including urban runoff controls for newdevelopment which are to be designed to achieve 80percent average annual loading of total suspendedsolids.

To avoid loss of up to 30 percent of their federal coastal zonemanagement and NPS management grants, states must undertakethe following actions:

Modification, if necessary, of the state coastal zoneboundary to assure that the watershed areas contrib-uting to coastal waters are included.

Implementation of the “g” guidance managementmeasures and or additional state-developed BMPs tocontrol NPS pollution in impaired or threatened coastalwaters.

Development of voluntary approaches and “enforce-able policies” and mechanisms to assure implemen-tation of all of the management measures.

Development of a technical assistance program tolocal governments and the public for implementingmanagement measures.

Coordination of existing CWA programs such asSection 319, basin planning pursuant to Section 303,and the Section 320 National Estuary Program.

1-10


Program ac-tivities underSection 104include re-search, na-tional waterquality moni-toring, specialwater qualitystudies, in-vestigationsof pollutioncontrol tech-niques, rivercorridor wa-tershed man-agement plan-ning, and pilotand demon-strationprojects toimplementNPDES re-lated activi-ties.

OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS INFLUENCING URBANRUNOFF MANAGEMENT

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Federal Clean WaterAct

The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonlyreferred to as the Clean Water Act, “is to restore and maintain thechemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water.”The Act directs the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toundertake many initiatives and implement many programs to ac-complish the Act’s objective. Many of these programs are imple-mented cooperatively with state and local governments, nativeAmerican tribes, the private sector and citizens. Following is a briefdescription of programs that may influence the management ofurban runoff.

Section 104: RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAININGAND INFORMATION

Section 104 requires the establishment of national programs forthe prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution. Programactivities include research, national water quality monitoring,special water quality studies, investigations of pollution controltechniques, watershed management planning, and pilot anddemonstration projects to implement NPDES-related activities,especially those related to the control of urban runoff andcombined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges.

Special programs that are funded through Section 104 include:

State Wetlands Program

The State Wetlands Program is designed to increase the abilityof state programs to protect wetland resources. Since wetlandsare the "kidneys" of our watersheds, performing many valuablefunctions to help reduce urban runoff impacts, their protection isextremely important environmentally and economically. Pro-gram funds can be used to develop new state wetland protectionprograms or to refine existing programs, assist states assumethe Section 404 program, help states develop state wetlandconservation plans, and for watershed protection demonstrationprojects.

1-11


Water QualityStandardsprovide theregulatory andlegal basis forpoint and non-point sourcewater-qualitybased con-trols beyondthose re-quired by theCWA's uni-form minimaltechnicalstandards.

Wetlands Protection Program

The Wetlands Protection Program provides funds for rivercorridor/watershed management planning and for activities intargeted watersheds such as advance wetland identification,public education, and section 404 enforcement.

Section 106, GRANTS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL PRO-GRAMS

Section 106 provides grant funds for the administration ofprograms for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of waterpollution. This is the primary federal grant funding source forstate water quality management programs. Eligible activitiesinclude nearly all aspects of the prevention and abatement ofsurface and ground water pollution (planning, monitoring, per-mitting, enforcement, training, public education, technical assis-tance).

Section 303, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLE-MENTATION PLANS

Section 303 requires states to develop, adopt and enforce waterquality standards that will protect, maintain and restore thechemical, physical and biological integrity of all waters. Inestablishing water quality standards, States define the waterquality goals for their waters by designating beneficial uses forwater bodies and adopting water quality criteria to protect thesedesignated uses. Water quality standards provide the regula-tory and legal basis for point and nonpoint source water-qualitybased controls beyond those required by the Act’s uniformminimal technological requirements. Water quality standardsmust be reviewed regularly and, if necessary, which is veryrelevant to the management of urban runoff and other nonpointsources. Accurately evaluating the ecological effects of theseintermittent pollutant discharges requires new strategies suchas sediment monitoring and especially biological communitymonitoring, since it includes assessment of physical habitats.The importance of these new strategies is seen by EPA’semphasis on revising biological criteria. Unfortunately, basicresearch on the ecological effects of these repeated intermittentdischarges is needed before numerical criteria and standardscan be established for all situations.

Section 303(e) requires states to implement a continuing waterquality planning process and to develop water quality manage-

1-12


The Total Maxi-mum DailyLoad (TMDL)process pro-vides a basisfor more strin-gent waterquality basedcontrols forpollutantswhen technol-ogy based con-trols are inad-equate toachieve statewater qualitystandards.

ment plans. An important element of this watershed manage-ment approach is the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)process, authorized in Section 303(d). States must identifywaters that do not meet or are not expected to meet applicablewater quality standards with technology-based controls only.For these “water quality-limited waters” a TMDL establishes thetotal allowable pollutant loadings and the pollution reductionsnecessary to attain water quality standards for a water body.The TMDL thereby provides a basis for more stringent waterquality based controls for pollutants when technology basedcontrols are inadequate to achieve state water quality stan-dards. It also allows for the allocation of allowable point andnonpoint source loadings and the implementation of appropriatecontrols for all sources.

Section 314, CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM

Section 314 establishes requirements for state lake manage-ment programs, for the establishment of projects and programsto control pollution sources to lakes, and to protect and restorethe quality of lakes. States which establish lake managementprograms become eligible for grant funds that can be used foridentification and classification surveys of all publicly-ownedlakes; state lake water quality monitoring and assessmentprograms; public education; and lake restoration projects. Lakerestoration projects typically include three phases: Diagnostic/Feasibility Study; Restoration/Protection Implementation Pro-gram; and Post-Restoration Monitoring.

Section 320, NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

The National Estuary Program (NEP) builds upon the lessons ofthe Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Initiatives, which use ageographic, basin-wide environmental management approach.The goals of the NEP are to identify nationally significantestuaries, protect and improve their water quality, and enhancetheir living resources. Estuaries are selected for the NEP basedon their potential to include environments of significant nationalconcern and the demonstrated commitment by state and localgovernments and citizens to protect these valuable resources.Currently, 28 estuaries are part of the NEP.

The NEP authorizes the development of Comprehensive Con-servation and Management Plans (CCMP), usually over a fiveyear period. The CCMP is developed by a managementcommittee that involves Federal, state, regional and local

1-13


The NationalEstuarine Pro-gram strivesfor open, con-sensus build-ing ap-proaches todefine pro-gram goalsand objec-tives, identifyproblems, anddesign pollu-tion preven-tion/controland resourcemanagementstrategies.

governments, affected industries, scientific and academic insti-tutions, and citizens. Management conferences strive for anopen, consensus-building approach to defining program goalsand objectives, identifying problems, and designing pollutionprevention/control and resource management strategies. WhileNEPs are not set up specifically to address urban runoff,demonstration projects and other activities to control urbanrunoff generally are a part of the NEP action plan for mostestuaries.

Section 320 does not provide funding for the implementation ofapproved CCMPs although other CWA funds (ie, 319, Title II andVI) may be used.

Section 404, PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

Section 404 establishes a regulatory program to control thedischarge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters(wetlands) to assure that such discharges comply with environ-mental requirements. This program is administered by the ArmyCorps of Engineers and the EPA. The Corps has the primaryresponsibility for the permit program. EPA develops the environ-mental guidelines by which permit applications are evaluated,reviews proposed permits, may veto permits with unacceptableadverse environmental effects, determines the jurisdictionallimits of waters of the United States, and interprets statutoryexemptions. Enforcement authority is shared between EPA andthe Corps. The numerous stormwater management functionsperformed by wetlands makes their protection and restorationvery important to the success of urban runoff managementprograms.

TITLE VI STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROLREVOLVING FUNDS (SRF)

The SRF program authorizes EPA to make capitalization grantsto states for the purpose of establishing a water pollution controlrevolving fund to provide assistance in the construction ofpublicly owned treatment works, for implementing a Section 319NPS management program, or for developing and implementinga Section 320 CCMP. Also, Section 604 (b) requires each stateto reserve one percent of the State Revolving Loan Fund grantfor water quality management planning activities required bySection 205(j) and 303(e). Eligible activities include projects todetermine the nature, extent and causes of water qualityproblems; to identify cost-effective and acceptable point and

1-14


Contaminantsourceswithin a well-head protec-tion areamust be iden-tified, a man-agement plandeveloped toprevent con-tamination ofthe watersupply, andstandardsestablishedfor new wellsto minimizecontaminationpotential.

nonpoint source controls; and to develop implementation plans.

Federal Safe Drinking Water Act

Several laws have been enacted that address different issuesrelated to ground water protection and management. The SafeDrinking Water Act regulates the injection of wastes into deep wellsand establishes the Wellhead Protection program. Additionally, theSurface Water Treatment Rule of this Act outlines requirements forthe protection of surface waters which are used for drinking watersupply.

Section 1421, UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL

Section 1421 requires the establishment of federal and stateprograms to protect ground waters from the subsurface em-placement of fluids. These programs establish regulations thatgovern the construction and operation of injection wells to assurethat the injected fluid remains in the injection zone and does notcontaminate ground waters. Class V injection wells are used todispose of urban runoff in many locations, especially in closedbasins. BMPs should be used to treat the runoff before it isdischarged into the injection well. This section authorizes grantsto states to fund all types of activities implemented as part of astate's program.

Section 1428, WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM

Section 1428 requires states to develop systematic and com-prehensive programs to protect ground waters that supply wellsand wellfields contributing drinking water to public water sup-plies. As part of a Wellhead Protection (WHP) program, statesmust delineate wellhead protection areas for each well orwellfield used for public water supply. Contaminant sourceswithin the wellhead protection area must be identified, a man-agement plan developed to prevent contamination of the watersupply in that area, and standards must be established forlocating new wells so as to minimize the potential for contamina-tion of the water supply. The WHP program requires theparticipation of all levels of governments. Local governmentsare especially important because of their land use decisionauthority.

PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES

The Surface Water Treatment Rule promulgated on June 29,

1-15


Coordinationand integra-tion of urbanrunoff man-agement pro-grams withagriculturalconservationprograms isvery impor-tant.

1989 requires owners of public drinking water systems usingsurface water sources to establish and maintain effectivewatershed control programs as one condition of avoiding waterfiltration requirements. These watershed control programs aredesigned to reduce the need for water treatment by protectingsurface water supply sources from urban runoff and othernonpoint pollutants. The watershed control program mustcharacterize the watershed hydrology and land ownership;identify watershed characteristics and activities detrimental towater quality; and identify, monitor, and control activities thatmay have an adverse effect on source water quality.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

While this handbook focuses on urban runoff management issues,many local governments have outlying agricultural areas contribut-ing pollutants that adversely affect receiving waters and which aredischarged to runoff conveyance systems operated by local govern-ments. Coordination and integration of urban runoff managementprograms with agricultural conservation programs is extremelyimportant.

For over 50 years, the USDA has been implementing programs thatpotentially can reduce the effects of nonpoint sources coming fromagricultural and forest lands. Passage of the 1985 Food SecurityAct initiated a large redirection of monetary and human resourcestowards soil conservation and indirectly towards control of agricul-tural runoff and nonpoint source pollution. Title XII of this Act hasmultiple objectives including conservation of the nation’s soil re-sources, reduction of surplus commodities, wetland protection, andreduction of off-site impacts from sediment including deteriorationof water quality. Title XII created the Conservation Reserve, HighlyErodible Land Conservation, and Wetland Conservation Programs.

Recently, the USDA launched a Water Quality Initiative Program toprovide farmers and ranchers the educational, technical, andfinancial means to respond voluntarily and independently to on-farmenvironmental concerns, especially NPS ones, and to related Statewater quality management program requirements. By 1995, USDAis to have identified areas where the agricultural threat to waterquality is most serious and to have taught farmers and ranchers inthose areas how to use agricultural chemicals and manage farmwastes in ways that are safe to the environment, yet economicallypractical. These methods will reduce the loss of agricultural wastesand chemicals that leach into ground water or run off to surfacewater.

1-16


Federal agri-cultural con-servation pro-grams providefarmers withtechnical, fi-nancial, andeducationalassistance foradopting farm-ing practicesthat reduceerosion andwater qualitydegradation.

Federal agricultural conservation programs provide farmers withtechnical, financial, and educational assistance for adopting farmingpractices that reduce erosion and water quality degradation. Agen-cies directly involved include the Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), theForest Service, the Farm Service Agency (formerly the FarmersHome Administration and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-vation Service), and the Cooperative Extension Service . Typically,the NRCS provides technical assistance in planning and installingBMPs; the FS provides technical assistance for woodland manage-ment; the FSA provides financial assistance (cost sharing) for BMPimplementation; and the CES provides educational support.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

As part of the USDA’s Water Quality Initiative, the NRCS is providingincreased technical assistance for selected agricultural watershedsor aquifer-recharge areas called “Hydrologic Unit Areas” (HUAs).NRCS also is supporting demonstration projects to encourage theuse of effective and efficient conservation practices that will helpbenefit water quality. In FY90 and FY91 74 HUAs and 16demonstration projects were funded.

Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D)encourages and improves the capability of state and localentities in rural areas to plan, develop and implement programs,typically in targeted critical areas.

Soil and Water Conservation provides technical assistance tothe public through total resource planning and management toimprove water quality, natural resources, and reduce pollutionsources. NRCS also has been publishing detailed soil surveysfor each county in the country providing a wide variety of usefulnatural resources management information.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Small Water-shed Program; PL-566 Program) provides technical andfinancial assistance to state agencies and local governments inthe development and implementation of plans to protect, de-velop, and use the land and water resources in small water-sheds. Recently, this program has become more broadlyoriented with greater emphasis on protecting and restoringwater quality, especially from problems related to flooding,erosion, sedimentation, and use/disposal of water.

1-17


Soil and Wa-ter Conserva-tion providestechnical as-sistance tothe publicthrough totalresourceplanning andmanagementto improvewater quality,natural re-sources, andreduce pollu-tion sources.

Forest Service

The Forest Service is responsible for managing approximately 191million acres of public lands. Congress has directed that these landsare to be managed for multiple use purposes including timber,range, recreation, minerals, wildlife, fish, soil and water. The ForestService has implemented, in cooperation with States, a nonpointsource management program to assure that land managementactivities on forest lands use appropriate best management prac-tices to minimize water quality effects. Additionally, the WatershedImprovement Program targets over 35,000 acres annually, treatingthose lands adversely affected by past uses. A major objective ofthis program is improvement of water quality and watershedconditions.

Farm Service Agency

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) is designed tocontrol erosion and sedimentation and to encourage voluntarycompliance with federal/state requirements to solve point andnonpoint pollution. The program provides cost-sharing incen-tives to individuals for conservation practice implementation.Water quality improvement recently is receiving special empha-sis.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is intended to returncertain agricultural lands which are highly erodible or otherwisecritical in protecting and restoring water quality (i.e., wetlands)to a conservation use, typically as forests. Farmers whoparticipate in the program agree to establish and maintain a soil-conserving cover on the land for at least ten years during whichno harvest or grazing may be conducted on the land. Farmersreceive an annual per acre rental payment in addition to costshare funds for establishment of BMPs to control erosion,establish conservation cover and protect water quality. Compli-ance is checked first by verification of BMP installation andsubsequently by spot checks.

Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) includes twoprograms that mandate the loss of USDA program benefits tofarmers who convert highly erosive land to row crop productionor who produce row crops on highly erosive land without anapproved conservation plan.

Conservation Compliance applies to land whereannually tilled crops were grown at least once be-

1-18


The ForestService hasimplemented,in cooperationwith states, anonpointsource man-agement pro-gram to as-sure that landmanagementactivities onforest landsuse appropri-ate best man-agement prac-tices to mini-mize waterquality effects.

tween 1981-85 and it now applies to all highly erodibleland in annual crop production. Eligibility for USDAprogram benefits are lost if the farmer does not havea conservation plan, approved by the NRCS and thelocal Soil and Water Conservation District, which setsforth the BMPs that need to be used to minimizeerosion and sedimentation. The conservation planmust have been prepared and approved by January1, 1990 with all required BMPs installed by January 1,1995.

Sodbuster is designed to discourage conversion ofhighly erodible land for agricultural production. Farm-ers who plant annually tilled crops on highly erodiblegrassland or woodland lose eligibility for USDA pro-gram benefits unless the land is planted in accordancewith an approved conservation plan.

Swampbuster is intended to discourage conversion of wetlandsfor agricultural purposes by making farmers ineligible for USDAprogram benefits if wetlands are converted after December 23,1985. This helps to preserve the valuable runoff managementbenefits of wetlands.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is intended to restore andprotect farmed wetlands or converted wetlands. Farmersreceive direct payments and conservation planning and technicalassistance to install necessary restoration practices on thoseareas that they agree to maintain under a conservation ease-ment. These ditched and drained wetlands can be restored bytheir incorporation into basin stormwater master plans. Assurrounding areas urbanize, the pretreated urban runoff can bedirected into the wetlands.

U. S. Department of the Interior

National Water Quality Assessment Program, administeredby the Geological Survey (USGS), addresses a wide range ofmajor water quality issues, with special emphasis in the next fewyears on pesticide impacts on water resources. The programwill include nationwide surface and ground water quality monitor-ing and assessment.

Water Data Program, administered by the Geological Survey,consists of four water quality monitoring networks the mostimportant of which is the National Stream Quality Accounting

1-19


Network (NASQAN). Data on stream flow and height, lake stageand storage, ground water levels, well and spring discharge andthe quality of surface and ground waters is collected and storedin WATSTORE.

Federal State Cooperative Program establishes a partnershipfor water resources investigations between the USGS and stateand local agencies. This program is the foundation for much ofthe planning, development and management of the nation’swater resources.Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and RestorationProgram, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, pro-vides funds for the acquisition of coastal lands or waters and forrestoration, enhancement or management of coastal wetlandecosystems. Projects must provide for the long term conser-vation of these lands and waters.

The Land and Water Conservation Program, administered bythe National Park Service, was established to create andmaintain a national legacy of high quality recreation areas. Theprogram provides funding for federal acquisition of authorizednational park, conservation and recreation areas and to stateand local governments to help them acquire, develop andimprove outdoor recreation areas.

Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Aid Highway Program assists state agencies in thedevelopment and improvement of an integrated, interconnectedtransportation system. Funds may be used for planning, researchand development (including BMPs), restoration, roadside beautifi-cation and wetland mitigation. The program provides funding forerosion and sediment controls needed to minimize highway con-struction impacts but not typically for the treatment and manage-ment of highway runoff. However, the Surface TransportationProgram, established under the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), authorizes funding for highwayurban runoff quality controls and for mitigating damage to ecosys-tems, habitat and wildlife.

Army Corps of Engineers

Civil Works Projects are a specific line-item congressionalappropriation in the biennial Water Resources Development Act.These projects help communities address a variety of waterresource problems including flood control, coastal and shoreline

Federal AidHighway Pro-gram fundsmay be usedfor planning,research, anddevelopment(includingBMP's), resto-ration, road-side beautifi-cation, wet-land mitiga-tion, and ero-sion and sedi-ment controls.

1-20


The CoastalZone Manage-ment Act Re-authorizationAmendmentsof 1990 reaf-firmed our na-tions' commit-ment to im-proved man-agement ofcoastal re-sources.

erosion, environmental restoration and water quality manage-ment. Projects must include mitigation of unavoidable environ-mental damages and must also consider environmental restora-tion through opportunities created with projects.

The following programs have great potential to adversely affectaquatic systems and to impede the management of urban runoffto protect or restore water quality:

Small Flood Control Projects, pursuant to Section 205 of theFlood Control Act of 1948, authorizes the Corps to reduce flooddamages through projects not specifically authorized by Con-gress. However, the Corps is restricted to making improve-ments to natural water courses, typically structural ones such asbank hardening or channelization. The adverse environmental,riparian, and habitat impacts of these channelization projects arenot addressed since the program can not consider watershedurban runoff improvements.

Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control, pursuant to theFlood Control Act of 1937, allows the design and construction offlood control measures which typically increase drainage anddecrease water quality.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Coastal Zone Management Program - The Coastal ZoneManagement Act of 1972 allows states to prepare and imple-ment comprehensive management programs for coastal re-sources which balance competing demands on resource protec-tion, protection of public health and safety, provision for publicaccess, and economic development. As an incentive to states,the Act provides financial and technical assistance during theplanning and administration of programs that meet minimumfederal standards. The Coastal Zone Management Act Reau-thorization Amendments of 1990 reaffirms our nation’s commit-ment to improved management of coastal resources by enhanc-ing and expanding the resources and provisions of the Act.These amendments reinstate grants to coastal states whichhave not yet developed coastal zone management programsand require certain coastal states to implement coastal nonpointsource control programs as previously described.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System allowsestablishment and management of a national system of reservesrepresenting different coastal regions and estuarine types. The

1-21


reserves serves as field laboratories and as public educationcenters.

National Marine Sanctuary Program allows identification ofareas of the marine environment of special significance andprovides authority for comprehensive and coordinated conser-vation and management of these areas. Program provides forresearch and monitoring activities and for public education.

Information Sources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Protecting Coastaland Wetlands Resources: A Guide for Local Governments. EPA842-R-92-002. Office of Water. Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidance SpecifyingManagement Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution of CoastalWaters. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guide to FederalWater Quality Programs and Information. EPA 230-B-93-001.Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Watershed Protec-tion: Catalog of Federal Programs. EPA 841-B-93-002. Office ofWater. Washington D.C.

2-1

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Program Synopsis

Chapter 2Synopsis of Municipal,County, Regional, and StateUrban StormwaterManagement Programs

The data analysis in Chapter 3 and the recommendations in Chap-ter 4 are based on information obtained from the questionnaireresponses for each of the individual urban runoff control programs.Detailed "Sediment Control and Stormwater Management ProgramSummaries" for each of the 32 programs reviewed for this projectare included in Appendix B. The program summaries are pre-sented alphabetically within the following categories: cities, coun-ties, regional authorities, and states.

The individual synopses provide a detailed picture of each urbanrunoff control program, with a focus on their institutional and tech-nical framework. For each program, information is presented on it'sinitial organization, goals, performance standards, design criteria,practices, funding, staffing, inspection, enforcement, maintenance,and program evolution. Also included is a listing of available publi-cations along with information on how to contact the program staff.It is hoped that this summary of individual programs will increasecommunication between staff at urban runoff control programsaround the country, thereby facilitating the transfer of informationabout both the institutional and technical aspects of this rapidlyevolving field.

It is especially important for individuals developing or first imple-menting a program to talk to experienced staff at other programs.Learn from their mistakes. Build upon their successes. There aretoo many important new issues, processes, and BMP's in this fieldto spend time reinventing wheels. To help this technology transfercontinue, the Watershed Management Institute will prepare sum-maries of other urban runoff control programs if the information isprovided. The questionnaire to provide the program information isincluded as Appendix A. The format of the program summarieslend themselves to a looseleaf notebook with each one a separatefact sheet. New fact sheets could be added as information is re-ceived.

It is especiallyimportant forindividualsdeveloping orimplementinga program totalk to experi-enced staff atother pro-grams.

Learn fromtheir mis-takes.

Build upontheir suc-cesses.

2-2


The program summaries are presented in the following order:

CITY PROGRAMS PAGE NUMBERAlexandria, Virginia B - 2Austin, Texas B - 7Bellevue, Washington B - 10Fort Collins, Colorado B - 19Olympia, Washington B - 24Orlando, Florida B - 30Seattle, Washington B - 35District of Columbia B - 40Winter Park, Florida B - 45

COUNTY PROGRAMSBaltimore County, Maryland B - 50Clark County, Washington B - 55King County, Washington B - 60Kitsap County, Washington B - 66Maricopa County, Arizona B - 72Montgomery County, Maryland B - 77Prince George's County, Maryland B - 82Snohomish County, Washington B - 87Somerset County, New Jersey B - 92Washington County, Oregon B - 97

REGIONAL PROGRAMSDenver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B - 102Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission B - 107South Florida Water Management District B - 112Southwest Florida Water Management District B - 118Suwannee River Water Management District B - 124

STATE PROGRAMSDelaware B - 130Florida B - 136Maryland B - 143New Jersey B - 148Pennsylvania B - 154South Carolina B - 160Virginia B - 166Washington B - 172

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Questionnaire Responses

3-1

Chapter 3Questionnaire ResponsesThe major goal of this publication is to offer recommendations onthe essential elements of a successful urban runoff managementprogram. However, remember that any two individuals likely willdiffer on what they consider essential elements for controlling ur-ban runoff. Accordingly, the recommendations presented in thispublication are based on the historical experiences of individualsand programs that have struggled with the many issues, deci-sions, and actions that must be taken to implement an urban run-off control program. As seen from their questionnaire responses,many of the individuals and programs have historical perspec-tives spanning several decades. If flood control activities and ex-periences are considered, some of the surveyed programs havebeen active for over 30 years.

There is a lot of history in these programs - and a lot to learn fromtheir experiences, both successful and unsuccessful. They havetaken actions which at the time seemed good, but which requiredrevision after actual implementation. Examles of these actionsmay include exemptions which are overly restrictive or are toobroad, or requiring a specific design approach, which throughgreater experiance may be inappropriate for a given program goal.It is very important that we learn from these efforts. We do notneed to recreate wheels. We should not repeat previous mis-takes which may be universal in their applicability and implica-tions. Many of these programs have common elements which maybe considered as "standard" for an urban runoff control program.Other programs have unique components which may have lim-ited applicability due to local institutional, political or funding con-ditions. However, these may be excellent for use elsewhere ifonly others become aware of them.

This chapter will summarize and analyze the individual responsesto the questionnaire for a variety of important urban runoff controlprogram issues. They will be considered generally based on allresponses, and more specifically by categories such as cities,counties, regional authorities, and states. Some of the issues arebroad enough to be applicable to all institutional levels of pro-gram implementation. While others are more relevant when con-sidered at a specific level of program implementation.

The questionnaire is specific to program implementation issues.

It is veryimportant thatwe learn frompast efforts.

We do notneed torecreatewheels.

We shouldnot repeatpreviousmistakeswhich may beuniversal intheirapplicabilityandimplications.


3-2

While BMP design information was also submitted by the respon-dents, the primary intent of this document is to provide informa-tion on institutional issues and program strategies. Most impor-tantly, the reader must decide on the appropriateness and appli-cability of specific issues. If a program component or activity,even though essential or desired, is not going to be acceptablefor political or institutional reasons, then it is vital to recognizethis limitation and to build a program structure that works withoutthis component, at least for the time being.

Responses were received from 32 urban runoff programs aroundthe country representing nine cities, ten counties, five regionalauthorities, and eight states. Of the five regional authorities, threeare in Florida and they operate very differently than the othertwo. Unlike Florida's water management districts, the Northeast-ern Illinois Planning Commission and the Urban Drainage andFlood Control District of Denver are not involved in daily imple-mentation of erosion and sediment control and stormwater man-agement for land development activities. Instead, they providetechnical assistance and guidance to local jurisdictions whichare responsible for directing program implementation.

Issues

1. General Program Issues

1a. Are the Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Program Integrated?

There are many issues and activities common to erosion and sedi-ment control programs and to urban stormwater managementprograms. These include administrative issues (staffing, plan re-view and approval, fees, enforcement), technical issues (perfor-mance standards, design criteria, safety, liability), and inspections(which can be greatly enhanced by having a single inspector knowl-edgeable about erosion/sediment controls and stormwater con-trols). A good example of the interrelationship of these two pro-gram components is the construction of stormwater practices whilethe site is unstabilized. Often permanent stormwater manage-ment systems are used during construction as sediment controlbasins. However, some stormwater practices, such as infiltrationpractices or vegetated swales, are very sensitive to sediment en-try during the construction phase. Good communication betweenthese two program components reduces conflicts that may arisewith respect to site control practices. More importantly, good com-munication or program integration can reduce program costs, in-

Responseswere receivedfrom 32 urbanrunoffprogramsaround thecountryrepresentingnine cities, tencounties, fiveregionalauthorities,and eightstates.


3-3

10%30%

60%

Counties

crease staff productivity, help assureproper performance of BMPs, and en-hance program effectiveness.

Cities

The two program components areeither integrated or administeredby the same staff in seven cities(78%). Of the two cities with sepa-rate programs, the programs inBellevue, Washington were inte-grated until recently, when theywere separated.

Counties

The two programs are integratedin six counties (60%). In PrinceGeorges County the plan reviewfor erosion and sediment controlis done by the local Soil Conser-vation District, while inspectionand enforcement are done by theCounty. Programs in three coun-ties (30%) are separate. The Som-erset County, N. J. program onlyaddresses stormwater manage-ment as State law assigns soil ero-sion and sediment control to theSoil Conservation Districts.


The erosion/sediment control andstormwater management pro-grams are integrated in all fiveregional authorities (100%).

States

The programs are integrated infour states (50%), but are sepa-rate in the other four states.

Closecoordinationbetween theerosion andsedimentcontrol pro-gram and thestormwatermanagementprogram isgenerallyrecognized asbeingessential foreffective sitecontrol duringconstruction.

- no

- yes

22%

78%

Cities

- yes

- yescombination

100%


- yes

50%

50%

States

3%28%

69%

Overall Statistics

Are the two programsintegrated?

no -

- no

- no

- yes

- yes

no -


3-4

Seven citiesand all tencounties listwater quality asan importantreason forprogramimplementation.

Six cities andall ten countieslist flooding asan importantimpetus fortheir program.

Overall Statistics

The erosion/sediment control and urban runoff programs in22 jurisdictions (68%) are integrated, while they are adminis-tered separately in nine jurisdictions (28%). The PrinceGeorges County program (3%) involves a combination of lo-cal entities with the local soil conservation district doing planreview, and the local government doing inspection and en-forcement.

1b. The Impetus for Program Implementation

Cities

Seven cities (77%) list water quality concerns as an importantreason in program implementation, with six cities (66%) listingflooding and channel erosion. Ground water concerns arecited by four programs (44%), while impetus for two programs(22%) are requirements by other entities, such as the NPDESstorm water program or state programs. Several programscite the protection and/or preservation of a specific resource,such as the Edwards Aquifer (Austin, Texas), aquatic habitat(Olympia, Washington), stream protection (Seattle, Washing-ton), or the Winter Park Chain of Lakes (Winter Park, Florida).Cities cite an average of four separate reasons for theirprogram's implementation.

Counties

Flooding and water quality are important impetuses for pro-gram implementation in all ten of the counties (100%). Chan-nel erosion is an important reason in nine counties (90%).Programs in six counties (60%) are required by other jurisdic-tions, while the programs in four counties (40%) cite groundwater protection or recharge concerns. Aquatic habitat pro-tection and wetlands protection (30%) are listed by three coun-ties, and fisheries issues are an impetus for two county pro-grams (20%). Counties cite an average of 4.6 reasons fortheir program's implementation.


Flooding is cited by all five regional authorities (100%) as astimulus for program implementation, while four programs(80%) also list water quality. Resource protection is includedas a program impetus in three programs (60%) - all Florida


3-5

water management districts. Three programs list channel ero-sion (60%) as a program impetus, and ground water issuesare included by two programs. Specific resources to be pro-tected included wetlands (Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission, Suwannee River WMD) and lakes (NIPC). Only theSouth Florida WMD cites stormwater treatment requirementsimposed by another entity as the impetus for program imple-mentation, even though its statutory authority clearly lists thisas a responsibility of the district. These responses indicatethat regional programs are established primarily to addressspecific local or regional concerns, as opposed to city or countyprograms which may be implemented in response to require-ments imposed by federal, state, or regional entities. Regionalauthorities cite an average of 4.6 reasons for implementingtheir program.

States

All eight states list water quality protection (100%) as a pro-gram stimulus, while flooding is also an impetus in five pro-grams (62%). Channel erosion is an important concern in threeprograms (37%), and being required by others also is cited bythree programs. Other specific reasons for program implemen-tation include ground water (Maryland), sedimentation (Mary-land), wetlands (New Jersey), and fisheries and shellfish(Washington). States cite an average of 3.1 reasons for theirprogram's implementation.

Overall Statistics

In general, the stimulus for establishing state programs (3.1reasons/program) appears to be more narrowly focused thanfor regional and local programs, which seem to be more broadlybased and created to address more diverse issues. Countyand regional programs average 4.6 reasons/program, slightlymore than the 4.4 for city programs. It is very important torecognize that most successful urban runoff control programstypically have multiple goals and objectives, trying to addressseveral of the adverse impacts associated with urbanization.This is important because it helps to build broader supportand consensus for implementing urban runoff control programs.While the objectives are often mutual, special expertise andresources may be required to properly address each one, avery important consideration when program budgets and re-sources are considered. It must be recognized that each ob-

It is veryimportant torecognize thatmost success-ful urbanrunoff controlprogramstypically havemultiple goalsand objectives,trying toaddress sev-eral of theadverseimpactsassociatedwithurbanization.


3-6

jective often requires a separate program component, with itsown funding and resource needs. This is one reason whysuccessful stormwater management programs usually evolve,becoming more comprehensive and complex over time.

2. Stormwater Management

2a. The Basic Goal of the Stormwater Management Program

The basic goal of the stormwater management program is directlyrelated to the initial impetus for the program. However, this ques-tion focuses on specific issues instead of common goals or rea-sons for program implementation such as protection of health,well-being, or property. As expected, program goals are as var-ied as the programs. It should be noted the program goals areoften very numerous, taking a page or more in a program's legalauthority documents. Therefore, statistics are not really indica-tive of the breadth of a program's goals, or the issues associatedwith program development and implementation.

Cities

The city urban runoff control programs list many highly diverseprogram goals, reflecting the many different impacts that havearisen locally in association with urbanization. However, thereare some common threads in the responses. Six of the nineprograms (66%) list protection of citizens, property, and thepublic interest as a goal. This should not be surprising sinceone of the primary purposes of government is the protection ofthe public's health, safety, and welfare. Other goals, such aswater quality or flooding protection, are cited less frequently.Thus it appears that the implementation of any city programmust consider public protection as a key program element.

Counties

While there are some slight differences between program goalscited by cities and counties, protection is also a prominentgoal of county programs. However, the object of protectionshifts from the general to specifics, with protection of resourcesor environmental quality important. Another important goal ofcounty programs is maintenance - of surface water quality,waterways, and environmental quality. This shift in focus maybe related to the lower population density of counties whencompared to cities. Many cities have developed so denselythat natural environmental goals often are not realistic. The

Stormwaterprogramgoals are asvaried as theprograms.

It should benoted thatprogramgoals are of-ten very nu-merous,taking a pageor more in aprogram'slegal authoritydocuments.


3-7

runoff associated with increased urbanization has caused sig-nificant impacts felt by many residents, such as flooding orwater pollution. Counties, with less development and lowerpopulation densities, may experience similar but more local-ized problems that generally affect fewer residents. They alsogenerally have more extensive natural resources which aremore in need of protection or maintenance, not restoration.


The regional programs do not appear to have a common setof goals that reflect a generic list of items (flooding, water qual-ity, aquatic resources) that are important local or regionalneeds or issues in the establishment of these programs. Typi-cally, regional stormwater management programs or author-ities are created to address urbanization issues or needs ex-tending beyond normal county or city boundaries. Since ur-ban runoff effects are associated with the cumulative impactsof all of the land use changes within a watershed,regionalization is an effective strategy for solving stormwaterproblems. A good example is the Urban Drainage and FloodControl District of Denver, whose goals are to protect the livesand property of citizens from regional floods and more local-ized flash floods. This very clear mandate arose from con-cerns associated with conditions specific to the Denver re-gion. Another approach is taken by the Northeastern IllinoisPlanning Commission, whose primary role is to provide tech-nical assistance to the region's local governments and devel-opers. With respect to stormwater management, the NIPC isencouraging and assisting local governments to implement pro-grams with regionally consistent standards.

The three Florida water management districts (South Florida,Southwest Florida, and Suwannee River) represent a fairlyunique institutional arrangement with very broad water re-sources planning, management, and regulatory responsibili-ties. As set forth in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the con-struction of stormwater systems shall not be harmful to waterresources or inconsistent with the District's objectives. Toachieve this goal, consideration is given to their impact onwater quality, fish and wildlife, wetlands, floodplains, recre-ation, navigation, and to the public's health, safety, and wel-fare. The programs of the WMDs are much more regulatorythan those of the other two regional authorities. Their ap-proach may not be possible in other regions of the countrydue to a state's statutes and institutional framework. How-

Many citieshavedeveloped sodensely thatnaturalenvironmentalgoals oftenare notrealistic, andthe runoffassociatedwith increasedurbanizationhas causedsignificantimpacts felt bymany resi-dents, such asflooding orwaterpollution.


3-8

ever, Florida's stormwater program institutional framework,which establishes a partnership between the Florida Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, the state's five water man-agement districts, and its cities and counties merits consider-ation wherever possible.

States

While all of the state programs mention goals which are spe-cific to their programs, several common goals exist in all ofthese programs: prevention, management, and protection.Prevention of additional water quantity or quality impacts fromrunoff associated with urbanization is being recognized as animportant strategy essential to either protection or manage-ment efforts. With respect to urban runoff control, preventionof water quality or quantity impacts from land use changes ismuch more effective and cost-effective than other strategies.Management typically is stated with respect to limiting the post-development impacts of stormwater runoff, especially the peakdischarge rate. Protection goals are not stated in terms ofhuman protection, but rather in terms of resource protectionsuch as protection of shellfish beds or fish habitats (Washing-ton). While almost all programs stress the need for educa-tion, only Delaware's state program includes education as aspecific program goal.

2b. Peak discharge Rate Performance Standards

Traditionally, to provide flooding protection and minimize down-stream impacts, urban stormwater programs have focused on man-

Severalcommon goalsexist in all ofthese stateprograms:prevention,management,andprotection.

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Basic Goal of the Stormwater Management Program

flooding

peak control

water quality

Percent

volume control


3-9

aging the post-development peak discharge rate. Specific per-formance standards and design criteria to control the post-devel-opment peak rate are established in 30 of the programs (94%).The Florida DEP program relies upon water management districtor local requirements to manage peak rate, while the Pennsylva-nia program requires compliance with local or watershed specificpeak rate criteria, if they have been established.

Typically, the performance standard is to limit the post-develop-ment peak discharge rate to pre-development rates for a singlespecified design storm. Eight of the programs (27%) limit peakrates for a single storm event, usually the 25-yr, 24-hr storm butoccasionally the 100-yr event is used. As concern about channelerosion has increased, programs have started to limit the post-development peak rate for multiple storms. Recent research hasshown that bankfull flow occurs during the 2-yr storm and limitingpeak rate for this event helps to maintain channel stability. Theserecent scientific findings have been implemented by 22 of theprograms (73%), with 20 of them requiring control of the 2-yr stormin addition to a larger storm for flood protection. In most pro-grams, the larger storm is a 10-yr, 24-hr storm, with 25-yr or 100-yr storms used less frequently. The Suwannee River WMD re-quires control of the "critical duration storm" which is defined asthe storm creating the largest difference in pre- and post-devel-opment peak rates. This requires analysis of all storms from a 2-yr, 24-hr to a 100-yr 24 hour storm.

2c. Stormwater Treatment Performance Standards

Before effective design criteria can be established for specificstormwater treatment practices, a minimum level of treatmentneeds to be specified. This treatment performance standard canbe narrative such as "discharges will not violate water quality stan-dards" or quantitative such as "reduction of post-development load-ings". Over the years, many of the programs have implementedload reduction performance standards, usually for annual load-ings but occasionally for seasonal loads. Examples of this ap-proach may be for 80% reduction of suspended solids on an an-nual basis, or more specific suspended solids loading limits dur-ing spawning seasons. Performance standards have been se-lected due to the highly variable nature of precipitation events,storm inter-event times, land uses, pollutant accumulation andwashoff rates, and runoff pollutant characteristics, and the diffi-culty of incorporating these variables into another type of stan-dard. Another reason is because of the questionable applicabil-ity of current water column chemistry standards to intermittent,

Typically, theperformancestandard is tolimit the post-developmentpeak dis-charge rate topre-develop-ment rates fora single speci-fied storm.


3-10

wet weather discharges.

Seventeen of the 32 urban stormwater programs (53%) have per-formance standards for the treatment of runoff. Thirteen of theseprograms specify a reduction in runoff loading, with 11 programsrequiring stormwater management systems to reduce annual post-development pollutant loading by 80%, typically for total sus-pended solids. Alexandria's performance standard is no increasein loading for new development, and a decrease in current load-ing by 10% for redevelopment projects. The performance stan-dard in Washington County (OR) is 65% reduction in total phos-phorus loading. Within Austin's Barton Springs watershed, theperformance standard is no increase in loading for 13 param-eters. Four programs use a narrative performance standard, ei-ther no adverse water quality impacts (Austin, NIPC) or meet waterquality standards (Montgomery County, Prince Georges County).Interestingly, an additional nine programs require stormwater tobe treated before discharge. These programs do not have a per-formance standard but use a design criteria which specifies adesign storm or minimum runoff treatment volume. Six of the nineprograms are located in Washington State and use the Stormwa-ter Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, which speci-fies treatment of the 6-month, 24-hr standards

2d. Volume Performance Standards

Reflecting the relative newness of the importance of controllingrunoff volume, only seven programs (22%) have specific perfor-mance standards for this important runoff characteristic. Onlythree of these programs (Clark Co., Maricopa Co., and SRWMD)require the post-development volume to not exceed pre-devel-opment volume on all sites. Three programs (Orlando, KitsapCo., SWFWMD) require volume control in closed basins only(those without an outlet). Olympia (WA) requires maintaining the100-yr volume on site only if soil conditions provide a percolationrate of greater than six inches per hour.

2e. Basis of Design Criteria

To achieve the program's goals, nearly all urban runoff controlprograms establish performance standards and design criteria forthe various BMPs used in the jurisdiction. Performance standardsestablish the desired goal such as the maximum peak dischargerate, minimum treatment level, or allowable volume of runoff .Design criteria provide guidance to the regulated public and prac-titioners on how to design stormwater systems that will achieve

To achieve theprogram'sgoals, nearlyall urbanrunoff controlprogramsestablishperformancestandards anddesign criteriafor the variousBMP's used inthejurisdiction.

17 of the 32urbanstormwaterprograms(53%) haveperformancestandards forthe treatmentof runoff.


3-11

the program's desired level of performance. When reviewing thestatistics presented in this section, the reader is cautioned toremember that the urban runoff control programs analyzedare not representative of the nation's programs which prima-rily are still flood control oriented (drainage programs). Rather,they tend to represent a highly skewed sampling of successfulprograms that address both the flood control and water qualityimpacts of urban stormwater.

Cities

Eight of the nine city programs (88%) list peak discharge con-trol and water quality concerns as a basis for their design cri-teria. Additionally, four of the cities (44%) say they use vol-ume control (reducing the total volume of stormwater runoff)as a basis for the program's design criteria. As expected, sevenof the eight cities using peak discharge control cite floodingas an impetus for program implementation.

Counties

All ten counties (100%) cite peak discharge control as a basisfor their design criteria. Nine counties (90%) list water quality,while seven counties (70%) include volume control as a basisfor their program's design criteria.


All five regional authorities (100%) list peak discharge controland water quality control as the basis for their program's de-sign criteria. Volume control is cited by four of the five authori-ties (80%).

States

Six of the eight states (75%) list peak discharge control andwater quality treatment as a basis for their program's designcriteria. Interestingly, Pennsylvania cites only peak dischargecontrol while the Florida DEP lists only water quality, with peakdischarge control a responsibility of the regional water man-agement districts. Volume control is cited as a basis for de-sign criteria by only three of the states (37%), all of which alsolist peak discharge control and water quality treatment.

Limiting peakdischargesfrom landdevelopmenthas long beenused as amethod toreduce down-stream im-pacts associ-ated with withincreased dis-charge rates ofstormwaterrunoff.


3-12

Overall Statistics

Reflecting the long traditional focus of urban runoff programson flood protection, 93% of the programs use peak dischargecontrol as a basis for design criteria. Limiting peak dischargesfrom land development has long been used as a method toreduce downstream impacts associated with increased dis-charge rates of stormwater runoff. This also reflects the im-portance of flood control as an impetus for program imple-mentation (75% of the programs).

Considering the skewed sampling of urban runoff control pro-grams, it is not unexpected that 28 of the 32 programs re-viewed (87.5%) use stormwater treatment as a basis for theirdesign criteria. This corresponds closely with the 90% of theprograms which list water quality as an impetus for their pro-gram. Reflecting the multiple objectives of urban stormwatermanagement programs, nearly every one of the programs em-phasizing stormwater treatment also use peak discharge con-trol as a basis for their design criteria. By using both peakdischarge control and stormwater treatment as a basis for de-sign criteria, these programs can more effectively achieve mul-tiple program goals including minimizing channel erosion andprotecting downstream habitats and water resources.

It is not surprising that volume control is not as frequently usedas a basis for program design criteria. Only recently has theimportance of the total volume of stormwater runoff beenrecognized as an important contributor to downstream flood-ing, water quality degradation, and channel erosion. Programsthat limit or otherwise control the increased volume of storm-water runoff can most effectively reduce the potential down-stream impacts resulting from increased urbanization. How-ever, reducing runoff volume presents many problems giventhe current state-of-the-art for stormwater management prac-tices. Runoff volume can be reduced only by infiltration or byreuse of stormwater. A common problem cited by several pro-grams is the difficulty in assuring the long-term performanceof infiltration practices. Additionally, stormwater reuse is aninnovative practice which currently is being used in Floridabut for which little long term performance information exists.Therefore, due to its complex nature, volume control is mucheasier to state as a goal than to implement. However, giventhe importance of volume control, research on the design,operation, and maintenance of BMPs which effectively reducerunoff volume should be a priority.

By using bothpeak dis-charge controland stormwa-ter treatmentas a basis fordesign criteria,programs canmoreeffectivelyachievemultiple pro-gram goalsincludingminimizingchannel ero-sion andprotectingdownstreamhabitats andwaterresources.


3-13

2f. Exemptions and Waivers

The large number of projects disturbing land or creating a storm-water discharge implies a need for exempting or waiving require-ments for certain projects. The exemption or waiver may be frompermitting, from plan review approval, or even from the program'sdesign criteria or other requirements. Exemptions and waiversare integral to program implementation, since they reduce neededprogram resources. A major issue associated with this concept isidentifying what threshold is reasonable. Too many exemptionsand waivers can seriously undermine program implementation andeffectiveness. Therefore, to overcome potential problems, it isessential to strike a balance between over and under-regulation.

Cities

All nine city programs have exemptions and waivers for cer-tain types of projects, with none of them requiring approval forevery type of development or land disturbing activity.

Seven of the nine cities (77%) list single family homes as be-ing eligible for exemptions or waivers. Typically, this is re-stricted to homes that are not part of a subdivision. Theseexemptions for homes often are limited only to stormwater man-agement requirements, not erosion and sediment control dur-ing construction. However, Ft. Collins exempts them from ero-sion and sediment control but not from stormwater require-ments. Another common exemption is based on the amountof disturbed area, with projects below a specified thresholdqualifying for an exemption or waiver. The City of Alexandriaexempts projects less than 2,500 square feet, while Washing-ton D.C. uses 5,000 square feet as its threshold.

All of the city programs exempt agriculture and forestry projects,reflecting the urban nature of these jurisdictions and the lackof agriculture or forestry within their boundaries. Seattle, Wash-ington specifically exempts State Department of Transporta-tion projects. Whether this is a common exemption for localprograms is unknown, but it is assumed that state projectsrequire local permits where state or regional agencies do notimpose erosion, sediment, or stormwater control requirements.

.Counties

All ten county programs include exemptions and waivers for

All nine cityprograms andall ten countyprogramshaveexemptionsand waiversfor certaintypes ofprojects.


3-14

certain types of land disturbing activities with no programs re-quiring approval for all activities.

Nine of the ten counties (90%) provide exemptions or waiversfor agricultural activities. King County (WA) exempts agricul-tural activities from erosion and sediment control but requiresstormwater management practices such as limiting animal den-sity and animal access to streams. Forestry activities are ex-empt or waived in seven of the ten programs (70%). A majorconcern with forestry exemptions is that tree cutting often is afirst step in urban development at a particular site. Severalprograms address this concern by specifying that forestry op-erations are eligible for waivers or exemptions only if they arenot being done in conjunction with development activities.

Single family home construction is exempt in six counties(60%), but with a number of restrictions. A common restric-tion is that single family home construction is exempt only if itis not part of a larger plan of development such as a subdivi-sion. Another common restriction for single family home con-struction is a limit on the amount of disturbed area before for-mal approval of either erosion and sediment control or storm-water management is needed.

One common theme in both city and county program exemp-tions and waivers is the use of a disturbed area threshold.Five counties (50%) use a maximum disturbed area belowwhich approval is not required. In all of these programs, thedisturbed area limitation is very small, generally less than 5,000square feet. It is apparent from the small size of the disturbedarea threshold that these programs consider the need for storm-water management controls at development sites to be vital.This represents an important fundamental principle of urbanrunoff management - managing the cumulative effects of allland uses within a watershed.


The responses to this question reflect the differing nature ofthe regional authorities. The Urban Drainage and Flood Con-trol District of Denver, which does not approve developmentproposals, lists exemptions and waivers as not being appli-cable. Instead, within this region, they are appropriate at thelocal government level. The Northeastern Illinois PlanningCommission recommends local government programs provideexemptions and waivers for agriculture and forestry.

One commontheme in bothcity andcounty pro-gramexemptionsand waivers isthe use of adisturbed areathreshold,generally lessthan 5,000 ft2.


3-15

Florida's water management districts use several different ex-emptions, at least from the permitting process. The SRWMDand the SWFWMD provide noticed exemptions for agricul-tural operations conducted in compliance with a site specificConservation Plan which includes certain minimum BMPs. TheSFWMD permits all agricultural activities except those fewusing a closed water management system. All of the districtsexempt single family home construction that is not part of alarger plan of development. They also exempt developmentsbelow a certain size or amount of impervious surface fromstormwater quantity requirements, but not from stormwatertreatment.

States

All eight state programs provide exemptions and waivers foragricultural activities in their programs. Seven of the eightstates list exemptions or waivers for forestry activities (87%).Florida exempts agriculture if it is performed in compliancewith a site-specific conservation plan, while forestry opera-tions are exempt if they are conducted in accordance with therequirements of the state's Silviculture BMP Manual. The highproportion of agriculture and forestry exemptions should beexpected since this project focuses on state urban runoff man-agement programs. As reflected by the reasons for programimplementation and by their program goals, these programsfocus primarily on minimizing the impacts of runoff associatedwith land development and urbanization, not agricultural orforestry activities.

Single family homes are exempt or waived in all eight states,but with certain restrictions. Florida DEP limits the exemptionto homes that are not part of a larger plan of development,with subdivisions having a control plan for the entire develop-ment. Five of the state programs have a disturbed area thresh-old below which single family homes are exempt. These limi-tations are variable, with no consistent pattern (Delaware andMaryland - 5,000 square feet; Pennsylvania - 10,000 squarefeet; New Jersey and Washington - one acre for stormwatermanagement only). Maryland's program exempts single fam-ily home construction on lots with a minimum size of two acres.

Several state programs also authorize local ordinances to pro-vide exemptions or waivers different from those specified bythe state. Utility projects are specifically discussed in the Dela-

The highproportion ofagricultureand forestryexemptionsshould beexpectedsince thisproject fo-cuses on ur-ban runoffmanagementprograms.


3-16

ware and South Carolina programs, with Delaware exemptingutility projects less than 5,000 square feet and South Carolinaexempting utilities operating under a certificate of environmen-tal compatibility.

Overall Statistics

All agencies involved in the day-to-day review and approvalof stormwater management allow exemptions and waivers forcertain activities. General statistics probably are not appro-priate, since certain exemptions or waivers are not included inareas where they are not appropriate (i.e., city programs notmentioning agriculture or forestry). However, there are somecommon concepts used with respect to exemptions and waiv-ers. Most of the jurisdictions (71%) provide exemptions orwaivers for single family homes. But these often have restric-tions or limitations, such as disturbed area, lot size, or notbeing a part of a larger subdivision. Fourteen programs (43%)specify a minimum area of disturbance before requiring for-mal approval of stormwater management. Only two programs,both at the state level, specifically address utility construction.There is no doubt that utility construction can have a signifi-cant impact on erosion of lands and delivery of sediment toreceiving waters, and therefore needs to be addressed. How-ever, it appears that this land disturbing activity often is notregulated or required to implement erosion and sediment con-trols.

2g. Practices Favored

Best Management Practices (BMPs) commonly are defined ascontrol techniques used for a given set of conditions to providewater quantity and water quality enhancement at a minimum cost.Therefore, it is not unexpected that the practices favored by thestormwater management programs vary considerably without anyconsistent pattern. Instead, preferred practices reflect local con-ditions and past experience with their long term performance.

Cities

A slight majority of city programs (56%) indicate a preferencefor specific stormwater management practices. The remain-ing city programs (44%) do not favor any particular practice.

As expected, among the city programs favoring a specific prac-tice, the preferred BMP(s) is related to the program's location,

Among thecity programsfavoring aspecificpractice, thepreferredBMP(s) isrelated to theprogram'slocation,experiences,andobjectives.


3-17

experiences, and objectives. The Austin (TX) program, whichhas long advanced the state-of-the-art in sand filter systems,favors detention in conjunction with filter basins to treat runoffand protect its aquifer and surface waters. Olympia's programestablishes a hierarchy of preferred treatment practices in-cluding constructed wetlands, wet ponds, biofilters, sand fil-ters, and detention vaults. The District of Columbia programstresses infiltration practices, but like the program in highlyurbanized Alexandria (VA), approves more sand filter installa-tion because they take up less space or can be installed un-derground. The program in Winter Park (FL) stresses the useof surface water retention to help recharge the ground waterand reduce runoff volume.

Counties

Eight of the ten county programs (80%) favor certain prac-tices, with six of them preferring infiltration of runoff if site con-ditions are appropriate. Two programs (25%) prefer the useof wet or dry detention basins. Other practices favored bycounty programs include source controls, biofiltration, con-structed wetlands, and sand filter systems.


All five of the regional programs (100%) cite a preference forcertain types of stormwater management practices, namelydetention or retention. The SWFWMD and the SRWMD alsoallow the use of detention with filtration and cite Florida's Sil-viculture BMP Manual for forestry activities. Infiltration of run-off was not listed as a preference by any of the regional au-thorities, although the rules of all three Florida WMDs provideincentives (lower treatment volume) for retention facilities.

States

Five of the eight state programs (62%) specify a preferencefor certain stormwater management practices. Additionally,South Carolina's rules include design criteria for certain prac-tices. Florida's, Maryland's and Washington's programs pre-fer infiltration of runoff where site conditions are appropriate.Extended wet ponds are preferred practices in Delaware andNew Jersey, and in Florida if site conditions are inappropriatefor infiltration. The programs in Delaware and Florida alsopromote the use of swales and filters, along with constructedwetlands.

Eight of theten countyprograms(80%) favorcertainpractices, withsix of thempreferringinfiltration ofrunoff if siteconditions areappropriate.


3-18

It is importantto note thatmanyprograms lista hierarchy ofpreferredpractices de-pending onthe specificconditionsfound at adevelopmentsite.

Overall Statistics

Specific urban runoff control practices are cited in 23 of thejurisdictions (71%). In 13 programs (56%), infiltration of run-off is the preferred first option in controlling urban runoff if siteconditions are appropriate. Detention practices, either wet ordry, are a preferred practice in 13 programs (56%). Otherspecific practices such as biofiltration, constructed wetlands,and filters also are listed by some programs. It is important tonote that many programs list a hierarchy of preferred prac-tices depending on the specific conditions found at a develop-ment site. This hierarchy typically is related to site conditionssuch as soil type and water table elevation, rainfall character-istics, vegetation growing season, and experience by the pro-gram in the successful long term operation and maintenanceof certain practices.

2h. Design Assistance and Guidance Availability

The design of stormwater management practices, especially thoseused to treat urban runoff, is a relatively new field which is evolv-ing rapidly. Sand filtration systems and constructed wetlands arebut two examples of relatively new BMPs which are still undergo-ing testing to optimize their treatment effectiveness. Much workremains to be done to maximize BMP water quality benefits, evenon designing wet detention systems, probably the most commonpractice used throughout the country . Many practitioners withresponsibility for designing practices do not have access to thenumerous research reports on BMP design and performance, havethe time to study this highly technical information, or have a lot ofexperience in this field.

To reduce the burden on the regulated public, and to minimize thetime needed for plan approval and permit issuance, 91% (29) ofthe urban runoff control programs are providing guidance and tech-nical assistance to practitioners. Often design criteria and guid-ance is specified within a program's regulations, especially whenthe program first begins. Ten of the 29 programs (34%) providingguidance currently do so only within their regulations. Later, asthe program evolves and obtains resources, more detailed BMPhandbooks often are developed and published. Twenty of theprograms providing guidance (69%) have either published BMPhandbooks, or are using one prepared by a regional or state pro-gram. Finally, many programs conduct workshops or seminars,often in association with professional associations, to help edu-


3-19

cate the regulated community about designing, constructing, main-taining, and operating effective stormwater management practices.

With respect to the individual programs reviewed for this project,the following summary is provided on their use of BMP guide-lines:

Eight of the city programs provide guidance with half of themdoing it within their regulations and the other half using BMPmanuals. Of those using manuals, all of the city programshave published a manual except Winter Park (FL) which usesthe Florida DEP BMP manual.

All ten county programs provide guidance on designing prac-tices with only four of them relying upon their regulations. Ofthe six programs using manuals, the three programs in thePuget Sound region use the manual developed for their areaby the state.

All five regional programs use manuals to provide guidanceon designing practices. The SWFWMD relies upon its Basisof Review Handbook, publishes explanatory technical memo-randa, and uses the Florida DEP manual.

Among the state programs, only Pennsylvania and Virginia donot provide guidance on the design of practices.Pennsylvania's program defers to specifics within voluntarylocal watershed plans while Virginia is still developing its storm-water program requirements, especially for treating urban run-off. The other four state programs have published BMP hand-books to assist practitioners and the regulated public.

2i. Management and Source Control Practices

Urban runoff management practices can be broadly categorizedinto two groups or tool boxes: structural controls and nonstruc-tural controls. Structural controls, such as retention, detention,or filters, are used to help mitigate the adverse water quantity andquality impacts associated with urban runoff. Nonstructural con-trols, such as minimizing impervious area, routing runoff to pervi-ous areas, or public education, are used to prevent or reduce theurban runoff pollutants. Source controls, which reduce pollutantsat their source of potential introduction into urban runoff, are amajor category of nonstructural controls. Source controls includecovering of material handling areas where pollutants may washoff into receiving systems. They can also include personal ac-

Sourcecontrols areseen as anessentialcomponent ofsuccessfulstormwatermanagementprograms.There isincreasingrecognitionthat treatingrunoff withtoday's BMPscan only beeffective to acertain extent.


3-20

tions related to lawn fertilization. Source controls are actions,generally inexpensive and common sense, which can provide sig-nificant water quality benefits by their implementation.

2i(1). Are source controls encouraged

As seen below, the vast majority of programs (27) encouragethe use of source controls. There is increasing recognitionthat treatment of runoff, using today's practices, can only beeffective to a certain extent. Source controls are seen as anessential component of successful stormwater managementprograms. They can be incorporated in new developments aspart of the site planning process to help protect important sitefeatures such as natural depressional areas, wetlands, or steepslopes, or used to minimize the increase in urban runoff peakdischarge rate, volume, and pollutant loading. Equally impor-tant, source controls represent a cost-effective way to reducerunoff pollutants from already developed land uses, especiallyin highly urbanized areas where land is either too expensiveor simply unavailable for traditional BMPs. Additionally, whenimplemented at businesses, source controls can not only re-duce urban runoff pollution but also reduce costs and improveprofits by reducing the use of certain materials or by increas-ing their reuse and recycling. Even homeowners can savemoney, time, and labor by using source controls such as natu-ral landscaping which needs little or no fertilizers, pesticides,or water.

Sourcecontrols cannot onlyreduce urbanrunoffpollution, butalso reducecosts andimprove prof-its by reducingthe use of cer-tain materialsor byincreasingtheir reuse andrecycling.

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Percentage of Programs Encouraging Source Controls

States


Overall

Cities

Counties


3-21

2i(2). Land uses for which source controls are intended

Cities

Source controls are encouraged for all land uses in seven ofthe programs (77%), perhaps reflecting the knowledge thatthese nonstructural controls can reduce runoff pollutants fromalready developed areas where structural BMPs are not fea-sible. Some of the city programs encourage or require sourcecontrols on specific land uses such as commercial and indus-trial, automotive, those discharging to natural areas (wetlands),and multi-family dwellings. Single family homeowners educa-tion is not stressed in only two of the programs.

Counties

Seven county programs (70%) encourage source controls onall land uses. Source controls at construction sites is speci-fied by two of the programs, while individual programs focuson getting specific land uses such as urban, agricultural, in-dustries, and businesses to use source controls.Regional Authorities

Each of the four regional authorities emphasizing source con-trols target different land uses. The Northeastern Illinois Plan-ning Commission stresses source control in existing devel-oped areas. The Southwest Florida WMD emphasizes agri-culture, while the Suwannee River WMD targets industrial andcommercial sites. The Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Con-trol District encourages all land uses to use source controls.

States

Of the six state programs which emphasize source controls,four (66%) encourage them on all land uses. South Carolina'sprogram targets truck stops, industrial sites, large commercialsites, and multi-family units. Pennsylvania's stresses agricul-tural activities in their source control efforts.

Overall Statistics

Nineteen of the programs (59%) encourage source controlson all land use activities. Industrial or commercial activitiesare targeted for the use of source controls by 21% of the pro-grams, while only three programs encourage their use on ag-riculture.

19 of thepro-grams(59%)encouragesourcecontrols on allland useactivities.


3-22

2i(3). Favored source control practices

Cities

The types of source controls favored by city runoff programsis as varied as the programs, their land uses, and the types ofproblems they face. The favored practices include:

capture and recycling of oils, lubricants, fuels, antifreezeintegrated pest management, chemical storage, home own-ers education, household wasteeducationenforcementpollution prevention, wetlands and habitat protection andrestorationsource control through maintenance agreements with othercity agenciescovering vehicle maintenance areas, berms around bar-rels, disposal of wasterecycling, street sweepingsurface water management

Counties

County programs encourage the use of the following sourcecontrols:

limit impervious areas, protection of stream buffers, sourcecontrolas contained in the Puget Sound Manual for specific in-dustries and businesses (2 responses)erosion control, housekeeping, less toxic productschemical use, roof for storage/work areas, maintenance offacilitieseducation for fertilizer/pesticide use, disposal of waste, pro-tection of riparian areasmaterial handling, covering, proper plumbingmaterial protection and storage, spill prevention, pesticideand fertilizer controlidentified as part of NPDES program through stormwaterpollution prevention planningerosion control, water quality practices, wetland ponds,swales

The types ofsource con-trols favoredby the urbanrunoff controlprograms areas varied asthe programs,their landuses, and thetypes ofproblems theyface.


3-23


The four regional programs encourage the use of the follow-ing source controls:

littoral zones must be vegetatedthe Soil Conservation Service BMPs for irrigation manage-ment, nutrient and pesticide managementno discharge of industrial waste, containment planminimize directly connected impervious areas, good house-keeping

States

Source controls promoted by the five state programs include:

hazardous waste collection, fertilizer and pest controls,minimize impervious areasagriculture conservation plans, tilling practices, animalwaste managementcovering potential sources, sequencing, trash handlingminimize impervious surfaces, curbing, wetland impactsas detailed in design manual for specific industries andbusinesses (State of Washington)

2i(4). Is detailed guidance available regarding source con-trols?

As seen from the above listing of preferred practices, there isa wide disparity among programs as to what constitutes sourcecontrol, and which source control activities should be stressed.However, what is important is that benefits of source controlsis widely acknowledged and that they are encouraged by mostof the programs. Equally important, 72% of the programsprovide guidance on the use and implementation of sourcecontrols. Since source controls are a relatively new conceptin urban runoff management programs and they are unfamil-iar to many people and businesses, providing guidance is es-sential to their successful use. Additionally, since source con-trols can help individuals reduce "Pointless Personal Pollu-tion" by modifying their daily activities they are really best imple-mented voluntarily, not by mandating compliance, especiallywithout clear guidance and long term public education pro-grams.

Benefits ofsourcecontrols arewidelyacknowledgedand they areencouragedby most of theprograms.

72% of theprogramsprovideguidance onthe use andimplementa-tion of sourcecontrols.


3-24

3. Erosion and Sediment Control

3a. Rationale or Philosophy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program

Cities

"Prevention", of erosion and the transport of sediment, sedi-mentation, or water quality impacts, is the rationale for theprogram in four cities (44%). Minimizing erosion is the phi-losophy of three programs (33%). The intent of both of thesephilosophies is to reduce adverse impacts resulting from landdisturbing activities. First by preventing soil movement (ero-sion control) and then by minimizing soil movement (sedimentcontrol). This dual approach is the most effective way to achievethe desired goals of protecting the environment and the publicsafety.

Counties

Four basic philosophies are reflected by county programs. Pre-vention of either erosion or sedimentation is stressed by threeprograms (30%), while the goal of another three is to protectreceiving waters or downstream properties. Two programs(20%) stress minimization of erosion, while two other programsstrive to reduce sedimentation. Protecting and maintaining pub-lic health, safety, and general welfare is the general goal ofmost programs. This is not unexpected since this is one of theprincipal roles of government programs.

48% 53% 58% 63% 68% 73% 78% 83% 88% 93%

Percentage of Jurisdictions havingGuidance Available

Overall

States


Counties

Cities

In general, themajority ofprograms aredirectedtowards firstpreventingerosion andthenminimizingsedimentation,with treatmentbeing a finalmechanism atreducing theimpacts fromland disturb-ing activities.


3-25


The rationale of regional programs includes prevention (twoprograms), protection (one program), and minimization (oneprogram). The goal of the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission program is to provide technical assistance to localgovernments and the development community on effectiveregulations, programs, and practices to minimize impacts. Thisreflects their primary purpose as an advisory and technicalassistance agency rather than an implementation agency. In-terestingly, the SFWMD only considers erosion and sedimentcontrol as a compliance component of its stormwater permit-ting program. This may reflect the area's conditions (very flat,sandy soils) and the agency's origins as a drainage entity, nota water quality agency.

States

Four state programs (50%) stress minimization of soil loss orimpacts as a program goal. Controlling erosion and then pre-venting sedimentation is the primary philosophy of the otherfour programs.

Overall Statistics

Prevention is the basic philosophy of 13 programs (41%), whileten programs emphasize minimization (31%). Protection ofdownstream waters or properties is the rationale for four pro-grams (12%), and two programs stress reduction of impacts.In general, the majority of programs are directed towards firstpreventing erosion and then minimizing sedimentation, withtreatment being a final mechanism to reduce the impacts fromland disturbing activities. This is an important philosophicaldistinction. It is much harder to treat the adverse impacts ofsite erosion than it is to prevent erosion in the first place.

3b. Erosion and Sediment Control Performance Standards

Prevention, minimization, protection, and reduction are all ex-cellent goals for an erosion and sediment control program.However, to be implemented and achieved, the goals shouldbe translated into a specific performance standard. Surpris-ingly, only ten programs (31%) have adopted a specific per-formance standard. These are summarized below:

It is muchharder to treatthe adverseimpacts of siteerosion than itis to preventerosion in thefirst place.


3-26

Ft. Collins - Erosion rate during construction mustnot exceed 115% of the historic rate,while post-development rate must notexceed the historic rate.

Orlando - Limit off-site sedimentation to pre-de-velopment amounts.

Winter Park - Uses the state standard of retain sedi-ment on-site, or not exceed 29 NTUabove background.

King County - Retain sediment on-site with dis-charges < 5 NTU. (National TurbidityUnits)

Washington County - No visible/measurable (< 1 cf) off-siteerosion or visible silty runoff.

SFWMD, SWFWMD - Retain sediment on-site, or not exceedSRWMD, FLA DEP 29 NTU above background.South Carolina - 80% removal, or 0.5 mg/L settleable

solids concentration at peak of 10-yr,24-hr design storm, whichever is less.

3c. BMP Design Criteria, Guidance, and Preferred Practices

To assure that the program's goals or performance standardsare met, specific design criteria should be developed for eachmanagement practice. Additionally, to assist practitioners prop-erly design, construct, and maintain the management prac-tices, guidance should be provided. Generally, this guidanceis provided in a design manual or handbook. Erosion andsediment control programs have been implemented aroundthe county since the early 1970s. Over 20 states have pro-grams and most of these have developed and published ero-sion and sediment control handbooks. Many of these hand-books have been developed in cooperation with the NaturalResources Conservation Service (formerly the SCS). Addi-tionally, many state handbooks have used information fromthose of other states, with the Virginia and Maryland manualsbeing used as a start for many others. Consequently, the typesof practices used to prevent erosion and to minimize sedi-mentation around the country do not vary greatly. However,the practices which are favored in specific locations and thesizing of certain practices such as sediment basins and trapsdo change depending on local factors such as rainfall, soiltypes, and slopes.

The types ofpractices usedto preventerosion and tominimizesedimentationaround thecountry do notvary greatly.

The practiceswhich arefavored inspecific loca-tions and thesizing of cer-tain practicessuch as sedi-ment basinsand traps dochangedepending onlocal factorssuch asrainfall, soiltypes, andslopes.


3-27

BMP Design Criteria and Guidance

With the exception of Maricopa County, which does not havean erosion and sediment control program, all of the programsuse a design manual or handbook in which design criteria arespecified for specific management practices. Of the nine cityprograms, all but Alexandria and Winter Park, which use theirstate's manual, have published their own guidance. Only twocounty programs have developed their own manuals, with fourprograms in Washington relying on the Puget Sound Manual,and the others using the manuals of their state programs.The three Florida water management districts use the FloridaDEP manual while both the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission and the Denver Flood Control District use their ownguidance manuals. All nine state programs have publisheddesign handbooks or manuals.

Preferred Practices and Sediment Basin Design

The erosion and sediment control handbooks of all of the pro-grams contain essentially the same practices. However, cer-tain practices are used more frequently. The table below liststhe nine most preferred practices by program level.

Interestingly, seasonal limits on the amount of disturbed areaare used only in Washington state, although many other loca-tions have seasonal variations in rainfall including a distinctdry and wet season.

Sediment basins and traps are included in every erosion andsediment control manual. Sediment traps typically are usedfor small drainage areas, usually less than five acres. Sedi-ment basins, which often become part of the permanent storm-water management system, generally are used when the con-tributing drainage area is over five acres. Their design vol-ume varies greatly around the country again reflecting differ-ences in rainfall patterns. The design volume is specified inone of two ways. Either by a design storm (12 programs) or bya specific volume of runoff from the contributing area (18 pro-grams). Of those programs using a design storm, ten specifythat sediment basins must hold the 10-year, 24-hour storm,while two programs use the 2-year storm. Bellevue's programrequires a basin to capture the runoff from a 10-year if the siteis less than five acres or located more than one quarter milefrom a water body or wetland. Basins on sites larger than fiveacres or less than one quarter mile away must capture the

Design volumefor sedimentbasins isdetermined byeither a designstormapproach orby a specificvolume ofrunoff fromthe contribut-ing area.


3-28

runoff from a 2-year storm. Sediment basins constructed inthe other 18 jurisdictions must be sized to hold a specifiedvolume, generally either 1800 cf/acre of drainage area (8 pro-grams) or 3600 cf /acre (7 programs). Only five programs usea different design volume for sediment traps than for sedimentbasins. Four of these use the Puget Sound Stormwater Man-agement Manual which specifies a 2-yr design storm for trapsas opposed to a 10-yr design storm for basins.

Most Preferred Practices Table

BMP CITY COUNTY REGIONAL STATE ALL

Stage clearing 2 4 3 5 14

Seasonal disturbed 2 4 0 1 7area limits

Gravel construction 8 6 4 7 25entrance

Silt Fence 10 9 5 8 32

Straw bale 4 7 0 1 12

Temp/permanent 9 9 5 8 31vegetation

Inlet protection 6 3 3 2 14

Slope protection 5 3 3 3 14

Diversions 2 1 0 3 6

3d. Exemptions and Waivers for Erosion and Sediment Control

Cities

Four programs (44%) specifically exempt agricultural activi-ties, while forestry is exempt in three (33%). Single familyhome construction is exempt in three programs (33%), butusually with limitations such as following a standardized smallparcel plan or only if the house is not part of a subdivision.Three programs exempt projects disturbing less than a speci-fied amount of area. This threshold varies from 2,500 squarefeet in Alexandria to as little as 50 square feet in the District ofColumbia, which also uses a monetary threshold of less than$2,500. Two programs (Austin and Seattle) specifically ex-


3-29

empt state projects, while there are no exemptions in eitherBellevue or Winter Park.

Counties

Agriculture is exempt in eight programs (80%), while forestryis exempt in three (33%). Single family home construction isexempted by only two programs (20%). Four programs (40%)do not require erosion and sediment control approval onprojects disturbing less than a specified area. Projects dis-turbing under 5,000 square feet are exempt in three programs,while Clark County exempts only projects with under 2,000square feet of disturbance.

Only the program in Washington County (OR) has no exemp-tions for erosion and sediment control.


Three regional programs (60%) exempt both agriculture andforestry activities. However, the SRWMD and the SWFWMDrequire compliance with an approved Conservation Plan forfarming, and with the state's Silvicultural BMP Manual for for-estry. These two Florida water management districts also ex-empt single family homes which are not part of a subdivision.Two programs (40%) exempt projects disturbing less than aspecified area ( 5,00 square feet for the Northeastern IllinoisPlanning Commission, and 5 acres for the Urban Drainageand Flood Control District of Denver). The South Florida WaterManagement District does not exempt any projects, but theyconsider erosion and sediment control as a minor complianceactivity associated with their stormwater program.

States

Agriculture is specifically exempted in all eight state programs(100%), although Florida's program requires the farm to imple-ment the BMPs contained in an approved Conservation Plan.Six programs (75%) exempt forestry, with Florida requiring com-pliance with the state's Silviculture BMP Manual. The construc-tion of single family homes, especially those which are notpart of a subdivision, is exempt in three programs (38%). Fiveprograms (62%) exempt projects from erosion and sedimentcontrol if they disturb less than a specified area which rangesfrom 5,000 square feet (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey), to10,000 sf (Virginia), to the NPDES threshold of five acres

Agriculture,forestry, singlefamily homes,and minimumdisturbed arealimitations arethe mostcommon formof exemptionsand waiversfor erosionand sedimentcontrol.


3-30

(Pennsylvania).

Overall Statistics

Agriculture is exempt in 23 programs (72%), reflecting the em-phasis on controlling urban runoff in most of the programs re-viewed. Forestry is exempt in 15 programs (46%). Nine pro-grams (28%) exempt the construction of single family homes,while 13 programs (41%) have a disturbed area limit beforeerosion and sediment control is required. Only four programs(12%) do not have any exemptions for erosion and sedimentcontrol.

4. Program Authority and Implementation Structure

4a. Program Implementation Structure

This question reexamines why the program exists. Was it cre-ated in response to regional or local issues, or because of man-dates imposed by a higher level of government? It also examinesinstitutional relationships among various levels of government in-volved in program implementation. Unless carefully coordinatedand integrated, a program can be adversely impacted by overlap-ping authorities, such as federal, state, regional, and local re-quirements. Obviously, the more levels of authority, the greaterthe potential for conflicting requirements, making it more difficultto meet all requirements. Additionally, this can create duplicativepermitting and other program requirements. Since resources forstormwater management programs are scarce, duplication needsto be avoided to maximize benefits. Where multiple levels of au-thority are involved in program implementation, special care mustbe taken to coordinate and assure the involved entities have com-plimentary roles.

Program flexibility is another important component which can beadversely impacted by increased levels of program authority. Gen-erally, the fewer entities involved in program implementation, thegreater flexibility a program has in daily implementation and longterm evolution. Urban runoff management presents many unique,site specific challenges that are best met if a program has flexibil-ity and uses creativity.

Cities

Within the city programs, the federal NPDES program is imple-mented by the states except in Florida. Excluding the federal

Unlesscarefully coor-dinated andintegrated, aprogram canbe adverselyimpacted byoverlappingauthorities.


3-31

NPDES program, only two city programs (22%) implement theirprogram using only local requirements (Austin, Ft. Collins).The programs in five cities (55%) involve compliance with twolevels of requirements, with only two of these programs imple-menting all requirements at the local level. The other threeprograms involve at least two level of government, the cityand either the state or a regional entity. In Alexandria, threelevels of program requirements are imposed (state, regional,local), but implementation is by the city alone. Olympia's pro-gram includes requirements imposed by five levels of author-ity (state - regional, state - local, regional - regional, regional -local, and local - local), but program implementation is doneby Olympia and by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.On average, practitioners within cities must implement storm-water requirements imposed by 3.2 levels of authority, with anaverage of two authorities involved in program implementa-tion.

Counties

The federal NPDES program requirements are implementedby the states in all ten counties. Excluding NPDES, only theClark County program (10%) is implemented only with localrequirements. Seven programs (70%) involve complying withtwo levels of requirements, usually state and local. However,these requirements are implemented by the county programs.King County's program (10%) includes requirements imposedby three levels of authority, but implementation is performedat the county level. On average, practitioners within the coun-ties must implement urban runoff requirements imposed by3.1 levels of authority. However, program implementation in-volves only one entity, the county.


In two of the regional authority jurisdictions the federal NP-DES program is implemented by the state, while in the threeFlorida WMDs it is implemented by EPA. Excluding NPDES,the NEIPC program (20%) involves implementation of regionalcriteria by local governments. The SRWMD program (20%)implements state and regional criteria at the regional level,reflecting the rural nature of the governments within its ser-vice area. The Denver regional program involves regionaland local requirements and implementation, although the Dis-trict directly regulates relatively few activities. Both the SFWMDand the SWFWMD programs involve four levels of program

Generally, thefewer entitiesinvolved inprogramimplementa-tion, thegreaterflexibility aprogram hasin daily imple-mentation andlong termevolution.


3-32

requirements which are implemented either by the District orby a local government which has been delegated permittingresponsibility, typically for smaller projects. On average, prac-titioners within these regional programs must implement ur-ban runoff requirements imposed by 3.8 levels of authority.However, program implementation typically involves only oneor two entities, the regional authority and/or a local govern-ment.

States

At the state level, most stormwater management programs al-low implementation by various levels of authority dependingon the states legal institutional framework. Nearly all stateprograms allow delegation of permitting to local governments.This allows urban runoff control approval to be integrated withthe local land use approval process. It also allows the stateprogram to focus on statewide issues such as BMP research,refinement of BMP design criteria, implementation of monitor-ing programs to assess program effectiveness, targeted wa-tershed programs, and education and training.

The federal NPDES program is implemented by the states,except in Florida. South Carolina's program involves imple-mentation of state requirements by the state or by a delegatedlocal program. Programs in Delaware, Maryland, and Wash-ington impose state and local requirements, with implementa-tion done by the state and by delegated local programs. Twostate programs (Florida and Pennsylvania) include state,regional, and local requirements, with implementation involv-ing a mixture of state, regional, and local authorities, depend-ing on the location, and sometimes on the type of project. NewJersey's program imposes state requirements which are imple-mented by either a state, regional, or local authority. It alsoincludes regional requirements which are implemented by re-gional entities. Additionally, local governments may imposetheir own local requirements.

On average, practitioners within state programs must imple-ment urban runoff requirements imposed by 4.4 levels of au-thority. Program implementation may involve two to four lev-els of authority. Obviously, coordination and integration ofprogram requirements is essential when states implementstormwater programs.

Nearly all stateprogramsallowdelegation ofpermitting tolocal govern-ment. Thisallows urbanrunoff controlapproval to beintegratedwith the localland useapprovalprocess.


3-33

Overall Statistics

Only five programs (16%) involve requirements for urban run-off control that are established and implemented by a singlelevel of authority. Requirements in fifteen programs (47%)are set by two levels of authority, but plan approval is per-formed by one entity in all but two programs. Three levels ofurban runoff requirements are imposed on practitioners withinfour programs (13%), with implementation involving three en-tities in two of the programs. Two programs (6%) involve fourlevels of requirements, with plan approvals needed from twoentities. Five different levels of requirements are imposed intwo programs, with implementation involving either two or threeentities. Overall, urban runoff control programs involve theimposition of requirements from an average of 3.4 levels ofauthority. Fortunately, implementation of these multiple re-quirements is performed by a single entity in 20 programs (63%)and by two entities in eight programs.

4b. Project Permitting Procedures and Applicability

The procedures used by a program to review and approve devel-opment proposals and their corresponding erosion, sediment, andstormwater management plans are extremely important in deter-mining a program's comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Thereare several mechanisms that can be used to assure that programrequirements are met. In some programs, the review and approvalof urban runoff control plans are part of the overall developmentreview process, with no specific erosion/sediment or stormwatermanagement permit issued. In other programs, an erosion/sedi-ment control and/or stormwater management permit must be is-sued before other approvals, such as a grading or building per-mit, are issued. The submittal requirements also can vary greatly.Some programs require detailed site plans showing the locationof all BMPs, grade changes, buildings, etc., along with the sub-mittal of detailed engineering drawings, specifications, and cal-culations. Other programs may require only some of this informa-tion, or as little as a general site plan.

Urban runoff control programs use a variety of "permits". Typi-cally, these can be classified into three major types - noticed ex-emptions, general permits, and individual permits. Often noticedexemptions and general permits are equivalent, just different no-menclature.

Noticed exemptions usually are used for the approval of small,

Urban runoffcontrolprograms usea variety of"permits".Typically, theseare classifiedinto three ma-jor types:

noticedexemptions

generalpermits

individualpermits

Overall, urbanrunoff controlprogramsinvolve theimposition ofrequirementsfrom 3.4 levelsof authority.


3-34

relatively benign activities such as the addition of a small amountof impervious surface, forestry activities conducted in accordancewith a BMP manual, or the construction of a single family house.Noticed exemptions typically require the program authority to benotified a specified number of days before an activity begins. Com-pliance with certain minimum standards and the use of certainBMPs is often a condition of using the noticed exemption. Gener-ally, projects approved via noticed exemptions are not reviewedby the program's staff. Inspections usually are the responsibilityof the site engineer or contractor.

Many programs, including the NPDES stormwater program, usegeneral permits. Often these are allowed for projects which areunder a specified threshold, such as project size, disturbing lessthan a certain amount of area, or constructing less than a certainamount of impervious surface area. General permits almost al-ways require the use of specified BMPs, the preparation of siteplans with BMP locations and sequencing shown, and adherenceto other program requirements such as inspection frequency, de-sign criteria, or design storms. Typically, general permits placethe responsibility for complying with the program's requirementson the individual being regulated, especially their engineer. Of-ten an engineering certification that the plan meets the generalpermit's requirements is required, along with an as-built certifica-tion when the project is completed. Failure to comply with thegeneral permit's criteria leads to enforcement action, and some-times the need to obtain an individual permit. The submittal re-quirements for general permits, and the review of these materi-als, varies greatly depending on a program's staff resources. In-spections usually are the responsibility of the site engineer orcontract. However, many programs conduct inspections onprojects that have received general permits.

Individual permits are used by most programs as part of their imple-mentation procedures. In some programs, all projects receive anindividual permit. In most programs, individual permits are usedon projects which are either large, highly impervious, close to waterbodies, or with difficult site conditions which increase the poten-tial for off-site damage. Nearly all programs using individual per-mits require the submittal of detailed site plans, construction plans,engineering drawings, standards and specifications, calculations,and any other information needed to evaluate the project's urbanrunoff controls. This information undergoes a formal review andevaluation by the permitting authority to ensure that proper siteplanning, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater manage-ment is accomplished. Individual permits often include very spe-

In mostprograms,individual per-mits are usedon projectswhich areeither large,highly impervi-ous, close towater bodies,or withdifficult siteconditionswhich increasethe potentialfor off-sitedamage.


3-35

cific BMP construction sequencing, inspection requirements, andrequirements for the program authority to be advised of any siteproblems. Projects receiving individual permits often are a prior-ity for inspections by the program's staff.

Since most programs have limited staff resources, and becauseof the wide variety of institutional frameworks, more than onemechanism often is used to approve urban runoff control plans.Many programs use a combination of noticed exemptions or gen-eral permits along with individual permits. Projects with a greaterpotential for off-site damage receive greater scrutiny. The typeof procedure used also may reflect the degree of emphasis thatis given to erosion/sediment control or stormwater management.

Cities

Eight of the city programs (88%) use their development ap-proval process to review and approval urban runoff controlplans. Only Bellevue and Orlando (22%) issue an individualpermit specifically for the erosion, sediment, and stormwatermanagement plan.

Counties

The development review process is used in five county pro-grams (50%) for the approval of urban runoff controls, withSomerset County SWCD issuing a separate erosion and sedi-ment control permit. The other five programs (50%) use indi-vidual permits. Four of these programs issue separate per-mits for erosion/sediment control and for stormwater manage-ment. Maricopa County does not regulate erosion and sedi-ment control program, relying on the state NPDES program.


The three Florida water management districts (60%) use acombination of permits (noticed exemption, general permit, in-dividual permit), depending on project size. The permit in-cludes erosion, sediment, and stormwater management re-quirements, along with wetlands protection. The local govern-ments within the NEIPC area use a variety of mechanisms toapprove urban runoff control plans. Local governments withinthe Denver Urban Flood Control District also use severalmechanisms to approve stormwater management control plans,when required. Erosion control is regulated by the State NP-DES program, while the District does review certain large scale

Since mostprograms havelimited staff,more than onemechanismoften is usedto approveurban runoffcontrol plans.


3-36

68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100

Percentage of Jurisdictions Conducting aComprehensive Review of Projects

flood control projects.

States

Four of the state programs (50%) use general and individualpermits for both erosion/sediment control and stormwater man-agement. Two programs (25%) use individual permits thatcover erosion, sediment, and stormwater control, with Floridaalso using general permits for most projects. The Pennsylva-nia NPDES program uses general and individual permits forerosion/sediment control, with stormwater regulated only bysome local governments. Erosion and sediment control plansare certified in the New Jersey program, which uses its CoastalArea Facilities Review Act for stormwater management.

Overall Statistics

The development review process is used by 13 programs(41%), all local governments, to approve urban runoff controlplans. One state program also uses this process for erosionand sediment control. Separate erosion/sediment control andstormwater management permits are issued by nine programs(28%), with general permits used in four of these for erosionand sediment control approval. Seven programs (22%) com-bine erosion, sediment, and stormwater control into one per-mit, with general and individual permits used in four of theseprograms.

4c. Comprehensive Review of Projects

Overall


Counties

States

Cities


3-37

The previous question (4b) considered the process by which ur-ban runoff control plans were approved. A second important com-ponent of the approval process is whether the information sub-mitted gets reviewed and to what extent. This is especially truewhen an individual permit is required.

4d. Are Plan Review Checklists Used?

Plan review checklists provide a third important component of theapproval process. With a checklist, it is often easier for an indi-vidual to know explicitly what must be submitted. This is mucheasier than trying to interpret regulations or a manual of criteriaor practices. Checklists can help the consultants and developersbe sure that all necessary information is submitted the first time,preventing unnecessary delays in the review process. They canhelp the plan review staff perform a quick review of the submittalpackage to be sure that all required information is included. Check-lists also facilitate project review by local or regional jurisdictionswhich are implementing federal or state requirements and designcriteria.

Cities

Four city programs (50%) do not use a checklist. Of the otherfour programs, three use a checklist for erosion/sediment con-trol and for stormwater management, one uses one only forerosion and sediment control, and one program only uses achecklist for stormwater management. In one city not using achecklist, the plan review items are contained in the local de-sign manual. In another program, they are listed in the rule.

Counties

Six county programs (60%) use a checklist for erosion/sedi-ment control and stormwater management. One program (10%)only uses a checklist for stormwater management. Three coun-ties (30%) do not use checklists to assist in plan approval sub-mittals.


The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission is not involvedin the actual review or approval of individual projects. It rec-ommends checklists but their use varies among local jurisdic-

Checklists fa-cilitate projectreview by localor regionaljurisdictionswhich areimplementingfederal orstate require-ments anddesign criteria.


3-38

tions. Four regional authorities (80%) use a plan review check-list for stormwater management. Only two regional programs(40%) have a checklist for erosion and sediment control.

States

Six state programs (75%) use a checklist for approving botherosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans.Pennsylvania uses a checklist for erosion and sediment con-trol, but use of one for stormwater varies with local govern-ments. Washington is the only state program (12%) that doesnot use plan review checklists.

Overall Statistics

A checklist is used for erosion/sediment control and stormwa-ter management in 17 programs (55%). Four programs (13%)only use one for stormwater, while a checklist is used only forerosion and sediment control in two programs (6%). Eightprograms (26%) do not use checklists to facilitate review andapprovals.

4e. Are the Erosion and Sediment Control and StormwaterManagement Approvals Required Before OtherApprovals?

A key tenet of successful urban runoff control programs is theirlinkage to other land development programs, especially at thelocal level. Except for the Washington state program, all pro-grams (97%) require approval of urban runoff controls before otherpermits are issued or before land clearing begins. Urban runoffplans must be approved in 29 programs (91%) before other de-velopment approvals, such as grading or building permits.Florida's program encourages local governments to not issuebuilding or clearing permits until a stormwater permit is issued.The types of approvals that are necessary after approval of eithererosion and sediment control and stormwater management arelisted in the following breakdown of jurisdictions.

Cities

Building permits can't be issued in eight cities (88%) beforeapproval of the erosion and sediment control or stormwatermanagement plans. Six cities (66%) require urban runoff con-trols to be approved before issuing grading permits, while fiveprograms (55%) issue both building and grading permits af-terwards. Only Winter Park (11%) coordinates zoning approv-als to approval of the urban runoff control plan.

A key tenet ofsuccessfulurban runoffcontrolprograms istheir linkage toother landdevelopmentprograms,especially atthe local level.


3-39

Counties

Issuance of building and/or grading permits is contingent onapproval of urban runoff control in nine programs (90%). Sno-homish County requires approval prior to the initiation of con-struction. Other approval processes contingent on approval ofurban runoff controls include site and subdivision approval,zoning approval, clearing, concept plan approval, and pre-liminary approval process. To see which approvals are coor-dinated with urban runoff controls, see the individual programsummaries.


Two regional programs (40%) require erosion and sedimentcontrol and stormwater management approval prior to obtain-ing building or grading permits. All of the Florida WMDs re-quire approval prior to the initiation of construction. They alsoencourage local governments to not issue building, clearing,or grading permits until the stormwater permit is issued. Withinthe area served by the Denver UFCD and the NEIPC, approvaldepends on the local government.

States

Six programs (75%) require erosion/sediment control andstormwater management approvals be obtained prior to theissuance of local building permits. Grading permits are alsosubject to this limitation in five states (63%). Pennsylvania'sprogram (12%) also ties zoning approval to erosion and sedi-ment control approval. Florida's program requires approvalbefore land clearing begins, while the State of Washingtondoes not have a required approval process at the state level.Six states (75%) listed two or more approvals that are contin-gent on the issuance of the erosion and sediment control andstormwater management approval.

Overall Statistics

The overall statistics are shown on the bar graph on the fol-lowing page.

5. Inspection Procedures

The approval of urban runoff control plans is only an initial pro-

Urban runoffcontrol plansmust beapproved in 29programs(91%) beforeotherdevelopmentapprovals,such asgrading orbuildingpermits.


3-40

gram component of assuring effective implementation of erosion,sediment, and runoff controls. Inspection is the most importantcomponent to assure proper construction, operation, and mainte-nance of controls, both temporary and permanent. Inspectionsmust be conducted on-site, by qualified individuals, who under-stand the intricacies of properly locating, constructing, maintain-ing, and operating the many different BMPs used to control ero-sion, sedimentation, and runoff. Successfully implementing theapproved control plan in the field is very difficult, especially forerosion and sediment control because of changing site condi-tions. Proper field implementation requires special technical ex-pertise, and a significant commitment of time and resources byboth the contractor/developer and the regulatory entity. Whilethe permittee often will be responsible for periodic inspections,the program authority also must conduct periodic inspections. Theprogram must commit adequate staff resources to ensure a vis-ible site presence. This represents a statement to the construc-tion industry, by the jurisdiction, of the need to implement the re-quired practices and ensure that they are properly maintainedthroughout the life of the project.

5a. Are Inspections Required During Construction?

This is a basic policy decision where the jurisdiction either doesor does not commit to a structured overview of the construction,maintenance, and operation of erosion, sediment, and stormwa-ter controls.

The programmust commitadequate staffresources toensure avisible sitepresence. Thisrepresents astatement totheconstructionindustry, bythejurisdiction, ofthe need toimplement therequiredpractices andensure thatthey areproperlymaintainedthroughout thelife of theproject.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Sediment and Stormwater ApprovalRequired Prior to Other Approvals

Initiation of Construction

Zoning Approval

Building Permits

Percent

Grading Permits


3-41

Cities

Seven programs (77%) require inspections during construc-tion. Two programs (22%) do not require inspections.

Counties

All ten county programs (100%) require inspections during con-struction of urban runoff controls.


Neither the NEIPC nor the Denver UFCD implement regula-tory programs. The three Florida WMDs require inspectionsfor the construction of stormwater management facilities. Theyalso require inspections of erosion and sediment controls, butto varying extent. The Denver UFCD will inspect runoff facili-ties when it reviews the plans or constructs it.

States

All eight state programs require inspection of erosion and sedi-ment controls, with two programs relying heavily on NPDESrequirements. Six states (75%) require inspection of stormwa-ter management facilities. In the other two states (PA, WA),inspection of runoff controls is at the discretion of local gov-ernments.

Overall Statistics

Stormwater management practices are inspected during con-struction in 26 programs (87%). Erosion and sediment con-trols must be inspected during construction in 28 (93%) pro-grams. Only the programs in Ft. Collins and Seattle do notrequire inspections for either erosion and sediment control orstormwater management.

5b. What is the Frequency Requirement for Inspections?

An integral part of the inspection process is how often inspec-tions are considered necessary. During the construction process,site conditions can change rapidly and assurance of adequatesite control may necessitate frequent site visits by the inspector.This implies that inspections of erosion and sediment controlsneed to be made more frequently than of runoff controls. This is

An integralpart of theinspectionprocess ishow ofteninspectionsare considerednecessary.


3-42

reflected in the difference in responses for inspection frequencyof erosion and sediment controls and stormwater managementsystems. Most interesting is the large variation in responses,especially when there is a specific time interval of inspection.Surprisingly, relatively few programs base inspection frequencyon the occurrence of rain although implementation of the NPDESprogram has increased the use of this important concept.

Cities

The most common inspection frequency is "as needed" or"daily". Inspection of erosion, sediment, and stormwater con-trols is recommended "as needed" in three programs. Threeprograms recommend "daily" inspection of erosion and sedi-ment controls, with two recommending this for runoff systems.Only Olympia's program recommends inspections after rainevents. In general, inspection frequency requirements arehighly variable as seen from the following responses:

dailyas neededas required by constructiondaily for erosion/sediment control; stormwater as neededas time allowsat various stages of constructionno frequency

Counties

Inspections are recommended "as needed" for erosion andsediment controls in three programs (30%), and for stormwa-ter controls in four. Three programs (30%), all in Maryland,specify an inspection frequency of approximately two weeksfor erosion and sediment controls. They also recommend thatrunoff controls be inspected "daily" or "at key phases", with afinal inspection at the end of construction, which also was re-quired by two other programs as well. Individual responsesincluded:

15 days for erosion and sediment control; daily inspec-tions by the engineer-in-charge for stormwater manage-mentvaries for bothtwo to three times during the project for erosion and sedi-ment control; at sign off for stormwater management

Surprisingly,relatively fewprogramsbase inspec-tion frequencyon the occur-rence of rain.


3-43

as required by the NPDES permit for erosion and sedi-ment controlproject specific with no set time frametwice monthly for erosion and sediment control; daily atcritical times for stormwater management during construc-tionat necessary timesas required and as necessary14 days for erosion and sediment control; key milestonesfor stormwater management


Florida's three water management districts require stormwa-ter systems to be inspected "as needed" by the project engi-neer. The SRWMD will send a staff person to inspect all sitecontrols on a monthly or bimonthly basis depending on thetype and location of the project. The other two WMDs inspectsites when staff resources allow or randomly. Florida's NP-DES construction general permit requires inspections by thepermittee on a weekly basis or after each 0.25" rain. Inspec-tions within the areas served by the NEIPC and the DenverUFCD are scheduled and conducted by local governments.

States

Three programs (38%) require erosion and sediment controlsto be inspected "as needed", while five programs require thisfor runoff systems. Three states (37%) require inspections oferosion and sediment controls every two weeks. Four pro-grams (50%) require inspections after rain storms, althoughtwo of the programs rely upon the NPDES regulations for thisrequirement. Specific recommendations include:

once every two weeks, more if possibleas needed per the design for stormwater managementas determined by the soil conservation district for erosionand sediment control; throughout the life of the project forstormwater managementindividual sites monthly for erosion and sediment control;stormwater management varies with local jurisdictionsweekly or after each 0.5 inch rainfall48 hours after a runoff eventno frequency requirement; only regular inspections

Effectivenessof inspectionrequirementsis determinedlargely by thepersonperforming theinspection.

Nearly everyprogram re-quires periodicinspections bythe siteengineer orotherconstructionpersonnel.


3-44

Overall Statistics

The most common inspection frequency requirement is "asneeded" which is used by 12 programs for erosion and sedi-ment controls, and by 15 programs (50%) for stormwater prac-tices. Only six programs (20%) require inspections every twoweeks, at least for erosion and sediment controls. Eight pro-grams (27%) require inspections after a rain storm, but this isa condition of NPDES general permits in five programs.

5c. Is a public agency responsible for inspection?

The effectiveness of inspection requirements is determined largelyby the person performing the inspection. Nearly every programrequires periodic inspections by the site engineer or other con-struction personnel. Ideally, the permitting authority will conductinspections, at least periodically. This represents a statement tothe construction industry, by the jurisdiction, that implementingrequired practices and assuring that they are properly maintainedthroughout the life of the project is important to the community.Unfortunately, budget and staffing constraints often make this un-feasible. Consequently, the effectiveness of a program often suf-fers because inspections are not conducted by the regulating au-thority. A fact which becomes quickly known to the developmentcommunity. That's an important reason why some very innova-tive and successful programs have developed training and certifi-cation programs for private inspectors.

Cities

All seven programs that require inspections also conduct pe-riod inspections using their own staff resources.

Counties

Seven programs (70%) use their staff to conduct inspectionsof erosion, sediment, stormwater controls. In one program,staff from an agency different than the permitting entity con-ducts erosion and sediment control inspections. BaltimoreCounty's program (10%) requires public agency inspection forerosion and sediment control only, with inspections performedby an agency not involved in plan review and approval.Maricopa County (10%) only uses its staff to inspect storm-water management systems, with erosion/sediment controlsinspected by site engineers per the NPDES permit require-ments.

The permittingagency shouldconductperiodicinspections.

This makes astatement tothe construc-tion industry,by the agency,that imple-menting re-quired prac-tices and as-suring they aremaintained isimportant tothe commu-nity.


3-45


Florida's three water management districts all require inspec-tions by site engineers, with District staff conducting randominspections at the SFWMD and SWFWMD. The SRWMDsends inspectors to sites monthly or bimonthly depending onthe location and type of project. Both the NEIPC and the Den-ver UFCD recommend that local governments be involved insite inspections.

States

Five programs (62%) use their staff to inspect erosion, sedi-ment, and runoff controls. In two programs, the permitting en-tity inspects erosion and sediment controls, but stormwatersystems inspections are done by site engineers or at the dis-cretion of local governments. Only Washington's program(12%) does not require public agency inspection.

Overall Statistics

23 programs (77%) require inspections of erosion, sediment,and permanent runoff controls to be performed by staff from apublic agency, almost always the agency involved in plan ap-proval. Four programs (13%) require public agency inspec-tion for either erosion and sediment control or stormwater man-agement, but not for both. Only one jurisdiction (3%) does notrequire public agency inspection for either erosion and sedi-ment control or stormwater management.

5d. Is the Inspection Agency also the Review Agency?

Communication between the plan approval agency and the in-spection agency is crucial. Having both functions within oneagency facilitates communication and coordination between thetwo program elements.

5e. Is the Inspection Frequency and Procedure Adequate forErosion and Sediment Control?

The effectiveness of inspection requirements depends on the pro-cedures, the frequency of inspection, the qualifications of the in-spector, and on whether a public entity conducts inspections atsome time during the construction process. This question mainlyexamines the program's policies and procedures for inspecting

23 programs(77%) requireinspections oferosion,sediment, andpermanentrunoff controlsto beperformed bystaff from apublic agency,almost alwaysthe planapprovalagency.


3-46

erosion and sediment controls. We also have included an analy-sis of the commitment of program resources to inspections. How-ever, whether program staffing is adequate is a separate issuediscussed later.

Cities

Five programs (55%) feel that their inspection frequency andprocedures are adequate, while three (33%) do not. In allthree of these programs, the number of inspectors is very low,ranging from one part time person in Olympia to two inspec-tors in Washington D.C.

Counties

Only four (40%) programs believe they have adequate inspec-tion frequency and procedures for effective erosion and sedi-ment control. In these programs, inspectors comprise from 27%to 75% of the staff. The importance of adequate inspectionprocedures is seen in the other five programs (50%). Thenumber of inspectors in these programs ranges from 7 to 25and comprise from 25% to 85% of the program's staff. Onecounty (10%) does not regulate erosion and sediment control.


All three Florida water management districts feel that they haveadequate inspection frequency and procedures, but two of themstated that work load largely determines program effective-ness. These two agencies only have 10 and 22 inspectors

0 20 40 60 80 100

Inspection Agency is also the ReviewAgency

Percent

The effective-ness ofinspectionrequirementsdepends ontheprocedures,the frequencyof inspection,the qualifica-tions of theinspector, andwhether apublic entityconductsinspections atsome timeduring theconstructionprocess.


States

Overall

Inspections are not required

CountiesCities


3-47

representing 7.5% to 21% of their staff. The SRWMD whichserves a largely rural area only has four inspectors, but thisrepresents 30% of their staff.

States

Six programs (75%) believe they have adequate inspectionfrequency and procedures for erosion and sediment control.All of these programs have a fairly large number of inspectors(10-42) which make up form 31% to 65% of their staff. Sinceimplementation of the NPDES general permit, Florida's pro-gram has improved procedures, but only has three inspectorsrepresenting 12% of their staff. Washington's program staffbelieve they may have adequate inspection frequency and pro-cedures, but they have only one part time inspector.

Overall Statistics

Only 18 (61%) of the programs believe their inspection fre-quency and procedures assure adequate erosion and sedi-ment control. Ten programs (33%) do not have adequate in-spection frequency and procedures, while one program's in-spection frequency and procedures may be adequate. Twojurisdictions (6%) do not have inspection requirements or au-thority.

6. Program Funding

Program funding is obviously the foundation of a successful ur-ban runoff control program. Inadequate funding is the primary rea-son we have inadequate stormwater infrastructure and ineffec-tive urban runoff programs. Traditionally, these programs havebeen paid for out of the "general fund", which is used by all levelsof government to fund most programs and services. When com-peting at budget time against public health (emergency medical

Only 18 (61%)of all theprograms be-lieve theirinspection fre-quency andproceduresassureadequateerosion andsedimentcontrol.

61%

33%

6%

Are Inspection Frequency and Procedures Adequate forErosion and Sediment Control

yes

no

no inspection requirements


3-48

services), safety (police, fire), or welfare (social services), urbanrunoff control programs usually are a low priority and do not re-ceive adequate funding. Consequently, stormwater managementoften is termed "the orphan infrastructure", with funding driven bythe latest crisis, usually a major flood .This section examines thesources of funding for the urban runoff control programs. Whenthey are separate budget entities, funding for erosion/sedimentcontrol and stormwater management programs is discussed sepa-rately. However, these two program components are combined inmany programs, as are their funding and staffing. When consid-ered in conjunction with the program staffing section which fol-lows, some obvious conclusions can be drawn about the ability ofthe various funding methods to provide essential program re-sources.

Cities

Funding for the erosion, sediment, and stormwater control com-ponents is combined in five programs (56%). Four of theseprograms use a combination of funding sources with all of themhaving a stormwater utility fee, and three supplementing thiswith permit or inspection fees. Only Alexandria (VA) reliessolely on general appropriations to fund its program. In thefour cities where erosion and sediment control is a separatebudget entity, two programs use a combination of fundingsources (stormwater utility fee, inspection fee, permit fee, gen-eral fund). The other two programs fund their erosion andsediment control component from either the general fund (DC)or permit fees (Bellevue).

Stormwater is a separate budget entity in four cities (44%).Bellevue and Austin use a combination of stormwater utilityfees and permit fees, with Austin's program also receivinggeneral funds. Ft. Collins also has a stormwater utility, whilethe District of Columbia's stormwater program is funded by agrant from the Chesapeake Bay program. Overall, seven ofthe nine programs (78%) have implemented a stormwater util-ity fee, while five programs (56%) charge permit fees.

Counties

Funding for the erosion, sediment, and stormwater control com-ponents is combined in three programs (30%). Two of theseprograms use a combination of funding sources including per-mit fees, while one uses the general fund. In five programs

Inadequatefunding is theprimary rea-son we haveinadequatestormwaterinfrastructureand ineffectiveurban runoffprograms.


3-49

(50%), erosion/sediment control is a separate budget entity.Two of these programs fund their program from permit fees.The other three also obtain funding from permit fees in combi-nation with either stormwater utility fees or road departmentfunds.

Stormwater management is a separate budget entity in sevenprograms (70%). One county relies only on permit fees. Allof the rest use a combination of funding sources, with fourcharging stormwater utility fees. Washington County (OR) hasa system development charge in addition to stormwater utilityand permit fees.

Overall, all programs except Baltimore County (90%) arefunded, in part, through permit fees. Baltimore County's pro-gram is funded by general appropriations, which also is usedto partially fund three other programs. Three counties haveimplemented stormwater utilities, while two more have set upspecial taxing districts. Another county is in the process ofimplementing a utility fee. Other funding sources include in-spection fees, state grants, road department, and capital im-provement program.


Funding for erosion, sediment, and stormwater control is com-bined at the three Florida water management districts. Theirprograms are funded primarily by ad valorem property taxes,which are supplemented by permit fees. The SRWMD alsoreceives a general appropriation from the Florida legislaturebecause its rural tax base does not provide sufficient revenues.The Denver UFCD does not have an erosion and sedimentcontrol program. It funds its stormwater program with a spe-cial taxing district charge. Within the NIPC area, local gov-ernments implement their programs using general funds andpermit fees.

States

Funding for erosion, sediment, and stormwater control is com-bined in four state programs (50%). All of them use a combi-nation of funding mechanisms, primarily permit fees and gen-eral appropriations. Funding for erosion and sediment controlprograms in the other four states comes from a combination ofgeneral appropriations and permit fees, with two states alsocharging a plan review fee. Two of the stormwater programs

All but onecountyprogram isfunded, inpart, throughpermit fees.

Stormwatermanagement,in is a sepa-ratebudget entityin sevencountyprograms.


3-50

in the other four states are funded by general appropriations,while the other two rely on a combination of general fundsplus permit and/or plan review fees. Overall all eight programsuse general appropriations, which is to be expected at thestate level. Six programs (75%) charge permit fees. No stateprogram relies totally on permit fees, meaning tax payers sub-sidize implementation of these programs. Stormwater utilitiesand special taxing districts are not used at the state level tofund urban runoff control programs.

Overall Statistics

Funding for erosion, sediment, and stormwater control is com-bined in 15 programs (47%). Two of these programs are fundedby general appropriations, while 13 use a combination of fund-ing sources, primarily permit fees (12), general funds (6), andstormwater utility fees (5). Erosion and sediment control isfunded separately in 13 programs (41%). One program isfunded by general appropriations and two by permit fees. Eightare funded by a combination of sources, with all of them usingpermit fees and five getting general funds. Stormwater is aseparate budget entity in 15 programs. Two programs rely ongeneral appropriations, while one program apiece is fundedby permit fees, grants, or stormwater utility fees. A combina-tion of funding sources is used in 10 stormwater programs. Ofthe 43 program budgets (combined and separate), only fiveare funded solely by general appropriations, while 32 use acombination of sources. Permit fees are used in 32 programsto at least partially fund their program, with 20 programs in-cluding general appropriations. Stormwater utilities have beenestablished in 12 local governments.

7. Program staffing

The effectiveness of an urban runoff control program dependslargely on a stable funding source. This allows the program toobtain adequate resources, especially staffing, and be able toprovide them, and the regulated community, with proper trainingand education. Another important benefit of a dedicated fundingsource is that it provides the program with stability, especially ofits staff. This can help to assure staff continuity, leading to welltrained and experienced personnel.

Of the 43 pro-gram budgets(combinedand separate),only five arefunded solelyby general ap-propriations,while 32 use acombinationof sources,primarily per-mit fees andgeneral funds.

Stormwaterutilities havebeen estab-lished in 12localgovernments.


3-51

7a. Is Staffing for the Erosion and Sediment Control ProgramAdequate?

Cities

Erosion and sediment control programs have adequate staffresources in only four cities (44%). Staff in the two programswith integrated erosion, sediment, and stormwater control are14 (7 inspectors) and 33 (18 building inspectors) persons. Inthe two programs with separate erosion and sediment controlprograms, they have 8 (3 inspectors) and 16 (7 inspectors)persons. In the five programs with inadequate staff, the num-ber of staff ranges from 0.4 to 4 (0.2 to 2 inspectors). Three ofthe city programs (75%) with adequate staffing are funded bya dedicated source, either permit fees or a stormwater utility.

Counties

Only four programs (40%) have adequate staffing for their ero-sion and sediment control program. Staff levels range from 3(1 inspector) to 12 (8 inspectors) in the three counties with aseparate erosion and sediment control program. The inte-grated erosion, sediment, and stormwater program in PrinceGeorges County has 20 persons (17 inspectors), and is theonly one of these programs (25%) that has a dedicated fund-ing source - a special taxing district.


Only the three Florida water management districts implementerosion and sediment control programs, with these a compo-nent of their stormwater program. All three of these regionalauthorities have adequate staffing and they all have a dedi-cated funding source. These programs are funded by theDistrict's ad valorem taxing authority (1 mil per $1000 prop-erty value) and, to a lesser degree, by permit fees.

States

Only the State of New Jersey (12%) stated that it has adequatestaffing for their erosion and sediment control program. Theirprogram is implemented by State Department of Agricultureand local Soil Conservation Districts. The program has 91positions, with 42 inspectors and 26 clerical. General appro-priations fund the Dept. of Agriculture program while the SCDsare funded primarily by certification fees.


3-52

Overall Statistics

60% of the programs (18 of 30) do not have adequate staffingfor erosion and sediment control! These percentages are trou-bling indeed. Obviously, their is not a serious commitment tomake these programs effective and to assure that the desiredbenefits are obtained. However, this is not surprising sinceonly 12 local governments have a stormwater fee. Seven ofthe adequately staffed programs (58%) have a dedicated fund-ing source - a stormwater utility fee, special taxing district, orad valorem tax.

7b. Is Staffing for the Stormwater Management Program Adequate?

Cities

Six programs (66%), two with integrated erosion, sediment,and stormwater programs, have adequate staffing for theirstormwater management program. In the four separate storm-water programs, staffing ranges from 0.6 to 66 persons, with0.2 to 8 being inspectors. Five of these programs (83%) havea stormwater utility, with Alexandria's program funded from gen-eral appropriations.

Counties

Five programs (50%), two with integrated erosion, sediment,and stormwater programs, have adequate staffing for theirstormwater management program. In the three counties withseparate stormwater programs, staff resources range from 7

60% of theprograms donot have ad-equate staff-ing for erosionand sedimentcontrol.

60%

40%

Percentage of Jurisdictions having AdequateStaffing for Erosion and Sediment Control

- no

- yes


3-53

54%

46%

Percentage of Jurisdictions having AdequateStaffing for Stormwater Management

to 170 persons, with 2 to 7 inspectors. Three of these pro-grams (60%) have a stormwater utility which partially fundstheir program. Additionally, four of these programs (80%)charge a permit fee. Only King County, which has a stormwa-ter fee, relies to some degree on general appropriations.


All four regional entities which implement stormwater programshave adequate staffing and dedicated funding sources. TheDenver UFCD pays for its program from its special stormwa-ter tax which is imposed in 36 cities. The three Florida WMDsall use a combination of funding mechanisms including permitfees, ad valorem taxing, and, within the SRWMD, general leg-islative appropriations.States

Not one state has adequate staffing for stormwater manage-ment. All of the state programs rely to a large extent on gen-eral appropriations, and obviously they are not too success-ful. They must compete at the state legislature with manyother important programs, environmental and social. Addition-ally, six state programs (75%) charge permit fees, either throughtheir own permitting authority or associated with NPDES stormwater permits. One of the state's responded "the program isbarely functional - we need more of everything". A dedicatedfunding source, such as a stormwater utility or special taxingdistrict, is an essential missing funding mechanism at the statelevel. Florida's program has suggested small fees on concrete,asphalt, fertilizer, and pesticides, but this concept has nevereven been debated at the legislature.

Overall Statistics

While staffingfor stormwaterprograms ismuch betterwhen com-pared to ero-sion and sedi-ment controlprograms, lessthan 50% ofthe stormwatermanagementprograms areadequatelyfunded.

- no

- yes


3-54

While staffing for stormwater programs is much better thancompared to erosion and sediment control programs, lessthan 50% of the stormwater management programs are ad-equately staffed. Obviously, staffing deficiencies adverselyaffect program effectiveness. This is especially true with re-spect to stormwater treatment since many BMPs are relativelynew They present special challenges in implementation andin training, research, and monitoring to develop new BMPs orrefine current ones. These staff deficiencies do not bode wellfor successful implementation on a widespread basis.

8. Program Educational Aspects

There is growing awareness and recognition that there must be astrong educational component if erosion, sediment, and storm-water control programs are going to be effective and gain accep-tance from the regulated community and the general public. Theresponses to this question demonstrate that almost all of the ju-risdictions view education as being integral to overall programsuccess.

8a. Are Educational Programs a Program Element?

Educational programs are an element of nearly every one of theurban runoff control programs. Significantly, the importance of aneducation element is recognized at all levels of government. Ques-tion 8c discusses the audiences that these programs attempt toreach.

8b. Are any of the Educational Programs Mandated by Law orRegulation?

The importance of education programs is demonstrated by the 11

Educationalprograms arean element ofnearly everyone of the ur-ban runoff con-trol programs.Significantly,the importanceof an educa-tion element isrecognized atall levels ofgovernment.

- yesno

93%7%

Are Educational Programs a ProgramComponent


3-55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Educational Programs Mandated by Lawor Regulation

(34%) programs which mandate this element in law or regulation.However, 93% of the programs have an education element. Thisclearly demonstrates the importance that implementing staff placeon education in erosion and sediment control and stormwater man-agement. The importance of education in a successful programis further emphasized by their inclusion as a program elementwhen so many of the programs are not adequately staffed. Stafftime is extremely valuable, yet nearly every programs uses itsstaff to conduct educational activities, clearly demonstrating theimportance of this program element.

8c. What are the Intended Audiences of the Educational Programs?

Experience has shown that all segments of the community mustbe educated. The general public, elected officials, and the regu-lated public must be educated about the need for, and the ben-efits, of the urban runoff control program. They need to under-stand that reducing Pointless Personal Pollution requires all of usto be part of the solution. Practitioners, whether the regulatedpublic or the implementing staff, must be educated so they candesign, review, construct, inspect, maintain, or operate effectiveerosion, sediment, and stormwater controls. The questionnairelisted five specific target audiences - contractors, consultants, gen-eral public, developers, and inspectors - along with "other", whereadditional details were requested.

Experiencehas shownthat allsegments ofthecommunitymust beeducatedabout theneed for, andthe benefitsof, urban run-off controlprograms.

States

Percent


Overall

Counties

Cities


3-56

Cities

The general public is the intended audience for educationalefforts in eight programs (88%), while seven (77%) target con-tractors. Five programs (55%) have educational programs di-rected at site developers and consultants. Educational pro-grams for inspectors are conducted in four cities (44%).

Counties

Contractor education programs are conducted in all ten pro-grams, with nine (90%) targeting consultants and the generalpublic for education. Eight programs (80%) have educationalprograms for inspectors, while seven (70%) provide site de-velopers with educational programs. Some county programsspecifically mentioned boards and commissions as target au-diences.


Four regional authorities (80%) conduct educational programsfor consultants and developers, while three (60%) have edu-cational programs for contractors. Inspector education occursin two programs (40%). Surprisingly, only the SRWMD (20%)provides educational programs for the general public. Othertargeted audiences include local government officials, electedofficials, and governmental engineers.

States

Educational programs for contractors and consultants are con-ducted in all eight programs, while seven (87%) provide edu-cation for developers and inspectors. General public educa-tion programs are conducted by five states (62%), with four(50%) programs conducting educational programs for local gov-ernment officials. Since state and regional programs dependto such a large extent on local implementation, it is not sur-prising that they conduct education programs for local offi-cials.

Overall Statistics

The most important conclusion is that educational programsmust target many different audiences. The responses clearlyshow that the programs not only recognize the importance ofeducation, but the need to conduct and tailor educational pro-

The most im-portant con-clusion is thateducationalprogramsmust targetmany differentaudiences.


3-57

64 68 72 76 80 84 88

Target Audience for EducationalPrograms

grams for a wide range of very different audiences, each withtheir own interests and needs.

8d. How Many Individuals Attend and How Often are the Educational Programs Given?

The recognition that the educational element must target a widerange of different audiences is essential. However, the successof the educational efforts depends largely on how many peopleattend and learn. Educational programs and activities must begiven at a frequency, time, and location that is convenient for thetarget audience. Given the inadequacy of staff resources in mostprograms, and the responses to the immediate previous ques-tions, there is a concern that these efforts may be sporadic andnot offered frequently enough. This question examines how wellthe education element is institutionalized within the urban runoffcontrol program. Is there a schedule for presenting educationalprograms? How many individuals attend each program? Doesthe program even track the frequency of educational activitiesand the number of attendees? As noted, there are several differ-ent target audiences and programs must be tailored and conductedfor each one. If the program conducts educational activities fordiverse target audiences, but the number of individuals reachedis limited, then the activities probably aren't conducted frequentlyenough or in the right locations. If the program does not know thefrequency or audience size for its education activities, this indi-cates that the educational programs are not institutionalizedenough to be effective, especially if staffing for the entire program

Inspectors

Percent

Programs notonly recognizethe importanceof education,but the need toconduct andtailor educa-tional pro-grams for awide range ofvery differentaudiences,each with theirown interestsand needs.

General Public

Consultants

Contractors

Developers


3-58

is not adequate.

Cities

Eight programs (89%) conduct educational programs, with onlythree (38%) unable to provide information on the number ofindividuals for which education was provided. Only one pro-gram (12%) provided information on how often educationalprograms were held. The responses on the numbers of indi-viduals attending are summarized below:

hundreds300+

thousandsapproximately 100300 total/given twice per year

Counties

Five programs (50%) could not provide information on howmany people attend education activities. Additionally, no pro-gram provided information on how frequently educational ef-forts were presented. The responses on the numbers of indi-viduals attending are summarized below:

hundreds10060/year for stormwater management160 per year100 contractors, developers; 5,000 at schools


Only three regional authorities (60%) provided information onhow many individuals attended education programs. Only theNEIPC, an organization with a primary focus on training andtechnical assistance, provided information on the frequencyof their programs. The responses on the numbers of individu-als attending are summarized below:

10 - 20 seminars/year60 -200 individuals/year100 -150 individuals/year

States

Interestingly, all eight programs provided information on the

If the programdoes notknow thefrequency oraudience sizefor its educa-tion activities,this indicatesthat theeducationalprograms arenot institu-tionalizedenough to beeffective.

Only fourprogramscould providethisinformation.


3-59

number of individuals attending educational activities. How-ever, only two programs (25%) provided information on thefrequency of these efforts, with several states stating that thefrequency varies. The responses on the numbers of individu-als attending are summarized below:

hundredsapproximately 6 times/year; thousandshundreds (erosion and sediment control)thousands (erosion and sediment control)hundreds (stormwater management)4 - 8 times/year; 600 individuals600 individuals

Overall Statistics

It may perhaps be unwise to infer too much from the responsesto this question, since educational efforts to reach certain au-diences are often sporadic and a response such as "as needed"does occur in the questionnaire responses. However, only fourprograms (12%) provided information on the frequency of ac-tivities. This indicates that educational programs have not beenentirely institutionalized yet. While all programs recognize thateducational programs are needed, it appears that they are nota high priority when compared to other program needs andfunctions. Given the inadequate staffing of most programs,this is not to be unexpected.

9. Program Compliance and Enforcement

While education to train the regulated public, and gain their un-derstanding and support, is crucial for successful program imple-mentation, there must also be a compliance and enforcement com-ponent. Education can help contractors or developers under-stand how a practice or strategy is implemented properly, but thepotential for poor implementation still remains. Additionally, somedevelopers and contractors will be tempted to save the costs as-sociated with BMP implementation, hoping that neither rain noran inspection occurs. In many situations, a physical presence isnecessary. Inspection and enforcement are especially importantduring construction when site conditions change rapidly. Erosionand sediment controls may be installed correctly but experiencehas show that they are seldom checked after storms or main-tained regularly. Enforcement to assure proper site implementa-tion and program compliance is an essential element of any pro-gram.


3-60

There are a variety of penalty and enforcement provisions avail-able for erosion and sediment control and stormwater manage-ment programs. These include civil penalties, generally fines,and criminal penalties which typically include jail in addition tofines. Other commonly used enforcement tools include stop workorders, withholding occupancy permits, withholding other permits,revoking or suspending permits, and revoking performance bonds.

9a. Are there civil penalty provisions in the program?

Of all 32 programs reviewed, only two city programs do nothave civil penalties. This is a very clear statement that civilpenalty provisions are an important tool to help assure com-pliance with the requirements of erosion, sediment, and storm-water management programs.

9b. Are there criminal penalty provisions in the program?

Unlike civil penalties, criminal penalties are not as universalwith only 62.5% of the programs having them. Both city pro-grams which do not have civil penalties do have criminal ones,but two other programs do not. Interestingly, New Jersey'sprogram has criminal penalties for stormwater managementviolations but not for erosion and sediment control, whilePennsylvania's program is the reverse.

Overall

States


Counties

Cities

76 80 84 88 92 96 100

Percentage of Programs having CivilPenalty Provisions

There must bea complianceandenforcementcomponent toensureadequate siteimplementa-tion.


3-61

9c. Other available enforcement options

Individuals who implemented urban runoff control programs rec-ognize the need for enforcement options other than through thecivil or criminal justice system. Enforcing environmental laws is alow priority for almost all of our overcrowded justice systems.Additionally, site conditions changes so rapidly, and damage fromoff-site sedimentation or stormwater discharges can occur soquickly, that site compliance is more readily achieved through theuse of other enforcement options. The questionnaire includedoptions of halting construction (stop work order), withholding oc-cupancy permits, and withholding other permits. A fourth optionallowed a program to name other enforcement options they usedwhich might have broader use elsewhere. Experience has shownthat a stop work order is the most effective tool to obtain site com-pliance.

Cities

All nine programs (100%) have the ability to halt construction.The option to withhold occupancy permits is available to eightprograms (88%), while three (33%) can withhold other per-mits until the violation is corrected. Other tools used by cityprograms to gain compliance with their program's requirementsinclude:

counseling and technical assistancemay require an applicant to submit an engineer's

48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80

Percentage of Programs having CriminalPenalty Provisions

Cities

Overall

States


Counties

Civil penaltiesare used in 30of the 32programs, butonly 20 of theprograms havecriminalpenalties.

Individualswho imple-ment urbanrunoff controlprogramsrecognize theneed forenforcementoptions otherthan throughthe civil orcriminaljustice system.


3-62

report or analysistrafficking of sediment into public land is a policeoffense

Counties

All ten programs (100%) have the authority to halt construc-tion. Withholding occupancy permits is used by eight programs(80%), while seven (70%) can withhold other permits. Threeprograms (30%) can require forfeiture of security or perfor-mance bonds. Other tools used by county programs to gaincompliance with their program's requirements include:

monetary finescourt orderany other available legal or equitable relieftax lien on property after county performs correc-tions


All regional authorities (100%) have the ability to halt con-struction. Withholding occupancy permits can be used by twoprograms (40%), while only the NIPC recommends to its localgovernments that they withhold other permits. Other tools usedby regional programs to gain compliance with their program'srequirements include:

performance bondsadministrative and legal procedures involving a no-tice of violation, then a consent order; quick enforce-ment is rare unless done voluntarilyother code enforcement options

States

Seven programs (88%) have the ability to halt construction.Five programs (62%) can withhold occupancy permits, whileother permits can be withheld in six (75%). Other tools usedby state programs to gain compliance with their program's re-quirements include:

bond revocation; lien on propertyoversight of local programs; can withhold statemonies to that programcivil and criminal options only


3-63

issue notice of violation, then a consent orderrevoke permits

Overall Statistics

All programs (97%) except Washington State have the au-thority to halt construction. Withholding occupancy permits isavailable to 23 programs (72%), while 17 (53%) can withholdother permits. Five programs (16%) use the forfeiture of someform of security as an enforcement option.

9d. Are the Penalty Provisions Adequate?

If program implementation is to be effective, it is critical that thereexist adequate enforcement and compliance tools, including pen-alty provisions. The response to this question provides an over-all qualitative evaluation of the adequacy of the options discussedin items a, b, and c above. Additionally, there is a difference ineffectiveness evaluation between the erosion and sediment con-trol and stormwater management components. Assuring compli-ance with erosion and sediment control is more of a day-to-dayactivity, with rapidly changing site conditions. On the other hand,permanent stormwater management practices usually are evalu-ated for compliance at project completion.

Cities

The penalties are adequate to assure site compliance in sixprograms (66%), including four combined erosion, sediment,and stormwater control programs. The Olympia program haseffective penalties for stormwater management but not for ero-sion and sediment control, while the opposite is true in Belle-vue. The Austin and Washington D.C. programs do not haveeffective penalties for either erosion/sediment control or storm-water management

Counties

Except for Washington County, all of the programs (90%) havepenalty provisions that are adequate for stormwater manage-ment. Of the nine counties with erosion and sediment controlprograms, only the Washington and Clark County programsdo not believe their penalties assure site compliance.

Haltingconstructionand withhold-ing occupacypermits arethe mostwidely usedenforcementoptions.

Withholdingother permitsis used to alesser extent.


3-64


All five regional programs (100%) have penalty provisions thatassure site compliance for stormwater management. OnlyFlorida's three water management districts (60%) believe theirerosion and sediment control penalty provisions are adequate.

States

Six programs (75%) believe their penalty provisions for ero-sion and sediment control are adequate. Only four programs(50%) feel their penalties for stormwater management assuresite compliance.

Overall Statistics

The penalty provisions for stormwater management are ad-equate to assure site compliance in 24 programs (75%). Ero-sion and sediment control penalties are adequate in 22 pro-grams (71%). It should be remembered that having adequatepenalty provisions does not necessarily mean that they areused. Earlier responses indicate that many programs have in-adequate staffing, especially inspectors. Even with adequatepenalty provisions, the program will not be very effective inassuring compliance with its requirements if site's are not in-spected regularly.

9e. Are As-Built Certifications Required for Stormwater Management Systems?

As-Built Certifications, which also are known as record drawings,are a very valuable tool to assure that stormwater managementsystems are constructed properly. This is a submittal by a designprofessional to the regulatory authority certifying that the actualconstruction of the stormwater practices has been done in accor-dance with the approved plan and its specifications. It does notreplace the need for inspection by the jurisdiction's inspector. How-ever, it is an effective tool to ensure proper construction by plac-ing responsibility on the site's design professional, usually a reg-istered professional engineer. As-built plans are also extremelyuseful for maintenance and repair activities.

Cities

Seven programs (78%) require As-Built Certifications for allstormwater management practices. In the two other programs,

In general,mostjurisdictionsfeel that theirpenalty provi-sions for botherosion andsedimentcontrol andstormwatermanagementare adequate.


3-65

both in Florida, as-built certifications are required by the stateprogram which is implemented by the water management dis-trict.

Counties

Seven programs (70%) require As-Built Certifications for allstormwater management practices. Montgomery County's pro-gram (10%) requires As-Built Certifications for ponds only.


Florida's three water management districts (60%) require As-Built Certification for all stormwater management systems.Within the Denver UFCD, local governments may require themfor ponds. Local governments within the NEIPC area also mayrequire them.

States

Only three programs (37%) require As-Built Certifications forall stormwater management practices. Delaware's program re-quires them for infiltration practices only. In four programs(50%) they are required at the option of the local government.

Overall Statistics

Within 22 jurisdictions (69%), As-Built Certifications are sub-mitted for all stormwater management practices. One addi-tional program (3%) requires them only for ponds, while an-other (3%) requires them only for infiltration practices. Re-quirements for an As-Built Certification are at the option oflocal governments in six of the 13 state and regional programs.

9f. Are Final Inspections Required for Stormwater Management Systems?

Another tool to assure proper construction of permanent storm-water management practices, including their structural integrity,is to require a final inspection. This often is performed beforerelease of any performance bond, issuance of a Certificate ofOccupancy, or acceptance by the entity responsible for long-termoperation and maintenance. It needs to be recognized that thesite developer may not be the eventual site owner or responsibleoperation and maintenance entity. A final inspection can preventthe ultimate owner from inheriting a poorly constructed system

As-BuiltCertificationsfor stormwatermanagementsystems can'treplace theneed forinspection bythe program'sinspector, butit can be aneffective toolto ensureproperconstruction.


3-66

and help reduce future problems. Final inspections should bedone while the contractor responsible for construction of the

stormwater practices is still on-site along with construction equip-ment that might be needed to correct mistakes.

10. Maintenance of Stormwater Management Systems

The effectiveness of a stormwater management program dependslargely on how well and how safely the stormwater practices workover time. This is especially true with respect to practices thatare used to reduce stormwater pollutants. Assuring long-termperformance and safety requires a comprehensive maintenancecomponent. This needs to include record keeping, inspections,establishing a responsible entity for maintenance, a fundingmechanism, and legal steps in the event that a maintenance prob-lem or default occurs.

10a. Can you Indicate the Number of and Types of PracticesConstructed Over the Past Two Years?

The intent of this question is to determine how many agencieshave tracking procedures to record the number and type of prac-tices installed. A program with an effective tracking system willhave an easier time assuring that practices are inspected peri-odically and that the responsible maintenance entity is doing itsjob. A geographic information system can be a very effective toolto help map the location of all stormwater systems, and establisha data base on the type of BMP, date of construction, date of lastinspection, and maintenance activities.

Percent48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88 93

Final Inspections Required for StormwaterManagement

Overall

States


Cities

Counties

A finalinspection canprevent theultimate ownerfrom inheritinga poorlyconstructedsystem andhelp reducefutureproblems.


3-67

Cities

Six programs (66%) provided information on the number andtype of stormwater management practices constructed in 1992and 1993.

Counties

Five programs (50%) provided information on the number andtype of stormwater management practices constructed in 1992and 1993. Additionally, Kitsap County indicated that one wet-land was constructed in 1993.


Only two of Florida's water management districts (40%) pro-vided information on the number and type of stormwater man-agement practices constructed in 1992 and 1993. The Den-ver UFCD indicated that "several" wet detention systems and"many" extended dry detention systems had been built.

States

Four states (50%) provided information on the number andtype of stormwater management practices constructed in 1992and 1993. Maryland's program implemented a very compre-hensive tracking system in 1985. This system provides infor-mation on the number of permits, projects, waivers, types ofBMPs, construction inspections and enforcement actions,maintenance inspecitions and enforcement actions, and de-tailed budget information for each county in the state. Unfor-tunately, program funding cuts by the Legislature in 1992greatly reduced the data entered into the system by about afactor of ten. Data input was further reduced by 66% in 1993with no data entered for 1994 and 1995.

Overall Statistics

Seventeen programs (53%) provided quantitative informationon the number and type of stormwater management practicesconstructed in 1992 and 1993. Two additional programs pro-vided qualitative information.

A programwith aneffective track-ing system willhave an easiertime assuringthat practicesare inspectedperiodicallyand that theresponsiblemaintenanceentity is doingits job.


3-68

10b. Does the Program Require Maintenance of CompletedStormwater Management Systems?

Thirty programs (93%) require maintenance of completed storm-water management systems as a program component. The onlytwo jurisdictions that do not require maintenance are the DenverUFCD and Washington State which both rely on local govern-ments to oversee maintenance.

10c. Responsible Maintenance Entities

The complexity of stormwater management systems, especiallytreatment BMPs, and their inclusion as part of the local infrastruc-ture implies that ideally they should all be owned and maintainedby government. However, this is seldom true. Many local orregional governments do not want this responsibility because ofthe cost. They also believe that systems serving private busi-nesses should be maintained by the owner. Additionally, manysystems serving residential developments also serve as openspace or recreational areas, with large areas of grass or land-scaping that require intensive maintenance - a responsibility lo-cal governments do not want, especially because of aestheticconsiderations. The questionnaire listed the most common legaloperation and maintenance entities - public agency, private en-tity, or property owners association - along with "other".

Cities

Public agencies are an allowable maintenance entity in eightprograms (88%), usually systems serving public roads or otherpublic land uses. All nine programs require private propertyowners to be the responsible entity for maintenance, espe-cially for commercial or industrial land uses. Stormwater sys-tems serving residential developments are accepted for main-tenance by the local government in five programs (56%), al-though some do not perform maintenance of vegetation. Theother four programs (44%) require a Property Owners Asso-ciation to be responsible for maintenance of residential sys-tems.

Counties

A public agency is responsible for maintaining certain storm-water systems, especially those serving public roads and lands,in all ten programs (100%). All programs also require privateowners to be responsible for maintenance for systems serving

Thecomplexity ofstormwatermanagementsystems,especiallytreatmentBMPs, andtheir inclusionas part of thelocalinfrastructureimplies thatideally theyshould all beowned andmaintained bygovernment.

However, thisis seldom true.


3-69

commercial or industrial land uses. Nine programs (90%) al-low property owner associations to be responsible for mainte-nance in residential developments, but with restrictions in twoprograms. King County only allows maintenance by PropertyOwners Associations in limited circumstances, while PrinceGeorges County allows them to perform maintenance for aes-thetic purposes only. The Unified Sewerage Agency of Wash-ington County or the county's municipalities accept residen-tial systems for maintenance after they are constructed.


Each regional program allows maintenance to be the respon-sibility of any of the three options listed on the questionnaire(100% in each category). The three Florida water manage-ment districts also allow local water control districts, a specialtaxing district, to be the responsible maintenance entity.

States

Five programs (62%) allow the responsible maintenance en-tity to be any of the three categories. South Carolina's pro-gram requires local governments to maintain residential storm-water management systems while commercial and industrialsystems are maintained by the property owner. Maintenanceresponsibility in two programs (25%) is determined by the lo-cal agency implementing the program.

Overall Statistics

Except for the two state programs that leave designation ofthe maintenance entity to local governments, all 30 other pro-grams (94%) allow a private owner to be responsible for main-tenance. A public agency can be the responsible maintenanceentity in 29 programs (91%), usually for systems serving pub-lic roads or other public land uses. Only seven programs (22%)require public maintenance of residential systems, while 23(72%) allow a property owner association to be the respon-sible maintenance entity.

10d. Are Maintenance Inspections Done by a Public Agency?

Assuring that a stormwater management system is maintainedproperly and continues to operate as designed depends largelyon a regular inspection by a qualified individual. Whether theinspector is from a public agency is examined in this question.

30 programsrequiremaintenanceof completedstormwatermanagementsystems as aprogramcomponent.


3-70

Cities

Eight programs (89%) require a maintenance inspection by apublic agency and specify a desired minimum inspection fre-quency. Four programs (44%) recommend annual maintenanceinspections, while three (33%) recommend an inspection onceevery two years. Alexandria's programs inspects systemssemiannually. The District of Columbia program recommendsthree inspections annually for the first five years, but only hasenough inspectors to perform one every six months to a year.

Counties

Nine programs (90%) require a maintenance inspection by apublic agency. The recommended inspection frequency var-ies greatly as listed below:

once per year (3 programs)once in the first year, then every three years (1)by complaint or incidental drive-by (2)no specific interval (1)once every 5 years for detention facilities only (1)once/year for class 1 and 2 dams; once every twoyears for all others (1)every three years, every year for county facilities(1)annually for county facilities (1)


Four regional programs (80%) allow a public agency to beresponsible for maintenance inspections. While four programscan use their staff to conduct inspections, only the SRWMDregularly conducts them - once every three years. The otherregional programs will conduct inspections in response to com-plaints. All three Florida water management districts requireowners to submit private inspection reports, with the frequencydepending on the type of BMP.

States

Only the Delaware and South Carolina programs (25%) re-quire maintenance inspections by a public agency, with in-spections done annually. All six other programs depend onlocal governments to establish a schedule for and to conduct

Assuring thata stormwatermanagementsystem ismaintainedproperly andcontinues tooperate asdesigned de-pends largelyon a regularinspection bya qualifiedindividual.


3-71

maintenance inspections. Maryland's program suggests aninspection be conducted once every three years, whileVirginia's program recommends semiannual inspections.Florida's program encourages local governments to establishan operating permit system that requires annual inspections,especially of infiltration and filtration systems.

Overall Statistics

Maintenance inspections must be done by a public agency in23 programs (72%). Eighteen programs (56%) specify a mini-mum inspection frequency, with two additional state programshaving local governments establish minimum inspection inter-vals. The recommended frequency of inspecting stormwatersystems by public agency staff is summarized below:

semiannual (1 program)annually (9 programs)once every two years (5 programs)once every three years (4 programs)by complaint or incidental drive-by (5 programs)

10e. Is There a Dedicated Funding Source Available for Maintenance Activities?

With 29 programs allowing public agencies as the responsiblemaintenance entity for stormwater management systems, it is im-portant to see if funding is available to conduct the needed main-tenance activities.

Cities

Of the eight programs which have some responsibility for main-tenance, seven have a dedicated funding source - a stormwa-ter utility fee - available for maintaining stormwater manage-ment systems.

Counties

Of the ten programs which have some responsibility for main-tenance, seven have a dedicated funding source available formaintaining stormwater management systems. Two programsdepend on ad valorem or general taxes, a risky funding source,while five have implemented a stormwater utility or specialtaxing district.

The programsclearlyrecognize thatpublic agencyinspectionsare necessaryto ensure thecontinuedfunctioning ofstormwatermanagementsystems, with72% requiringsuchinspections.


3-72


Only the Denver UFCD, a special taxing district, is respon-sible for maintaining certain stormwater systems, with the otherregional programs depending largely on local governments orprivate owners. While the Denver UFCD has a dedicated fund-ing source to pay for maintenance, the other regional programsencourage local governments to establish a stormwater utilityto provide funds for stormwater system maintenance.

States

None of the state programs are responsible for maintainingstormwater management systems, with responsibility typi-cally resting with private owners, local governments, or thestate highway department. No dedicated funding sources formaintenance of stormwater management systems have beenestablished at the state level.

Overall Statistics

Public maintenance of stormwater management systems is per-formed in 24 programs (75%), but only 15 (63%) have a dedi-cated funding source to pay for maintenance activities. Of these15 programs, all but one is a city or county, and two of theseprograms pay for maintenance from general or property taxes,traditionally an unreliable funding source.

10f. Are Legal Steps Available in the Event that Maintenanceis not Accomplished?

When maintenance of stormwater management systems is theresponsibility of the private owner or a property owners associa-tion, there must be a legal mechanism available to ensure thatmaintenance is performed when needed. The most commonenforcement tool (14 programs) is a public agency notifying theowner about the maintenance needed and giving a deadline bywhich the activities must be completed. If maintenance is notperformed by the deadline, it is performed by the public agency(or by contract) with the owner billed for the cost. Often a tax lienis placed on the property until the owner pays the bill. Other com-mon enforcement tools include code enforcement violations withfines (10 programs), and legal enforcement (6 programs). Twoprograms, Washington County and Washington State, do not havelegal steps available if maintenance is not performed. Three stateprograms and one regional program leaves the enforcement main-

Publicmaintenanceof stormwatersystems isperformed by24 programs,but only 15have adedicatedfundingsource to payformaintenanceactivities.


3-73

tenance to local governments.

10g. Have legal steps ever been taken to facilitate neededmaintenance?

Having legal enforcement tools to assure that maintenance is per-formed doesn't matter if they aren't used. As seen below, usingthese legal tools is not a high priority, which helps to explain whyso many stormwater management systems are not maintainedand operated as designed. In Florida, surveys have shown thatup to 70% of the systems constructed since 1982 are not beingmaintained and operated properly.

11. Program Coordination with Related Programs

Erosion and sediment control and stormwater management pro-grams must coexist with an ever increasing variety of other pro-grams. These include wetlands protection, wellhead protection,building permits, land use planning, floodplain management,wastewater treatment, and water supply. All of these other pro-grams can profoundly impact successful implementation of ur-ban runoff control programs. Therefore, it is very important thaturban runoff control programs be closely coordinated with otherenvironmental and land use management programs. This willhelp to minimize conflicts between programs, maximize the ben-efits of all programs, and can help to assure effective implemen-tation of the urban runoff control program.

Whenmaintenanceof stormwatermanagementsystems is theresponsibilityof the privateowner or apropertyowners asso-ciation, theremust be alegal mecha-nism availableto ensure thatmaintenanceis performedwhen needed. 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63

Have Legal Steps Been Taken to FacilitateNeeded Maintenance?


States

Overall

Counties

Cities

Percentage


3-74

11a. Is There Significant Coordination Between the Erosionand Sediment Control and the Stormwater ManagementProgram?

There is close coordination in 30 programs (94%), with 22 pro-grams having an integrated erosion, sediment, and stormwatercontrol program. This close coordination greatly enhances pro-gram effectiveness. It needs to be remembered that these twoprograms are integrally related. After all, minimizing erosion, pre-venting off-site sedimentation, and managing runoff on a construc-tion site is all interconnected.

11b. With what other programs is there significant coordina-tion?

The questionnaire provided a list of possible programs for whichcoordination might be necessary including:

land use planning zoningwetlands protection building permitfloodplain management water supplywastewater management land acquisitionwellhead protection tree protection

Cities

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Other Programs Where There isSignificant Coordination

Wellhead ProtectionLand AcquisitionWater Supply

Wastewater Management

Tree ProtectionLand Use Planning

Building Permits

Wetlands Protection

FP Mngmt

Zoning Issues

There is closecoordinationin 30programsbetween theerosion andsedimentcontrol andstormwatermanagementcomponents.

22 programshave thesetwocomponentsintegrated.


3-75

Counties


Since storm-water systems,especiallyregionalsystems, canprovide mul-tiple benefitsincluding openspace andrecreation,coordinationwith landacquisition,wellheadprotection,floodplainmanagement,and wetlandprotectionprograms canoften create"win-win"opportunities.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Water Supply

FP Mngmt

Bldg P

Wastewater ManagementLand Acquisition

Wellhead ProtectionTree Protection

Zoning Issues

Wetl. Prot.

Land U

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tree ProtectionWellhead ProtectionZoning IssuesLand Use Planning

Wastewater TreatmentBuilding Permits

Land AcquisitionWater Supply

FPWetl.


3-76

States

Overall Statistics

The overall statistics clearly demonstrate the relationship ofurban runoff control programs to other land use, infrastruc-ture, and environmental programs. Stormwater managementsystems frequently are located in floodplains and may ad-versely impact wetlands. Since land use changes create theneed for erosion and sediment control and for stormwater man-agement systems, close coordination with land use planning,zoning, and building permit programs is essential. Siting ur-

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Tree ProtectionWellhead ProtectionLand Acquisition

Zoning IssuesWater SupplyWastewater TreatmentFP ManagementBuilding PermitsLand Use Planning

Wetlands

0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Wellhead Protection

Tree ProtectionWater Supply

Land AcquisitionWastewater Treatment

Zoning IssuesLand Use Planning

Building PermitsFP Mngmt

Wetlands

The overallstatisticsclearlydemonstratethe intimaterelationship ofurban runoffcontrol pro-grams to otherland use,infrastructure,andenvironmentalprograms.


3-77

ban runoff controls needs to be coordinated with the construc-tion of wastewater treatment systems, especially on-site sys-tems, and water supply systems, especially private wells, tominimize any potential adverse impacts. Installation of utilitylines or pipes conveying wastewater or potable water is a majorcause of land disturbance and close coordination is requiredfor effective erosion and sediment control. In wellhead pro-tection zones, special design criteria for stormwater systemsmay be desired to minimize potential adverse impacts on aqui-fers. Since stormwater systems, especially regional systems,can provide multiple benefits including open space and recre-ation, coordination with land acquisition, wellhead protection,floodplain management, and wetland protection programs canoften create "win-win" opportunities.

11c. Are There Conflicts with Other Programs Which Preventor Hinder Effective Program Implementation?

Conflicts and differences in policy between environmental andland use programs, and even between different environmentalprograms, is inevitable. While the goals and functions of some ofthese programs may be compatible, they also may conflict. It isimportant to identify conflicts which prevent or hinder effective pro-gram implementation. Such conflicts must be resolved if goals ofthe programs are to be achieved.

Additionally, programs must be operated with a minimum of con-flict to maximize their efficiency and productivity, especially sinceresources are so scarce.

Conflicts with other programs which prevent or hinder effectiveprogram implementation exist in 22 urban runoff control programs(71%). This is an extremely high rate of conflict, but not unex-pected.

The reasons for these conflicts are highly variable and depend tosome degree on local politics and institutional frameworks. How-ever, the areas of conflict can be grouped into five major catego-ries:

1. Development vs. environmental protection. This categoryis an area of conflict in eight programs (36%) - three cities,three counties, one regional, and one state program. De-velopment programs, which promote land alteration and im-pervious surfaces, and urban runoff control programs, whichrequire expenditures to mitigate the impacts of these land

Since storm-water systems,especiallyregional ap-proaches tomanagement,can providemultiple ben-efits, coordina-tion with otherprograms canoften create"win-win" op-portunities


3-78

use changes, often are viewed as having conflicting goals.Growth management and urban runoff control programsshould be mutually compatible. Unfortunately, in most lo-cales, there is no growth management. Urban sprawl doesnot allow for efficient infrastructure use and makes effec-tive resource protection almost impossible, especially onland with development constraints such as steep slopes,wetlands, karst conditions, high water table, etc.

2. Stormwater vs. wetlands protection. This category is anarea of conflict in eight programs (36%) - one city, two coun-ties, one regional, and four state programs. Wetlands arean important part of a watershed's natural stormwater man-agement system. They also are considered "waters" underthe Federal Clean Water Act. Ideally, wetlands should beincorporated as part of an overall stormwater managementsystem, either for an individual site or for a watershed. How-ever, current federal wetland policies often prohibit or in-hibit this natural function from being used as part of thesolution. Consequently, urban wetlands often become des-iccated as imperviousness in a watershed increases, or theybecome "trashed" or adversely effected by indirect storm-water discharges due to their location within the landscape.Alternatively, they often are filled or converted to open ponds.This creates a "lose-lose" situation rather than a "win-win"opportunity.

3. Conflicts with road department. This category is an area ofconflict in six programs (27%) - two cities and four counties.Urban runoff control programs can conflict with road de-partments with respect to transportation corridor planningwhich may now need to consider protection of wetlands,floodplains, and stormwater quality concerns. StormwaterBMPs usually are land intensive, requiring road departmentsto obtain more right-of-way and spend more dollars. Often,road departments prefer concrete lined ditches or pipes toconvey runoff rather than using grassy swales.

4. Conflicts with other environmental programs. This categoryis an area of conflict in five programs (23%) - two countyand three state programs. With the proliferation of environ-mental protection programs at all levels of government, itshould come as no surprise that conflicts arise between theurban runoff control program and other environmental pro-grams. This can be caused by duplication of requirements,especially when different implementing agencies are in-

Conflicts withotherprograms,which preventor hindereffective pro-gram imple-mentation, ex-ist in 22 urbanrunoff controlprograms(71%).

This is anextremely highrate of conflict,but notunexpected.


3-79

volved. It can also be caused by new, stricter standards ina program which hinders the runoff program. For example,solid or hazardous waste program requirements can hinderthe ability to maintain stormwater systems, placing new bur-dens on how to test stormwater sediments or restrictingwhere they may be disposed.

5. Conflicts with federal programs. This category is an area ofconflict in four programs (18%) - one regional and threestate.

There are conflicts over flood protection versus resourceprotection. There are duplicative efforts among differentagencies with different requirements. For example, manystates have had an erosion and sediment control program,and some have had stormwater management programs, longbefore the NPDES storm water regulations were imple-mented. The new NPDES permit requirements conflict withthese existing state requirements, a problem that can besolved by better coordination and communication.

11d. Is There Effective Communication with Federal Agen-cies on Related State and Federal Programs?

Communication is essential for effective program implementation.The amendments to the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act and the1990 CZARA amendments create new mandates for states toimplement NPDES storm water permitting programs and non-point source management programs. This question examines theeffectiveness of communication between federal agencies andlocal, regional, and state agencies. It must be stressed that com-

15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85%

Jurisdictions having Effective Communication with FederalAgencies on Related State and Federal Programs

Overall


States

Counties

Cities

Communica-tion is essen-tial for effec-tive programimplementa-tion.


3-80

munication is a two way street. The responses to this questionindicate that all agencies need to improve their communicationand coordination efforts.Surprisingly communication is most effective between federalagencies and city programs, not state programs. One would ex-pect the most effective communication would occur between thestates and federal agencies, but that is not the case. Instead,there is a general trend with declining communication effective-ness between federal agencies and cities, counties, regionalauthorities, and states. One possible explanation may be thelarge number of local urban control programs surveyed that areobtaining NPDES storm water permits.

12. Program Evaluation and Evolution

As with any environmental or public program, periodic evalua-tions are necessary to determine program benefits, identify ar-eas where program implementation can be improved, and helpthe program evolve. Periodic evaluations are especially impor-tant to urban runoff control programs because of their reliance onrelatively new BMPs. In fact, a central tenet of a performancestandard, BMP-based program is the need to periodically evalu-ate BMP effectiveness and design criteria.

12a. Are There Measures of Program Success?

Program success can be measured in a variety of ways, eitherqualitatively or quantitatively. The ultimate measure of successis a lessening of environmental degradation or even an improve-ment in quality. However, monitoring to assess the impacts of ur-ban runoff or the benefits of urban runoff programs is very diffi-cult. These programs are discussed in Question 12d. Obviously,quantitative data provides more information, but given their bud-getary and staffing restraints, many programs must rely on morequalitative measures. Five programs (16%) have no measures ofsuccess, while the other programs' measures are summarizedbelow:

Cities

Six cities (66%) defined measures for program success. Themeasures are highly variable and are listed individually:

monitoring of stormwater runoff and surface andground water qualitywater quality monitoring, public education

It must bestressed thatcommunica-tion is a twoway street.

The responsesto thisquestion indi-cate that allagencies needto improvetheir commu-nication andcoordinationefforts.


3-81

water quality monitoringability of staff to come together and agree on rolescomprehensive BMP tracking system; recognitionby others

Counties

Seven counties (70%) have measures to evaluate programsuccess. The measures are variable and are listed individu-ally:

completed capital improvement projects; publicinvolvement, adopted basin plans; etc.Use of design manual by many municipalities ontheir projectsworkload evaluations; enforcement actionscitizens complaints and drainage problemsreview of As-Built plans; inspections; flowmonitoringcounty pilot studiesmaintenance activities evaluated, regularmonitoring; public education tracked


All five regional authorities (100%) have some measures ofprogram success. The measures are variable and are listedindividually:

watershed studieslack of water quality and flooding problems;wetland survivalstormwater management research selectivelymonitors and evaluates practicesmajor systems provide multi-objective urbanfacilities favored by local jurisdictions

States

All eight states (100%) have some measures of program suc-cess. The measures are variable and are listed individually:

number of individuals receiving trainingbioassessments and sediment monitoringawareness, reputation from longevitySoil Conservation District evaluation ofcompliance; 90% of municipalities have

Monitoring toassess theimpacts of ur-ban runoff orthe benefits ofurban runoffprograms isvery difficult.

Obviously,quantitativedata providesmoreinformation,but budgetarylimitationsmeansprograms relyon morequantitativemeasures.


3-82

stormwater management ordinancesmeeting monthly deadlines for inspectionsPuget Sound Water Quality Management Plan isredrafted every two years

Overall Statistics

25 jurisdictions (78%) have some measures of program suc-cess. Of those 25, only seven (28%) provided information thatcould be considered as quantifiable in terms of chemical orresource-based monitoring.

12b. What Areas of Improvement are Needed in the Program?

There are a number of categories which may be generalized, buta listing of the individual responses is valuable. Some of the moregeneralized issues will be mentioned in the general statistics cat-egory:

Cities

introduction of educational elements to programmaintenance responsibility and enforcementwater quality best management practice require-ments are undergoing review at this time; Older ba-sin studies need updatingbiological and ecological context is needed for moni-toring the water environmentcommunity development staff should be hired; train-ing for other staff must be more frequent; field staffmust give erosion and sediment control more prior-itythe ability to statistically show improvement of thewater quality in surface water; measuring attitudechanges towards water qualitypreventive maintenance inspections for stormwatermanagement; public education; improve design ofurban BMP's for better removal of nutrients

Counties

maintenancelong-term maintenance funding; funding for correc-tion of existing problemsimproved maintenance of stormwater management;improved erosion and sediment control; improved

While 25programs havemeasures ofprogram suc-cess, only 7provided infor-mation thatcould beconsidered asquantitative interms ofchemical orresource-basedmonitoring.


3-83

designs for stormwater management; improved in-tegration with related programseducation of contractors in erosion and sedimentcontrol; tracking proper installation and maintenanceof erosion control structuresmonitoring; BMP research, development and im-provement; developing performance standards; bio-logical criteria for recreational watersintergovernmental cooperation by watershedpublic education; expansion of technical standardsfor water quality; private maintenance review, inspec-tion, and enforcementmaintenance; citizen complaintsneed to find additional ways to measure programeffectiveness, particularly those areas not readilymonitored


inspection; maintenance; enforcement; training; bet-ter acceptance and awareness of nonpoint BMP'sGet the state out of the stormwater business andgive the local government the responsibilities (withaccountability)specific criteria and standards for erosion and sedi-ment control plans; updating stormwater manage-ment criteria, operation, maintenance, and enforce-mentmore attention is needed by local cities and coun-ties; to better integrate stormwater quality and ero-sion and sediment control

States

additional funding for inspection; creation of a storm-water utility for long-term maintenance of stormwa-ter management structures; improved relations withfederal agenciesin all areas of program implementation - in particu-lar: updated rules, increased staff especially for in-spections, education of practitionersbetter inspection coverage and consistent implemen-tation for erosion and sediment control; water qual-ity criteria and consistency for stormwater manage-ment; education in generalimproved coordination with wetlands and coastal ar-

The mostcommon areaof needed pro-gramimprovementis overcomingthe lack ofmaintenanceof completedstormwatermanagementsystems.


3-84

eas review; make municipal stormwater manage-ment ordinances mandatory; watershed protectionfunding for soil conservation districts; funding in gen-eral; coordination and prioritizing of watersheds forstormwater qualityneed to develop a fine schedule for typical viola-tions and set as a policybenefits of comprehensive management need to bestressed; funding mechanisms; comprehensivehandbook neededmore money; recognition by Congress that mandatesare not easy or inexpensive to implement

Overall Statistics

The most common area of needed program improvement isovercoming the lack of maintenance of completed stormwatermanagement systems, which was cited by 10 jurisdictions(31%). Educational activities were mentioned by eight juris-dictions (25%). Six jurisdictions (18%) discussed both the needfor better criteria and for improved funding mechanisms. Fourprograms (12%) mentioned monitoring needs and improvedenforcement. It should also be stated that even if only onejurisdiction mentions a particular topic area as being a pro-gram weakness, that weakness may be true on a widespreadbasis and no less important.

12c. Are Research Projects Underway and Do They Have Wide-spread Applicability?

This topic is a means to consider program evolution on a wide-spread basis. There is a need in both program components tolearn more about all aspects of program development and imple-mentation. This is especially true about BMP design and perfor-mance, and about their water quality and resource managementbenefits. The responses to this question are overwhelming, in thatso many jurisdictions are engaged in research activities, so that abreakdown in terms of cities, counties, regional authorities, andstates is unnecessary.

Research is a program component in 29 jurisdictions (90%). Ofthese, 26 programs (89%) state that their research has wide-spread applicability. One of the programs replying that theirresearch does not have widespread applicability stated that it hasregional applicability. This represents a significant pool of infor-mation that is being developed.

Other programneeds includeeducationalelements,better designcriteria andfundingmechanisms,monitoringneeds, andimprovedcomplianceandenforcement.

29 programs(90%) have aresearchprogram com-ponent, with 26stating thattheir researchhaswidespreadapplicability.


3-85

The predominant areas of research are in the implementation ofinnovative stormwater management practices and monitoring theperformance of these practices. This is a very large potentialsource of information that could be vital in efforts to characterizeurban runoff and quantify the design and performance of urbanpractices. Imagine if there was coordination of these efforts interms of datacollection and analysis!

12d. Is Monitoring a Program Component?

This question asks if monitoring is being done and, if so, whattypes of monitoring. Monitoring efforts can include water chemis-try, sediments, biological, and flow rates.

Cities

All nine programs (100%) engage in some form of monitoringas a program component. One city did not provide a break-down of monitoring parameters. Eight programs (88%) moni-tor water chemistry with seven (77%) monitoring flow rates.Three cities (33%) monitor sediments and biology.

Counties

Nine programs (90%) conduct monitoring but one county didnot detail the individual parameters. Seven programs (70%)monitor both water chemistry and flow rates. Six (60%) con-duct biological monitoring while five programs (50%) do sedi-ment monitoring.


Four regional programs (80%) conduct monitoring. Waterchemistry analysis is performed by three programs (60%) whiletwo (40%) measure flow rates and monitor sediments. Onlyone regional program ( 20%) does biological monitoring.

States

Five programs (62%) conduct monitoring with all five samplingwater chemistry. Three programs (37%) conduct biologicalmonitoring while t wo (25%) do sediment and flow rate moni-toring.

27 programsengage inmonitoring asa programcomponent.

23 programs(71%) monitorwater chemis-try, 18 (56%)monitor flowrates, 13 (40%)conductbiologicalassessments ,and 12programs(37%) samplesediments.


3-86

Overall Statistics

27 programs (84%) engage in monitoring as a program com-ponent. Water chemistry is monitored by 23 programs (71%),18 (56%) monitor flow rates, 13 (40%) conduct biological as-sessments, and 12 programs (37%) sample sediments.

12e. Does the Program Address Retrofitting to Reduce Impacts from Developed Areas?

In addition to addressing whether retrofitting is a program compo-nent, the question is further broken down as to whether the retro-fitting addresses flooding, water quality, stream channel erosion,or aquatic resources.

Cities

All nine programs (100%) implement retrofitting to reduce im-pacts from developed areas. All nine (100%) address waterquality in retrofitting while six programs (66%) address flood-ing. Five programs (55%) consider stream channel erosion,and four (44%) consider aquatic resources.

Counties

Six counties (60%) include retrofitting to reduce impacts fromdeveloped areas as part of their stormwater management pro-gram. All six programs (60%) address water quality in theirretrofits while f ive (50%) consider flooding impacts. Fourprograms (40%) address stream channel erosion and protec-tion or restoration of aquatic habitats when retrofitting.


Only two regional programs (40%) are retrofitting to reduceimpacts from developed areas. These two (40%) considerflooding, water quality, stream channel erosion, and aquaticresources in their retrofit activities.

States

Six programs (75%) address retrofitting to reduce impactsfrom developed areas. All six (75%) perform retrofitting toimprove water quality, while five programs (62%) also con-sider both flooding and stream channel erosion. Three pro-grams (37%) address retrofit to protect or restore aquatic habi-

23 programs(71%) doretrofittingto reduceimpactsfrom devel-opedareas, andall 23 ad-dresswater qualityin theirretrofits.


3-87

tats.

Overall Statistics

23 programs (71%) do retrofitting to reduce impacts from de-veloped areas, with all 23 addressing water quality improve-ment. 18 programs (56%) are retrofitting to reduce flooding.16 programs (50%) consider stream channel erosion while13 jurisdictions (40%) implement retrofits to restore or protectaquatic habitats.

12f. Are Watershed-Specific Approaches Being Used?

This question also considers whether watershed approaches in-clude consideration of regional stormwater management struc-tures, water body targeting, and nonstructural BMP's.

Cities

Eight programs (88%) use watershed-specific approaches.Seven programs (77%) engage in water body targeting andnonstructural BMP's. Five (55%) include the implementationof regional stormwater management systems in their water-shed-specific approaches.

Counties

Watershed- specific approaches are a program element in eightprograms (80%). All eight include regional stormwater man-agement systems and nonstructural BMP's in their watershed-specific approaches. Six programs (60%) conduct water bodytargeting.


All five regional programs (100%) engage in watershed ap-proaches as a program element. Only four regional authori-ties provided a breakdown of the various individual approaches.Four regional programs (80%) conduct water body targeting.Three programs (60%) engage in nonstructural BMP's whiletwo 40%) consider regional stormwater management systems.

States

Seven programs (87%) use watershed approaches as a pro-gram element. Six states (75%) engage in all three approaches

87% of theprogramsincludewatershed ap-proaches as aprogramelement.

This statisticdemonstratesthe usefulnessof usingwatershed ap-proaches inurban runoffmanagementandprotection.


3-88

detailed in the question.

Overall Statistics

28 programs (87%) engage in watershed approaches as aprogram element. This statistic demonstrates the necessity ofusing watershed approaches in urban runoff management andprotection. Nonstructural BMPs are used by 24 programs(75%) use nonstructural BMP's in their watershed approach.23 jurisdictions (71%) use a waterbody targeting approach and21 jurisdictions (65%) use regional stormwater managementpractices in their watershed approaches.

13. General Items

The questionnaire, up to this point, is specific regarding programelements and items. At this point, it is important to consider more"intangible" items that also determine a program's effectivenessand lessons that can be learned from experience. The answers tothis item are more qualitative and are based on the experience ofthe individuals responding to the questionnaire. The discussionwill begin with the relative length of time that the programs havebeen in effect. Further discussion will be on pitfalls that agenciesand individuals need to avoid and weaknesses that impede pro-gram effectiveness. The final item in this chapter will be any addi-tional thoughts that the individuals who responded wished to make.

13a. Program History of Respondents

In terms of program age, regional authorities have been involvedwith erosion and sediment control and, primarily, stormwater man-agement for an average of 18 years. Next in longevity are stateprograms, having an average age of 13.1 years. County programshave existed for an average of 12.8 years and city programs havean average age of 11.5 years. The important point of this discus-sion is to recognize that the programs represented in this discus-sion have a lot of experience in erosion and sediment control andstormwater management. When considered as a whole, the pro-grams reviewed have a total of 415 years of experience, or anaverage of 12.9 years.

We need to learn from these programs. Recognize that overallprogram functioning and effectiveness depends on program ele-ments just as much as good science and technical information.There are some common threads in all programs that werelearned only through years of experience, regardless of where a

The agenciesrepresented inthis discussionhave a lot ofexperience inerosion andsediment con-trol and storm-water manage-ment.

When consid-ered as awhole, theyhave an aver-age length ofexperience ofalmost 13years.


3-89

program is located, its local political structure, or its physiographicfactors. These common elements are necessary wherever pro-gram implementation is being considered.

13b. Pitfalls to be avoided

The responses to this item will be presented as they were pro-vided. There will not be an attempt to offer statistics for theresponses, and they should be carefully read by anyone involvedin erosion and sediment control and stormwater management.Please remember that the items discussed are pitfalls and notrecommendations unless phrased that way.

Cities

BMP construction must be supervised by design pro-fessionals; general construction contractors need su-pervisionearly on, many of the development regulations hadlots of "loopholes" and exemptions - these havemostly been correctedneed to have community support; need to have earlysuccesses and to communicate those successes;need to be responsive to ratepayers; this means pro-viding good customer service with feedback. Belle-vue has a customer action request system.objectives need to be clearly defined for any pro-gram related to stormwater management; flood con-trol, water quality, and their relationship to overallenvironmental quality must be an integrated pro-gram. If not, staff will spend excessive time on insti-tutional barriersnot doing anything is a pitfall; studying things todeath; not trying new technologydeveloping regulations which may prove impracti-cal to enforce; not developing a good partnershipwith the regulated community; good partnership be-tween regulators and regulated is critical; develop-ing constant interaction with top management is cru-cialpublic hearings on projects before you proceed

Counties

all violation notices must be written; if securities arerequired, do not permit the use of surety bonds; use

"Need to havecommunitysupport.Need to haveearlysuccesses andtocommunicatethesesuccesses."

"Not doinganything is apitfall; so isstudyingthings todeath and nottrying newtechnology."


3-90

of corrugated metal pipe in pond embankments;building permit issuance must be controlled by sedi-ment control inspection staffmaintenance and retrofitting is under-funded; issuesof equity are very sensitivekeep upper management informed on all major de-velopments as they occur - this will reduce the stressof updating management and getting approval atcritical points in the development of a program; edu-cate in-house personneldon't get too many agencies involved in utility de-velopment; educate and involve the public beforedeciding the program elements and keep themonboardneed for dedicated funding source; need for ad-equate staff; avoid program fragmentation; need forperformance standardseach program has a unique political environment toconsider; we are currently hamstrung by low rates,yet we would have no program at all, most likely, ifthere were higher rates; seek highest rates possibleas a starting pointoverreliance on theoretical and technical knowledgeduring design without appropriate consideration forconstruction, maintenance, long term aesthetics, andcommunity acceptanceseparation of grading, erosion and sediment con-trol and stormwater management programs shouldbe avoided; plan review and maintenance programsshould not be politically separateestimate resources to start the program and thenfund the program 2 -3 times that amount; be pre-pared for the public's expectations when you start -they are high


take the time to educate the decision-makers andtheir technical advisors; be patient, don't expect im-mediate results; the best opportunity for progressand funding is immediately after a flood or other cata-strophic event; you need to move quicklyavoid exemptions for special interests; keep systemssimple with low maintenance; don't allow propertyowners associations to operate systems with mov-ing parts; delegate to responsible local government

"Avoidseparation ofgrading,erosion andsedimentcontrol, andstormwatermanagementprograms."

"Take time toeducate thedecision mak-ers and theirtechnicaladvisers."

"Be patient,don't expectimmediateresults."


3-91

when possible; avoid regulatory duplicationdevelop comprehensive technical criteria first; con-duct staff then public education and training; oper-ate the program awhile; update the program after acouple of years; implement goal oriented researchand evaluation effort; try to avoid frequent criteriachangesdon't start the program until it is well funded; be pa-tient - start slow and phase buildup of the programimpatience of municipal units through state and fed-eral regulatory permit programs that create adver-sary attitudes and everyone closes up for fear ofimposition of outside requirements and enforcement

States

avoid turf fights with related programs that overlap;lack of understanding and support from manage-ment; reliance on funding assistance from EPAlegislative support - money, staffing, authority, en-forcement; delegation - not without strong oversightand ability to rescindeducation should be stressed; include a diversity ofideas for program development; dedicated fundingsource should be identifiedavoid municipal enforcement of erosion and sedi-ment control; expertise is essential; the voluntarynature of municipal programs slows implementation;site based (as opposed to watershed based) regu-lationsinflexible inspectors; must have sure and certain en-forcement; specify minimum statewide standards tobase local plans on and to be in effect until localplans are developed; prioritize watersheds and con-centrate on developing or threatened watershedsbe very clear about application of first flush and whatit pertains to; specify when efficiency calculationsare requiredenforcement provisions must be flexible and have"teeth"; work early on with other government agen-cies to ensure that the law and regulations will becompatible with other stormwater management pro-grams; include a detailed handbook, checklists, etc.have a law on the books! It is very hard to convincepeople to change their ways unless you have some

"Educationshould bestressed;dedicatedfunding sourceshould beidentified."

"Avoid turffights withrelatedprograms thatoverlap."


3-92

enforcement authority; also, unfunded mandates re-ally do not cut it

13c. Weaknesses Which Impede Program Implementation

This item is related to the pitfalls section but tends to detail moreprogram specific items versus external concerns.

Cities

inexperienced city staff and development engineerswith stormwater BMP's; lack of public education pro-gram; fragmentation of clean water responsibilitysince Bellevue was the second stormwater utility,the early problems were that the utility was consid-ered a rain tax; any new program must develop pub-lic participation programs for supportlack of understanding by the general public andpolicy makers surrounds environmental quality as-pects of stormwater management; inability to definea single problem with a primary source and solutionmakes it difficult to get political support for neces-sary resources; chronic problems do not generatethe fear and subsequent calls for actioncoordination with community development office;despite repeated efforts to train reviewers and in-spectors, full compliance hasn't been achieved;plans are approved without adequate review;changes are made out in the field which affect theeffective operation of stormwater facilities; do notcrack down on erosion and sediment control viola-tionsinspections are the weakest link in our program; thegrant funded nature of the stormwater managementprogram makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff;cumbersome hiring practices

Counties

lack of long-term fundingloss of revenue to incorporations/annexations; en-vironmental regulations/permitting lead to delays andcost overruns for CIP's; too much emphasis on plan-ningprogram is not integrated with the NPDES stormwater program; our role is providing assistance -

"Lack ofunderstandingby the generalpublic andpolicy makerssurroundsenvironmentalqualityaspects ofstormwatermanagement;inability todefine a singleproblem with aprimarysource andsolutionmakes itdifficult to getpoliticalsupport fornecessaryresources;chronicproblems donot generatethe fear andsubsequentcalls foraction".


3-93

during tight fiscal times programs get cut; integra-tion of water quality with flood is needed; change isdifficultlack of public support; lack of problem recognition;strong development lobby; no new taxes movement;lack of strong research basis for BMP'slack of adequate funding; lack of performance stan-dards and research to improve performance; lack ofinteragency coordinationlow rates; lack of clear strategies for each water-shed supported by public consensus (being devel-oped now)county enabling legislation give planning board re-view authority over development which may effectroads or drainage facilities, channels, stream corri-dorsinternal county government processdeveloper pressure on policy decision makers tokeep away from doing much


funding limits - especially for watershed planning;lack of political support; lack of awareness and sup-port for water quality concerns, especially NPSthere is the usual political and special interest bick-ering over economic impact to development; an in-herent hindrance to enforcement by due processagricultural exemption and WEAK land use and zon-ing linkwe respond to the greatest local needs as our andlocal funds permit; most flooding problems havebeen addressed

States

inadequate funding levels; failure of decision mak-ers to recognize the impact of urban pollutants; lackof interest in the program by the regional EPA officelack of commitment at all levels of government; lackof growth management and program integration/en-forcement; need for education; lack of oversight withdelegationstaff and resources at the state and local level; edu-cation; consistencyprogram needs to be mandatory at the municipal

"Lack ofadequate fund-ing; lack ofperformancestandards andresearch toimproveperformance;lack of inter-agencycoordination".

"Lack ofcommitment atall levels ofgovernment;lack of growthmanagementand programintegration andenforcement;delegationneedsoversight".


3-94

levelfunding; funding at state level; shortage of countymatching funds; too many municipal programs whofeel that the state is intruding on authoritywhen delegated to local governments, the programdoes not appear to be as strong as when the day today operation is handled by the statestormwater management program is not mandatory;limited local staff to inspect and enforce local ordi-nances; many localities do not charge appropriateadministrative fees to cover efforts in programs, thusreducing their effectiveness; many local programsdo not require adequate surety for land-disturbingprojectslack of authority

13d. Any Additional Thoughts of the Individual Respondent

Cities

the small size of our city bureaucracy has allowedinnovation that might not have been possible in alarger jurisdictioncommunity education is a very important part ofthese programs - to get public support for city pro-grams; it helps when the public understands aboutNPS and general drainagewe need to keep offering training courses for inspec-tors; research on effective BMP's for erosion andsediment control needs to continuethere is the need to develop performance standardsfor erosion control and stormwater management

Counties

agriculture needs regulation; the pleasure boat in-dustry is polluting the waterways with their exhaust,sewerage, and fuel spills; stormwater regulationshave to have water quality goalswithout a dedicated source of long-term funding, thatis a stormwater utility, the type of program createdhere cannot survivethere is a great need for coordinated/integrated man-agement of water resources and programs;the major focus of any stormwater management pro-gram should be education; any education program

"The majorfocus of anystormwatermanagementprogram mustbe education;must addressinternal staffeducation;need to keeptraininginspectors".


3-95

would be remiss if it didn't address internal educa-tion; regional approach is effectivethe major debates here are related to property rightsversus preservation for the future; the public's abil-ity to bear increased costs; shared involvement byall water quality contributorsif impact is immediate, address through construc-tion of on-site or regional facility to prevent impact,if not immediate, contribute an equivalent amountto county-controlled regional programstate/federal agencies need to be more proactive inidentifying, designing, and implementing new prac-tices; state/federal funding is necessary to assuresuccess of these programs


our best successes have come through working pub-lic/private forums at the regional level, this helpsdiffuse opposition and demons; projects are help-ful, education is criticalthe most efficient program would be one which uti-lized common criteria among local, regional, andstate which involved each level of government to itscapability without duplicationthe information and data provided herein are cur-sory, are partially based on the opinion of the per-son completing the form and could be subject tochange after closer scrutinydevelop an institutional culture to service applicantsmuch can be accomplished if the local, regional, andstate agencies can work as partners; this means thatall of them participate in identifying what are the mostimportant problems as viewed by the communities,instead of them being defined by the state, federal,or regional agencies by themselves; partnershipsare needed to establish long-term goals and pro-vide sensible resource allocation for their implemen-tation over realistic time frames. Our current regu-latory environment does not permit this; hiding be-hind "higher" government shield to define what"lower" governments need to do does not work andwill never work; we cannot afford the unfunded man-dates we now have, much less new ones

"Much can beaccomplishedif local, re-gional, andstate agenciescan work aspartners; theymust all par-ticipate inidentifyingwhat are themost impor-tant problemsas viewed bythe communi-ties, instead ofpriorities beingset by state,regional, orfederalagencies bythemselves."


3-96

States

erosion and sediment control and stormwater man-agement must be combined for maximum programeffectiveness; watershed planning efforts should becombined with efforts to establish stormwater utili-tieswithout strict land use planning, aggressive state/local land acquisition programs, and integrated wa-tershed management our erosion and sediment con-trol and stormwater management programs cannotdo the jobprogram history and evolution has helped; wetlandsand stormwater conflicts have to be resolved; con-flicts with other programs must be resolved (6217,319,402, etc.)our stormwater management program is currentlybeing comprehensively revised to address storm-water on a watershed basis, expand water qualitymeasures and practicesbetter compliance through education and coopera-tive attitude for erosion and sediment control; needbetter coordination with EPA; state law only empow-ers to work with locals; no minimum standardsnew certification requirements and new local pro-gram review process should help to improve the ero-sion and sediment control program; significant im-provements have been made since 1990

"Withoutstrict landuse planing,aggressiveland acquisi-tion pro-grams, andintegratedwatershedmanagement,our erosion,sediment, andstormwatercontrolprograms cannot do thejob."

4-1

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Common Elements

All urban run-off controlprogramsshare com-mon elementssuch as a le-gal frame-work, admin-istration, per-formancestandards,design crite-ria, publiceducation,BMPresearch, pro-gramevaluation

Chapter 4Common Elements ofSuccessful Urban RunoffManagement Programs

Developing and implementing urban runoff control programs pre-sents many unique challenges. These are quite different fromthose encountered in the establishment of water quality manage-ment programs for traditional point sources of pollution. The chal-lenges are associated with the diffuse, intermittent nature of run-off, and the management practices and strategies employed tomitigate the adverse impacts of urban runoff. The experiences ofagencies that have developed and implemented urban runoff pro-grams can help other entities establishing programs to overcomesome of these challenges. This chapter summarizes and dis-cusses the common elements of the urban runoff programs re-viewed in Chapters 2, 3, and Appendix B. It also provides recom-mendations for establishing urban runoff control programs.

Recognize that essential program elements may differ dependingon whether implementation is at the state, regional, or local level.However, all urban runoff control programs do share common el-ements. These include legal framework, administration, perfor-mance standards, design criteria, public education, BMP research,program evaluation and monitoring data, etc. No single entitycan do everything. A "watershed management team" effort isneeded involving all appropriate levels of government. Programsmust be cooperative and involve federal, state, regional (if appro-priate), and local governments that share responsibility for pro-gram implementation. Cooperation, coordination, and partnershipsare cornerstones of successful programs. However, rememberthat erosion and sediment control and stormwater managementprograms primarily are regulatory programs. They must have aneffective enforcement mechanism to ensure proper site implemen-tation and maintenance.

The questionnaire results reveal that cities, counties, and regionalauthorities have a greater ability to provide funding and staff sup-port for program implementation than do the states. Clearly, muchof the day to day implementation must be done primarily at the

4-2


local level with significant support, expertise, and technical assis-tance at the regional or state level.

Individual jurisdictions may have very specific reasons for imple-menting an urban control program. The recommendations thischapter are provided as a basic approach to program implemen-tation. They may not be completely appropriate if a specific issueforms the basis for an individual program. In these situations, theagency still should consider the various components discussedand recommended in this document, then evaluate their utility forthe specific program.

Existing programs may not have the flexibility to implement somerecommendations due to constraints imposed by their institutionalframeworks. It is also important to recognize that although westrive for perfection in criteria and program elements, the realityof program implementation is another story. There is an importantdistinction between what we need to have for implementation ofan effective urban runoff control program and what we usuallyget. Recognize that funding and staff support for urban runoff con-trol programs must compete with other needed programs. There-fore, it is often necessary to prioritize program elements and al-low the program to evolve over time.

GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES

1. Possible Roles of Various Levels of Government

The complex challenges posed by urban runoff management aretoo great for any single level of government to solve. However, itis essential to minimize the number of jurisdictional levels. Thisallows for maximum implementation flexibility and reduces the po-tential for conflicts. At the same time, there must be oversight toensure that the program is implemented consistently thereby as-suring equitability throughout the nation, state or region. A teamapproach involving federal, state, regional (if appropriate), andlocal governments is needed. As mentioned so often in this docu-ment, programs must be cooperative, involving the appropriatelevels of government, which must share responsibility for programimplementation. The roles of each partner must be clearly de-fined to minimize duplication and conflicts. Effective coordinationamong implementing entities is crucial to maximize program ef-fectiveness. Cooperation and partnerships among all levels of gov-ernment are essential for successful program implementation.

The number of potential jurisdictional levels needs to be consid-

Recognizethat fundingand staff sup-port for urbanrunoff controlprogramsmust competewith otherneeded pro-grams. It isoften neces-sary to priori-tize programelements andallow theprogram toevolve overtime.

4-3


ered when developing a program. To the degree possible, man-dated levels beyond those essential for program implementationshould be "invisible". For example, the minimum NPDES stormwater requirements can be contained within the state or localprogram's requirements, which might be more restrictive or inclu-sive. Issuance of the state or local permit would be a requirementbefore the NPDES storm water permit Notice of Intent (NOI) forcoverage could be filed. The NPDES permit also would refer-ence compliance with applicable state or local requirements.

An ideal approach to program implementation is for federal re-quirements to be the broad mandates which necessitate state,regional, and local participation. The state program would estab-lish minimum performance standards, provide design guidance,conduct research and educational activities, and oversee programimplementation. Regional authorities would further the state ac-tivities, conduct watershed-wide planning and coordination, andbe involved with day to day implementation. Alternatively, localgovernments can be involved with day to day implementation, butonly after their programs successfully completed priorities suchas stormwater master planning and effective maintenance andoperation of facilities. Having local governments conduct researchand education further enhances program implementation and evo-lution.

Federal role

Federal agencies have an important role in the implementation ofurban runoff control programs. Chapter 1 briefly summarizes fed-eral programs implemented by the Environmental ProtectionAgency, NOAA, Department of Agriculture, and other federal agen-cies which can have an indirect or direct influence on urban run-off programs.

The Federal Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone ManagementAct Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 provide impetus forestablishing urban runoff control programs at the state, regional,and local level. Given our knowledge about the deleterious ef-fects of erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater on receiving wa-ters, it is important that federal laws establish minimum nationalrequirements for controlling these pollution sources. These needto be broad mandates which require all states to establish urbanrunoff control programs thereby assuring national consistency.This prevents states and local governments which do not want toaddress these problems from gaining an economic and competi-tive advantage over those governments which accept their re-

The idealapproach toprogramimplementa-tion is for fed-eral require-ments to bethe broadmandateswhich necessi-tate state,regional, andlocalparticipation.

4-4


sponsibility to be good stewards. However, the national require-ments must recognize the site specific nature of urban runoff con-trol and allow states flexibility to establish appropriate institutionalframeworks and BMP design criteria.

Funding also is an important contribution that the federal govern-ment needs to make. In particular, funding is needed to demon-strate BMPs, develop and distribute educational materials, and toconduct research on BMPs - to develop new technologies, refineexisting ones, and to determine the effectiveness of design crite-ria. Initial "seed money" also is needed to assist states develop,implement, and institutionalize their programs. Funding for theprograms and staff can be switched over time to state and localsources, but only after the programs are established, and gainsupport and acceptance from residents, the regulated public, andelected officials.

Technology transfer is another important role for federal agen-cies, especially EPA. While implementing urban runoff programspresents many unique challenges, often there is no need "to rein-vent the wheel", either institutionally or technically. As seen inChapters 2, 3, and Appendix B, most of the urban runoff controlprograms are conducting research that has widespread applica-bility. A national clearinghouse is needed to quickly and easilytransfer information about the results of recent and on-going re-search projects around the country. Electronic bulletin boardsare an excellent way to do this, as are periodic national confer-ences.

Federal accountability and consistency is a final role for federalagencies. Federally funded projects and activities on federal landsneed to serve as models, especially with respect to BMP imple-mentation and maintenance. Additionally, many federal programs,especially older ones, conflict with the goals of more recent envi-ronmental programs. Communication, coordination, and coopera-tion between EPA and other federal agencies, and between stateand federal agencies, is needed to minimize conflicts and assurethat federal programs and activities serve as models.

State role

State programs need to serve as the broad umbrella for effectiveurban runoff control. Implementation should involve state, regional(if appropriate), and local governments. The state's legal frame-work should allow delegation of program implementation to lowerlevels of government. However, experience shows that the effec-

Experienceshows that theeffectivenessof delegatedprograms de-pends onstrongoversight andpresence bythe state toassure thatactualprogramimplementa-tion is aggres-sively pursuedat the locallevel and toensurestatewideconsistency.

4-5


tiveness of delegated programs depends on strong oversight andpresence by the state to assure that actual program implementa-tion is aggressively pursued at the local level and to ensure state-wide consistency. Important state roles include:

Coordinating with federal agencies, regional or local programs;Enacting proper legal authority through the legislative and regu-latory process;Establishing performance standards for erosion control andrunoff treatment;Conducting and coordinating BMP and other vital researchneeded toestablish sound design criteria;Providing technical assistance and technology transfer;Developing and implementing public education programs, in-cluding training and certification programs for practitioners de-signing, constructing, inspecting, or maintaining runoff prac-tices;Developing and implemented sediment and biological moni-toring programs to evaluate program effectiveness;Establishing the legal authority allowing local governments toimplement dedicate funding mechanisms such as stormwaterutilities;Overseeing delegation of program components to regional orlocal entities to assure consistency between programs at theregional or local level.

Regional Role

The need for and existence of regional authorities will depend onmany factors including the size of a state, responses to past wa-ter resource management problems, and impetus for water re-sources management programs. Defining an appropriate role forregional authorities is difficult because their purpose and naturevaries greatly. However, regional authorities often share many ofthe responsibilities of states. They also provide an effective linkbetween a regions's cities and counties, and also they can en-hance communication between the state, counties, and cities.

One benefit of regional water authorities, as seen from Florida'swater management districts and the Puget Sound Program, is theestablishment of programs that are based on watershed bound-aries instead of political ones. This allows a more comprehen-sive approach to protecting and restoring water bodies by assur-ing inclusion of all governmental entities within the watershed.Regional authorities, in cooperation with local governments andcitizens, can take the lead in developing watershed management

Regional Au-thorities oftenshare manyresponsibili-ties of states,but can oftenenhance com-municationbetween thestate, coun-ties, and cities.

4-6


plans. They can target and prioritize watersheds, allowing water-shed plans and goals to be developed systematically. Stormwa-ter pollutant load reduction goals developed as part of the water-shed plan can become part of a TMDL, provided there is closecooperation with state agencies. Regional authorities also canplay an important role in the development of watershed-wide run-off management plans, especially coordinating the stormwatermaster planning efforts of local governments within a watershed.

Regional authorities also allow for the modification of state BMPdesign criteria to address special concerns such as ground waterprotection, or to address differences in characteristics such assoil types, geology, topography, or water table conditions. All ofthese greatly influence the appropriateness and performance ofspecific BMPs. Regional agencies also can conduct or coordi-nate the research necessary to develop the regional specific de-sign criteria.

Regional agencies are very appropriate for providing technicalassistance to local governments. Two of the regional authorities,the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission and the PugetSound Authority, developed urban runoff control design manualsfor use by local governments. Coordinating the development andimplementation of public education programs, and training pro-grams for stormwater system designers and builders, is anotherrole often undertaken by regional authorities.

Traditionally, many regional water authorities have been createdas flood control agencies. Examples of this include the UrbanDrainage and Flood Control District of Denver and the SouthFlorida Water Management District, both of which were estab-lished to address flooding that crossed jurisdictional boundaries.However, as the water pollution aspects of urban runoff becameknown, their programs evolved into more comprehensive waterresource management programs that also address runoff quality.

Cities and Counties

Local governments must be one of the lead entities in any suc-cessful runoff program. Local governments typically make landuse and development decisions which create urban runoff prob-lems and the need for stormwater infrastructure. At the local level,the erosion, sediment and runoff control program can be inte-grated with other critical local programs such as land use plan-ning, floodplain management, wetlands protection, tree protec-tion, open space and recreation, transportation, and wastewater

Regional wa-ter authoritiesalso can playanimportant rolein thedevelopmentof watershed-wide runoffmanagementplans,especiallycoordinatingthe stormwa-ter masterplanning ef-forts of localgovernmentswithin awatershed.

4-7


4-7

management. This promotes use of nonstructural managementpractices which can help to prevent and minimize urban runoffproblems.

The city and county role should focus first on:

Developing and implementing local stormwater master planswhich are consistent with local future land use plans and withregional or state watershed plans;Conducting inspections both during and after construction;Implementing dedicated funding sources, like stormwater utili-ties;Identifying and removing illicit connections;Conducting operation and maintenance activities.

Once these program components have been successfully imple-mented, local programs, like state programs, can evolve to in-clude additional activities. Public education programs should beone of the earliest program additions. They are essential in sell-ing the concept of a stormwater utility fee. Cities and countieswhere program implementation efforts have gone far beyond theminimum components above provide an example of what can bedone if there is local recognition of the importance of proper ero-sion, sediment, and stormwater management and support for ur-ban runoff program implementation.

Local governments can be essential in assuring inspections andcompliance. They typically have inspectors onsite several timesduring the construction process. Although linking the urban run-off program inspections to other permit inspection requirementsmay seem to maximize benefits, there must be a dedicated stafffor inspection and enforcement of erosion, sediment and urbanrunoff controls. Using building or grading inspectors to assurecompliance with controls may be fine on small sites, but largersites are more complicated in terms of types of practices and phas-ing of their implementation. These sites need inspection by indi-viduals who are specially trained in the design, construction, andoperation/maintenance of erosion and sediment controls and ur-ban runoff BMPs, and whose primary function is urban runoff con-trol inspection. Secondly, assuming that existing staff can assumeresponsibility for another program, in addition to their current re-sponsibilities, just does not work. Experience has shown that theseindividuals always will have a primary responsibility, such as finalinspections for occupancy of a house or structure. Consequently,less emphasis is placed on erosion, sediment, and urban runoffcontrol.

Local pro-grams shouldfocus first ondevelopingand imple-mentingstormwatermaster planswhich areconsistentwith futureland use plansandregional wa-tershed plans,inspectionsduring andafter construc-tion, illicitconnections,operation andmaintenance,and gettingdedicatedfundingsources.

4-8


Local governments also can play important roles in the erosion,sediment and stormwater permitting and enforcement process.Delegation of permitting to local governments should be done withcaution and close oversight. Experience has shown that as thepermitting process moves from the state to the local level, permit-ting decisions can be more easily influenced by nontechnical fac-tors. At the local level, the issuance of building or grading per-mits can be linked to the issuance of erosion, sediment, and storm-water permits, helping to assure that control practices are installedbefore land clearing begins. Additionally, other local approvals(i.e., occupancy certificate) can be leveraged in the event thatenforcement action is necessary.

2. Should the erosion and sediment control and urban runoffmanagement programs be integrated?

Integration of erosion and sediment control and stormwater man-agement components greatly enhances the environmental andcost-effectiveness of the program. Urban runoff management pro-grams should be viewed as a broad umbrella encompassing theprevention and management of runoff both during and after con-struction or land disturbance. The importance of program integra-tion is well recognized, with the majority of programs reviewedhaving integrated erosion/sediment control and urban runoff man-agement. Staff in two of the ten jurisdictions with separate pro-grams opined that they should have integrated programs.

Program integration helps consolidate and coordinate permittingand design requirements, and plan review. Site requirements anddesign criteria for erosion/sediment controls and urban runoffcontrols also can be better coordinated and more consistent withan integrated program. For example, site control requirementssuch as the design volume of a sediment basin should be consis-tent with the design volume for the urban runoff managementbasin. This allows the sediment basin, when the site is finallystabilized, to be converted to provide permanent urban runoff treat-ment and management. Program integration can help to achievehighly desired multiple benefits, avoid duplicative review pro-cesses, and can reduce overall program administration and con-struction costs.

Program integration also greatly enhances inspection and properoperation of control practices, an area of program weakness innearly every program reviewed. Construction inspection can bedone by one inspector instead of two, an important consideration

Integratingerosion/sedi-ment controlwith stormwa-termangementcan help toachieve highlydesired mul-tiple benefits,avoid duplica-tive reviewprocesses,and reduceoverall admin-istrative andconstructioncosts.

4-9


since trained erosion, sediment, and runoff control inspectors arenot abundant. Integrated inspections help to assure that sedi-ment control basins are not converted to urban runoff facilitiesprior to final site stabilization. Linking the two programs also pro-vides implementing agencies additional enforcement tools, help-ing to improve site compliance.

In summary, integration of erosion and sediment control and ur-ban runoff management programs is strongly recommended. Ur-ban runoff management needs to be viewed as a continuum. Pro-grams must address the adverse impacts of urban developmentfrom initiation of site disturbance, through the development pro-cess (erosion and sediment control, temporary urban runoff con-trol), to completion of construction and final site stabilization, andfinally to maintenance and operation of BMPs after completion ofsite development (urban runoff control).

3. Program Goals

To maximize their cost-effectiveness and to gain broad public sup-port, urban runoff programs should be multifaceted, establishinggoals to address the important runoff related problems within thejurisdiction. Program goals should be based on problems whichare clearly recognized as being important and interrelated by thegeneral public and elected officials at the implementation level.

Examples of related goals which can be addressed as a compo-nent of an overall urban runoff management program include:

water qualityflood controlground water protectionchannel erosionhabitat protectionfisheries protectionresource protectionwetlands protection

It is not necessary for all of these to be goals of an urban runoffprogram, but they are closely related and generally best man-aged through an integrated program. An urban runoff control pro-gram can be a component of a broader, more comprehensive re-source protection program.

The absolute worst reason to implement a program is only be-cause it is required by others. It is very difficult to gain local sup-

Integration oferosion andsediment con-trol and urbanrunoff man-agement pro-grams isstrongly rec-ommended.

Urban runoffmanagementneeds to beviewed as acontinuum.

4-10


port for a program where the jurisdiction does not have ownershipof the program. However, it must be recognized that many urbanrunoff control programs would not exist if not for federal or staterequirements. The federal or state requirement must be turnedinto a local priority, by addressing problems of local importance, iffunding and staff support is to be provided. Of the 32 programsreviewed, 37% indicate that a partial reason for program imple-mentation is because it is required by others. However, many ofthese programs also developed in response to local needs asopposed to only responding to requirements imposed by someother entity.

The bottom line is there must be local ownership of the program ifit is going to be effective. Individuals charged with establishing anurban runoff program must educate local officials and the generalpublic about the benefits that the program will provide for theircommunity.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

1. Basic goals and performance standards

The basic intent of these programs should be stated in terms ofprotection: protection of public health and well-being; protectionof aquatic or natural resources; protection of property. Publicsupport is more likely if the general public clearly understandsthat urban runoff control personally benefits them, either throughprotection of their lives, homes, property, aquatic resources, orquality of life. The goals of an effective urban runoff control pro-gram should include flood protection and water quality protectionas a minimum, with other goals such as aquifer recharge, habitator fisheries protection included when appropriate. A programwhich addresses several urban runoff related problems will havemore supporters, especially when local benefits can be observed.One problem that often arises in large watershed programs (i.e.,Chesapeake Bay Program) is a lack of political commitment bythose jurisdictions that don't perceive a personal benefit from theirexpenditures. Land owners and local governments in the upperparts of the watershed need to understand why it is important forthem to be part of the solution.

Ideally, a program's basic performance standard should be to as-sure, for all new construction or redevelopment, that the post-development runoff peak discharge rate, volume, and pollutantloading do not exceed pre-development levels. Implementationof this approach might require onsite runoff treatment for all

Public supportis more likelyif the generalpublic clearlyunderstandsthat urbanrunoff controlpersonallybenefits them,either throughprotection oftheir lives,homes,property,aquaticresources orquality of life.

4-11


projects, with runoff quantity control requirements depending onfactors such as project size, impervious area, or location within awatershed.

Maintaining pre-development or historical peak discharge rateshas been the primary performance standard of most stormwaterquantity control programs. Factors that must be analyzed in set-ting this standard include the design storm (return frequency andduration), downstream conveyance capacities, and stormwatermaster plan considerations. In recent years, programs have usedmore than one design storm, one for flood protection (25-yr, 24-hr) and the other to minimize channel erosion (2-yr, 24-hr). A newconcept is the "critical duration storm" which is defined as thestorm creating the greatest change in pre-development and post-development conditions. This design storm is used by the Su-wannee River Water Management District (Florida).

Traditionally, few urban runoff programs have included goals orperformance standards for runoff volume. However, the impor-tance of volume in runoff management is becoming more recog-nized. Volume control can greatly increase flood control, espe-cially in closed basins; help recharge aquifers and maintain streambaseflow; minimize stream channel erosion and habitat loss; andprotect water quality by reducing loadings and by reducing ex-cessive freshwater flows, especially into estuaries where salinityregimes can be adversely altered by urbanization.

Unfortunately, most of the currently used urban stormwater treat-ment practices can't achieve the goal of reducing post-develop-ment pollutant loadings to pre-development levels. A more realis-tic runoff quality goal is to reduce post-development total sus-pended solids loadings by 80%, as measured on an average an-nual basis. This goal is the basis for the urban runoff treatmentprograms in Florida and Delaware.

2. Design Criteria for Runoff BMPs

The program's goals and performance standards will greatly in-fluence which practices are used to achieve compliance. If vol-ume control is a program goal, then practices which infiltrate orreuse runoff will be relied upon. If peak discharge rate control isthe goal, then detention facilities, which are more capable thanother practices in temporarily holding large quantities of runoff,will be favored. Of course, the "BMP Train" approach in whichseveral practices, appropriate for the site, are used in combina-tion typically is the best approach, regardless of the goal.

The basicperformancestandardshould be toassure thatpost-developmentpeak dis-charge rate,volume, andpollutantloadingdoesn't ex-ceed pre-developmentlevels.

4-12


Considerations in establishing peak discharge design criteria typi-cally include the design storm, runoff calculation methods, weiror control structure sizing, conveyance capacities, and downstreamerosive velocities.

Establishing design criteria to achieve a specified level of runoffpollutant load reduction is much more complicated. Factors thatmust be analyzed, and for which local data are needed, includeprecipitation characteristics, including storm volume frequenciesand inter-event times; pollutants of concern; runoff concentrationsand loadings; existence of "first flush" effects; treatment efficiencyof various practices; drawdown time; land use; drainage area;type of conveyance; and whether treatment practices will be "off-line" or "on-line". Since the design of runoff treatment practices isstill in its infancy, design criteria must be periodically revisitedand revised as more data about the design and effectiveness ofpractices becomes available.

Practices to control runoff volume are limited to either infiltrationpractices or reuse practices, thus limiting somewhat where vol-ume control can be achieved. Considerations in establishing de-sign criteria for these practices include those discussed aboveplus irrigation rates, area to be irrigated, and site characteristicssuch as soil type, depth to ground water, etc. Experience in manystates has shown that infiltration practices generally can not beconsidered where there are:

Silt or clay soilsareas where water tables or bedrock are close tothe surfacesteep slopes

An important concern with respect to both volume control andurban runoff treatment is to assure that there are no adverse im-pacts to ground water quality. Infiltration practices should be veg-etated to help bind runoff pollutants in the soil, and to maintainsoil permeability. Particular care is needed where soluble pollut-ants are prevalent, especially in highly transmissive coarse sandswhere their migration to ground water could occur unimpeded.Again, the BMP Treatment Train approach is crucial, especiallythe inclusion of nonstructural source controls which can reducepollutants with a high migration potential.

Practices tocontrol runoffvolume arelimited toeitherinfiltrationpractices orreuse prac-tices, thuslimiting some-what wherevolume con-trol can beachieved.

4-13


3. Exemptions, waivers, and variances

Ideally, all land use activities should be subject to the stormwaterprogram's requirements. However, nearly all programs include ex-emptions or waivers because of limitations on program resources,and as a result of compromises or political decisions made duringthe development of the program. Typically, the exemptions andwaivers tend to be broader than many program staff feel shouldbe allowed. If included in a program, they should be for activitieswhich will not seriously undermine program effectiveness.

Exemptions

The most common exemptions are for agriculture, forestry, andthe construction of single family homes which are not part of alarger plan of development. The construction of single familyhomes, that are not part of a subdivision, usually poses little prob-lem because of their limited individual runoff impacts. The firsttwo exemptions may be appropriate for urban runoff managementprograms. However, these activities should be included in broaderbased programs, especially statewide runoff management pro-grams. In Florida, the state stormwater rule exempts agriculturalactivities provided the land owner has a Conservation Plan andhas implemented the BMPs contained in the Plan. Likewise, for-estry activities are exempt provided the operations are conductedin accordance with the requirements set forth in the state's Silvi-culture BMP Manual.

Another common reasonable exemption is a disturbed area orimpervious surface area threshold, especially for runoff quantitymanagement. Impervious surface thresholds vary widely. Theyrange from 5,000 square feet, which is common for exemptions torunoff quality management, to up to two acres, which is used insome runoff quantity management programs. It is recommendedthat thresholds for runoff quantity management be based uponlocal conditions and impacts (i.e., master plan considerations,location within a watershed, downstream conveyances, etc.) Run-off quality thresholds should not exceed 5,000 square feet sincethis size typically allows small improvements such as turn lane orparking additions. This is a small area of disturbance and makesa statement that all development must consider the urban runoffquality impacts as an essential component of site development.

Waivers

Waivers are less generic than exemptions, typically requiring

Runoff qualitythresholdsshould notexceed 5,000square feet.

This is a smallarea ofdisturbanceand makes astatement thatall develop-ment mustconsider theurban runoffqualityimpacts as anessential com-ponent of sitedevelopment.

4-14


case-by-case determinations. Examples of waivers include a run-off pollution loading threshold (for a specific parameter or for sev-eral) or, for runoff quantity only, a minimum increase in peak dis-charge before quantity controls are necessary. For example, theMaryland Critical Areas Program establishes a maximum pre- topost-development increase in phosphorus loading. A commonwaiver for stormwater quantity control is for projects that do notincrease the pre-development peak discharge rate for the two-year storm by more than 10%.

Stormwater quantity waivers can be separated from runoff qualitywaivers in that quantity controls may depend on the location of aproject within a watershed. On the other hand, stormwater qualitywaivers are very project specific. They should be considered ona much more limited basis, especially because of the cumulativeloadings of small projects.

Variances

There also must be some form of variance procedure for thosesituations where strict implementation of program requirementspresents an unnecessary hardship or is not feasible. Flexibilitymust be provided to deal with those specific situations yet notweaken the program. A variance procedure could allow for aninnovative practice on a site where strict adherence to existingcriteria would be costly and of negligible benefit. The basis forvariances must be clearly documented in a case file, providing arecord to help maintain equitability. This is especially importantwhen variances are denied, or if an applicant believes that theyare being held to a higher standard.

4. Design assistance and guidance

In most areas of the country, urban runoff quality control programsare very new. Practitioners have little experience in developingand implementing programs, designing or constructing BMPs, orinspecting or maintaining runoff systems to reduce pollutants. Itis essential that design assistance and guidance be given to thoseimplementing the program, and to those being regulated by theprogram. Training on the design, construction, operation, andmaintenance of runoff quality control practices is an essential partof the much larger educational component of a successful urbanrunoff management program.

Regular educational programs on the design, construction, andmaintenance of runoff controls are essential. This helps assure

Training onthe design,construction,operation, andmaintenanceof runoffquality controlpractices is anessential partof the muchlargereducationalcomponent ofa successfulurban runoffmanagementprogram.

4-15


that individuals remain current with the rapid changes in informa-tion on the design and performance of practices. It also providesopportunities for training the large influx of new personnel eachyear in the design and construction industry, and in the rapidlygrowing field of urban runoff management. Education programshelp individuals have a good understanding of their roles andresponsibilities. This is crucial to effective program implementa-tion.

Common design aids include comprehensive BMP design hand-books such as the Florida Development Manual: A Guide to SoundLand and Water Management and the Washington Departmentof Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget SoundBasin. Many of the programs reviewed for this handbook havedeveloped excellent design handbooks. Another approach is theuse of individual documents for each BMP such as Maryland's"Infiltration Standards and Specifications" and "Constructed Wet-lands". While distributed as separate documents, they representa comprehensive approach to design guidance when consideredtogether.

The format of these design aids is not as important as their avail-ability. Development of BMP manuals is very challenging techni-cally and often very expensive. This is one reason why state orregional agencies usually take the lead in their preparation. Pre-paring BMP manuals requires close cooperation among state,regional, and local agencies along with the engineering and de-velopment communities. Universities often are involved, espe-cially in testing BMP designs to assure they achieve the desiredlevel of treatment. This approach helps assure that the final docu-ment is comprehensive and accurate, with widespread applica-bility. Having a design document, which includes appropriate plancontent requirements and material specifications, that is acceptedacross political boundaries, assists designers in becoming profi-cient in accepted design, and also assists in proper implementa-tion by contractors. Having a consistent policy also reduces pos-sible inequities by assuring that land developers in one jurisdic-tion do not have additional economic burdens that do not exist inan adjacent or nearby jurisdiction.

5. Management and source controls

It is becoming more recognized that structural treatment controlscan only partially mitigate urban runoff pollutant loads. These prac-tices can not reduce post-development pollutant loadings to pre-development levels. Structural controls can be very effective at

A designdocument,which in-cludes appro-priate plan re-quirementsand materialspecificationshelps assure aconsistentpolicy acrosspoliticalboundariesreducing pos-sible inequi-ties. It alsohelpsdesigners andcontractorsproperly de-sign and buildBMPs.

4-16


removal of suspended solids and the pollutants bound to them,but they are much less effective in reducing soluble pollutants.Consequently, source controls, which reduce the generation ofpollutants at a site, must be used in conjunction with structuralpractices to fully achieve the desired goals of an effective urbanrunoff management program. Which source controls should beemphasized depends on the specific pollutants of concern in agiven jurisdiction.

Source controls do not have to be expensive or complicated. Ingeneral, they are simple, common sense practices such as cov-ering areas to limit exposure of materials to rainfall or runoff; re-cycling oils, lubricants, fuels, and antifreeze; reducing the use oramount of fertilizers or pesticides; or, routing roof runoff to pervi-ous areas. When implemented, these practices can provide sig-nificant water quality benefits, although it is very difficult to quan-tify the benefits. Additionally, using source controls often cansave money.

Source control guidance documents are extremely beneficial sincemost people are still unfamiliar with "pointless personal pollution".They still do not understand how their everyday activities affectwater quality. However, preparation of guidance documents takestime and money, requiring these efforts to be prioritized. Prioritiz-ing can be based on a widespread problem such as householdhazardous waste disposal, or based on a limited specific activitywhich may have large environmental consequences, such asproper disposal of waste products associated with motor vehiclemaintenance.

Once the source controls to be emphasized are selected, a time-table must be established to prepare guidance documents on apriority basis. Guidance must not only explain the benefits of us-ing the source control, but also must include when, where, andhow they can be used. If recycling of waste oil or hazardous wastesis a source control, then fairly accessible locations must be pro-vided and publicized so that individuals can easily dispose of theirwastes. A major consideration with respect to source control guid-ance is the method of delivering the information. Effective deliv-ery mechanisms include stories in the local paper or television;newsletters or utility bill stuffings sent to the general public; ar-ticles in trade journals or trade association newsletters; and pre-sentations at meetings of civic or trade organizations. However,experience has shown that you can not rely on a passive ap-proach, such as making pamphlets available at various locations.There has to be a more aggressive approach which stresses in-

Source con-trols are anintegral com-ponent of suc-cessful urbanrunoff pro-grams whichcan not beconsideredshort term innature. Guid-ancematerials areessentialsince mostpeople do notunderstandhow their ev-eryday activi-ties affect wa-ter quality.

4-17


teraction and repeated education.

In summary, source controls are an integral component of suc-cessful urban runoff programs. They can not be considered shortterm in nature.

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

1. Basic goals and performance standards

The most common goal of jurisdictions implementing an erosionand sediment control program is protection - of public safety, wa-ter quality, or other aquatic related resources such as habitat orfisheries. A more realistic goal, as mentioned by a number of ju-risdictions, is minimization, "to the extent practical", of off-site im-pacts. That's because even with the best designs, the process ofsite development with its associated earth disturbance, can stillcreate adverse downstream impacts because of the limited effec-tiveness of current erosion and sediment practices, especiallywhen severe storm events exceed the design storm for thesepractices. The intent of erosion and sediment control programsshould be to minimize the potential for off-site impacts by reduc-ing the areal extent and time duration of impacts.

In defining how a program can minimize impacts, a dual strategyis recommended. The program should seek first to prevent ero-sion and then seek to reduce the associated sedimentation. Pre-vention practices include sequencing construction to reduce ar-eas of disturbance, conducting land disturbance during the dryseason, establishing limits on areas of disturbance during the wetseason, and timely stabilization (temporary or permanent) of dis-turbed areas. Reduction of impacts would follow using traditionalerosion and sediment control practices such as stabilized con-struction entrances, silt fences, diversion dikes, sediment trapsand basins. Reduction practices are most effective at removingcoarser sediments, while preventive practices are more effectiveat removing silt or clay particles by preventing their initial move-ment.

In summary, a basic goal of erosion and sediment control pro-grams should be to minimize off-site impacts by following a phi-losophy of first preventing erosion and then maximizing control ofsedimentation onsite.

Once the program's goal is determined, it is necessary to estab-lish an achievable performance standard which will form the ba-

A basic goalof erosion andsediment con-trol programsshould be tominimize off-site impactsby following aphilosophy offirst prevent-ing erosionand thenmaximizingcontrol ofsedimentationonsite.

4-18


sis for the development of design criteria for the various erosionand sediment control practices to be used. Performance stan-dards can be either technology based or water quality based.Technology based standards are the most common. They typi-cally are related to a reduction in the level of suspended solids(e.g. 80%) leaving a site, or may be expressed in terms of retain-ing sediment onsite. The former standard is appropriate becausethere is a good understanding of the processes involved in thereduction of suspended solids. The latter performance standardaddresses potential adverse impacts beyond water quality suchas public safety concerns associated with tracking sediments ontopublic streets or sediment clogging of runoff conveyances whichcan increase flooding. Water quality based standards often are a"backstop" since most environmental laws prohibit violations ofwater quality standards. A common water quality based standardis that discharges may not increase turbidity, measured in NTU,above background conditions by more than a specified amount.A common problem with this approach is the issue of compound-ing sources of sediment, possibly from other sites under construc-tion, which may hinder enforcement of a specific site.

2. Design Criteria

Once a performance standard has been established, then designcriteria need to be developed for the individual erosion and sedi-ment controls. By providing both performance standards anddesign criteria, site planners and engineers can select those prac-tices which will work best on a given site because of its specificsoils, topography, slopes, geology, and hydrology characteris-tics. Design criteria need to be specified for both prevention andreduction practices.

Specific design criteria should be included for at least two pre-vention practices. First, a maximum area of disturbance at anyone time should be specified, with a variance provision for spe-cific activities which cannot meet that limitation such as highwayinterchange construction. Second, a maximum time frame for ei-ther temporary or permanent site stabilization upon cessation ofgrading needs to be set. Delaware's program limits site distur-bance at any one time to a maximum of 20 acres and requiressite stabilization within 14 days when an area is not being activelyworked. The specific design criteria for prevention practices willdepend largely on local rainfall patterns and associated runoffcharacteristics. If there is a defined seasonality to the rainfall, thecriteria may be primarily directed towards activities conducted dur-ing the wetter seasons. This approach is used by the Puget Sound

Many of thestructuralpractices,except forstorage vol-umes of sedi-ment traps orbasins, tend tohaveuniversaldesign criteria.

Vegetativepractices mustinclude localconsiderationssuch as thetypes of plantmaterials andhow they arebest estab-lished andmaintained.

4-19


Water Quality Management Program which establishes seasonallimits on disturbed area.

Design criteria for reduction practices often are based on sizingcriteria, either in terms of contributing drainage area or storagevolume or both. Most programs establish a minimum size for sedi-ment traps and basins, such as 1,800 cubic feet per acre of drain-age area. This volume figure was developed years ago by theNatural Resources Conservation Service (then the Soil Conser-vation Service) to achieve a 70% reduction in suspended solidson a Piedmont hydrologic soil group C soil. The volume was thenplaced in design criteria as a minimum standard for site design.

It must be recognized that the sizing of these practices is basedon a design storm having a specified return interval, such as thetwo- year, 24-hour storm. Therefore, it is essential that long termrainfall records be analyzed to determine the appropriate designstorm. The selected design storm should be one which occurs ona frequent basis, and for which the probability of exceedance isrelatively low. Control practices will not achieve the desired levelof performance for those storms which exceed the "design storm".The final selection of the design storm must balance performanceand costs. Establishing a very stringent standard may be desir-able from a resource protection standpoint, but may create coststhat the regulated public considers excessive. Essentially, selec-tion of the design storm depends on the level of risk associatedwith the probability that storms will occur which exceed the de-sign storm. Most standards established around the country rec-ognize that the implementation of site controls may still allow ad-verse downstream impacts when larger storms occur.

3. Exemptions and waivers

If the erosion and sediment control program is integrated with thestormwater management program, the exemptions and waiversshould be consistent, but not necessarily identical. There are ac-tivities which, due to their limited size, should not be required toprovide permanent stormwater management, but which shouldbe required to implement erosion and sediment control. An ex-ample, is single family home construction that is not part of alarger development.

The most common and simplest approach for establishing exemp-tions and waivers is based on the amount of disturbed area. Thisapproach is easily implemented since determining the amount ofdisturbed area is simple. The size of the disturbed area for an

BMP designcriteriatypically arebased on adesign storm.It is essentialthat long termrainfallrecords beanalyzed todetermine theappropriatedesign storm.

4-20


exempt activity will depend to some extent on local conditionssuch as rainfall patterns, soil types, and topography. It is recom-mended that the threshold size of disturbance be relatively small,such as 5,000 square feet. This emphasizes that erosion and sedi-ment control are integral components of site development. It alsohelps to minimize potential cumulative impacts if many construc-tion projects are on-going within a watershed.

There also has to be some flexibility for unforeseen types of ac-tivities for which preconstruction review and approval would bean undue hardship and not be in the best public interest. Theseactivities typically are of an emergency nature, such as those re-quired after an extreme storm event which creates situations need-ing an immediate response. Such activities must still implementerosion and sediment controls, but implementation should bebased on requirements defined onsite. Alternatively, a specialprocess can be established which calls for submission and re-view of plans within an appropriate time frame.

4. Design Assistance and Guidance

To maximize program effectiveness and the proper use, design,construction, and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls,it is essential to have a design guidance document available fordesigners, developers, and contractors. It is not difficult to de-velop such a document, as most areas of the country alreadyhave one in use. To a large extent, the manuals are very similarto one another. For each practice, the design manual shouldspecify the purpose, applicability in different site situations, siz-ing, materials, construction standards, maintenance needs, andoperational information. The manual must include both structuraland vegetative practices. Many of the structural practices, exceptfor storage volumes of sediment traps or basins, tend to haveuniversal design criteria. Vegetative practices must include localconsiderations such as the types of plant materials and how theyare best established and maintained.PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

State programs are limited in their ability to obtain resources, beingdependent upon uncertain annual legislative general appropria-tions. Therefore, an approach used in several state programs isthe concept of "delegation of authority", with the permitting pro-gram delegated to a lower level of government. This is similar tothe historic delegation of authority that EPA has used in the NP-DES program. However, EPA only delegates this program to states

The thresholdsize ofdisturbanceshould berelativelysmall.

This empha-sizes thaterosion andsediment con-trol are inte-gral compo-nents of sitedevelopmentand helps tominimizepotentialcumulativeimpacts ifmanyconstructionprojects areon-goingwithin awatershed.

4-21


and prohibits further delegation to lower levels of government.State programs which use delegation generally allow the lowerlevel of government an option of accepting delegation of the pro-gram, with implementation done by the state if the regional orlocal government chooses not to do so. The effectiveness of thisapproach depends on oversight and a strong presence by thestate. This assures that actual program implementation is ag-gressively pursued at the local level. It also assures statewideconsistency.

Delegation can create several problems including a lack of state-wide consistency and potential conflicts between the state andthe delegated agency. These issues can be minimized by:

1. Specifying a maximum time frame for which delegation isgranted and having the state conduct a periodic review ofperformance by the implementing agency. The delegationreview should have a defined process which clearly speci-fies which program elements will be reviewed, and estab-lishes the minimum standards for evaluation of program per-formance.

2. Specifying a permitting appeals process. It is important thatthe state not undermine the authority of the delegatedagency. It is common to have an individual attempt to getconflicting guidance from the state agency when the del-egated agency makes a decision with which the individualdoes not agree. The state statutes or regulations shouldspecify an appeals process applicable for a delegated pro-gram, as well as for the state program.

Maryland's state erosion and sediment control law, passed in 1970,directs local governments to implement a local erosion and sedi-ment control program. Initially, the program was somewhat effec-tive. By the early 1980's its effectiveness declined, especially interms of field implementation of required practices. In 1984, theState of Maryland enacted a number of legislative packages toimprove ongoing efforts to protect Chesapeake Bay. One initia-tive was related to delegation of enforcement authority for ero-sion and sediment control. It requires the State to set a minimumstandard of implementation for delegated enforcement of erosionand sediment control programs. If local governments can notachieve the specified rate of site inspection and compliance, theState assumes responsibility. Consequently, in those jurisdictionswhere inspection and enforcement is a local priority, they im-proved their erosion and sediment control site inspection program

Delegation, asa programcomponent,depends onoversight anda strong pres-ence by thestate. This as-sures a mini-mum level ofprogramimplementa-tion and as-sures state-wide consis-tency.

4-22


to meet State requirements. Jurisdictions with no interest in theprogram could stop their inspection and enforcement efforts andlet the State assume responsibility. The State budgeted addi-tional site inspection staff to assume local inspection responsibil-ity where needed. Field implementation of the erosion and sedi-ment control program improved dramatically. In this example, del-egation of authority worked, primarily because the State acceptedthe responsibility and committed additional budgetary resourcesto provide inspection staff where they were needed. Without thiscommitment of additional resources, delegation will not work andoverall program effectiveness will suffer.

In 1990, Delaware's program expanded the delegation concept toinclude all aspects of implementing its integrated erosion, sedi-ment, and stormwater control program. These two program com-ponents are linked, so delegation of authority for erosion and sedi-ment control also includes stormwater management. Delegatedprogram elements include:

plan review of new projectsinspection during constructionmaintenance inspections of completed stormwatermanagement structureseducation and training

This approach has worked well because the critical delegationissues were addressed in program design. Delegation is for afinite time period - a maximum of three years. To continue as adelegated program, a local government must apply and be grantedapproval after state review. The three year delegation period al-lows the state program to conduct a formal review of programelement implementation. Implementation of recommended pro-gram improvements are more likely to be implemented with regu-lar recertifications. Between formal evaluations, state program staffmust interact informally with local or regional staff to ensure thatany areas of concern, which could affect redelegation, are ad-dressed informally, not in public forums. This approach will re-duce the potential for adversarial state-local relationships. Com-munication, cooperation, and coordination are keys to successfuluse of delegated programs.

1. Project permitting procedures

The foundation for program implementation is the process for re-view and approval of proposed activities. This review should becomprehensive, considering all potential adverse impacts. Unfor-

To minimizedelegationproblems,there must bea finite timeperiod, fol-lowed by areview of pro-gramimplementa-tion perfor-mance, and aredelegationif warranted.An appealsprocess alsois essential.

4-23


tunately, staff resources in many jurisdictions are inadequate toreview all projects for erosion and sediment control and stormwa-ter management. Consequently, day to day implementation usu-ally involves a hierarchy of permitting and review processes.

The review process should include a conceptual approval or pre-construction conference phase. This helps reduce potential prob-lems such as the siting of stormwater facilities or assuring thatsufficient space is set aside for these facilities in the design plan.The earlier in the design process that stormwater managementrequirements are considered, the more likely that the final designwill meet program requirements and be approved expediently. Thisearly coordination also can help to assure integration of the storm-water management system into a project's open space and land-scaping, thereby providing aesthetic benefits and even recreationalopportunities.

The permitting and review hierarchy typically consists of somemixture of individual permits, general permits, and/or noticed ex-emptions. There should be a relationship between the complexityof the review process and the potential for adverse impacts.Projects with lower potential for adverse effects, typically smallerprojects or those located far from water bodies, should have sim-pler requirements and reviews. As projects grow larger or havemore potential to create problems, the review process should getmore complex. Required submittals will vary but may include ap-plication forms, general and technical information, design plansand supporting calculations, and possibly professional engineer-ing certification.

Individual permits usually are reserved for larger projects, thosewith a high potential for adverse impacts, those with wetlandsonsite, or those located near water bodies. Individual permitsalso are used when new or experimental technologies or prac-tices are proposed. The review process is more detailed andcomprehensive, involving submission and checking of computa-tions (sometimes using models), specifications, site plans, andeven bid documents. A comprehensive review ensures that thearea and location needed for required site controls is available,that the proposed controls are the most appropriate for the situa-tion, and that the contractor bidding on the job is aware of theobligations and costs associated with project construction andpermit compliance.

Another consideration in this approach is how to meet the obliga-tions of inspection and enforcement. Review of the urban runoff

The earlier inthe designprocess thatstormwatermanagementrequirementsare consid-ered, the morelikely that thefinal designwill meet pro-gramrequirementsand be ap-proved expedi-ently.

4-24


programs reveals that inspection staff resources will not be ad-equate to inspect all active projects. Establishing a prioritizingmethod for these tasks is essential. Inspection should be per-formed on all projects permitted individually. For projects withgeneral permits, inspections should target sites with a higherpotential for off-site impacts. Projects with noticed exemptionsshould be effectively handled in most situations through interac-tion between the project engineer and the developer or betweenan inspector and the developer. All projects should have regularonsite inspections by the site contractor, engineer, or developer,with inspection records kept at the site.

In summary, individual project permitting is recommended, to theextent that resources allow effective implementation. General per-mits and noticed exemptions can be used for activities with a lowerpotential for creating problems.

2. Use of plan review checklists

Checklists provide the erosion, sediment , and stormwater con-trol plan designer and plan reviewer with a concise guide to mini-mum design and submission requirements. The checklist shouldbe given out to consultants and all applicants. Submittal of acompleted checklist should be required by the plan review agencyto ensure that the designer has gone through each item and in-cluded it as part of the submittal. If an item is not included, thereshould be a narrative description of why it isn't.

Plan review checklists also promote consistency between reviews.They provide the plan reviewer, especially if fairly new in theposition, with guidance on what information the agency considersessential in plan submittals. The development of the checklistshould be based on a review of ordinances, regulations, and de-sign handbooks. It can even detail the scale of plans, compo-nents of a design narrative, the format for narrative descriptionsor computations, or any other items which may seem trivial, butwhich may save a significant amount of time in the review pro-cess. Time is money when plan review is being done. Reducingthe review time for individual projects allows for more reviews in agiven time frame and reduces backlog.

3. Linkage with other approvals

It is recommended that approval of erosion/sediment control andstormwater management computations and plans be linked to othercommon approval processes. This can help assure that land clear-

Submittal of acompletedchecklistshould be re-quired by theplan reviewagency to en-sure that thedesigner hasgone througheach item andincluded it aspart of thesubmittal.

4-25


ing or construction is not initiated without the necessary urbanrunoff control approvals. Based on the questionnaire, buildingand grading permits are the most common approvals linked toerosion, sediment, and stormwater control. At a minimum, theserelated permit approval processes should be linked, with erosion,sediment, and stormwater management approval needed beforeissuance of building or grading permits. Generally, this can beimplemented fairly simply. For example, the building permit officecan have a box for erosion, sediment, and stormwater control ontheir master form which must be checked off prior to the issuanceof the building permit. This approach is similar to that used inmany jurisdictions to coordinate building permits with other asso-ciated concerns such as fire protection, sanitary facilities, struc-tural, electrical, or plumbing.

Besides building or grading permits, there are a several otherareas to which stormwater management approvals can be linked.This can help facilitate meeting requirements of other related pro-grams. Having stormwater management considered during thezoning approval process helps assure compatibility with a masterstormwater management plan. Linking stormwater managementto site review, and to tree protection, landscaping, and open spacerequirements, provides better opportunities to coordinate theseconsiderations into an integrated site design. This also helps tominimize any potential conflicts that may arise in siting buildings,roads, stormwater facilities, and other parts of a project, all ofwhich require space and land. Stormwater design and approvalshould be coordinated with wetland and floodplain protection pro-grams, especially since these natural systems are an integral partof a watershed's natural runoff management system. Wastewa-ter management is another area that should be linked to storm-water management, especially where onsite wastewater systemswill be used.

4. Inspection procedures

Inspection must be conducted both during and after constructionis completed. Both inspections are essential components of anurban runoff control program. It is recommended that a publicagency be responsible for both inspections. Site developers, con-tractors, or property owners also should be responsible for mak-ing inspections, especially after each rain. Inspection records,on a form provided by the lead program agency, should be kept atthe site for review by agency inspectors. Unfortunately, the re-view of the programs indicates that inspection staff resourcesusually are too few to assure compliance. Creativity is essential.

Stormwaterdesign andapprovalshould be co-ordinated withwetland andfloodplain pro-tectionprograms,especiallysince thesenatural sys-tems are anintegral part ofa watershed'snatural runoffmanagementsystem.

4-26


Inspection During Construction

During construction, inspections need to be made of both erosionand sediment controls and stormwater management facilities.Erosion and sediment controls must be inspected periodicallythroughout the construction process, especially after storms.Stormwater management systems need to be inspected at criticaltimes during construction of the individual practices.

Inspection frequency needs to be flexible, corresponding to shiftsin the intensity of activity going on at the site. When active con-struction is occurring, erosion and sediment control inspectionsshould be conducted on a specified, appropriate frequency. Whenwork on the site stops temporarily, inspections should be doneperiodically to assure that erosion and sediment controls are be-ing maintained and still working, and to ensure that work has notresumed. Ideally, inspections should be done at a specified regu-lar time interval and after significant storm events. This allowsany changes in site conditions to be observed, and ensure thaterosion and sediment controls are still functioning as designedand approved. It is recommended that inspections be conductedby a public agency person at least once every two weeks. This isthe most common frequency of inspection used by the reviewedprograms.

Inspection staff resources typically are insufficient to visit all ac-tive construction sites. An implementation strategy decision mustbe made whether to visit fewer sites and completely follow theinspection procedures, or to conduct less comprehensive inspec-tions at more sites. It is recommended that the inspection proce-dures be followed completely at sites which are inspected. In-spections need to be prioritized based on potential impacts, help-ing to assure compliance on tougher sites. Following the pre-scribed procedures also is important should legal enforcementactions become necessary.

Inspectors should always attempt to contact an individual onsitewho is responsible for the site grading activities. The contractorshould be aware that the inspector is visiting the site even if thecontractor does not accompany the inspector. This improves thedialogue that is so important between the inspector and contrac-tor. Highly visible inspections reinforces the commitment and im-portance a jurisdiction places on effective implementation of sitecontrols. By knowing that the site will be inspected periodically,contractors are more likely to be aware of and meet site control

The contractorshould beaware that theinspector isvisiting thesite, even ifthe contractordoes not ac-company theinspector.

4-27


responsibilities.

After completing the inspection, the inspector should leave aninspection report with the contractor, sending a copy to the devel-oper and possibly the property owner. The report should serve asa site report card, clearly documenting proper installation and main-tenance of site controls as well as any deficiencies in site controlimplementation. If there is a violation, the inspection report ini-tiates a "paper trail" which is integral to successful enforcementactions.

It is unlikely that public agencies will ever have enough inspec-tors, simply do to the large number of active construction projectsat any time and resource limitations of urban runoff programs. Acreative innovative to solve this problem is a partnership betweenthe urban runoff program agency and the development commu-nity. This concept is being used in Delaware where the contractoror developer supplies their own inspectors. This person must at-tend and pass a State sponsored training course for inspectors.They are then responsible for inspecting the site at least once aweek, completing an inspection form, and providing a copy of theform to the contractor, developer, and appropriate inspectionagency. Having a "certified" private inspector on the site weeklycan reduce the inspection frequency by the appropriate agency.The concept will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

To improve the effectiveness of inspections, it is important to es-tablish standard, well-documented inspection procedures. Theseprocedures should specify in detail the actions an inspector con-ducts at a site, set out options and list steps to be taken when sitecompliance is inadequate, and establish an appeals process,should the inspector and developer disagree on matters. The pro-cedures need to be developed in conjunction with available legalauthorities and penalty provisions.

Inspection of the stormwater management system during construc-tion typically is not done on a regular schedule, but at certainstages of practice construction. For each type of BMP, there arecertain stages of construction where inspection is essential toassure proper construction and performance. For example, prac-tices with an impoundment should be inspected during placementof core trenches, riser and barrel assemblies, and anti-seep de-vices. BMP manuals should include recommendations on wheninspections should be conducted during the construction of eachtype of practice. By having a presence onsite at critical times dur-ing the construction of stormwater management practices, com-

It is unlikelythat publicagencies willever haveenough in-spectors. Cre-ating state"certified" pri-vateinspectors canreduce thefrequency ofpublicinspectionsand increasecomplianceand programeffectiveness.

4-28


mon problems such as not connecting concrete barrels to corru-gated pipe risers or omitting watertight bands around barrel sec-tions can be prevented. Many contractors are unfamiliar withproper construction of stormwater management practices. Thecontractors' lack of awareness or priority for construction of storm-water management practices can cause problems which impairslong-term function and performance. Inspections at critical timeshelp assure that important details, like watertight bands, are notmissed.

Post-construction Inspection

Periodic maintenance inspections are essential to assure contin-ued functioning of stormwater management practices, especiallytreatment practices. While they need to be conducted on a regu-lar basis, the optimal frequency depends on the type of practice.Infiltration and filtration practices may need to be inspected semi-annually or even more frequently. Wet detention systems mayonly need inspections annually, or after extreme storm events.Maintenance inspections of stormwater management systems arediscussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

5. Inspection agency relationship to review agency

Whether inspections are conducted by the plan review agency orby another agency may not matter with respect to effective pro-gram implementation. What is essential, if two agencies are in-volved, is effective communication and a close relationship be-tween them. Otherwise, program effectiveness can be greatlydiminished. Too often, rivalries or friction develops among agen-cies involved in urban runoff program implementation. These areknown to cause problems and weaken program effectiveness.Avoid them if you can. Communicate.

It is recommended that inspections be conducted by the plan re-view agency. This eliminates any potential rivalry between agen-cies, and facilitates communication, coordination, and coopera-tion between the plan reviewers and the inspectors. The workingrelationship between plan reviewers and inspectors can be fur-ther strengthened by locating their offices nearby. Close proxim-ity greatly enhances staff level communication. Collaborationbetween the inspector and plan reviewer can facilitate neededchanges to the approved plan and practices, better solve prob-lems on specific sites, and increases knowledge and recognitionof which land development activities require more careful reviewand approval. On projects where an innovative approach to site

Stormwaterpractices needinspectionduring and af-ter construc-tion. Having apresence on-site at criticalconstructiontimes helpsavoidproblems.

Maintenanceinspectionsare essentialtoassure contin-ued function-ing of storm-watermanagementpractices,especiallytreatmentpractices.

4-29


control is being considered, the inspector can be more easily in-volved in planning and selecting the controls, then provide a feed-back loop to plan reviewers as construction occurs and perfor-mance is evaluated, at least qualitatively. An example of this pro-cess is the involvement of the inspector before approval of aninnovative sand filter system where the concrete structure is pre-fabricated and delivered onsite in sections. Having the inspectorclosely involved in the approval process allows for discussion ofpotential field issues such as sealing the units together. Once theprecast filter system is installed and monitored for performance,guidance eventually can be provided to the design communitymaking future applications of the filter easier.

PROGRAM FUNDING

It is recommended that funding for erosion and sediment controland stormwater management programs be integrated, like the pro-grams themselves. The three most common funding mechanismsare general appropriations, permit fees, and dedicated revenues,such as a stormwater utility fee. Each of these approaches hasits own advantages and limitations. They will be discussed indi-vidually. Most programs rely upon some combination of all threeapproaches to provide optimal funding levels.

General appropriations

General appropriations are the traditional way of funding mostgovernment programs and services. The strongest advantage ofgeneral funding is their stability during times when land develop-ment activities are reduced. General appropriations are a dem-onstration of political support and public commitment for the ur-ban runoff control program. A major disadvantage of general ap-propriations is the severe competition for limited funds. At eitherthe state or local level, there are many programs important toassuring the public's health, safety, and welfare. Elected officialsmust make difficult decisions about spending priorities, especiallywith increasing resistance to higher sales, property, or incometaxes, the major source of general appropriation funds. Oncepolice, fire, emergency medical, and other critical programs havebeen funded, often there is little left for public works or urbanrunoff management programs. The budgets of these programsare among the first to be reduced when jurisdiction finances be-come restricted. Unfortunately, it seldom rains or floods at bud-get time, which makes it difficult to break the "hydro-illogical cycle".However, general funds are an excellent funding source to getprograms started. Over time, the program's funding needs to be

The threemost commonfundingmechanismsare generalappropria-tions,permit fees,and dedicatedrevenues,such as astormwaterutility fee.

4-30


allowed to evolve to include otherfunding sources in the future, especially dedicated ones.

Permit fees

This method is the most common funding mechanism used by thereviewed urban runoff management programs. In fact, permit feestotally fund 12% of these programs. Permit fees are relatively easyto get approved. They don't represent a tax on the general pub-lic, and they place the cost on those who create the need for theservices. While paid by the developer, the costs are transferredto eventual property owners. One issue that must be addressedis determining what proportion of the program's costs should bepaid by permit fees. Many believe that the entire costs of the pro-gram should be borne by those creating the need for the service.This is seldom accomplished. In recent years, as program bud-gets have been cut, many programs have increased the propor-tion of program costs recovered by permit fees. This is creatingincreased controversy as the regulated community begins to ob-ject to the costs of higher permit fees.

Permit fees can pose a financial problem for developers. Theyare assessed during the permit review and approval process,before construction funding is available from financial institutions.A better way of implementing fees is to assess a plan review feeprior to project approval, and an inspection fee during construc-tion when the developer has additional funding available. Pay-ment of inspection fees can be assured by making it a conditionfor the approval of occupancy permits. This approach does notreduce permit fees but partially defers payment until constructionis underway. This demonstrates an awareness of, and sensitivityto, developers' cash flow.

A major disadvantage of funding programs through permit fees istheir direct dependence on the level of growth occurring at anyone time. During the reduction of land development in the mid-Atlantic region in the early 1990's, many programs could not beadequately funded by permit fees. In these situations, trained staffhad to be released, diminishing program effectiveness. Permitand inspection fees are important parts of the funding formula,but they cannot be relied upon totally to fund urban runoff man-agement programs.

A variation of the permit fee approach, commonly used by smalljurisdictions, is the use of a private consultant to conduct planreviews, construction inspections, and stormwater system main-

A majordisadvantageof fundingprogramsthrough permitfees is theirdirectdependenceon the level ofgrowthoccurring atany one time.

4-31


tenance inspections. In this scenario, the consultant bills the de-veloper for time spent on project review. Every time an inspectionis performed, the developer is billed for services rendered. Main-tenance inspections of runoff practices are billed to the jurisdic-tion or to the responsible maintenance entity as they are con-ducted. This approach has worked well where it has been used,and represents a small cost to the jurisdiction itself for programimplementation.

The cost of permit fees can be based on several criteria, depend-ing on which provide the most equity, and are most easily under-stood by the regulated public and elected officials. Fees can beassessed on the basis of area, either of disturbance or impervi-ous area. They can be based on the type of development, with aflat fee for residential development and a higher fee level for com-mercial development. Fee structures also have been implementedwhich includes different tiers, where a certain amount of develop-ment is assessed a set fee, with a higher rate for additional areaor units.

Another potential problem with permit fees is their imposition onother government agencies or for projects performed by the per-mitting agency. If the program is funded primarily from fees, thenthey must be collected for all projects, without consideration ofthe applicant.

Diversion of permit fees from the urban runoff control program isanother potential problem. Fees may go into an overall agencybudget and not be returned to the urban runoff control program inthe same proportion as collected. In these situations, fees cannot provide adequate funding support for effective program imple-mentation.

Dedicated Funding Sources

This approach is often seen as the optimal approach for programimplementation because it provides a stable, dedicated source ofrevenue for the program. This helps to break the 'hydro-illogicalcycle" and allows the "hydro-rational cycle" to move forward.

A major benefit of dedicated funding sources, such as a stormwa-ter utility fee, is that, once established, they are not subject to theannual budget considerations of general appropriations. Sincestormwater utility fees must be related to the cost of providingbenefits, funds are less likely to be diverted to non-stormwaterprogram activities. A major advantage of stormwater utility fees,

A potentialproblem withpermit fees istheir imposi-tion on othergovernmentagencies. Aprogramfunded by per-mit fees mustcollect thosefees from allapplicants,including gov-ernment agen-cies.

4-32


in comparison to permit fees, is they can provide funding for main-tenance inspections after construction is completed. Maintenanceinspections of stormwater systems will be necessary for the life ofthe development. Funding has to be available for the inspectionsand maintenance. One further advantage of dedicated fundingsources is the ability to sell bonds, allowing expensive capitalimprovement projects identified in the stormwater master plan tobe implemented on a faster schedule than if only year to yearfunding is available. For more information on stormwater utilitiescontact should be made with the Cities of Bellevue, Olympia, Or-lando, and Seattle; King and Snohomish Counties, and the Uni-fied Sewerage Agency of Washington County.

A significant educational process is required before a stormwaterutility can be implemented. The fee commonly is perceived as a"rain tax." The equitability and benefits of the user fee must beclearly explained to the public. Citizens must understand the im-portance and fairness of a stormwater fee that is based on theamount of impervious surface. This is not true when paying forstormwater services with property taxes, which bear no relation-ship to the runoff service demands created by a parcel. Mostimportantly, the general public must understand exactly what ac-tivities and projects will be funded, and how they will personallybenefit or be affected by implementation of the fee.

When implementing a stormwater utility fee, it is recommendedthat the fee start out low (i.e., $1-3 per month per house). It shouldbe phased in over a five year period, during which general appro-priation funding for the program is slowly reduced while beingreplaced by utility fee funding. A stormwater master plan also isstrongly recommended so that capital improvement projects andtheir costs can be determined. Adoption of the plan needs toinclude a long term funding strategy to assure that adequate re-sources are available to implement it on schedule. By followingthese recommendations, objections to starting or increasing storm-water utility fees can be minimized. One surprise in the question-naire responses is that jurisdictions with stormwater utilities oftenhave problems raising rates to pay for program implementation.

Another concern with the stormwater utility approach, based onthe questionnaire responses, is that the funds are used primarilyfor stormwater management, especially capital projects and op-eration and maintenance. Utility funding generally is not avail-able for erosion and sediment control program implementation.The temporary nature of construction activities tends to limit theimportance and funding many stormwater utilities dedicate to ero-

A major ben-efit of dedi-cated fundingsources, suchas astormwaterutility, is that,once estab-lished, theyare notsubject to theannual budgetconsider-ations of gen-eralappropria-tions.

4-33


sion and sediment control efforts.

Another form of dedicated stormwater funding in use in severaljurisdictions is a special taxing district. Often this is a special as-sessment on an individual's property tax which funds various storm-water management improvements or programs. This approachrecognizes that additional development increases the need forrunoff management services. It funds them through increasedtax revenues within a watershed, city, or county. Requests foradditional information on this approach should be directed toPrince George's County, the Southwest Florida Water Manage-ment District, the Suwannee River Water Management District,the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, and the Urban Drain-age and Flood Control District of Denver.

PROGRAM STAFFING

It must be clearly understood by those developing and implement-ing urban runoff programs that they will always face funding chal-lenges which will prevent them from fulfilling their total responsi-bilities. As discussed in Chapter 3, over half of the programs re-sponding stated they did not have adequate staffing for their pro-grams. Of the programs reviewed, even those with a variety offunding mechanisms, staffing generally is not adequate (66% forerosion and sediment control; 54% for stormwater management).Public expectations always will be higher than the program's abil-ity to meet those expectations. To overcome these challenges,several strategies are recommended:

Prioritize program elements and activities

Successful urban runoff control programs contain several inte-gral elements. Program funding and staffing limitations make pri-oritizing and scheduling essential. Prioritizing assigns a degreeof importance to the various program elements. It helps establisha long term implementation strategy outlining where the programneeds to be in a given time frame. This will determine whenresources will be needed to develop and implement each pro-gram element. By defining areas of importance, and the neces-sary resources which must be available when they are needed, ajurisdiction can better recognize the short and long term commit-ments that accompany approval of the program.

Initial implementation efforts must include a significant emphasison education and training. Especially on the program's minimumcriteria and how compliance with the criteria may be achieved.

By definingareas ofimportance,and the neces-sary resourceswhich must beavailable whenthey areneeded, a ju-risdiction canbetterrecognize theshort and longtermcommitmentsthat accom-pany approvalof the pro-gram.

4-34


This training has to be provided to not only the development anddesign community, but especially to agency staff that will reviewand approve projects. Training of implementing staff is particu-larly important when program implementation is necessitated byan entity other than the program's lead agency. Timely plan re-view depends on having well trained staff, especially if staff re-sources are insufficient.

Accurately estimate staffing needs

Developers often have a tight schedule with budgets closely tiedto the time at which construction begins. To minimize delays andadditional costs to the regulated community, it is very importantthat projected program work load and staffing needs be accu-rately estimated .

In determining how many plan reviewers are necessary, factorsthat need to be analyzed include the projected number of projects;complexity of projects; whether project review is for erosion, sedi-ment, and stormwater control only, or if it includes other relatedprograms; individual versus general permit review; and the amountand complexity of required submissions. Experience has shownthat an average plan reviewer can complete approximately two tothree projects per day, depending on the complexity of the indi-vidual projects. Design plans rarely are approved during theirinitial submission, with most projects needing at least two reviewsbefore approval. These additional reviews also take a significantamount of time and must be factored into staffing needs. In es-tablishing permit fees, some agencies provide a minimum num-ber of reviews for the base permit fee. Additional reviews are as-sessed an additional fee.

Innovation often provides solutions to common urban runoff pro-gram implementation shortcomings. In Maryland, to expedite planreview and approval of their projects, other state agencies fundedseveral plan review positions within the Maryland Department ofthe Environment. This helps to assure that these public projectsare not unnecessarily delayed causing increased costs to the tax-payers.

Inspection is also integral to successful program implementation.Experience has shown that inspection staff, especially in erosionand sediment control, historically have been insufficient for suc-cessful program implementation. It takes approximately 18 monthsto train an erosion and sediment control inspector until the indi-vidual has the knowledge and confidence to assume responsibil-

Staffing needsmust considerthat designplans rarelyare approvedduring theirinitial submis-sion, withmost projectsneeding atleast two re-viewsbefore beingapproved.

4-35


ity for site inspection and compliance. Another factor that must beconsidered in estimating the number of inspectors needed is theiroffice time. Approximately 20% - 25% of their time will be spentwriting inspection reports, managing case files, communicatingwith supervisors over enforcement needs at specific sites, andlining up times to meet with developers or contractors on theirsites. Other factors that must be evaluated in determining the howmany inspectors are needed include the geographic area theymust cover (travel times to visit various sites), the number andsize of active sites, and the frequency of inspections. The opti-mal number of inspectors typically will be beyond the program'savailable funding. This reality factor must be recognized. A pro-gram can only do as much as its resources will allow.

Finally, in determining program staffing needs, consideration mustbe given to the role and needs of support staff. In addition to planreviewers and inspectors, successful programs require manage-ment and clerical staff. Other staff needs may include biologists,chemists, and maintenance crews, depending on the breadth ofthe program. Failure to consider these staff resources and theirassociated needs for computers, vehicles, and other equipmentcan have a profound impact on effective program implementa-tion.

Build relationships with other related programs

Many other programs, especially at the local level, have similarplan review and inspection requirements. Specific examples ofthese programs are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Theo-retically, staffing and funding resources of these programs cancomplement and assist in implementing erosion and sediment con-trol and stormwater management programs. The degree of rela-tionship between the programs can vary greatly. As a minimum,the relationship should assure recognition by the individual pro-grams of each other's requirements. This will help reduce thepossibility that conflicting guidance will be given to the regulatedcommunity, a situation which can decrease confidence in programstaff and lead to a loss of political support. A good example of theimportance of good communication between programs in reduc-ing potential conflicts is between a wetlands protection programand the erosion, sediment, and stormwater control program. Ap-proval by the urban runoff program of the placement of a storm-water management practice in an existing wetland without the con-currence of the wetlands program can adversely affect both pro-grams, and the resources they are supposed to protect. Just be-ing aware of the requirements of related programs is a significant

Many otherprograms,especially atthe local level,have similarplanreview andinspectionrequirements.

Theoretically,staffing andfundingresources ofthese pro-grams cancomplementand assist inimplementingerosion andsedimentcontrol andstormwatermanagementprograms.

4-36


benefit to all of the programs. Even better, the requirements ofclosely related programs should be developed cooperatively byboth programs so that they are as compatible as possible.

Effectively communicate obligations to all players

One of the most frustrating aspects of program implementationcomes when those submitting or reviewing plans, or implement-ing the plans on site, are not knowledgeable of their specific re-sponsibilities and obligations. Even with effective communication,this problem will always exist to some extent. There always willbe some individuals who "slip through the cracks", or plan de-signers, developers, or contractors who are new to the jurisdic-tion and are not familiar with the program's requirements.

Effective communication among all parties involved in programimplementation is essential and in everyone' best interest. Effec-tive communication can help assure that projects are implementedsmoothly and on schedule providing benefits, both economic andpolitical, that are especially important to local developers, con-tractors, consultants, and to the program. "Repeat customers"can especially benefit by establishing a good relationship withprogram staff.

Effective communication is particularly important among individu-als at state, regional, and local agencies if there is shared re-sponsibility for program implementation. There has to be a coop-erative attitude by all levels of jurisdiction. Implementing staff needto develop a spirit of teamwork and establish relationships whichare positive and complementary. The absolute worst situationoccurs when communication between implementing agenciesbreaks down. In this case, staff at the "front lines" may feel threat-ened or abandoned by the lead agency which oversees programimplementation.

Be creative - seek alternative methods of program implementa-tion and staffing

Creativity and innovation are cornerstones of urban runoff man-agement programs, especially in overcoming resource limitationswhich can threaten the program's effectiveness. One concept thathas already been discussed is delegation of program authority.Especially for a statewide urban runoff program, resources willnot be available for the state agency to conduct all aspects ofprogram implementation. Delegation of authority is a proven ap-proach which can be an effective vehicle for program implemen-

Creativity andinnovation arecornerstonesof urban runoffmanagementprograms,especially inovercomingresource limi-tations whichcan threatenthe program'seffectiveness.

4-37


tation. However, as previously emphasized, the delegation pro-cess must provide for oversight by the lead agency to assure thatthe delegated agencies are administering the program's respon-sibilities consistently and correctly. Oversight, training, and com-munication are continuing obligations of the lead agency, whichmust have staff dedicated to these crucial functions.

Generally, it must be recognized that there will never be enoughpublic agency inspectors to provide for timely inspection of ero-sion and sediment controls at construction sites. Additionally, fluc-tuations in work load, annually or seasonally, means that adequatestaffing for peak times would result in too many inspectors atother times (we can all dream!). The "certified inspector program"is an innovative approach that can rectify these common programweaknesses and greatly increase compliance with the program'srequirements.

Delaware's Certified Inspector Program requires individuals to at-tend and pass (through written examination) a State conductedcourse specifically designed for inspectors. Individuals success-fully completing the course receive a certification, which is re-corded in a computer data base, and recognized with a walletsize certification card. All delegated agencies are provided with acomplete list of certified inspectors.

The regulations for Delaware's urban runoff management programrequires the developer to supply a "Designated Inspector" on allprojects over 50 acres in size. The inspector must conduct weeklysite inspections, document the results of the inspection on formsdeveloped for that purpose, and provide a copy of the inspectionreport to the implementing agency, the contractor, and the devel-oper. The concept has been modified and expanded by local ju-risdictions to meet their specific needs. One county requires allcommercial activities to have a Designated Inspector. The FloridaDEP is developing a similar program which will include inspec-tions of both erosion and sediment controls during construction,and inspections of completed stormwater systems to assure thatthey are maintained and operated properly. The City of Bellevuealso is considering this concept for annual maintenance inspec-tions of completed stormwater management structures.

The program does not require the Designated Inspector to be anenforcement officer and actually mandate correction of problems.Instead, the inspector's job is to provide the developer, contrac-tor, and permitting agency with a report on the status of erosion,sediment, and stormwater management practices. The appropri-

Oversight,training, andcommunica-tion are con-tinuing obliga-tions of thelead agency,which musthave staffdedicated tothese crucialfunctions.

4-38


ate public inspection agency, upon reading the report, decideswhether it needs to send one of its inspectors to the site to ensurethat problem's have been corrected. A major objective of this pro-gram is to reduce the frequency of public agency inspections byhaving the private inspector act as a program overlay. If the Des-ignated Inspector does not accurately represent site conditions inthe inspection report, the individual's certification can be revoked.If this occurs, the developer must hire another Certified Inspectoror else the site is in violation of a permit condition, and enforce-ment action can be taken. The Designated Inspector approachdoes not eliminate the need for public inspection, but it can re-duce the number of inspectors needed.

It is important to recognize areas where program implementationis weakest and develop innovative strategies to overcome theseweaknesses. If the optimal implementation approach can not beused, creative alternatives must be developed or the success ofthe program will be diminished. Be creative and use whatevertools may be available to achieve the desired objectives.

PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

If there is one theme that has been expressed repeatedly in theresponses to the questionnaire, and in this document, it is theneed to have a strong educational component in urban runoff con-trol programs. This fact was clearly demonstrated with 93% of theprograms surveyed including education as a program component.However, there is great variation in these educational programs -their content, form, frequency, distribution, target audience, andlegal requirements.

1. Are educational programs mandated by law or regulation

Generally, educational programs should be voluntary. However,there are certain program elements which can benefit from, oreven depend on, legally mandated educational programs. Theseinclude components such as Delaware's Designated Inspectorprogram, Maryland and Delaware's Contractor Certification Pro-gram, South Carolina's program for local erosion, sediment, andstormwater control plan reviewers, and Virginia's training and cer-tification programs for inspectors, plan reviewers, and programadministrators.

Required education for plan designers often gets controversial,with disagreements arising among the different professional or-ganizations involved in design. If the inclusion of a specific audi-

It is importantto recognizeareas whereprogramimplementa-tion is weakestand developinnovativestrategies toovercomethese weak-nesses.

4-39


ence in a mandatory educational program becomes so controver-sial that implementation is jeopardized, then remove the contro-versial requirement. The educational program is still necessaryand must be pursued, even if attendance is not required. Fortu-nately, many design professionals will attend voluntary educa-tional programs to enhance their skills and knowledge. By devel-oping education programs that allow attendees to receive Con-tinuing Education Credits, a requirement of many professions, at-tendance can be increased.

The states of Maryland and Delaware have a Contractor Certifi-cation Program which requires every site contractor to have atleast one individual, who is responsible for site grading control,attend a state sponsored or presented course in erosion and sedi-ment control and stormwater management. These programs havebeen attended by thousands of individuals and have proven verypopular with attendees. Individuals attending these programs gen-erally enjoy outdoor, water-related activities such as swimming,fishing, boating, or hunting. Relating these activities to theprogram's goals leads to a more personal commitment by attend-ees. This greatly enhances program effectiveness.

2. Intended audience and frequency for educational programs

Intended Audience

Educational programs aimed at individuals directly involved inprogram implementation are essential. As a minimum, programsneed to be provided for plan reviewers, inspectors, contractors,consultants, and developers. Education also is vital for the gen-eral public. They must understand how their everyday activities,whether at home, work or play, contribute to "Pointless PersonalPollution", and how they can be part of the solution. The publicmust also be educated about the importance of the urban runoffcontrol program, and about how they can further program effec-tiveness, whether by reporting possible noncompliance at sites,or by using source controls at their homes or work. Having goodcommunity awareness and understanding of the program will leadto greater support and a more effective program.

Unlike educational programs for the regulated community, whichare fairly easy to define, public education programs must be muchmore broadly defined. The intended audience is highly diverse -in their knowledge about Pointless Personal Pollution, their inter-est in the environment and in the goals of the urban runoff pro-gram, and in the use of their personal time. Decisions must be

Educationalprogramsaimed at indi-viduals di-rectly involvedin programimplementa-tion are essen-tial. Relatingthe program'sgoals to out-door,water relatedactivities,which oftenareenjoyed byattendees, canlead to a morepersonalcommitment.

4-40


made about the topics to be covered, and the way in which infor-mation and educational programs will be delivered. Traditionally,pamphlets, booklets, newsletters, and even utility bill inserts havebeen relied upon heavily to inform the general public. However,these passive methods may or may not achieve desired results.More interactive approaches such as making slide presentationsat various community meetings can be more effective but theytypically reach a very small audience. New computer and com-pact disc technologies offer exciting opportunities to create inter-active, entertaining, multimedia educational materials

Experience indicates that more creative, highly visual, hands-on,educational programs are better received and achieve a higherlevel of learning. Stream walks, where the public walks along awater body and removes accumulated litter, provides an opportu-nity to see the adverse impacts of uncontrolled urban runoff. Theycreate an appreciation for the importance of litter control and solidwaste programs. Storm drain stenciling efforts are simple to per-form, an excellent project for youth groups, and draw a clear con-nection between how our activities on the land impacts aquaticresources. Citizen monitoring programs, which are growing inpopularity around the country, foster an "ownership" of local wa-ter bodies. Stormwater management demonstration or retrofitprojects, especially those which are highly visible, are anotheropportunity for education and for building public support for theprogram. Concern over having erosion and sediment control andstormwater management issues presented in courts during en-forcement cases led to Maryland providing educational seminarsfor judges. This has helped the judges better understand the im-portance of successful program implementation and not feel thatsediment in streams is "just dirt".

Frequency of Educational Programs

Mandated educational programs must be given on a regular ba-sis. This allows individuals who must have the training an oppor-tunity to attend sessions, become qualified or certified, and carryout their function under the program. Educational activities for thegeneral public generally cannot be given on a regular schedule,but rather when opportunities become available.

How frequently mandatory educational programs are given willdepend on factors such as the size of the jurisdiction, staff re-sources, the location of the courses, the projected number of at-tendees, and the length and complexity of the program and itsassociated training materials. To some degree, the frequency will

Experienceindicates thatmore cre-ative, highlyvisual, hands-on,educationalprograms arebetter re-ceived andachieve ahigher levelof learning.

4-41


also depend on the amount of preparation that is necessary toconduct the program.

For example, Delaware's certified inspector training program in-volves 32 hours of class which are given one day a week for fourweeks. Generally, about 90 individuals attend the course at anyone time which creates a significant work load for the instructorsin preparing slide show lectures and handouts. Based on responseto the course, staff feels that a frequency of once per year is ad-equate. However, Delaware is a small state. Larger, more popu-lated jurisdictions would need to present the course more fre-quently, and in more locations. It is important that public inspec-tors also attend the course to assure that they understand theprogram's requirements.

Educational programs aimed at the construction industry presenta special challenge because of the constant change of individu-als employed. This implies a need for courses to be given on amore frequent basis. Delaware's experience has shown this to betrue. Their contractor's certification course cannot be given oftenenough, with capacity attendance at every session. To meet de-mand, the course needs to be presented between four and sixtimes a year. The course should be presented cooperatively bythe permitting agency and by the inspection agency. This allowscontractors to be introduced to the inspectors in a non-adversarialenvironment, helping them to start their relationship in a positivemanner. A contractors training program should last no more than3 - 3.5 hours. It needs to stress general information about urbanrunoff management problems, solutions, and programs togetherwith information about the contractor's specific responsibilities andobligations.

Education of plan reviewers also is critical to program success.Once plan reviewers have a good understanding of erosion, sedi-ment, and stormwater management, and their program responsi-bilities, they can help educate the developers, designers, andconsultants with whom they interact. Educating both plan design-ers and reviewers is extremely important since proper site controland BMP performance is so dependent on proper site planningand design. Problems will occur, poor quality plans will be ap-proved, and structures built incorrectly, but education can mini-mize such mistakes helping to maintain public support for the pro-gram.

While design guidance manuals are invaluable, designers andconsultants can benefit greatly from periodic workshops on de-

Educationalprogramsaimed at theconstructionindustrypresent a spe-cialchallenge be-cause of theconstantchange of in-dividuals em-ployed.

4-42


sign aspects of the program. These can explain the rationale be-hind practice selection and design criteria, provide supplemen-tary, up-to-date information on designing practices, and includecase studies which illustrate good and bad examples of designand use of BMPs. Having a good relationship with the designcommunity reduces potential problems in all aspects of programimplementation.

Public education programs need to be flexible and opportunistic.Accordingly, it is very important to make organizations, civicgroups, and educational forums aware that program staff are avail-able to put on educational programs. Presentations can be madeat meetings of various civic organizations (Rotary, Lions, gardenclubs, environmental groups, contractor meetings), schools, andbefore elected officials, helping to increase awareness of the pro-gram. Newsletters, brochures, pamphlets, and booklets can beeffective if targeted to a specific group, area or problem. Probablythe most effective means of public education is the constructionof BMPs in highly visible locations such as city hall, schools, or inparks. The more people who see implementation of practices,the more they recognize the benefits of the program.

In summary, public education should be pursued at every oppor-tunity and location where there is a receptive audience. If thereare limited resources, public education should be one of theprogram's top priorities. Without public education, support for theprogram will not be broad based.

PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

This component of program implementation is one of the mostcontroversial and difficult to address. A consensus approach toprogram implementation, which relies on everyone assuming re-sponsibility for their part of program implementation is the idealapproach. Unfortunately, there always will be some individualswho try to circumvent or avoid their responsibilities. There mustbe legal mechanisms to deal with these situations, however dis-tasteful that option may be. This is especially true for erosion andsediment control during construction since noncompliance canquickly result in off-site damages.

Enforcing compliance with program requirements assures thatthere is a level playing field, where all the players have the sameresponsibilities. There is a perception in the construction industrythat not implementing erosion and sediment controls saves money.Some developers or contractors may feel that this gives them an

Unfortunately,there alwayswill be somepersons whotry tocircumvent oravoid theirresponsibili-ties. Compli-ance and en-forcementmechanismsmust be avail-able to dealwith these situ-ations and toassure there isa level playingfield.

4-43


economic advantage over competitors. Fortunately, news of en-forcement actions travel quickly through the regulated commu-nity, serving as an incentive for responsible site development andhelping to reduce the potential for problems on other sites. Con-versely, failure to take enforcement action can lead to widespreadproblems on other sites.

Enforcement is made more difficult because no one wants to beconsidered a "bad guy". Inspectors and program administratorsneed to recognize that, at times, they will have to act as "police-man". To facilitate these actions, the program's framework shouldspecify the procedures, options, and remedies to be followed bystaff when conducting compliance and enforcement activities.

In addition to having the will to take enforcement action, the pro-gram must have a sound legal and administrative foundation. Themost successful programs are those which use a variety of toolsto assure compliance. Different tools are needed in different situ-ations. Programs with only one method of compliance and en-forcement often can not properly address the many different situ-ations that arise during the land disturbance and developmentprocess. Flexibility is needed, as are tools that can be used quickly.

1. Civil penalty provisions

Civil penalty provisions, as demonstrated by the questionnaireresults, are clearly considered a necessary program component.These usually are monetary penalties, generally between $200and $1,000, which are imposed when sites are not in compliance.The amount of the penalty typically varies depending on the se-verity and extent of the problem. Factors considered may includewhether off-site damage occurs, how long the problem occurs,whether the project is permitted, and whether it is a repeat viola-tion for either the site or the developer. First time violations fre-quently are assessed the minimum amount unless the problem isespecially bad. Most programs use a penalty fine schedule whichincreases the monetary penalty for each day the violation exists.Assessments can grow rapidly when each day is considered as aseparate offense.

Civil penalties often are implemented using a form of ticket wherethe violator is fined on site and has the option of appealing theticket in court. This type of administrative ticket is highly recom-mended. It can be administered quickly, something which is es-pecially important in assuring proper implementation of erosionand sediment controls during construction. Of course, it is impor-

Programs withonly onemethod ofcomplianceandenforcementoften can notproperly ad-dress themanydifferent situa-tions that ariseduring the landdisturbanceand develop-ment process.

4-44


tant for the court to understand the importance of site complianceand to uphold the program's requirements.

2. Criminal penalty provisions

Unlike civil penalties, the need for criminal penalties is not con-sidered universal. Criminal penalties usually include a fine andincarceration. Many elected officials and law enforcement pro-grams do not feel erosion, sediment, and runoff control violationsare severe enough to warrant criminal penalties. While criminalpenalties have been assessed for violation of industrial dischargepermits, there has been some hesitation by courts to convict anindividual of runoff or sediment pollution. These problems justaren't thought to be severe enough to warrant penalties associ-ated with more heinous crimes such as robbery or murder. Addi-tionally, if convicted of a criminal offense, a developer or contrac-tor could lose their professional license or face problems obtain-ing bank loans.

Experience has shown that criminal penalties seldom are usedfor enforcing urban runoff program requirements. Nonetheless,programs should include them as a "last ditch" option after allother tools have been used and found lacking. One option is todevelop specific penalties that are appropriate for the violationsrather than simply relying on the penalties already included instate or local laws which typically is done. However, the programshould not rely on criminal penalties, but rather on the variety ofother tools which have proven effective.

3. Other available enforcement options

Urban runoff control programs use a variety of other tools to en-force compliance with their requirements. Each of these toolsmust have a sound legal foundation, either in the program's spe-cific law or regulations, or in the jurisdiction's general laws or rules.These should specify when and how the enforcement mechanismcan be used, including all procedures. An appeals process needsto be specified.

Halting construction

The ability to halt construction has to be considered one of themost important and powerful enforcement tools. No other enforce-ment mechanism will get the immediate attention of the developeror contractor, since stopping work delays construction and in-creases costs. When construction is halted, the only site work

The programshould not relyon criminalpenalties butrather on thevariety ofother toolswhich haveproveneffective.These includestop work or-ders, with-holdingoccupancypermits orother permits,and perfor-mance bonds.

4-45


allowed to continue is installation and maintenance of erosion,sediment, and runoff controls. Stop work orders particularly areeffective at those few sites where requests to improve onsite con-trols are ignored repeatedly. They are less effective on inactivesites where halting construction is of little concern.

Withholding occupancy permits

Completion of site stabilization and all stormwater practices inaccordance with approved plans can be made a condition of issu-ing the certificate of occupancy. This approach is very effective ifthe buildings are ready to be occupied, but is of little use in earlierphases of project development. Delays in occupancy can affectthe timely transfer of property to the new owner or lessee, delay-ing monetary returns to the project developer.

Withholding other permits

Applicability of this enforcement option is limited to those devel-opers with a number of on-going projects in the jurisdiction. Whenused, withholding other permits has been a very effective incen-tive in getting cooperation and action taken to correct problems.Implementation is fairly simple, with the inspection office request-ing the appropriate permitting agency to not process permit appli-cations or issue permits until the enforcement process has beenconcluded.

Performance bonds

A common enforcement tool to assure that the approved urbanrunoff control practices are installed properly is requiring a per-formance bond. They are especially useful when project construc-tion is stopped before the stormwater practices are built. By re-quiring a performance bond, the permitting agency can hire some-one to construct the stormwater practices. All other enforcementtools should be used before requesting payment of the perfor-mance bond from the bonding company since this can seriouslyhinder the ability of the developer to get a bond in the future. Inaddition, the process of getting the bond money is time consum-ing, making this is option not practical in situations requiring quickresolution.

Administrative Remedies

The legal framework for many state, regional, and local regula-tory programs establishes various administrative steps that the

Urban runoffcontrol pro-grams use avariety of othertools. Each ofthese toolsmust have asound legalfoundation.

4-46


agency can take to enforce compliance. The process typicallyincludes issuing a "Notice of Violation", which lists the actions tobe taken by a certain date to bring the site into compliance. If theactions in the NOV are not taken, additional administrative ac-tions can include permit revocation or suspension, a Consent Or-der, or Court Order. However, these administrative remedies nor-mally take a lot of time. They are not effective enforcement toolsfor urban runoff control programs, especially during the construc-tion phase.

4. As-Built Certifications for stormwater systems

Requiring the submittal of As-Built Certifications and Record Draw-ings is highly recommended. These help assure installation ofpractices in accordance with the approved plans and that the struc-tures are structurally sound. Requiring submission of this infor-mation should assure better onsite supervision by the project en-gineer, especially during critical times of construction, such asduring barrel assembly and placement, compaction, and installa-tion of core trenches, anti-seepage devices (collars or diaphragm),filters, discharge structures, and even during the planting of aquaticplants in littoral zones.

Submission of the certification also reduces the responsibility ofthe site inspector with respect to approving adequacy of construc-tion, especially of structural components of the stormwater sys-tem. Stormwater systems, especially discharge structures andtreatment practices, can be complicated to construct and may rep-resent new challenges to contractors with little experience in theirconstruction. Having a design professional conduct inspectionsduring construction helps assure that the contractor is installingthe practices and structures so they will function properly andsafely.

As-built certification and record drawings should be received bythe permitting agency before release of any performance bonds.This will assure that funding is available if there is a problem.These submissions also can serve as a baseline for determiningwhen periodic maintenance inspections and operations shouldbe undertaken. For example, many programs require removal ofaccumulated sediments when the storage volume is reduced by acertain amount or percentage. The record drawings serve as areference of the system's original depth and storage volume.

An importantaspect of thefinal inspec-tion is to com-pare the as-builtcertificationand recorddrawings tothe approveddesign plansto ensure theyare consistent.

4-47


5. Final inspections of stormwater management systems

Inspecting stormwater practices during construction is important,but having a final site inspection after construction is complete isessential. Typically, once construction of a project is completed,responsibility for maintenance of stormwater systems is transferredfrom the site developer to the eventual property owner(s) or les-see. Having a final inspection of the runoff system before the de-veloper transfers ownership helps ensure that the system is con-structed properly, and that the new owner is aware of mainte-nance responsibilities. This inspection can serve as the officialrelease of the site developer from any further obligations for thestormwater system.

The final inspection should be requested by the developer. It isrecommended that the inspection be conducted by an inspectorfrom the appropriate agency, and be performed in conjunctionwith submission of the as-built certification and record drawings.The inspection should be done before issuance of a certificate ofoccupancy, release of any performance bond, or final sign-off onthe stormwater system. An important aspect of the final inspec-tion is to compare the as-built certification and record drawings tothe approved design plans and specifications to assure they areconsistent.

MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER SYSTEMS

Successful implementation of urban runoff control practices re-quires attention to three major program components - good projectdesign, proper construction, and long term maintenance. Nation-wide, the largest weakness of urban runoff control programs isassuring long-term performance of the practices.

Assuring proper long-term functioning of stormwater practices re-quires use of several different tools. Very few programs have thenecessary legal framework and staff resources to perform thisvital task. Too often, there has to be a history of failure, often withloss of property or lives, to get adequate resources for mainte-nance of stormwater systems. The elements listed below may notbe immediately attainable for new programs, but they are essen-tial. That's why program evolution is so important. Recognizingthe need for these program elements hopefully will ease their ac-ceptance at some point in the future. The maintenance and op-eration of stormwater systems is an issue that is very important toprogram success. It must be addressed. A long-term implemen-tation strategy which includes operation and maintenance must

Successfulimplementa-tion of storm-water man-agement prac-tices requiresattention togood design,properconstruction,and long termmainenance.Nationally, thelargest weak-ness of urbanrunoff controlprograms isassuring longtermperformanceof BMPs.

4-48


be prepared early in the program's development. By phasing inelements, public awareness and acceptance can be increased.

1. Requiring maintenance of stormwater systems

Either through law, regulation, ordinance, or other legal authority,maintenance of stormwater management systems must be re-quired. This simple basic statement must be recognized and in-cluded in the initial development of the program, especially whenstormwater treatment is required. The more effective these prac-tices are at removing pollutants, the more frequently they must bemaintained. The maintenance responsibility must be recognized,planned for, and funded. It does little good to require construc-tion of practices if there is no legal requirement to assure theirproper maintenance and operation.

The program's legal framework must specifically address themaintenance of stormwater practices. Items that need to be in-cluded are requiring a legal maintenance entity, determining whocan be one, establishing minimum legal and financial requirementsfor them, and providing a series of enforcement tools should themaintenance entity fail to do its job.

2. Responsible maintenance entities

Determining which entities should be allowed to be legally re-sponsible for the maintenance of stormwater systems is an ex-tremely important and difficult decision. Historically, performingmaintenance was the responsibility of local government or theproperty owner. This approach can work well when there is oneentity responsible for maintenance. Experience shows that gov-ernment, private or public utilities, and many commercial or in-dustrial property owners can often be relied upon to fulfill theirmaintenance responsibilities.

Conversely, this approach has not worked well when a propertyowners association is the responsible entity. This often is true forresidential projects such as subdivisions. Several surveys haveshown that residential stormwater practices generally are not main-tained. These systems often become a problem for the local gov-ernment, which is expected to perform the required maintenance.To increase maintenance of stormwater systems by property ownerassociations, Hillsborough County (FL) implemented an "Adopt aPond" program. Associations that join the program receive edu-cation and training from county staff on their stormwater system -type of BMP, how it functions, maintenance activities and fre-

While govern-ment, utilities,and manycommercial orindustrialproperty own-ers will main-tain theirstormwatersystems,those main-tained bypropertyowner asso-ciations areseldom main-tained prop-erly.

4-49


quency, etc. Special focus is given to "aquascaping" the systemby planting beneficial aquatic and wetland plants which also haveattractive flowers. BMP does not stand for "Big Muddy Pond."

It is recommended that stormwater systems serving residentialproperties be dedicated to and accepted for maintenance by thegovernment (hopefully one with a stormwater utility!). The storm-water practices and structures should be built to the jurisdiction'sstandards and specifications, be warranted by the developer forat least two years, and be accepted only after a final site inspec-tion by inspectors from the jurisdiction. An alternative approachis to have the local government responsible for maintenance ofresidential stormwater practices and structures, with the propertyowners association responsible only for vegetative and aestheticmaintenance. Unfortunately, since funding is often unavailable,responsibility for maintenance is generally left to the residentialproperty owners with the recognition that the maintenance willnot get done.

An innovative alternative is for the program to require a propertyowners association to establish a maintenance organization, re-sponsible for annually assessing and collecting fees from eachproperty owner. These maintenance fees generally are used forprivate road maintenance and maintenance of public open space,but stormwater system maintenance certainly can be added. Thisapproach is used by several local programs but requires over-sight to assure that the fees actually are collected and used prop-erly. Education of property owners about how the fees are usedand the benefits provided helps increase their willingness andlikelihood to pay. This approach does not eliminate the need forthe jurisdiction to conduct periodic inspections to see if runoff sys-tems are being maintained and operating properly.

3. Public agency inspection of stormwater systems

To assure long term performance, stormwater practices must bemaintained on a regular schedule. However, the frequency ofmaintenance varies greatly with the type of runoff practice, itscontributing drainage area, and land use. Inspections are requiredto determine when to undertake maintenance operations. Ulti-mately, the responsibility for conducting inspections will fall onthe public agency responsible for program implementation. Mostprograms are aware of this responsibility with 81% of the sur-veyed programs requiring public agency inspection.

The increasing complexity of urban runoff controls is one reason

It isrecommendedthat runoffsystems serv-ing residentialproperties bededicated toand acceptedfor mainte-nance by thegovernment(hopefullywith a storm-water utility!).

4-50


that public agency inspection is necessary. Few property ownerassociation representatives or maintenance staff for commercialor industrial operations will have the knowledge to inspect ormaintain runoff structures or practices. Public inspectors aretrained to know the components of stormwater management prac-tices, understand how they work, and know how they should ap-pear. Inspectors need to be trained to evaluate the function ofmechanical devices, such as used for pond dewatering; check forseepage at the downstream embankment face; measure sedimentaccumulations or discharge rates of filters or underdrains; andconduct other common maintenance tasks.

It is recommended that runoff practices be inspected by a publicinspector on an annual basis at a minimum. However, rememberthat some treatment practices, such as filters, will need more fre-quent inspections. Public inspections serve as a final backstop tohelp assure that regular maintenance inspections and neededmaintenance are actually being performed by the responsibleentity. They also serve as a check when the runoff control pro-gram requires submission of an inspection report from the main-tenance entity.

Based on the review of urban runoff programs, obtaining staff toperform maintenance inspections is very difficult and a low prior-ity. Staff needs for maintenance inspections are not a significantexpenditure during the program's first few years, but the obliga-tion grows year after year. Ultimately, if this vital task is to becompleted, the program will need staff dedicated to performingmaintenance inspections.

Creativity again can help to overcome program resource limita-tions. Generally, local or regional programs have staff dedicatedto maintenance of primary drainage structures. These individualscan be cross trained in the proper maintenance of runoff treat-ment practices. Another creative approach is used in Tallahassee'sprogram which requires operating permits for all stormwater man-agement systems. These permits require an annual inspection ofthe system, with a certification on the condition of the system sub-mitted to the city's stormwater utility program. To provide trainedinspectors for this task, the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection is developing a training and certification course for in-dividuals who wish to inspect erosion, sediment, and stormwatercontrols. This program is patterned after Delaware's Certified In-spector program.

Few propertyownerassociationrepresenta-tives or main-tenance staffforcommercial orindustrial op-erations havethe knowl-edge to in-spect or main-tain runoffstructures orpractices. It isrecommendedthat systemsbe inspectedby a publicagency atleastannually.

4-51


4. Funding maintenance - the need for dedicated revenues

Funding maintenance of runoff systems generally is not a prob-lem for commercial or industrial sites. They usually have a main-tenance budget and staff which can include this responsibility.However, finding funds to maintain systems can be a significantproblem for public agencies and for residential property owners.To overcome this problem, a dedicated source of revenue formaintenance of stormwater systems is strongly recommended.

Stormwater utility fees are the most common dedicated fundingsource used by urban runoff programs. These "user fees" usuallyare based on a parcel's amount of impervious surface providing adirect relationship between the amount of runoff created and thedemands created for stormwater management. They are a veryequitable way of raising funds for runoff management, especiallywhen a public entity is responsible for the maintenance and op-eration of practices and structures.

Dedicated funding to maintain residential stormwater systems canbe provided by:

1. Stormwater utility fees2. Requiring property owner associations to establish a main-

tenance organization which annually assesses and collectsfunds from the members.

3. Deed restrictions which obligates a property owner to paya pro-rata share of the costs of maintaining the stormwatersystem serving the property.

Highway agencies have a special concern with respect to main-taining urban runoff controls. Highway construction projects mustmeet the same regulatory requirements as any other develop-ment, but highway construction poses special problems. High-ways are linear in nature and cross many different drainage di-vides. To meet stormwater management program requirements,treatment must be provided for runoff within each of the impactedreceiving waters. This necessitates the construction of many storm-water management structures which must be maintained, not onlyto meet permit conditions but to assure public safety, since lack ofmaintenance could lead to road flooding. Highway departmentsmust be aware of these needs and be sure that their annual bud-gets include the funds needed to inspect and maintain their facili-ties.

In summary, there are several available options to provide fund-

Not planningfor mainte-nance costs intheinitial programsetup willcreate majorfinancialproblems inthe future.Dedicatedfundingsources, suchas stormwaterutility fees,can help pre-vent this prob-lem.

4-52


ing for maintenance of urban runoff controls. It is important thatone of these tools be selected and used. Do not assume thatfunding will become available when a problem arises. Not plan-ning for maintenance costs in the initial program setup will causesignificant financial problems in the future.

5. Legal steps to assure maintenance is done

The program must have a legal framework that includes compli-ance and enforcement processes to assure that maintenance isdone, especially on systems maintained by private entities. Thesesteps will depend, to some degree, on the program's maintenanceframework.

Commonly, the program's civil penalties will address the problemof maintenance of systems not being performed. Another com-monly used tool is allowing the program agency to either performneeded maintenance or have it done by a contractor. The cost isbilled to the property owner. If payment is not received in a speci-fied period of time, a lien is place on the property for the amountof the bill.

An urban runoff program must have the legal tools to assure main-tenance of stormwater systems. More importantly, there must bea commitment to use the tools when they are needed.

COORDINATION WITH RELATED PROGRAMS

1. Coordination between the erosion and sediment controlprogram and the stormwater management program

As discussed previously, there must be close coordination of theerosion and sediment control program and the stormwater man-agement program. It is strongly recommended that erosion andsediment control and stormwater management programs be ad-ministered as integrated programs under the same urban runoffmanagement program umbrella. Having the functions located inthe same agency and even in the same office clearly improvesprogram effectiveness and fosters better communication and dia-logue between inspectors and plan reviewers.

2. Coordinating urban runoff programs with other related programs

The intimate relationship of erosion, sediment, and stormwatercontrol to other aspects of land development and natural resources

Do not as-sume thatfunding willbecome avail-able when aproblemarises. Notplanning formaintenancecosts in theinitial programsetup willcause signifi-cant financialproblems inthe future.

4-53


management suggest many possibilities for program coordina-tion. This is supported by the questionnaire responses, with theurban runoff programs citing coordination with the following pro-grams:

land use planningzoningbuilding permitswetlands protectionfloodplain managementwastewater managementwater supplytree protectionland acquisitionwellhead protection

It is recommended that urban runoff programs be coordinated withall of the above related programs, if appropriate in the jurisdic-tion. All of these programs have important linkages to urban run-off programs. However, it is likely that coordination will need tophased in, based on local priorities. For guidance, review the in-dividual summaries in Appendix B to see which development pro-grams were coordinated with the different urban runoff programs.

Initial coordination is recommended with land use planning, zon-ing, wetland protection, and building permit programs. Integrationof stormwater management, tree protection, open space, recre-ation, and landscaping requirements often represents a "win -win" situation. At the local government level, the land develop-ment regulations often will include sections on each of these top-ics. If the various requirements of these different topics can becoordinated and integrated, multiple objectives can be achievedin the same area providing a developer with an opportunity tosave money. More importantly, this allows much greater use ofnonstructural controls which can help minimize runoff and the gen-eration and delivery of pollutants.

Once coordination between programs is established, a designatedcontact person in each program should be identified betweenwhom regular periodic communication must occur. Educationalworkshops also are recommended as a way to increase staffawareness of the requirements of each program.

3. Avoid conflicts with other programs

As stated in Chapter 3, there are a significant number of conflicts

It is stronglyrecommendedthat erosionand sedimentcontrol andstormwatermanagementprograms beadministeredas integratedprograms un-der the sameurban runoffcontrol pro-gramumbrella.

4-54


with other programs which hinder or prevent effective programimplementation. These conflicts will never be totally avoided, butthey can be reduced through effective communication and coop-eration. Adversarial relationships between programs must not beallowed to develop or continue. Experience shows that such dis-agreements will be displayed in public arenas, harming both pro-grams. Unfortunately, because of human nature, this is easier saidthan done.

Experience by program implementing staff can attest to the frus-tration and conflict when interfacing with other programs whosegoals may be compatible, but whose implementation conceptsare very different. Unfortunately, this has been an issue for urbanrunoff management programs, which are the "new kid on the block"and which address cumulative, insidious environmental problems.Stormwater management programs face potential conflicts withwetland programs, water quality certification, flood control, solidwaste programs, and onsite wastewater programs, among oth-ers.

Coordination and communication among programs is critical toavoid or minimize conflicts. Often, minor changes can be made toone or both programs which will accommodate the concerns ofthe other program without adversely affecting either program. It isimportant to people that their concerns, however minor from theprogram perspective, be given serious consideration. Minor prob-lems have a way of escalating if not treated seriously when theyfirst occur, especially when there is a concern over "turf". Com-munication, coordination, and cooperation are essential.

A creative process that can work fairly well is establishing a workgroup consisting of staff from two programs. They should meetregularly to find common ground on issues affecting both pro-grams. This process can expand the normal dialogue among theprograms' staff, giving both sides an appreciation for issues thatcould create conflicts. This approach is recommended to reducepotential conflicts between programs, no matter the level of gov-ernment.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

1. Measures of program success

Elected officials and taxpayers are asking more and more ques-tions about the cost of implementation versus the benefits pro-vided by many programs. It is essential that answers be provided

Conflicts be-tween pro-grams willnever be to-tally avoided,but they canbereducedthrougheffectivecommunica-tion, coordina-tion, andcooperation.

4-55


to managers and the general public regarding program costs andeffectiveness. That's why it is important to measure the benefitsand successfulness of any program, either qualitatively or quanti-tatively. This is especially true for urban runoff programs whichare a new concept, and which use practices that are relativelyuntested. There must be periodic evaluations to measure programbenefits and effectiveness. These help determine whether improve-ments are needed, allowing the program to evolve.

Potential program evaluation tools include:

Qualitative measures

project permit review timesfrequency of inspectionsevaluation forms by targeted groupsappearance of control practices on sitesresponse time for complaintsnumber of permits issuednumber of individuals trainedrecognition by othersenforcement actions takenmaintenance activitiesreduced number of complaints

Quantitative measures

chemical monitoring of practiceschemical monitoring of receiving watersbiological monitoring of receiving waters(bioassessments with habitat assessment)stream flow monitoringsediment monitoring (deposition, chemistry)

2. Research projects and monitoring

One of the biggest weaknesses of urban runoff programs is thesparsity of data on BMP performance or on the ecological effectsof intermittent discharges. Unfortunately, projects to evaluate BMPdesign and performance are very complex and expensive. None-theless, research and monitoring are highly recommended com-ponents of urban runoff control programs. Monitoring is includedas an element of the research component because so much storm-water research involves storm event monitoring and water chem-istry analyses. Additionally, an important research area is devel-oping monitoring techniques that can accurately assess the eco-

Periodicevaluationsare needed tomeasure pro-gram effec-tiveness andbenefits.They can beused to helpgain programsupport andto help itevolve into amore compre-hensive pro-gram.

4-56


logical effects of intermittent discharges and cumulative loadings.

BMP research is needed to improve our understanding of the re-lationship between design variables and treatment performance.Particularly important is research to develop and test innovativeerosion and sediment controls or stormwater practices. Often, adeveloper will want to try an innovative technology but won't be-cause of the costs of building and monitoring. Development andtesting of innovative practices must be done cooperatively by therunoff program, universities, and the development community. Thedesign must be based on sound scientific principles, not the "seatof the pants". Cooperative research of innovative practices canlead to much earlier acceptance of the design by the program,leading to more widespread use of the practice.

Monitoring urban runoff impacts, BMP effectiveness, the benefitsof BMP implementation, or the impact of BMPs themselves onreceiving waters presents special challenges. Traditional watercolumn chemistry monitoring programs are not effective becauseof the intermittent nature of storms. They only provide a "snap-shot" rather than assessing the cumulative impacts caused bythe many urban runoff discharges within a watershed. Addition-ally, many stormwater pollutants are particulate or settle and be-come bound to sediments. Sediments and biological communi-ties integrate pollutants and provide a long term record of eco-logical health.

Bioassessments are a popular and effective alternative to chemi-cal monitoring. A major benefit of bioassessments is they providea holistic measure of the health of the receiving system. Bioassess-ments provide a more accurate representation of water bodyhealth, assessing both the available habitats and the abundanceand diversity of organisms living there. Additionally, bioassess-ments are relatively inexpensive compared to chemical analyses.

Another innovative and valuable monitoring tool is assessing sedi-ments - their distribution, depth, and chemistry. Sedimentationrates can be fairly easily estimated by coring bottom sediments.Paleolimnology allows determination of concentrations of materi-als in sediments at various dates, allowing water body restorationtargets to be established. The Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection sediment research group developed a tool to assesswhether metal levels in estuarine sediments were naturally oc-curring or anthropogenically enriched. They also establishedguidelines to assess whether they were harmful ecologically.

One of thebiggest weak-nesses of ur-ban runoffprograms isthe sparsity ofdata on BMPperformanceand on theecologicaleffects ofintermittentdischarges.

4-57


Research need not be restricted to assessing the performance ofBMPs or monitoring receiving systems. The newness of urbanrunoff programs implies there is much to learn about topics suchas how to effectively garner public support, develop an effectivepermit, or establish permit or site tracking systems. Research isneeded on all aspects of program development and implementa-tion

Communication with staff in programs around the country (or evenaround the world) provides valuable information. This can helpprograms from "reinventing the wheel" during the process of pro-gram development or implementation. The information presentedin this document demonstrates that there are many similaritiesamong urban runoff programs around the country. The similari-ties are not coincidental, but a result of communication and tech-nology transfer.

Many of the urban runoff programs reviewed are conducting re-search. They are just a small number of the many agencies thatare attempting to address urban runoff. Research can be impor-tant even with limited budgets. It is vital that the learning processcontinue. Programs that continue to implement existing operatingpolicies, procedures, and practices without reviewing or ques-tioning how they can be improved, can not improve their effec-tiveness. Research is critical to program evolution.

In the past, research funding has been provided primarily throughstate or federal grants, but these funding sources are declining.To improve the chances of obtaining these limited funds, staff infederal or state agencies administering erosion and sediment con-trol, stormwater management, wetland protection, or water qual-ity management programs should be contacted to see if grantfunds are available for urban runoff research. If grants are avail-able, obtain program guidance materials along with applicationforms so that solid project proposals can be submitted by the ap-plication deadline.

Other potential research funding sources includes fines paid bythose who violate environmental laws and rules, license plate fees,fees on tobacco or alcohol products, and special surcharges onrunoff related materials such as concrete, asphalt, fertilizer, orpesticides. These can all be effective ways of generating addi-tional revenue. When using fines to pay for research and moni-toring, the perception must be avoided that additional fines willbe levied when additional funding is needed. Staff in urban runoffprograms should communicate with the agencies which adminis-

Whendevelopingurban runoffcontrol pro-grams thereis no need to"reinvent thewheel."Similaritiesamong pro-grams aroundthecountry arenot coinci-dental, but aresult ofeffectivecommunica-tion and tech-nology trans-fer.

4-58


ter these funds to find out how to submit projects for funding con-sideration. The chances of funding research efforts improve greatlyif all of the potential funding sources are identified and used..Since monitoring programs are among the lowest priorities of ur-ban runoff and environmental management programs, creativityis needed to increase the collection of information that can beused to evaluate environmental effects or conditions, or to as-sess the effectiveness of practices or programs. In recent years,two innovative approaches have become widely used:

Citizen monitoring

Volunteer citizen monitoring programs are gaining increased ac-ceptance and expanding rapidly. These programs provide manybenefits including education of volunteers, increasing personalresponsibility for managing one's water body, reducing data col-lection costs, and obtaining data from more sites than would bepossible using program staff. Citizen monitoring programs mustbe well coordinated. Volunteers must be trained in proper samplecollection and preservation techniques. To increase confidencein the data of citizen monitoring programs, it is recommended thatthe program have a quality assurance plan. Additionally, volun-teers need to receive the results of their monitoring, usually in theform of periodic reports on their water body. Accordingly, there isa need for basic staff support and funding to perform these tasksand to purchase sampling equipment and pay for laboratory analy-ses.

Monitoring by private entities

Monitoring by private entities has a lot of potential to provideneeded data. The NPDES storm water permitting program has asignificant monitoring component as a means of ensuring permitcompliance. Good communication between the NPDES stormwater program and an urban runoff program (where they are sepa-rate) provides an excellent opportunity to research practices andstrategies.

Another possible opportunity to conduct research occurs whenregulatory requirements create a hardship on a developer. In thissituation, a variance to permit requirements may be justified if thesite owner agrees to monitor the performance of any innovativepractices. This would assess the performance of the innovativepractice and provide information on it's potential use elsewhere.

Since monitor-ing programsare among thelowest priori-ties of urbanrunoff andenvironmentalmanagementprograms,creativity isneeded toincreasecollection ofinformationthat can beused to evalu-ateenvironmentaleffects, or toassess theeffectivenessof practices orprograms.

4-59


PROGRAM EVOLUTION

It has been stated many times that it is important for urban runoffcontrol programs to start small and gradually evolve to includeadditional activities and expand the program. It is recommendedthat initially the program address only the adverse runoff impactsassociated with new development, and possibly redevelopment.This includes erosion and sediment control during construction,and stormwater management during and after construction. Asthe program matures, the staff gains experience in programmaticand technical issues, and as acceptance and support of the pro-gram by elected officials and the public increases, considerationcan be given to expanding the program to address additional prob-lems such as reducing runoff pollution from older drainage sys-tems (retrofitting). This requires the program to evolve from asite-by-site approach to a more comprehensive watershed ap-proach.

1. Retrofitting to reduce impacts from developed areas

Retrofitting presents many unique, complex challenges - institu-tional, technical, and financial. Institutionally, retrofitting is bestaccomplished through watershed approaches which emphasizeregional stormwater facilities and nonstructural practices. Tech-nically, most BMPs are land intensive and inappropriate for use inhighly urbanized areas where land is scarce and extremely ex-pensive. Innovative technologies are critically needed. Finan-cially, the cost of retrofitting can't even be estimated because storm-water is the "orphan infrastructure." Few jurisdictions have goodmaps of their system or a master plan, especially one which ad-dresses runoff quality and volume. Establishing a formal programof retrofitting necessitates a dedicated funding mechanism, suchas a stormwater utility or special taxing district.

A major concern in retrofitting is coordination with other pro-grams. In urban areas, many utility lines and pipes are buried inthe right-of-way. These must be located and avoided during con-struction of stormwater improvements. Another common retrofit-ting problem is the desire to locate regional facilities in a wetland,which are considered "waters of the United States" and subject toprotection just like other water bodies. The purpose of retrofittingis to reduce adverse impacts on the public's water resources, notto reduce the runoff benefits already provided by a natural sys-tem such as a wetland or water body. It is important that coordina-tion and communication occur early in the planning of retrofitprojects to avoid conflicts with other programs, jeopardizing both

Retrofittingpresentsmany uniquecomplex chal-lenges -institutional,technical, andfinancial.

Institutionally,retrofitting isbestaccomplishedthroughwatershedapproacheswhich empha-size regionalfacilities andnonstructuralpractices.

4-60


the project and relations with other agencies.

Retrofitting can be done through an almost limitless number ofways. These include the following broad categories:

Retrofitting existing stormwater quantity control structures

This approach is applicable only in those jurisdictions which haveimplemented a stormwater quantity management program to re-duce flooding potential. In this case there will be numerous exist-ing detention basins, perhaps both onsite and regional, that canbe retrofitted to provide water quality treatment. This can be fairlyeasy and inexpensive to implement. However, these modificationsmust not reduce flood protection or the basin's required "live" stor-age volume so as to adversely impact downstream water levelsor velocities.

Nearly any modification of an existing runoff control practice whichwill slow runoff velocities, increase detention time, or promote run-off flow through wetland vegetation will increase the removal ofrunoff pollutants. The simplest way to retrofit stormwater deten-tion basins to improve water quality treatment is to modify theexisting outlet structure to provide extended detention of a spe-cific volume of runoff (treatment volume). These modifications fre-quently will not reduce flood control benefits because the goal intreating runoff usually is to capture part of the runoff (i.e., 0.5 to1.0 inch) from frequent, small storms (i.e., annual or 2-yr storm),whereas flood control basins are designed to capture all of therunoff from rare, large events (i.e., 25 to 100-yr storm). If siteconditions are appropriate, it is recommended that dry detentionor failing infiltration systems be converted to a wet detention orconstructed wetland system. The permanent pool elevation willprobably have to be excavated below the existing facility bottomso storage volume is not reduced.

Even wet detention systems can be retrofitted to improve treat-ment by modifying the discharge structure. Wanielista and Yousef(1992) demonstrated the importance of setting the discharge struc-ture elevation at or above the seasonal high water table eleva-tion. Otherwise, the discharge structure constantly dischargesground water, serving as a dewatering device to lower water tableelevations. At the Greenview Subdivision system, a $250 modifi-cation to the discharge structure closed the original orifice andadded a v-notched weir, raising the pond's control level abovethe seasonal high water table. This modification changed thesystem's performance from being a pollutant load exporter to re-

Even wet de-tention sys-tems can beretrofitted toimprove theirtreatment ef-fectiveness.

A $250 changeto the outletcontrol at theGreenviewSubdivisionchanged thesystem from apollutantexporter toone with >60%removal.

4-61


moving over 60% of the average annual loading.

Using existing road crossings to impound stormwater

Roads, by their linear nature, cross watershed boundaries. Wherethey pass over drainage systems, they generally have an em-bankment that keeps the roadway elevated above an establishedflood elevation. The upstream inlet of the highway stormwater con-veyance system can be modified to extend detention time, pro-moting runoff treatment. Since the roadway embankment wasnot designed as a dam, treatment should be by a dry, extendeddetention system. This will prevent a phreatic zone of saturationfrom developing through the embankment which could cause itsslippage. Limited access highways offer several opportunities forretrofitting. Grassy medians, shoulders, swales, and cloverleafinterchanges all provide possible areas for runoff treatment. Of-ten the area inside a cloverleaf can be excavated, contoured and"aquascaped" to create a beautiful detention or constructed wet-land system. Of course, this retrofitting approach must be dis-cussed, coordinated, and approved by the appropriate highwayagency.

Demonstration projects

Retrofitting often is done as a demonstration project. It providesan opportunity not only to reduce stormwater pollutants, but totest innovative treatment practices, helping to increase the num-ber of BMPs useful in highly urban areas. Demonstration projectstend to be limited to showing examples of innovative practices ina forum where they are visible, thereby testing practices whichmay have more widespread in the applicability. These projectsoften are conducted on public lands such as parks, schools, orgovernment centers making them highly visible and great oppor-tunities to educate the public and build program support.

Funding for most demonstration projects generally is provided fromgrants, special taxes, or fines. EPA's Section 319 nonpoint sourcemanagement program funds many demonstration projects. Otherpotential EPA grant funds for urban runoff demonstration projectsincludes Section 104(b)(3), 314, and 320 programs. In somestates, construction of urban runoff controls can be funded by thestate's revolving loan fund.

Permit requirement

The issuance, modification, or renewal of water pollution control

4-61

It is importantthatcoordinationand communi-cation occurearly in theplanning ofretrofitprojects toavoid conflictswith other pro-grams, jeopar-dizing both theproject andrelations withotheragencies orprograms.

4-62


permits can provide an opportunity to reduce stormwater pollu-tion. Stormwater treatment can be required as a permit condition,or as part of a watershed trading of point and nonpoint sourcepollutant loads. For example, renewal of a wastewater dischargepermit may require installation of urban runoff controls within thefacility's service area. Another example is the issuance of a Wa-ter Quality Certification for a storm drain project, where runofftreatment practices may be made a permit requirement.

One of the primary goals of the Section 319 NPS, the NPDESstorm water permitting, and the combined sewer overflow pro-grams is to reduce water quality problems caused by intermittent,wet weather discharges. These programs require the assessmentof discharge loadings and targeting of priority watersheds. Ulti-mately, the goal is to retrofit the watershed using structural andnonstructural practices to reduce loadings from existing land uses.

Under the NPDES program, operators of permitted MunicipalSeparate Storm Sewer Systems must develop a program to elimi-nate illicit connections to the storm drain system. Eliminating thesesources can greatly reduce runoff pollution discharged from thelocal runoff system to downstream receiving systems. It is stronglyrecommended that all jurisdictions implement a program to elimi-nate illicit discharges to the storm drainage system, even if notrequired to by the NPDES storm water program.

Retrofitting through education

Educating the general public can result in a significant, yet diffi-cult to quantify, urban runoff quality control benefits. Given theextent of "Pointless Personal Pollution", we cannot rely on gov-ernment rules, inspectors, and programs to address all the poten-tial pollution sources within a watershed. Our every day activitiesadd pollutants to streets, parking lots, lawns, and other surfacethroughout a watershed. Educating the public about how to re-duce these pollutants and to be better stewards is an effectiveretrofitting tool. Possible public education topics include properdisposal of household chemicals and automotive wastes, how toproperly use and dispose of lawn fertilizers and pest control chemi-cals, and rerouting water from roof drains onto pervious areas.

Public education also can increase the popularity and effective-ness of citizen watch programs, where the public helps regula-tory agencies find pollution sources. By increasing awareness ofpollution indicators, and providing simple notification proceduressuch as a toll free number, citizens can help fill the void that most

Given the ex-tent of "Point-less PersonalPollution",publiceducationmust be partof any retrofit-ting program.

We cannotrely only ongovernmentrules, inspec-tors, andprograms toreduce pollu-tion sourcesthroughout awatershed.

4-63


programs have with respect to inspectors.

Educating managers and staff at industrial operations has provento be a very effective mechanism in reducing pollution. Pollutionprevention has been embraced by many industries, not only tomeet permit conditions or reduce pollution, but also to save moneyby recycling, reducing or reusing materials. Especially in existingurbanized areas, pollution prevention is one of the most practicaland cost effective approaches to reducing urban runoff pollution.

2. Watershed specific approaches

There is general recognition that program effectiveness can beimproved through comprehensive watershed approaches, whereall elements can be considered together to maximize benefitsand minimize costs. Watershed-wide approaches long have beenused in runoff quantity control, where downstream flooding con-cerns, and prevention strategies, can only be addressed effec-tively when the entire contributing drainage area is considered.The same is true for urban runoff quality management, especiallywhen trying to reduce pollutant loadings from developed areas.

Whether called "watershed management" or "ecosystem man-agement", there is a growing recognition of the interrelationshipsof all aspects of land and water resources. In fact, land and watermanagement are inseparable. For example, erosion and sedimentcontrol and stormwater management are needed because ofchanges in land use which alter vegetative, hydrologic and pollut-ant characteristics. Watershed approaches not only allow betterintegration of program elements but also allow for more accuratemeasurement of program costs, impacts, and benefits.

Almost all of the urban runoff control programs reviewed (87%)include some form of watershed approach as a program compo-nent. Problems being addressed by watershed approaches in-clude flooding, water quality, stream channel erosion, and aquaticresource protection.

As specific information relating to watershed approaches wasbeyond the scope of this project, no information was requestedregarding institutional aspects of watershed approaches. It is rec-ognized that there has to be a number of components to water-shed approaches which need to be considered, and guidanceneeds to be provided regarding those components. However,this document was developed to provide guidance in base pro-gram initiation and implementation.

There is gen-eral recogni-tion that pro-grameffectivenesscan be im-provedthroughcomprehen-sive water-shedapproaches,where allelements canbe consideredtogether tomaximizebenefits andminimizecosts.

4-64


There are many levels of watershed program implementation.The approach can be as simple as targeting a watershed for ad-ditional educational activities to reduce nutrient loadings. It alsocan be very comprehensive, using sophisticated hydrology andwater quality computer models linked to geographic informationsystems. The costs and resource needs vary greatly. It is impor-tant to recognize that these latter approaches can be very expen-sive and resource intensive.

The level of watershed effort depends on the degree and magni-tude of the problem. It also depends on the source of the problemand the flexibility of the program infrastructure to incorporate theresults of the watershed analysis. This last issue is particularlyimportant and must be considered "up front" when discussionsabout using watershed approaches begin.

It is popular to expect people and programs to "do more with less".A common misunderstanding is that watershed approaches canbe performed with existing resources, stretching staff to absorbanother function. This will not work. When planning a watershedapproach, dedicated resources must be an integral part of thediscussions. Simply coordinating a watershed project often is afull time job. Failure to anticipate resource needs or to scheduleresources when they are needed can cause other program func-tions to suffer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a comprehensive urban runoff control programwhich includes the management of erosion, sediment, and storm-water is not a painless or quick process. Since this is a relativelynew field, there are many unique challenges, not the least of whichis the lack of experienced staff. It must be recognized that staffresponsible for developing a program or elements of a programmay not have years of experience in the many details which arecritical to program success. Staff and program growing pains mustbe expected. Training individuals to perform plan reviews or con-duct good inspections takes time. Problems will occur, mistakeswill be made. Learn from these mistakes. Of course, it is impor-tant to minimize mistakes if the program is to be supported bymanagement and the general public. That's why program evolu-tion is so important. Also why it is unrealistic to expect programsto be implemented in a short time period.

Where program shortcomings or mistakes are identified, take time

Implementa-tion of com-prehensiveurban runoffcontrol pro-grams whichinclude ero-sion, sedi-ment, andstormwatermanagementis not a pain-less or quickprocess.

Problems willoccur, mis-takes will bemade.

Learn fromthem.

4-65


to thoroughly evaluate why they occurred and to review possiblealternative solutions. If a problem is related to the program's legalauthority, then upper management and elected officials must beeducated about how these problems are reducing program effec-tiveness, to gain their support revisions to laws or rules. If planreview, permitting, or enforcement processes are flawed adminis-tratively, carefully evaluate all alternatives before recommendingchanges. Be sure to involve the regulated community in evaluat-ing alternative solutions.

If a program is mandated, placing obligations on other levels ofjurisdictions, recognize that there will be a growth curve as inex-perienced staff learn what items are important and how much flex-ibility is warranted on a specific project. These individuals musthave someone to turn to when they have questions. Staff at thelead program agency must be available and prepared to provideextensive technical assistance and training to staff of implement-ing jurisdictions.

Finally, remember the "Big Cs of Watershed Management" as theyprovide a sound foundation upon which to build effective urbanrunoff control programs:

1. COMPREHENSIVE management of land use, water resources,and infrastructure throughout a watershed.

2. CONTINUITY of stormwater programs over a long period oftime will be required to solve these problems.

3. COOPERATION between state, regional, and local govern-ments, between cities and counties, between the public andprivate sectors, and all of our citizens is essential to preventand solve problems.

4. COMMON SENSE in our institutional framework, approaches,and the way that way live our everyday lives, helping to reducesources of "Pointless Personal Pollution."

5. COMMUNICATION is essential. Between entities involved inthe implementation of programs; between the implementingagencies and the regulated community; of elected officials toobtain their support for the programs; and of all citizens so theywill understand how their everyday activities can affect waterquality and how they can and must be part of the solution.

6. COORDINATION of stormwater retrofitting to reduce pollutantloading with other infrastructure improvements or redevelop-ment is needed for cost-effective implementation and to maxi-mize benefits.

7. CREATIVITY in both BMP technology and in our approach tosolving this complex problem is vital.

The big Cs ofwatershedmanagement:

Comprehen-sive

Continuity

Cooperation

Commonsense

Communica-tion

Coordination

Creativity

Cash

Commitment

4-66


8. CASH in large amounts will be needed to build new stormwaterinfrastructure and implement programs.

9. COMMITMENT to solving these problems so our children willhave clean water, a high quality of life, and a vibrant economywill depend on putting our money where our mouth is.

A-1

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Questionnaire

Appendix ASediment and Stormwater Management

Program Questionnaire

Distributed to9 Cities

10 Counties5 Regional Authorities

8 States

A-2

A Guide for Program Development and Implementation Questionnaire

Sediment Control and Stormwater ManagementProgram Implementation Questionnaire

Elements

1. Jurisdiction 2. Date of response

State 3. Who contactedRegional NameCounty TitleMunicipality AgencyConservation District AddressOther (explain below)

Phone # __________________________

4. Sediment control and stormwater management Fax # ____________________________

Separate programsIntegrated together

If separate, please provide the following information individually for both programs(questions 5, 6, and 7)

5. Legal citation for program authority ________________________________________________

6. Legal citation for regulatory authority ________________________________________________

7. Impetus for program development and implementation (more than one answer may apply).

Flooding Water qualityStream channel erosion Groundwater rechargeResource protection* Required by other legislationOther (federal/state)

* If so, specify resources targeted by program _______________________________________

Stormwater Management Program Criteria

8. What is the basic objective or goal of the Stormwater Management Program?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-3


A. Basis of Design Criteria (check all that apply)

Peak Discharge ControlWater Quality TreatmentVolume Control

B. If peak discharge release rates are controlled, please specify the design criteria (use additional sheets if needed).

Design storm(s): ___________________________________Performance standard: ___________________________________Maximum release rate(s): ___________________________________Downstream evaluation

required: ___________________________________Downstream channel

stability considered: ___________________________________

C. If stormwater treatment criteria have been established, please describe them and how they are achieved.

Performance standard: ____________________________________Treatment volume: ____________________________________BMP's allowed: ____________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Specific design criteria: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D. If volume control criteria have been established, please describe them and how they are to be achieved.

Performance standard: ____________________________________Applicability: ____________________________________

____________________________________Why included: ____________________________________

____________________________________

E. Exemptions and waivers

Single Family HomesAgricultureForestryOthers or acreage limits

(describe) _____________________________________

F. Practice Selection - Are any practices favored in general or in specific situations?(from a regulatory perspective)

YesNo

A-4


If so, which practices and when are they favored?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

G. Is the designer given any criteria or guidelines to select the practices?

YesNo

If so, describe in general.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

H. Management and Source Control Practices - Are they encouraged?

YesNo

If yes, for what land uses?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What specific practices are favored by the program?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is guidance available to the applicant?

YesNo

If yes, please describe in general and list publications or documents.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-5


Sediment Control Program Criteria

9. What is the basic rationale or philosophy for Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) Program?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A. Please summarize the program's design criteria and performance standards.

Performance standard: _______________________________________BMP's allowed _______________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Specific BMP designcriteria _______________________________________

Volume requirements forbasins and traps _______________________________________

B. Exemptions and waivers

Single Family HomesAgricultureForestryOthers or Acreage limits

(describe) _______________________________________

Program Authority and Implementation Structure

10. Program Implementation Structure (check all that apply)

E&S StormwaterFederal criteria - federal implementationFederal criteria - state implementationState criteria - state implementationState criteria - regional implementationState criteria - local implementationRegional criteria - regional implementationRegional criteria - local implementationLocal criteria - local implementation

11. Project Permitting Procedures and Applicability. Describe activities permitted.

E&S StormwaterNoticed ExemptionGeneral PermitIndividual PermitOther

If a mixture of more than one is used, describe when each is used._________________________________________________________________________________

A-6


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. When individual permits are required, is a comprehensive review of the design accomplished?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. Describe the review given to applications for the various types of permitting procedures.(please send a copy of the application form for each type of permitting process)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Are detailed checklists used to ensure consistency of review?

E&S StormwaterYesNo

If yes, please obtain a copy as a reference

15. Is the sediment control and/or the stormwater management approval required prior to other approvals or is it only required prior to the initiation of construction?

E&S StormwaterBuilding permitGrading permitZoning approvalOther

If other, please detail____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspection Procedures

16. Are inspections required during construction?

E&S StormwaterYesNo

If yes, is there a frequency requirement: How frequent? E&S ___________________ Stormwater __________________

A-7


17. Are the inspections accomplished by a public agency?

E&S StormwaterYesNo

If no to either, who conducts the inspections? E&S _________________________________ Stormwater _________________________________

If yes, is the inspection agency the same as the plan review agency?

E&S StormwaterYesNo

If no, who conducts the inspection? E&S ____________________________________ Stormwater ___________________________________

18. In the opinion of the person being interviewed, is the inspection frequency and procedure for E&S adequate to ensure adequate implementation and maintenance of BMP's during construction?

YesNo

If no, why?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Program Funding

19. Program Funding - Please check these sources used for your program.


Source Annual AmountGeneral appropriation ______________Permit fees ______________Stormwater utility fee ______________Special taxing district ______________Other ______________

If other is checked, please describe those sources.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-8



Source Annual AmountGeneral appropriation ______________Permit fees ______________Stormwater utility fee ______________Special taxing district ______________Other ______________

If other is checked, please describe those sources.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20. If known, what percentage of the program is funded by the sources?


Source PercentageGeneral appropriation __________Permit fees __________Stormwater utility fee __________Special taxing district __________Other __________


Source PercentageGeneral appropriation __________Permit fees __________Stormwater utility fee __________Special taxing district __________Other __________

Program Staffing

21. Program Staffing - How many persons are assigned to the programs?


Full Time Part TimeAdministrative __________ _________Engineer __________ _________Scientist __________ _________Inspector __________ _________Clerical __________Support __________ _________Other __________ _________

Is the current staffing level adequate to effectively implement the programs?

Yes No

A-9



Full Time Part TimeAdministrative __________ _________Engineer __________ _________Scientist __________ _________Inspector __________ _________Clerical __________Support __________ _________Other __________ _________

Is the current staffing level adequate to effectively implement the programs?

YesNo

If additional staff is needed to provide effective program implementation, which category ofstaff is needed and how many (estimated)?


Administrative ______________Engineer ______________Scientist ______________Inspector ______________Support ______________Other ______________


Administrative ______________Engineer ______________Scientist ______________Inspector ______________Support ______________Other ______________

Program Educational Aspects

22. Public Education - Are educational programs a component of the stormwater/E&S Programs?

YesNo

A. Are these programs mandated by law or regulation?

YesNo

A-10


B. What is the intended audience of these programs?

Contractors DevelopersConsultants InspectorsGeneral public Other (please detail)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C. Do educational efforts and materials include the following items?

Brochures MonitoringShows ExhibitsStenciling Amnesty DaysDemonstration Projects

D. How many individuals (approximately) and how often are educational programs given?

Total number of individuals How often given (#/yr.)

Contractors _______________ ______________Developers _______________ ______________Consultants _______________ ______________Inspectors _______________ ______________General public _______________ ______________Other _______________ ______________

Program Enforcement and Compliance

23. Program Compliance - Are there penalty provisions for non-compliance with sediment control or stormwater management requirements?

YesNo

A. Do the penalty provisions include the following items?

Civil penaltiesCriminal penalties

B. What other options are available to ensure compliance?

Halting construction (stop work order)Withholding occupancy permitsWithholding other permit applicationsOther (code enforcement - please detail)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-11


C. Please describe the civil and criminal penalties, including fines, detailed in law.

Civil ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criminal ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D. Are the penalty provisions adequate to achieve site compliance?


YesNo


YesNo

24. Are as-built certifications required to be submitted to the permitting agency for completed stormwater management practices?

YesNo

If yes, are certifications required for the following practices?

yes noInfiltration practicesFiltration practicesPonds

Normal poolDry

Extended DetentionPeak only

Biofiltration

A. Are final inspections required, prior to "signing off" on a completed stormwater management practice?

YesNo

if yes, who conducts the inspection? __________________________________________

A-12


B. Can you indicate the numbers of practices constructed over the past two years?

1992 1993Infiltration ____ ____

Swales ____ ____Basins ____ ____Trenches ____ ____Porous paving ____ ____

Filtration ____ ____Ponds

Normal pool ____ ____Dry

Extended detention ____ ____Peak only ____ ____

Wetlands ____ ____Biofiltration ____ ____

Maintenance of Stormwater Management Practices

25. System Maintenance - Does the program require maintenance of completed stormwater management structures as a program requirement?

YesNo

A. Responsibility for maintenance - Please list and describe the entities that are allowed to be responsible for maintenance.

Public agency ___________________________________Private entity ___________________________________Property owners association ___________________________________Other ___________________________________

What agency ensures maintenance is accomplished?

__________________________________________________________________________

B. Are maintenance inspections accomplished by appropriate government agency?

YesNo

How often are inspections required? ____________________________

C. Please detail the specific maintenance responsibilities.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-13


D. Is a dedicated funding source available for maintenance of stormwater management structures?

YesNo

If yes, please describe how the funding is provided.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

E. Are legal steps available in the event that needed maintenance is not accomplished.

YesNo

If yes, what steps may be taken?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have these steps ever been taken?

YesNo

Program Coordination with Related Programs

26. Program Coordination

A. Is there significant coordination between the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management program?

YesNo

B. Is there significant coordination with other related programs?

YesNo

If yes, do these programs include the following?

Land use planning Wastewater managementZoning Water supplyBuilding permit Tree protectionWetlands protection Land acquisitionFloodplain management Wellhead protection

A-14


27. Are there conflicts with other programs which prevent or hinder effective program implementation?

YesNo

if yes, please briefly describe those conflicts.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

28. Is there effective communication from federal agencies on related state and federal programs (e.g.. NPDES, NPS, etc.)?

YesNo

29. Are there any measures of program or implementation success?

YesNo

If yes, please describe those measures.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. What areas of program or implementation improvement are needed?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Program Evaluation and Evolution

31. Are any research projects underway to assess stormwater impacts or performance efficiencies of sediment control or stormwater management practices?

YesNo

If yes, briefly describe those research efforts.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-15


Do you feel that the research efforts have widespread applicability?

YesNo

32. Monitoring - Is monitoring a program component for any of the following parameters?

Water chemistrySedimentsBiologicFlow rates

33. Retrofitting - Does the program address retrofitting to reduce impacts from developed areas?

YesNo

If the answer is yes, does the retrofitting address any of the following?

FloodingWater qualityStream channel erosionAquatic resources

34. Are watershed specific approaches being used?

YesNo

If yes, does the watershed approach include any of the following?

Regional stormwater management structuresWaterbody targetingNonstructural BMP's

If no, are they being considered for program implementation?

YesNo

General Questions

1. How long has the program been in existence?

_____________________________________________

2. Are there any pitfalls, based on experience, which should be avoided by others?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-16


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please provide a brief history and evolution of the program.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Are there weaknesses which impede implementation?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Is there potential for consideration elsewhere?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Are there any additional thoughts?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B-1

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management Program Summaries

Appendix BSediment and Stormwater Management

Program Summaries

CitiesCounties

Regional AuthoritiesStates

B-2


SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENTPROGRAM SUMMARY

JURISDICTION: CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIATransportation and Environmental Services DepartmentBox 178Alexandria, Virginia 22313

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs but they are administered by the same staff.

The primary impetus for the program are the requirements imposed by federal, and espe-cially, by state law.

The program’s legal authority is established in the Code of Virginia, specifically in threelaws:

1. Erosion and Sediment Control Act; Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4.2. Stormwater Management Act; Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.3. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act; Title 10.1-2000-2015.

Stormwater Management Program

Program Goals/Objectives To protect the public interest in Chesapeake Bay, itstributaries, and other State waters.To promote the general welfare of the people of theCommonwealth.

Exemptions and Waivers Projects disturbing 2,500 sf or less of land

Preferred practices None promoted within the regulations. Developersprefer systems that are not land intensive, such as theD.C. sand filter or the Delaware sand filter, since theseallow more economic use of their property.

Practices installedPractice 1992 1993Infiltration basin 1Infiltration trenches 1 1Filters 4 2Wet detention pond 2 1Extended dry detention 2

Design criteria are specified in the City’s Supplement to the Northern Virginia BMP Hand-book.

B-3


Performance Standards and Design Criteria

Water Quality New development shall have no Treat the first half inch of runoff fromnet increase in pollutant loading. impervious surfaces using BMPsRedevelopment shall decrease appropriate for the site’s conditions.

loadings by at least 10%.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development peak rate shall notexceed pre-development rate for the 2-yr. and 10-year, 2-hour storms

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required to assure protection of downstream channel stability.

Available Publications City’s Supplement to the Northern Virginia BMP Handbook.

Source Controls City is developing a Non-structural BMP Handbook forAuto-related businesses which will include practices designedto capture and recycle oils, lubricants, fuels, antifreezes, etc.Scheduled publication is 1995.

Erosion and Sediment Control Program

Program goal/objective To prevent off-site sediment transport by water or air.

Exemptions and waivers Activities disturbing 2,500 ft2 or less of area

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture 15yd3/acre drainage area. Other practices allowed include siltfence, gravel construction entrance, slope protection, tempo-rary and permanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.

Program Authority and Implementation

Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using state and local criteria which are administered by the local governmentprogram.

Project permitting A separate permit is not issued. Approval is given by stamping“Approved” and by having the City Engineer sign the signatureblock on the detailed erosion/sediment control plan and storm-water management plan. Unless signed, the plan can not beused in the field.

B-4


Review process The erosion/sediment control plan is reviewed by a state li-censed erosion and sediment control plan reviewer to assurecompliance with criteria. The stormwater management plan isreviewed by a professional engineer and an environmentalscientist to assure compliance with criteria and accuracy.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control plan review, but not for the reviewof stormwater management plans.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building permit or a grading permit, and before the final site plan is releasedallowing for the beginning of construction activity.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required as needed, usually conducted daily by siteengineer and by staff from the Construction and Inspec-tion Division, Alexandria Transportation and Environmen-tal Services Dept.

Stormwater systems Required as needed, usually conducted daily by siteengineer and also by staff from the Construction andInspection Division, Alexandria Transportation andEnvironmental Services Dept.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Criminal penalties include fines of upto$1,000 or imprisonment in City jail for up to 90 days. Each day of violation is a separateoffense.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permits

As-built certifications are required for all stormwater management systems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by staff from the Construction andInspection Division and by environmental scientists from the Alexandria Transportation andEnvironmental Services Department.


Maintenance of completed stormwater systems is required. A maintenance/monitoringagreement must be executed between the City and the developer before work can beginon the site.

B-5


Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public landsPrivate ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Semi-annually

Oversight agency Construction and Inspection Division, AlexandriaTransportation and Environmental Services De-partment

Operation/Maintenance activities Not specified, depends on type of system

Funding source General tax revenues

Enforcement mechanism After notification and waiting period, City canperform necessary O/M and bill property owner.Repeated failure to maintain can lead to with-drawal of all City permits to use the property.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are funded by theCity's general appropriations fund. The programs are not separate budget entities but areburied within the overall Department budget.

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededAdministrative 2Engineer 1Inspector 7Scientist 1Support 1Clerical 2

Educational Programs

Educational programs are not a component of the two programs. The City plans to imple-ment educational programs when required to by the Phase 2 NPDES Municipal StormwaterPermitting Program.

Program Coordination

There is close coordination between the City’s erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The City programs also are integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlandsprotection, tree protection, floodplain management, wastewater management, water sup-

B-6


ply, and building approval programs.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success None

Research projects Sampling two Delaware sand filters for 30 storms todetermine water quality treatment ability. In the future,will be monitoring filter serving City leaf compostingfacility and also a regional wet detention system

Monitoring Water chemistry, flow rates

Program Evolution into Watershed Approach

The City's erosion and sediment control ordinance was passed by the City Council inFebruary 1972, in response to passage of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Act.The stormwater program began in January 1992 in response to requirements set forth inthe 1988 Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the 1990 Virginia StormwaterManagement Act.

Watershed approaches are being used on a limited basis for very small streams and anexpansion of this approach is being considered.

B-7



JURISDICTION: CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXASEnvironmental and Conservation Services Department206 East Ninth Street, Suite 17.102Austin, Texas 78701

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. To reduce and prevent urban stormwater problems the City of Austinhas enacted three major watershed ordinances:

· The Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance, 1986· The Urban Watersheds Ordinance, 1991· The Barton Springs Ordinance, 1992

The primary impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, ground water re-charge, and protection of special resources such as the Edwards Aquifer, Colorado Riverand its associated riverine lakes.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Texas Water Code, Chapter 26 (Water Quality Control)2. Chapter 13-2, Austin City Code (Land Use)3. Chapter 13-6, Austin City Code (Drainage)4. Chapter 13-7, Austin City Code (Environmental Protection and Management)5. Chapter 4-1, Austin City Code (Water Quality)


Program Goals/Objectives To protect citizens from potential flooding.

To preserve the natural and traditional character of theCity’s waterways.

To protect the water quality of the Edwards Aquifer andthe City’s drinking water supply.

To protect the City’s recreational and aesthetic resourcessuch as Town Lake and Barton Springs.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture, State facilitiesSingle family homes on platted lots are exempt fromstormwater requirements but not erosion/sedimentSingle family subdivisions with a minimum lot size > 5 acPreferred practices Sedimentation/filtration basins forstormwater quality and dry detention systems for flood

B-8


control. Other practices allowed include wet detention,retention/irrigation, and filter strips.

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Filtration 40 60Wet detention 2 2Extended dry detention 2 2Peak detention control 50 70

Design criteria for sedimentation/filtration systems set in Environmental CriteriaManual. Other BMP designs are approved on a case-by-case basis.

Performance Standards and Design Criteria Water Quality No adverse water quality Use sedimentation/filtration to treat

impacts minimum of one-half inch plus 0.1"for each 10% increase in imperviousarea above 20%

Within Barton Springs “zone” No increase in pollutant loading forthe 13 parameters listed in the SaveOur Springs Ordinance

Peak Discharge No increase in peak rate, Post-development rate can notno increase in streambank exceed pre-development for a 2, 10,erosion 25, and 100-yr, 24-hr storm

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required with evaluation of downstream channel stability. Newperformance and design criteria are being established.

Available Publications Environmental Criteria ManualGuidance for Compliance with the Technical Requirements of

the SOS Ordinance

Source Controls The “Save Our Springs Ordinance” requires all land uses within theBarton Springs watershed to use source controls including limits onturf grass and landscaped areas, integrated pest management plans,restrictions on chemical storage, and homeowner education packetswhich include information on lawn care, pest treatment, recycling,house waste disposal, and general watershed information.

The City’s Environmental Criteria Manual is being revised to includeguidance on the above source controls. This information currently isavailable in “Guidance for Compliance with the Technical Require-ments of the SOS Ordinance”.

B-9



Program goal/objective To prevent/minimize sedimentation in recreational lakes (TownLake, Lake Austin, Lake Travis) and in urban creeks.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureState facilitiesProjects disturbing < 1000 ft2

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed for 1800 yd3/acre drainage area. Other practices allowed include construc-tion sequencing, rock berms, filter dikes, diversion swales,temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in City’s Environmental Criteria Manual


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using local criteria administered by the local government program.

Project Permitting Erosion/sediment control approvals include noticed exemptionsand general permits for certain projects. For most projects,erosion and sediment control and stormwater managementapproval is part of the City’s development approval processwhich leads to the issuance of a development permit.

Review process The development approval process follows a sequence involv-ing zoning, subdivision approval, development permit, and thenbuilding permit. All grading, erosion/sediment control, stormwa-ter management plans along with supplemental technical infor-mation and supporting calculations is reviewed and approvedby the city’s staff.

A detailed checklist is used for reviewing both the erosion/sediment control plan and the stormwater plan.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a development or building permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required as needed to assure proper maintenance andoperation and at the start of each construction phase; per-formed by city inspectors.

B-10


Stormwater systems Required as needed, depends on type of system; performed byCity inspectors.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines. Criminal penal-ties are a misdemeanor with fines of up to $2,000 for zoning or health/public sanitationviolations and fines of up to $500 for other violations. Each day of violation is a separateoffense.


As-built certifications and plans are required for all stormwater management systems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by City staff.


Maintenance of completed stormwater systems is required.

Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public lands, single familyresidential, and regional detention systemsPrivate owner for commercial systems

Inspection frequency Annually

Oversight agency City

O/M activities Specified in the Environmental Criteria Manualand the Drainage Criteria Manual.

Funding source Stormwater utility fee

Enforcement mechanism Failure to perform maintenance is a violation ofthe city’s Land Development Code and can lead toa fine. City can also perform needed maintenanceand take legal action to recover costs from owner.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are separate budgetentities. Where fractions are presented in program staffing, the fractions represent the parttime efforts of an individual or part time efforts of a number of individuals.

B-11


Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control General appropriation $ 250,000 (33%)

Permit fees $ 250,000 (33%)Stormwater utility fee $ 250,000 (33%)

Stormwater management General appropriation $ 250,000 ( 3%)Permit fees $ 250,000 ( 3%)Stormwater utility fee $7,500,000 (94%)

Program Staffing Position Full Time Position Full TimeES/SW Administrative 1/4 Inspector 7/8

Engineer 2/16 Clerical 1/6Scientist 4/26 Support 1/6


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, presenta-tions, exhibits, and storm sewer stenciling are used to reach the target audience of con-tractors, and the general public. Workshops are conducted for contractors every few yearswith ongoing programs provided for the general public.


There is close coordination within the City’s integrated erosion/sediment control and storm-water management program.

The City programs also are integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlandsprotection, floodplain management, tree protection, wellhead protection, and buildingapproval programs.

The City program has conflicting objectives regarding prevention or minimization of flood-ing and streambank erosion control and the goal of environmental preservation of itscreeks and waterways.

There is effective communication from federal agencies on related programs.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success City has an extensive surface and ground water quality monitor-ing program and monitors the discharge from stormwater sys-tems.

Research projects Evaluation of the treatment effectiveness of sand filtrationbasins, wet detention ponds, oil and grit separators, and inletfilters.

B-12


Monitoring Water chemistry, sediment, biological, and flow rates


In response to relatively common flash flooding and the city’s rapid growth, erosion/sedi-ment control regulations, and floodplain and stormwater quantity regulations establishingpeak discharge controls were implemented in the mid-1970s. In the early 1980s, stormwa-ter quality requirements were implemented. In 1982, a drainage fee was established toprovide a reliable funding source with the Drainage Utility being established in 1991.Watershed protection ordinances were implemented in 1986, 1991, and 1992.

Retrofitting is being pursued to help decrease flooding, water quality, stream channelerosion, and aquatic resource impacts.

Watershed approaches are being used including regional stormwater management sys-tems, water body targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-13



JURISDICTION: CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTONStormwater Utilities DepartmentP.O. Box 90012Bellevue, Washington 98009-9012

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program wereintegrated programs from 1974 -1993. City reorganization in 1993 led to the erosion andsediment control program being assigned to a different department.

The primary impetus for the program is community interest in protecting its streams, ripar-ian habitat, water quality, aquatic life, wetlands, and steep slopes. Other impetus for theprogram includes flooding, stream channel erosion, and ground water recharge.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Ordinance 2003 (Established stormwater utility)2. Chapter 24.06, City Code (Stormwater Utility Code)3. Chapter 24.08, City Code (Stormwater Inspection/Maintenance Code)4. Chapter 23.76, City Code (Clearing and Grading Code)


Program Goals/Objectives Minimize water quality degradation and sedimentation ofwater bodies and loss of wildlife habitat.

Minimize impacts of increased runoff, erosion, and sedi-mentation caused by improper land development

Maintain and protect ground water resources

Decrease potential landslide, flood, and erosion damageto private and public property.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes that are not part of a plat

Preferred practices None promoted within the regulations. Require a sitespecific stormwater plan that uses appropriate BMPs.BMPs allowed include wet detention, swales, filters,catch basin inserts, oil-water separators, coalescingplate separators. Infiltration practices are not allowedbecause of the City’s slowly percolating soils and past

B-14


experience with clogging.

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Filtration 1Extended dry detention 4 4Biofiltration 6 7

Design criteria are specified in Chapter 4, City of Bellevue Development Standards, whichare being revised to provide better guidance.


Water Quality No specified performance std. Treat the runoff from a 6 month, 24hour storm using BMPs appropriatefor the site.

Peak Discharge 100 year storm protection Sites < 5 acres, < 0.2 cfs/acreSites > 5 acres, post-developmentcan not exceed pre-development fora 2-yr. and 10-yr, 24-hr storm

Volume 100 year storm protection For detention systems, require amultiple release rate

Downstream evaluation is required with maximum velocity specified to assure protectionof downstream channel stability.

Available Publications BP How to ManualWater Quality Protection for Bellevue BusinessesConsumer Choices - Car Care, Lawn & Garden Care, Home

Bldg & MaintenanceBusiness Partners BrochureStream Team Guidebook or BrochureStorm Drain Stenciling BrochureIPM Notebook

Source Controls The City has monitored the effectiveness of source controls andencourages their uses, especially for construction activities andfor gasoline-related and food-related businesses. Guidance isavailable through publications such as “Business Partners forClean Water”, “Car Care”, “Lawn and Garden Care”, “IPMNotebook”, “Stream Team”, etc.


Program goal/objective To prevent water quality impacts and destruction of stream and

B-15


aquatic life habitats by preventing off-site sediment transport.

Exemptions and waivers None

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to containthe runoff volume from:

· a 10-yr storm for sites < 5 acres or > .25 mile from waters· a 20-yr storm for sites > 5 acres or < .25 mile from waters

Other practices allowed include seasonal limits on disturbedarea, silt fence, gravel construction entrance and wheelwashes, slope protection, temporary and permanent vegetativestabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Bellevue Development Standards, Chapter 2 andConstruction and Water Quality, King County ConservationDistrict, April 1981.


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using state and local criteria which are administered by the local governmentprogram. Within the Puget Sound watershed, erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement programs are required at the local level as of January 1, 1995.

Project Permitting Individual permit issued as part of the development approvalprocess which includes discretionary permits for commercialprojects or plat approval for residential projects.

Review process The preliminary erosion/sediment control plan and stormwatermanagement plan are reviewed as part of the developmentapproval process. The construction drawings for the ES ControlPlan are reviewed and approved by the Dept. of CommunityDevelopment as part of the issuance of a clearing and gradingpermit. The construction drawings for the approved stormwatersystem are reviewed by the Utilities Department as part of thestorm extension permit.

A detailed checklist is used for reviewing both the erosion/sediment control plan and the stormwater plan.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building permit or a grading permit.

B-16


Inspections

Erosion/Sediment Controls Required as needed, usually conducted daily by theDept. of Community Development.

Stormwater systems Required as needed, usually conducted daily duringconstruction and periodically afterwards by inspectorsfrom the Utilities Department.


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil and criminal penalties.Criminal penalties for failure to maintain a stormwater system includes fines of up to $500or imprisonment in City jail for up to 90 days with each day of violation a separate offense.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work order (found to be very effective)Withhold occupancy permitsWithhold other permits


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by Utilities Department inspector withassistance from the maintenance and operations staff.



Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public lands, systemsaccepted for Operation/Maintenance by the City,and detention systems.Private owner for commercial/industrial systems.Property owners association for residential sys-tems.

Inspection frequency Once every two years

Oversight agency City Utilities Department

Operation/Maintenance activities Not specified, depends on type of system. Mustmaintain the function and integrity of the system.


Enforcement mechanism Private maintenance inspector ordinance. Citynotifies owner of needed maintenance which must

B-17


be performed within specified time

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are separate budgetentities.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control Permit fees $450,000

Stormwater management Stormwater utility fee + $500,000Permit fees

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededES/SW Administrative 1/1

Devel. Review 2/1 1/3Supervisor 2/1Inspector 3/1 1/1Support 1/1Other 1


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the two programs. Brochures, presen-tations, exhibits, storm sewer stenciling, demonstration projects, and education/trainingworkshops are used to educate the targeted audience of contractors, consultants, develop-ers, businesses, residents, and schools. During a typical year the program will include onegeneral workshop for industry with about 60 attendees; one-on-one workshops for certainbusiness categories (i.e., property managers, landscapers, automobile businesses, restau-rants) with about 10 attendees at each; three to four sessions for the general public withabout 30 residents at each; and about 30 general audience programs throughout the year.


There is close coordination between the City’s erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement programs.

The City programs also are integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlandsprotection, tree protection, floodplain management, wastewater management, water sup-ply, land acquisition, and building approval programs.

The City programs have conflicts with other City programs including:· Land Use Code landscaping requirements conflict with biofiltration requirements· Transportation Code promotes paving and use of storm sewers which conflict with stormwater program’s promotion of swales and pervious areas.

B-18


Program Evaluation

Measures of success City has performed extensive water quality monitoringwhich shows that the City’s programs have been effec-tive in reducing the effects of urbanization on environ-mental quality.

Research projects Sampling the following BMPs:· Wet detention ponds to determine P removal· Calcitic sand filters to determine P removal· Alum injection into a stormwater vault to

enhance P removal· Water quality rate structure· Regional detention facilities to optimize water

quality

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediment, flow rates


In 1974, the city implemented its Storm and Surface Water Utility in response to citizenconcerns that urbanization was destroying the city’s streams and threatening propertiesadjacent to streams. In 1976, a Drainage Master Plan was prepared to address the mostimmediate issues of flooding and in-stream scour. The plan relied on on-site and regionalcontrols with emphasis on using open stream channels, as opposed to storm sewers, toconvey runoff. With successful flood control systems in place, recent emphasis has shiftedto stormwater quality with special focus on proper maintenance of practices. An extensivepublic education program has been implemented to gain citizen support for the programand to teach citizens and businesses how they can reduce stormwater pollutants at thesource.

Retrofitting is required for some redevelopment projects to help decrease water quality andstream channel erosion impacts.


B-19



JURISDICTION: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADOStormwater Utility Department235 Matthews StreetFort Collins, Colorado 80526

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs.

The primary impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, and stream channelerosion.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 26, Article VII, Ft. Collins City Code (Stormwater Utility)


Program Goals/Objectives To properly drain and control storm and surface watersso as to reduce pollution and enhance the environment,and to safeguard and protect the health, property, safety,and welfare of the city and its inhabitants.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture and forestry not covered by ordinance

Preferred practices None

Design criteria for peak flow and erosion/sediment controls are provided in the Fort CollinsStorm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards.


Water Quality None

Peak Discharge Depends on basin, can require Post-development rate fordetention with no increase in 100-yr, 1 to 3hr. storm canrate not exceed historic rate for

a 2-yr, 1to3 hr storm.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required for discharges to master planned facilities but there areno criteria for downstream channel stability.

B-20


Available Publications OrdinancesBrochures - Stormwater Utility

Community Streams - Clean or Under AttackIrrigation Ditches

Source Controls They will be encouraged as part of the city’s NPDES MS4permit program which will favor pollution prevention for all landuses. Passive treatment methods will be incorporated intomaster planned drainages to promote habitat protection andrestoration.


Program goal/objective None listed - see stormwater program.Performance standard during construction is an erosion rate nogreater than 115% of the historic rate while post-developmentmust not exceed historic erosion rate.

Exemptions and waivers Single family homes

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed for 100 yd3/acre.Other practices allowed include straw bales, surface roughen-ing, diversions, gravel filters, filter fence, inlet barriers, terraces,and temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and ConstructionStandards.


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using local criteria administered by the local government program.

Project Permitting Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approvalare part of the City’s development approval process. An indi-vidual permit also is required for any stormwater discharge tothe city’s NPDES permitted system.

Review process Erosion/sediment control and stormwater (drainage) manage-ment plans along with supplemental technical information andsupporting calculations are reviewed and approved by the city’sdevelopment review staff.

A detailed checklist is used for reviewing both the erosion/sediment control plan and the stormwater (drainage) plan.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-

B-21


ance of a building permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls None requiredStormwater systems None required during construction


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil and criminal penalties.Civil penalties are a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $1,000 per occurrence of codeviolation. Performance bonds are required for erosion control while criminal penalties canbe used for water quality impacts.


As-built certifications are required for all stormwater (peak discharge) systems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is not performed.



Legal entities include City (stormwater utility)Developers until vegetation well established


Oversight agency Stormwater utility

Operation/Maintenance activities Utility maintains a map and inventory of all facili-ties. Mowing is done by city crews and privatecontractors, repairs such as structural, sedimentremoval, and vegetation are done as part of theminor capital improvements program.


Enforcement mechanism Failure to perform vegetation maintenance is aviolation of the city’s Vegetative ManagementOrdinance. City can also perform needed mainte-nance and place a tax lien on the property.

B-22


Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control Stormwater utility fee $20,000 (Inspections)

Stormwater management Stormwater utility fee $6,600,000(FY95 proposed budget with $4.2 million for capital improvements)

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededES/SW Administrative 0/1

Engineer 0/9 0.25/0Scientist 0/0 0/1Inspector 1/1 0.75/0 0/1Clerical 0/2Support 0/1 0/2

NOTE: Engineering staff is divided among development review (3), master planning(2), floodplain management (1), capital projects (1), water quality (1), and businessmanagement (1).


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, presenta-tions, exhibits, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling are used to reach the general publictarget audience. From ten to fifteen educational programs are conducted annually for thegeneral public.



The City programs also are integrated with local wetlands protection, floodplain manage-ment, tree protection, land acquisition, and building approval programs.

Conflicts observed are the fundamental conflicts between wanting to develop as much landas possible and floodplain management and environmental protection of wetlands andriparian areas.

There is effective communication from federal agencies on the nonpoint source programsthrough “NPS News Notes” but communication on the NPDES stormwater permitting pro-gram, especially on the concept of MEP, needs to be improved.

B-23


Program Evaluation

Measures of success City has initiated a limited water quality monitoringnetwork.

Monitoring Water chemistry, biological, and flow rates.


The city’s stormwater utility was implemented in 1980 with a rate structure based on drain-age basins. The primary focus is flood control with water quality receiving attention since1983. Erosion control criteria were implemented in 1990. Expansion of the program intoenvironmental and water quality protection will be expanded in 1994 with the adoption of anew watershed management strategy.

Retrofitting is being pursued to help decrease flooding and improve water quality.


B-24



JURISDICTION: CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTONWater ResourcesP.O. Box 1967Olympia, Washington 98507

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. The program is required by the Puget Sound Water Quality Manage-ment Plan.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality,ground water recharge, protection of aquatic habitat, and mandates from federal or stategovernment.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 13.16, Olympia City Code (Storm and Surface Water Utility).


Program Goals/Objectives To treat stormwater.

To mitigate the impacts of increased runoff due to urban-ization.

To maximize infiltration on and minimize runoff fromdeveloped property.

To facilitate ground water recharge such that stream/wetland baseflows can be adequately maintained year-around.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes (must do abbreviated plan)Other minor projects

Preferred practices Hierarchy of treatment practices established:· Constructed wetland for sites > 12 acres impervious.· Wet pond and sand filters for sites < 12 acres impervious.· Biofiltration for sites < 12 acres impervious.· Wet detention vaults for sites < 2 acres impervious.

B-25


Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Infiltration basins 5 5Infiltration trenches 5 5Wet detention 10 10Biofiltration 20 20Peak dry detention 10 10

Design criteria and guidance are given in the Olympia Drainage Design and Erosion Con-trol Manual. Experimental BMPs are allowed after review and approval.


Water Quality 80% removal of suspended Treat the runoff volume fromsolids a 6-month 24-hour storm.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate. Post-development rate cannot exceed pre-developmentrate for a 2- and 100-yr,24-hr storm. Maximumrelease rates of 0.04 cfs/acrefor 2-yr and 0.35 cfs/acre for100-yr storm.

Volume Maintain 100-yr volume Must infiltrate all of the 100-yron-site volume if percolation rate > 6

in/hr on-site. If percolationrate is 0.5 to 6.0 in/hr, mustinfiltrate part of volume.

Downstream evaluation is required with maximum velocity specified to assure protection ofdownstream channel stability.

Source Controls The City encourages all land uses to use source controls and requiresall maintenance plans to include a pollution source control sectionspecifically developed for the type of site. The pollution source controlsection must incorporate relevant information from the StormwaterManagement Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (February 1992).Specific practices encouraged include roofing operations or storageareas, placing berms around barrels to provide secondary contain-ment, directing wash water to sanitary sewer system, proper wastedisposal, good housekeeping especially around outside dumpsters.


Program goal/objective To prevent sediment from crossing a project’s boundaries orentering water bodies.

B-26


To emphasize erosion prevention first, then sediment treatmentPerformance standard is to retain sediment on-site.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureForestryPublic works and private sector projects within the right-of-way

which do not add impervious surface.Grading projects for which no grading permit is required.

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps designed to hold the 2-yr, 24-hrstorm volume. Other practices allowed include seasonal limitson disturbed area, silt fence, straw bales, gravel constructionentrance, slope protection, inlet protection, and temporary andpermanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Olympia Drainage Design and Erosion ControlManual and in Stormwater Management Manual for the PugetSound Basin,Volume II (February 1992).


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management programinclude state criteria with regional and local implementation, regional criteria with regionaland local implementation, and local criteria which are administered by the local govern-ment program. Within the Puget Sound watershed, erosion/sediment control and stormwa-ter management programs are required at the local level as of January 1, 1995.

Project Permitting Individual permit issued as part of the development approvalprocess.

Review process The erosion/sediment control plan and stormwater managementplan are reviewed as part of the development approval process.Engineering drawings, specifications, calculations, site investi-gations, and maintenance plans must be submitted for reviewby the City staff to determine compliance with local require-ments.

A detailed checklist is not used. However, chapter 3 of theManual serves as a checklist.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before anydevelopment, building, or other related permit is issued. Grading/clearing permits often aregranted at the same time as erosion/sediment control plan approval but before final storm-water plan approval to allow installation of ES controls.

B-27


Inspections

Erosion/Sediment Controls Project engineer must specify inspection timing and fre-quency to assure proper maintenance and operation. Engi-neer must maintain record of inspections and action takenwith a final inspection report submitted at end of project.Inspections conducted after rain events and per ES Planschedule by project engineer and by city at its discretion.

Stormwater systems Inspected by project engineer after rain events.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $100 perday. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 90 days.Each day of violation is a separate offense. Violators also are liable for actual expense ofclean up or for any maintenance that must be performed.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsWithhold other permit applications


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by city staff, either an inspector, planreviewer, stormwater engineer, or stormwater maintenance person.



Legal entities include CityPrivate owner for commercial or industrialProperty owners association (can shareresponsibilityand cost with city through writtenagreement).

Inspection frequency Annually is goal but staff insufficient.

Inspected by Olympia Public Works Department

Oversight agency Olympia Public Works Department

Operation/Maintenance activities Specified in maintenance plan which must includethe type and frequency of activity, average annualcost, vegetative management plan, and a pollution

B-28


source control plan.

Funding source Stormwater utility fee, $600,000 dedicatedto O&M.

Enforcement mechanism For those systems built after 1991 whenmaintenance agreements were required,city can perform necessary O&M afternotification and waiting period, then billproperty owner.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control Permit fees $10,000 (50%)

Stormwater utility fees $10,000 (50%)

Stormwater management Permit fees $10,000 (33%)Stormwater utility fees $50,000 (67%)

Program Staffing Position Full time NeededES/SW Engineer 0.05/0.15

Inspector 0.20/0.2 0.3/0Clerical 0.05/0.05Support 0.10/0.2


Educational programs are a required component of the program. Brochures, seminars,exhibits, demonstration projects, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling are used to edu-cate the targeted audience of contractors, developers, consultants, inspectors, plan re-viewers, elected officials, and the general public. During the past year three programsattracted a total of 40 contractors, 15 developer, 25 consultants, and 20 inspectors.Twenty plan reviewers attended one of four seminars while the ten Stream Team activitiesreached over 200 citizens.



The City’s program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands pro-tection, floodplain protection, tree protection, land acquisition, wellhead protection, watersupply, and building approval programs.

B-29


Conflicts arise between the stormwater management program’s environmental protectiongoals and the Community Development Department’s goal of economic development andraising revenues by issuing building permits. The Water Resources Department staff wrotethe program’s standards but they are administered by the Community Development De-partment staff which does not fully understand them. Long-range planning, especially fortransportation, does not always consider stormwater impacts.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Design and implementation of better designed projectswhich comply with the City’s requirements

Research projects Testing experimental sidewall infiltration systemTest recommendations from the Impervious SurfaceReduction Study.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, and flow rates


The program was started in 1990. Coordination between the Water Resources Programand the Community Planning and Development Department, which is responsible for planreviews, permits, and inspections, has been very challenging.

The program addresses retrofitting developed areas to reduce flooding, water qualitydegradation, and stream channel erosion.


B-30



JURISDICTION: CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDAStormwater Utility Bureau400 S. Orange AvenueOrlando, Florida 32801


The primary impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, stream channelerosion, ground water recharge, and protection of water and soil resources.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Act)2. City Code, Chapter 31, Stormwater Utility Code

Chapter 60, Subdivision and LandscapingChapter 63, Environmental Protection

3. City Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater and Aquifer Recharge Element


Program Goals/Objectives To provide protection from flooding, improve the water qualityin the City’s lakes, and to improve the effectiveness ofstormwater management practices.

Exemptions and Waivers Single family homes that are not part of a subdivision

Preferred practices Off-line retention, filtration, dry and wet detention.

Design criteria and guidance are given in the Orlando Urban Stormwater ManagementManual.


Water Quality Reduce the average annual Treat the first half inch of runoff orTSS loading by 80%. the runoff from the first inch of

rainfall, whichever is greater

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development peak rate shallnot exceed pre-development ratefor a 25-yr, 24-hr storm.

Volume In closed basins Ret. runoff from 100-yr, 24-hr storm

B-31



Available Publications Orlando Urban Stormwater Management Manual.

Source Controls City encourages source controls on all land uses with guidanceprovided in the Orlando Urban Stormwater ManagementManual.


Program goal/objective To minimize siltation and water quality degradation fromconstruction activities in drainageways, swamps, and lakes.

Performance standard is to control erosion on-site and limitoff-site sedimentation to pre-development amounts.

Exemptions and waivers Single family homes that are not part of a subdivision.

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture the2.33-yr, 6-hr storm. Other practices include silt fence, gravelconstruction entrance, inlet protection, temporary andpermanent vegetative stabilization, and limiting exposed areas.

Design Criteria Specified in Orlando Urban Stormwater Management Manualand the Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Landand Water Management (FDEP, 1988).


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using federal criteria with EPA implementation (NPDES), state and regionalcriteria with regional implementation (WMD), and local criteria which are administered bythe local government program.

Project permitting Individual stormwater permits are issued which include erosionand sediment control and stormwater managementrequirements.

Review process Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans,construction drawings, specifications, calculations, and othersupporting technical information are reviewed by the CityEngineering staff.

A detailed checklist is not used.

B-32


Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a site improvement permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required daily, performed by project engineer. TheConstruction Management Bureau also conductsinspections.

Stormwater systems Required daily, performed by project engineer and byinspectors from the Construction Management Bureau.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of up to $1,000,with each day of violation a separate offense.


As-built certifications are required for all detention systems. The state program imple-mented by the FDEP and the WMDs requires as-built certifications for all stormwatersystems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by staff from the Construction Man-agement Bureau.



Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public lands and thosededicated to the City.Private ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency As needed but no less than once every two years.

Oversight agency Orlando Stormwater Utility

O/M activities Design engineer must provide an operation andmaintenance plan which specifies actions neededto assure that the system continues to function asdesigned.

B-33


Funding source Stormwater utility fees (Currently $3/month/ERU)

Enforcement mechanism Code enforcement board issues citationswhich can lead to fines if requiredmaintenance is not done.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion, sediment, and Permit fees, gas taxes $1,250,000 Totalstormwater management Stormwater utility fee (90%)

NOTE: Permit fees include a project inspection cost which is to pay for all cityinspections.For private projects, the fee is 2.25% of the construction cost estimate. For publicprojects, the Stormwater Utility pays for inspection services.

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededAdministrative 4Engineer 4Inspector 18Scientist 2Clerical 5

NOTE: Inspectors are with the Construction Management Bureau and are responsiblefor more than erosion, sediment, and stormwater management.


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, exhibits,demonstration projects, and monitoring are used to reach the target audience of contrac-tors, consultants, inspectors, and the general public. At the pre-construction meeting, thecity's Construction Manager briefs the Contractor on erosion and sediment control require-ments. Additionally, inspectors meet weekly to discuss problems or learn about solutions.Storm sewer stenciling programs are planned. The Stormwater Utility staff conduct about40 programs each year to educate the general public about stormwater management. TheCity also participates in the Florida Lake Watch program, a citizen volunteer monitoringprogram.


There is close coordination within the City’s erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The City program also is integrated with local land use planning, wetlands protection,

B-34


floodplain management, wastewater management, and wellhead protection programs.

Communication from the EPA on related federal programs is good.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Limited monitoring program to evaluate water quality inCity’s lakes

Research projects Evaluating the treatment effectiveness of the GreenwoodUrban Wetland, a regional stormwater system; verticalvolume recovery filter system; a packed bed wetlandfilter; and, alum injection systems.

Monitoring Water chemistry, flow rates


The city’s stormwater management program began in the early 1960s in response to floodsassociated with unusually high rainfall. A long range flood control plan was prepared andimplemented. Citizen concern about the increasing degradation of water quality in theCity’s lakes led to the expansion of the program into stormwater quality management. In1984, the Orlando Stormwater Management Manual was prepared establishing require-ments and design criteria for stormwater treatment. In the mid-1980s, the City began aretrofitting program in priority watersheds to reduce the pollutant loading from older devel-opments. This program has used regional systems such as the Lake Greenwood UrbanWetland which provide multiple benefits including open space and recreation. The Cityalso has been a leader in using innovative stormwater treatment technologies such asalum injection and wetland filters. The City’s stormwater management program receivedEPA’s national stormwater award in 1990.

Retrofitting is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degradation, and to protectaquatic resources.

Watershed approaches are being used including regional stormwater management sys-tems, waterbody targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural controls.

B-35



JURISDICTION: CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTONDrainage and Wastewater Utility710 Second AvenueSeattle, Washington 98104

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. The program is required by the Puget Sound Water Quality Manage-ment Plan.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, andcommunity interest in protecting its streams.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 22.800, Seattle Municipal Code (Stormwater, Grading and Drainage

Control)2. Rule 93-3, Seattle Engineering Department Director’s Rule. (Runoff Criteria).3. DCLU 6-93/SED 93-2, Joint Director’s Rule (BMPs for ES Control).


Program Goals/Objectives To protect life, property, and the environment from loss,injury and damage by pollution, erosion, flooding, andother potential hazards.

Protect surface waters from pollution, mechanical dam-age, excessive flow, and other conditions in their drain-age basins which will increase the rate of downcutting,streambank erosion, and the degree of turbidity, siltation,or pollution, or reduce ground water recharge, or endan-ger aquatic or benthic life within the surface waters.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestry except projects which convert lands to otheruses.Washington DOT projects provided they comply with therequirements of the Puget Sound Highway Runoff Program.

If discharged directly to a receiving water or to a pipedstorm drain (under certain conditions)

Projects with < 750 ft2 new impervious surface or

B-36


with < 2000 ft2 total impervious surface


Design criteria and guidance are specified in the regulations.


Water Quality No specified performance std. Treat the runoff from a 6month, 24 hour storm

Peak Discharge No increase in rate. Rate shall not exceed 0.2 cfsper acre for the 25-yr, 24-hrstorm for projects under 9000ft2. For projects over 9000 ft2,rate also shall not exceed 15cfs per acre a 2-yr, 24-hrstorm.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required with maximum velocity specified to assure protection ofdown stream channel stability.

Available Publications

Source Controls The City encourages all land uses to use source controls and hastargeted its inspection program at commercial and industrial busi-nesses in the part of the City served by separate storm sewers. Spe-cific practices encouraged include roofing operation or storage areas,placing berms around barrels to provide secondary containment,directing wash water to sanitary sewer system, proper waste disposal,good housekeeping especially around outside dumpsters. Guidanceis provided in City of Seattle Pollution Control Guidelines for Construc-tion Sites: Appendix B, Guidelines for Controlling Pollutants Other ThanSediment on Construction Sites.


Program goal/objective See stormwater program goals/objectives.

Exemptions and waivers Same as stormwater program.

Preferred Practices Sediment traps are designed to detain the runoff volume from a2-yr, 24-hr storm. Sediment basins must be sized to settlemedium silt soil particles (0.02 mm) during the peak discharge

B-37


from a 10-yr, 24-hr storm. Other practices allowed include siltfence, gravel construction entrance and wheel wash, slopeprotection, inlet protection, and temporary and permanentvegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in City of Seattle Pollution Control Guidelines for Con-struction Sites: Appendix A, Erosion and Sedimentation ControlBMPs (April 1993).


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management programinclude federal criteria with state implementation, state criteria with state implementation,and local criteria which are administered by the local government program. Within thePuget Sound watershed, erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programsare required at the local level as of January 1, 1995.

Project Permitting Separate erosion/sediment control or stormwater managementpermits are not issued but are approved as part of thedevelopment review process or, when required, as part of thegrading permit.

Review process Submittal requirements and type of review vary depending onthe size of the project with five categories established in theJoint Director’s Rule.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control and forstormwater management.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building permit, grading permit, street use permit, master use permit, or cityconstruction contract.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment Controls None required

Stormwater systems None required

Performed by Rules allow the Director of the Department of Construction andLand Use and the Director of Engineering to establishinspection requirements for erosion/sediment control andstormwater management respectively, but none have beenimplemented.

B-38



Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines for each day ofviolation which begin at $100 on the first day of violation and then increase $100 per dayuntil the fifth day and beyond when the fine is $500 per day. Penalties may be tripled forrepeat violations. Criminal penalties include a fine of not more than $5000 per day, orimprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each violation.

Other enforcement procedures Notice of violationStop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsSuspend or revoke permits

As-built certifications are required for all stormwater management systems. The ownermust submit a signed “Memorandum of Drainage Control” that describes the types ofcontrols per the minimum requirements set forth in SMC 22.80.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is not performed



Legal entities include CityPrivate owner

Inspection frequency Once a year minimum or as needed

Inspected by Seattle Engineering Department

Oversight agency Seattle Engineering Department

Operation/Maintenance activities Not specified, depends on type of system

Funding source Stormwater utility fees

Enforcement mechanism After notification and waiting period, City canperform necessary O/M and bill property owner.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are not separatebudget entities but are buried within the overall Department budget.

Program Funding Source AmountPermit fees UnknownStormwater utility fees Unknown

B-39


There are many people who work at least part time in these programs. If the city’s ownconstruction projects are included, there are several hundred people who are partly re-sponsible for ensuring that erosion and sediment are controlled properly.


Educational programs are a required component of the program. Brochures, exhibits,demonstration projects, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling are used to educate thetargeted audience of contractors, developers, consultants, inspectors, and the generalpublic.



The City’s program also is integrated with local wetlands protection and building approvalprograms.

Conflicts arise within the program since the stormwater program’s primary objective isflood control which conflicts with water quality considerations.

Communication from federal or state agencies on the NPDES stormwater permitting pro-gram has been inadequate, especially with the continually changing “guidance” that makesit difficult to meet the program’s requirements.

Program Evaluation


Research projects BMPs being studied to evaluate their treatment effectivenessincludes catch basin filters, biofiltration swales, and filtrationsystems using crushed glass. Sediment accumulation withinstorm sewers is being monitored.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, biological, and flow rates


Retrofitting developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degrada-tion, and stream channel erosion.

Watershed approaches being used include regional stormwater management systems,water body targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-40



JURISDICTION: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADepartment of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, S.E.Washington, D. C. 20020

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs.

The primary impetus for the programs includes flooding, water quality, stream channelerosion, protection of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, and the requirements imposedby federal law.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. D.C. Law 2-23 (Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977)2. D.C. Law 5-188 (Stormwater Pollution Control Act of 1984)3. D.C.M.R. Title 21, Chapter 5 (Erosion/sediment control regulations)


Program Goals/Objectives To control nonpoint source pollution by requiringdevelopers to control the quantity and quality ofstormwater leaving their site.

To meet the goals of the 1983 Chesapeake BayAgreement and the 1984 Anacostia RestorationAgreement between the District and the State of Md.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes on lots of 2 acres or moreProjects disturbing 5000 sf or less of land

Preferred practices Infiltration is the first choice but scarcity of land oftenprecludes it use with sand filtration generally used.Other practices include wet and dry detention, swales,dry wells, rooftop detention, underground detention

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Dry well 1 71Sand filter 6 4Extended dry detention 2

Design criteria and guidelines are given in guidance documents and handouts.

B-41



Water Quality Oil and grease < 10 mg/l, Treat first half-inch of runoff orReduce organic waste by at the difference in runoff volume fromleast 85% from confined the 15-yr (post-development) and theanimal operations 2-yr (pre-development) storm.

Peak Discharge No increase in peak rate Post-development peak rate shallnot exceed pre-development rate for 2,10, and 100-yr, 24-hr storm.

Volume None



Source Controls Oil recycling, good housekeeping, street sweeping, and conservationof natural systems are encouraged on all land uses. Guidance isprovided in two publications: “The D.C. Urban Homeowner’s Guide onGround Maintenance” and “Oil Recycling”.


Program goal/objective To eliminate and prevent blight and conditions detrimental tobuildings and to improve waterways and the sewerage systemby controlling soil erosion and sedimentation from landdisturbing activities.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureForestryActivities disturbing 500 ft2 or less of area or with a total projectcost of under $2500.

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed for 1800 cf/acreDA. Other practices include silt fence, vehicle wash area, strawbales, stabilized construction entrance, inlet protection,temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in District of Columbia Erosion and Sediment ControlHandbook.


The erosion/sediment control program is administered by the local government using localcriteria. The stormwater management program is implemented using federal criteria with

B-42


local implementation (NPDES), and by using regional and local criteria which are adminis-tered by the local government program.

Project permitting A separate permit is not issued. Erosion/sediment control planand stormwater management plan approval is part of theprocess of obtaining a D.C. construction permit.

Review process The erosion/sediment control plan is reviewed by the Erosionand Sediment Control Plan Review Section. The stormwatermanagement plan is reviewed by the Stormwater ManagementSection.

A detailed checklist is used for review of stormwater plans butnot for erosion/sediment control plan review.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building permit or a grading permit, and before approval of plumbing/mechanical,electrical, structural, or water and sewer availability.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required as needed, conducted by project engineer andby D.C. staff inspectors.

Stormwater systems Required as needed, conducted by project engineer andby D.C. staff inspectors.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Criminal penalties are those associated witha misdemeanor. For erosion and sediment control violations, penalties are fines of up to$300 or imprisonment for up to 10 days, or both. Violations for stormwater managementare fines of up to $1000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. Each day of violationis a separate offense.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsRevoke or suspend permitsRequest police enforcement for tracking sediment


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by staff from the Stormwater Manage-ment Branch.

B-43




Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public landsPrivate ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Theoretically, three inspections per year duringthe first five years of operation and then onceevery two years. In practice, inspections areconducted once every six months to a year.

Oversight agency Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

O/M activities Not specified, depends on type of system

Funding source Depends on maintenance entity. No dedicatedsource

Enforcement mechanism After notification and waiting period, City canperform necessary O/M and place a tax lien onproperty owner.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control General appropriation $975,000 (FY93)

Stormwater management Chesapeake Bay program grants $975,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededES/SW Administrative 0/1 1/0 1/0

Engineer 1/4 1/2Inspector 2/1 2/2Scientist 1/0Clerical 1/0 0/1 1/1Support 0/1 1/1


Educational programs are a required component of the two programs. Brochures, shows,exhibits, demonstration projects, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling are used to reachthe target audience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, and the generalpublic. Once every two years workshops are held which attract about 50 contractors,consultants, and developers. Programs are held periodically for inspectors and the generalpublic.

B-44



There is close coordination between the City’s erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The City programs also are integrated with local land use planning, wetlands protection,floodplain management, wastewater management, and building approval programs.

Communication from EPA on related federal programs is good.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success BMP tracking system

Research projects Treatment effectiveness of the D.C. sand filter. Land usemonitoring to quantify pollutants from specific urban land uses.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, and flow rates


The erosion/sediment control program began in 1977 while the stormwater managementprogram was implemented in 1985. The stormwater program was developed in response tothe 1983 Chesapeake Bay program and the 1984 Anacostia Restoration Agreement. Theregulations and guidebook were implemented in January 1988. The program is funded ona 50/50 basis by the District of Columbia and the EPA through the Chesapeake Bay pro-gram.

Retrofitting is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degradation, stream channelerosion, and to restore or protect aquatic resources.

Watershed approaches being used include waterbody targeting and emphasis on non-structural controls.

B-45


Sediment Control and Stormwater ManagementProgram Summary

JURISDICTION: CITY OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDAStormwater Utility401 Park Avenue SouthWinter Park, Florida 32789


The primary impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, stream channelerosion, ground water recharge, and protection of water and soil resources.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Act)2. City Ordinance 1816 (Stormwater Management Requirements for Construction)3. City Ordinance 1832 (Stormwater Utility)4. City Ordinance 2046 (Management of Stormwater)


Program Goals/Objectives To treat stormwater to prevent the continued degradationof the Winter Park chain of lakes.

Exemptions and Waivers Single family homes that are not part of a subdivision

Preferred practices Retention

Design criteria and guidance are given in Ordinance 1816 and in the Florida DevelopmentManual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (FDEP, 1988).


Water Quality Reduce the average annual Treat the first inch of runoffTSS loading by 80%. by way of retention.

Peak Discharge None - rely upon SJRWMD Post-development rate can not exceedrequirements pre-development rate for a 25-yr, 24-hr

storm.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is not required to assure protection of downstream channel stabil-ity.

B-46



Source Controls City encourages source controls such as good housekeeping, land-scaping, education on commercial and multifamily residential projectswith guidance provided by the city’s stormwater engineer. Lakefrontresidential units must direct runoff onto pervious areas.


Program goal/objective To prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation that fills curbs,streets, inlets, conveyances, and water bodies.

Performance standard is to retain sediment on-site.


Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture 67 cyper acre DA. Other practices allowed include silt fence, strawbales, inlet protection, slope protection, and temporary andpermanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in the Florida Development Manual: A Guide to SoundLand and Water Management (FDEP, 1988).


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using federal criteria with EPA implementation (NPDES), state and regionalcriteria with regional implementation (WMD), and local criteria which are administered bythe local government program.

Project permitting Erosion/sediment control requirements and stormwaterretention requirements are approved as part of the city’sbuilding permit procedure.

Review process Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans,construction drawings, specifications, calculations, and othersupporting technical information are reviewed by the stormwaterutility staff.


Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building permit, grading permit, or zoning approval.

B-47


Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls No specified frequency, performed by project engineerand by City Building/Engineering inspectors as part ofbuilding inspections. The City stormwater engineerprovides assistance as needed.

Stormwater systems No specified frequency, performed by project engineerand by City Building/Engineering inspectors as part ofbuilding inspections. The City stormwater engineerprovides assistance as needed.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of up to $500,with each day of violation a separate offense.


As-built certifications are not required. The state program implemented by the FDEP andthe WMDs requires as-built certifications for all stormwater systems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by the city stormwater engineer.



Legal entities include City for BMPs serving public lands.Private ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Only done in response to complaints

Oversight agency Winter Park Stormwater Utility

O/M activities Design engineer must provide an operation andmaintenance plan which specifies actions neededto assure that the system continues to function asdesigned.

Funding source Stormwater utility fees (SF rate varies from $2 to$6 permonth depending on impervious surfacearea. 25% of funds from fee are dedicated tostormwater operation and maintenance.

B-48


Enforcement mechanism Code enforcement board issues citationswhich can lead to fines if requiredmaintenance is not done.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion, sediment, and General appropriation $1,200,000 (60%)stormwater management Stormwater utility fee $ 940,000 (40%)

NOTE: Funds from stormwater utility fees are used for capital improvement projects (75%)and operation/maintenance (25%).

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededES + SW Engineer 1

Clerical 1


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, exhibits,demonstration projects, and monitoring are used to reach the target audience of the gen-eral public. The Stormwater Utility staff conduct about two programs each year to educatethe general public about stormwater management. The City also participates in the FloridaLake Watch program, a citizen volunteer monitoring program.


There is close coordination within the City’s erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The City program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, floodplain man-agement, and building approval programs.

Communication from the EPA on related federal programs is good.

Program Evaluation


Research projects Evaluating the treatment effectiveness of alum injection systems,wet detention, algal turf scrubber system, and stormwater reusesystems.

Monitoring Water chemistry

B-49



The city’s stormwater management program began in the 1974 because of communityconcern about the increasing degradation of water quality in the City’s lakes. Ordinance1816 was implemented requiring all new development and redevelopment to retain the firstinch of runoff on-site. In 1989 the city’s stormwater utility was implemented.

Retrofitting is being pursued to reduce water quality degradation.

Watershed approaches are not being used.

B-50


SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENTPROGRAM SUMMARY

JURISDICTION: BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLANDEnvironmental Office401 Bosley Avenue, Suite 416Towson, Maryland 21204

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs implemented by the Baltimore County Soil and Water ConservationDistrict and the Baltimore County Dept. of Environmental Protection and Resource Man-agement, respectively.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, stream channel erosion,groundwater recharge, and wetland creation and habitat protection. Program is requiredby state law.

The program's legal authority is established in:1. Environmental Article, Title 4, Subtitle 1, Annotated Code of Maryland (ES Con

trol)2. Environmental Article, Title 4, Subtitle 2, Annotated Code of Maryland (SW

Mgmt)3. Chapter 26, Code of Maryland Regulations4. Title 14, Articles 5 and 6, Baltimore County Code


Program Goal/Objective To comply with federal, state, and local laws

Exemptions and Waivers agricultureforestryresidential less than 2 acre lot size and under 5,000 ft2disturbed

Preferred Practices Infiltration is the most preferred and must be used when the soilpercolation rate exceeds 0.17 inch per hour. Other practicesallowed include extended dry detention, wet detention, andsand filters.

Design Criteria Specified in regulations


Water quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment of the first one-half inch ofaverage annual TSS loading. runoff from a site's impervious area

using BMPs appropriate for the site.

B-51


Peak discharge No increase in rate. Post-development rate can not exceedthe pre-development rate for 2-yr and10-yr, 24 hour storms.

Volume None.

Downstream evaluation is required to assure there is a suitable outfall and to assure down-stream channel stability.

Available Publications None provided

Source Controls Are encouraged for all land uses, especially limiting imperviousareas and using buffers to protect streams and wetlands.


Program goal/objective To protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, andgeneral welfare by establishing minimum requirements andprocedures to control the adverse impacts associated withaccelerated soil erosion and sedimentation from public andprivate construction projects.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureActivities disturbing < 5000 ft2

Preferred Practices Sediment traps and basins are designed to contain 1800 yd3 ofrunoff from the drainage area. Other practices allowed includestaged construction, silt fence, straw bales, inlet protection,slope protection, and temporary and permanent vegetativestabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook.


The erosion/sediment control program is implemented using state and local criteria withlocal implementation while the stormwater management program is implemented by thecounty using state, regional, and state approved local criteria.

Project permitting Individual permits for all activities which disturb over 5000 ft2

Review process Sediment control, grading, stormwater management, and con-servation plans may be required depending on the activity.Individual building permits are allowed provided sedimentcontrol is done in accordance with a standard plan. The SWCD

B-52


reviews and approves erosion/sediment control plans in accor-dance with state law while the County approves stormwatermanagement plans.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control andstormwater management plan review.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approvals are required beforeissuance of abuilding permit or a grading permit.

Inspections

Erosion and sediment control Required every 15 days and performed by theBaltimore County DEPRM.

Stormwater management Required daily by engineer in charge, with the finalinspection performed by Baltimore County DEPRM.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines equal to doublethe cost of installing and maintaining the controls. Criminal penalties include a fine notexceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both, with each day a sepa-rate offense.

Other enforcement mechanisms Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsWithhold building permitsForfeit security deposited (all projects over 20,000 ft2)

As-built certifications are required for all stormwater practices.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by the Baltimore County DEPRM.



Legal entities include Public Works DepartmentPrivate entityProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Performed after first year, then triennially

Inspected by Baltimore County Environmental Inspector

B-53


Oversight agency Baltimore County Environmental Department

O/M responsibilities Specified by design engineer in O/M manual.

Funding source Depends on legal entity, county has no dedicatedsource.

Enforcement mechanism Exercise rights within maintenance agreement.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are combined budgetentities.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control General appropriations UnknownStormwater management General appropriations $650,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time NeededES/SW Administrative 1/0

Engineer 0/7Engineer associate 0/3Inspector 8/0Clerical 1/2Support 2/0 Maintenance crew


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, and exhibitsare used to educate the targeted audience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspec-tors, and the general public. Most training conducted by state agency.


There is close coordination between the erosion/sediment control program and the storm-water management program.

These programs also are coordinated with the county's land use planning, zoning, wet-lands protection, floodplain management, tree protection, land acquisition, wellhead pro-tection, water supply, wastewater management, and building approval programs.

No conflicts with other programs prevent or hinder effective program implementation.

B-54


Program Evaluation


Research projects None

Monitoring None

Program Evolution to Watershed Management

The county's erosion/sediment control program was initiated in 1969 by executive order inresponse to the passage of state legislation. In 1977 the first county ordinance was en-acted establishing erosion and sediment control requirements, procedures, and penalties.In 1984, state stormwater legislation was enacted establishing a comprehensive stormwa-ter management program which is administered primarily by local governments.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to improve water quality.


B-55



JURISDICTION: CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTONP.O. Box 9810Vancouver, Washington 98668

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, andcommunity interest in protecting its fisheries and wetlands.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 13.25, Clark County Code (Stormwater Control Ordinance)2. Chapter 13.27, Clark County Code (Erosion Control Ordinance)


Program Goals/Objectives Prevent flooding and protect the beneficial uses of waterresources. Stormwater ordinance lists nine goals.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestryProjects with < 2000 ft2 impervious surfaceIndustrial or commercial projects with < 1000 ft2 newimpervious surface

Preferred practices Infiltration basins or trenches are preferred and requiredin A and B soils. Other treatment practices includebiofiltration swales, wet detention ponds, filter strips,constructed wetlands, and sand filters.

Practices Installed Practice 1992 1993Swales 10 10Dry wells 500+ 500+Wet detention 10 25Wetlands 1 3Biofiltration 50 100+

Design criteria are specified in the “Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget SoundBasin”, February 1992, published by the Washington Department of Ecology.

B-56



Water Quality No specified performance std. Use appropriate BMPs to treat therunof from a six-month, 24-hour storm.

Peak Discharge No specified performance std. Post-development rate can not exceedpre-development rate for 2, 10, and100-year, 24-hr storm.

Volume Maintain ground water recharge Post-development volume can notexceed pre-development volume for 2-yr, 24-hr storm.

Maintain existing flows and Post-development volume can notlevels in downstream channels exceed pre-development volume for (forconveyances at capacity) 10-yr and 100-yr, 24-hr storms.

Downstream evaluation of the capacity of the conveyance system is required if pre-devel-opment runoff calculations do not assume undisturbed forest in determining the runoffcurve number.

Available Publications County Ordinances.

Source Controls As specified in the Puget Sound Manual, source controls arerecommended for specific land uses including manufacturing,transportation and communication, wholesale or retail sales,service businesses and activities on public lands. Generalsource controls include fueling stations, vehicle or equipmentwashing areas, storage or loading of solid or liquid materials,and vegetative management practices.


Program goal/objective To prevent sediment from reaching surface waters, adjacentproperties, or public right-of-ways.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureForestryProjects disturbing < 2000 sf

Preferred Practices Sediment traps are sized to hold the 2-yr, 24-hr storm runoffwhile basins must treat the 10-year, 24-hour storm. Otherpractices include seasonal limits on disturbed areas, stabilizedconstruction entrance and tire wash, slope drain, straw bales,silt fence, mulching, and temporary and permanent vegetative

B-57


cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin (1992) and in Section 3 of theErosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook forPortland and Washington County,Oregon (November 1989).


Both the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management programare implemented using local criteria implemented by the local government program.

Project Permitting Permits aren’t issued. Plans for both erosion/sediment controland for stormwater management are approved if they complywith requirements set in applicable ordinances

Review process Applicants must submit erosion/sediment control and stormwa-ter management plans along with supporting information suchas calculations, geotechnical data, and analysis which is re-viewed by the program’s staff.

A detailed checklist is used for stormwater management only.

Erosion/sediment control approval is required before issuance of a grading permit whileboth the stormwater management and erosion/sediment control plans must be approvedbefore subdivisions or site plans are approved.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required “regularly” by site workers with maintenance for two yearsdone by the property owner or permittee to ensure continuedperformance. Inspected by Clark County stormwater staff also.

Stormwater systems Required before developer turns over to county or to privatemaintenance entity, with inspection done by Clark County stormwaterprogram staff.


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil penalties with fines of $25per day in addition to the remedies set forth in Title 32 of the Clark County Code.


B-58


As-built certifications are required and must be submitted prior to the issuance of buildingpermits for single family residential subdivisions, the issuance of occupancy permits forprojects subject to site plan review, and within 60 days following completion of constructionfor other projects.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is not performed.


Maintenance of completed stormwater systems is required. The applicant must maintainthe stormwater system for the first two years after construction is completed.

Legal entities include Clark County for BMPs within public roadright-of-ways and for BMPs dedicated to the County.Private owner for commercial or industrial systemsProperty owners association for residential systems(seldom used)

Inspection frequency None. Stormwater ordinance states that the countyshall inspect privately maintained systems.

Inspected by Clark County

Oversight agency Clark County

O/M responsibilities Engineer must provide a Maintenance and OperationsManual for all systems to be privately maintained.

Funding source Primarily Road Fund revenues

Enforcement mechanism Ordinance allows County to issue a written noticespecifying actions needed to bring stormwater systeminto compliance and, if owner does not undertakecorrective actions in a timely manner, allows theCounty to perform the maintenance and bill theresponsible parties in accordance with Clark CountyCode Chapter 32.04.060.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment control Permit fees $225,000 (100%)

Stormwater management Permit fees $445,000 (100%)

B-59


Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES/SW Administrative .33/.67

Engineer .67/1.33Inspector 1/2Scientist .33/.67Clerical .33/.67Support .67/1.33


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures and stormsewer stenciling, which is required for all new structures by the County stormwater ordi-nance, are used to educate the intended audience of contractors, consultants, developers,and inspectors.


There is close coordination between the County’s separate erosion/sediment control andstormwater management programs.

These programs also are integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protec-tion, floodplain management, wellhead protection, and building approval programs.

No conflicts arise with other programs.

Communication from the Washington Department of Ecology on NPDES and other stateand federal programs needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation


Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectiveness of dry wells.



The Clark County Water Quality Division was created in July 1992 by merging the county’sdevelopment review, water quality management, and drainage engineering groups with anindependent regional water quality research/planning organization.

Retrofitting of developed areas is not being pursued.


B-60



JURISDICTION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONKing County Surface Water Management700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200Seattle, Washington


The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, andcommunity interest in protecting its fisheries and wetlands.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Title 9, King County Code2. Title 16, King County Code3. 1991 SWM Division Strategic Plan adopted by County Council


Program Goals/Objectives Promoting public health and safety by controlling thequality and quantity of surface water runoff.

Protecting and enhancing the natural drainage systemcomprised of rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes.

Protecting the public and reducing property damage.

Obtaining the commitment of the citizens, businesses,andpublic agencies in cooperatively addressing regionalsurface water issues.

Exemptions and Waivers Single family homes that are not part of a platProjects with < 5000 ft2 impervious surfaceProjects with a discharge of < 0.5 cfs

Preferred practices Source controls including forest retention, and erosioncontrol. Treatment practices including grass swales, wetdetention ponds, filter strips, and wet vaults.

B-61



Water Quality No specified performance std. Treat one-third of the runoff from a2-year, 24-hour storm.

Peak Discharge Base protection standard Post-development rate can not exceedpre-development for a 2-yr and 10-yrstorm.

Stream protection standard Post-development rate can not exceedpre-development for a 100-yr storm.Control duration for 2 to 50-yr storm.

Volume None-under study

Downstream evaluation is required for at least one-quarter mile or 15% of the drainagesystem with downstream channel stability evaluated when stream protection standardapplies.


Source Controls The County encourages the use of the following management andsource control practices:· urban - citizen and business education· agriculture - density limits on livestock, limit animal access to

streams· construction - clearing limitations in the wet seasonTechnical assistance on the use of these controls is available. Theagriculture controls are required by the livestock and water qualityordinances.


Program goal/objective To prevent erosion first, control coarse and fine sedimentssecond, and minimize damage to downstream fisheries habitatand spawning gravel.

Performance goal is to retain sediment on-site with dischargeshaving a turbidity < 5 NTU.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureSingle family homes exempt from detailed ES control plan.

Preferred Practices Sediment traps are designed to treat the 2-yr, 24-hr storm runoffwhile sediment basins are sized for the 10-yr, 24-hr storm.Other practices include seasonal limits on disturbed area,mulching, silt fence, gravel construction entrance, slope drains,

B-62


and temporary and permanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Stormwater Management Manual for the PugetSound Basin (1992).


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented using federal criteria with state implementation, state criteria with regionaland local implementation, and local criteria implemented by the local government program.Within the Puget Sound watershed, erosion/sediment control and stormwater managementprograms are required at the local level as of January 1, 1995.

Project Permitting General and Individual permits are used, depending on the“applicant” and the type of industry, especially for stormwater.

Review process Limited by staff constraints

A detailed checklist

Erosion/sediment control approval is required before issuance of a building permit or agrading permit while the stormwater management approval is required before issuance of abuilding permit or zoning approval.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required 2 or 3 times during the project with maintenance requiredassured by Restoration Bond. Inspected by site engineer or byCounty staff.

Stormwater systems Required at sign off. Performed by staff from either Surface WaterManagement or Dept. of Developmental and EnvironmentalServices.


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil penalties with fines of$100 to $500 per day.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work order (used infrequently)Withhold occupancy permits

As-built certifications are required for infiltration practices, filtration practices, biofiltrationbut not for detention ponds.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by Dept. of Developmental and

B-63


Environmental Services inspector.



Legal entities include King County SWM for BMPs serving residentialPrivate owner for commercial systemsProperty owners association in limited cases

Inspection frequency Once a year

Inspected by King County SWM Department

Oversight agency King County SWM Department

O/M responsibilities Public facility maintenance performed by PublicWorks crews. Commercial facility maintained byowner, usually by a private vendor. County sends“correction notices” to commercial owners ifannual inspection finds O/M needs.

Funding source Stormwater Utility Fee (Currently $85/yr/SFU)

Enforcement mechanism Fines for owners of commercial facilities

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment control Permit fees Highly variable (90%)

Stormwater utility fee (10%)

Stormwater management Stormwater utility fee $16-17 million (1994)State stormwater grants $1.5-3 millionContract services to cities unknown

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES/SW Administrative /30

Engineer /50Inspector 25/ 4 25/0Scientist /30Clerical /10Support /25 ES Plan reviewersMaintenance /25

B-64



Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, shows,exhibits, monitoring, demonstration projects, and storm sewer stenciling are used to edu-cate the targeted audience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors and thegeneral public. During the past year, two programs were given for contractors with 30attending, one inspector program was held with 80 attendees, monthly programs are givenfor the public with 10 to 40 attending, and miscellaneous programs were held for develop-ers and consultants that attracted up to 180 individuals.


There is close coordination within the County’s integrated erosion/sediment control andstormwater management program.

The program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protection,tree protection, floodplain management, wellhead protection, and building approval pro-grams.

Conflicts arise with land use planning since zoning and density decisions often are basedon transportation corridors and infrastructure availability without consideration of the natu-ral landscape features, leading to incompatible zoning and loss of important resources.

Communication with the Washington Department of Ecology on NPDES and other stateand federal programs is pretty good, but conflicts arise quite often.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Adopted basin plansCompleted capital improvement projectsSuccessful education and public involvement activitiesBasin stewardship program

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectiveness of wet ponds, swales, sand filters, catch basininserts, wetlands.Comprehensive sediment and phosphorus budget for a smallcatchment to examine relative contribution from constructionsites, built up areas, and instream erosion.



The surface water management program began in 1986 when the stormwater utility feewas initiated. The initial focus was on basin plans and their associated capital improve-

B-65


ment projects. Major floods in 1990 led to a fee increase in 1991 which allowed an expan-sion of the program to include stormwater quality (in response to NPDES), public educa-tion, and monitoring. New initiatives included regionalization of services, “Quality UrbanEnvironment”, Small Habitat Restoration Program, and Neighborhood Drainage AssistanceProgram.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degrada-tion, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources.


B-66



JURISDICTION: KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTONKitsap County Public Works614 Division Street, MS-26Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4699

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. They will be implemented in January 1995 in response to require-ments set forth in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality,ground water recharge, and mandates from federal or state government.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Ordinance 156-1993 (Surface and Stormwater Management Program Establishment)2. Ordinance 165-1994 (Surface and Stormwater Management Rate Structure)3. Ordinance 148-1992 (Interim Ordinance for Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control)4. Ordinance XXX-1995 (Comprehensive Stormwater Management Ordinance -

pending)


Program Goals/Objectives Promote sound, practical, and economical developmentpolicies and construction practices which respect andpreserve the County’s water courses.

Minimize water quality degradation and control sedimen-tation of streams, lakes, and other waters.

Decrease stormwater damage to public and privateproperty and protect life and property from stormwater.

Protect ground water resources.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture - use BMPs endorsed by local SWCD,voluntary

Forestry - use ES controls during and after harvest

Single family homes < 5000 ft2 impervious exempt fromrate control must have ES control, and roof runoff

B-67


infiltration often required

Preferred practices Wet detention and biofiltration. Others found in theStormwater Management Manual for the Puget SoundBasin or the King County Manual may be used includinginfiltration, extended dry detention, constructed wetlands,and sand filtration.

Design criteria are specified in the “Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget SoundBasin”, February 1992, published by the Washington Department of Ecology.


Water Quality No specified performance std. Treat the runoff from the 6-month, 24-hour storm perWDOE requirements.

Peak Discharge No specified performance std. Post-development peak rate cannot exceed 50% of the pre-development rate for the 2-yr,24-hr storm, and the pre-development rate for the 10-yrand 100-yr, 24-hr storms usingSBUH analysis.

Volume Only for certain downstream Post-development volume canwaters not exceed pre-development

volume for the100-yr, 7-daystorm using SBUH analysis.

Downstream evaluation is required for at least one-quarter mile with downstream channelstability evaluated, and flooding and water quality impacts evaluated.

Available Publications Ordinance, Stormwater Program booklet and brochure

Source Controls As specified in the Puget Sound Manual, source controls arerecommended for specific land uses including manufacturing,transportation and communication, wholesale or retail sales,service businesses and activities on public lands. Generalsource controls include fueling stations, vehicle or equipmentwashing areas, storage or loading of solid or liquid materials,and vegetative management practices.

B-68



Program goal/objective None stated

Exemptions and waivers Agriculture - Kitsap SWCD stormwater related activities fundedby county stormwater program.

Preferred Practices Sediment traps and basins are designed to treat the runoff froma 2-yr, 24-hr storm. Other practices allowed include seasonallimits on land disturbance, gravel construction entrance and tirewash, silt fence, straw bales, slope drains, mulching, andtemporary and permanent vegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Chapter II of “Stormwater Management Manual forthe Puget Sound Basin”, February 1992, published by theWashington Department of Ecology.


Both the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management programare implemented by the local government using state and local criteria. Within the PugetSound watershed, erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs arerequired at the local level as of January 1, 1995. The Puget Sound manual is being useduntil Kitsap County's revised stormwater management ordinance, with its associatedmanual, is adopted.

Project Permitting Currently, plans are approved. New ordinance requires SiteDevelopment Activity Permits for activities which clear > 1 acre,grade > 150 yd3, are on slopes > 25%, or install > 5,000 ft2

impervious surface.

Review process Erosion and sediment control, construction, and stormwaterplans are reviewed by county staff. Field visits done beforeapproval.

A detailed checklist is used for both erosion/sediment controland stormwater management.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans must be approved beforeissuance of a building permit (for projects > 5000 sf), a grading permit, zoning approval,clearing permit, conversion from forest land, or connection to the public stormwater sys-tem.

B-69


Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls/ Inspected by county staff, no set frequencyStormwater systems


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil penalties with fines of upto $1000 per day.


As-built certifications are required for all systems.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by Kitsap County Construction Divi-sion.



Legal entities include City, County, State, PortsPrivate owner for commercial systemsProperty owners association

Inspection frequency No specified frequency

Inspected by Kitsap County

Oversight agency Kitsap County

O/M responsibilities Remove debris and accumulated sediments,mowing and vegetation management, vactorcatch basins and oil-water separators

Funding source Stormwater Utility Fee (Currently $3.75/ft2

lot/month)

Enforcement mechanism Required maintenance covenant allows County toinspect systems, notify owner of requiredmaintenance. If owner does not perform within 30days, County can maintain and bill the owner.

B-70


Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control stormwater management programs are combined budgetentities.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment control Permit fees (8%)

Road Dept. funding (92%)

Stormwater management Permit fees $ 60,000Road Dept. funding $ 750,000Utility fees $4,700,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time NeededAdministrative 1 1.5Engineer 2 2Inspector 5 *Scientist 1 1Clerical 1 1Support 0.5 1Technicians 8 8* (will inspect)

Current staff are in Development Review and Permitting, staff listed as needed are thosefor the new surface and stormwater management program.


Educational programs will be a voluntary component of the program if the proposed storm-water utility is implemented. The proposed program includes the use of brochures, exhib-its, public presentations, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling. Two workshops per yea rare planned for contractors with six workshops planned each year to educate the generalpublic.



The program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protection,tree protection, wellhead protection, and building approval programs.

Communication from the Washington Department of Ecology on NPDES and other stateand federal programs needs to be improved.

B-71


Program Evaluation

Measures of success Annual program evaluation by County Commission.

Research projects None. Program work plan includes BMP and ambientmonitoring.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, biological, and flow rates areproposed to be monitored under the County’s stormwater workplan.


The county’s program began in September 1987 when the Flood Control Ordinance (No.117) was adopted. In September 1992, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance(No. 148-1992) was adopted. The County’s Surface and Stormwater Management ProgramOrdinance (No. 156-1993) was adopted in October 1993 which authorizes the develop-ment and implementation of a comprehensive program. The Washington Dept. of Ecologycurrently is reviewing the County’s proposed stormwater management ordinance. Ordi-nance 165-1994. “Surface and Stormwater Management Program Rate Structure”, wasadopted recently allowing implementation of the county surface and stormwater manage-ment program. The program proposed in the work plan will require approximately $4.7annually which equates to a monthly stormwater utility fee of $3.75 for single family resi-dences.

Retrofitting of developed areas is proposed in the work plan to reduce flooding, waterquality degradation, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources.

Watershed approaches are proposed in the work plan, especially development of basinplans, which will include regional stormwater management systems, water body targeting,and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-72



JURISDICTION: MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONAFlood Control District2801 West Durango StreetPhoenix, Arizona 85009

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs. The Flood Control District implements a stormwater quantity manage-ment program while the stormwater quality and erosion/sediment control programs areadministered by the Arizona NPDES program.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, andmandates from federal or state governments.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Flood Control Ordinance2. ARS 11-251 (Section 30 and 36)


Program Goals/Objectives Provide flood control management and leadershipthroughout Maricopa County.

Assure that floors are protected from the 100 year stormand regulate construction in the floodplain in the unincor-porated part of the county.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureMiningSingle family homes that are not part of a plat

Preferred practices Infiltration practices since retention is required for all newdevelopment.

Design guidance includes methods for calculating retention volumes and computer model-ing inputs for peak discharge calculations.


Water Quality No specified performance std. Follow state NPDES regulations.

Peak Discharge No increase in velocity and Site specific analysis required.peak rates of washes

B-73


Volume No increase allowed, to Must retain the runoff volume fromprevent flooding a 100-yr, 2-hr storm.

Downstream evaluation is required for any off-site discharges to prevent any increase indownstream flooding potential. Evaluation of downstream channel stability is required ifpotential problem exists.

Available Publications Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa CountyVolume I: HydrologyVolume II: HydraulicsVolume III: Erosion Control

Source Controls The Arizona NPDES stormwater regulations require pollutionprevention plans that emphasize source controls such asgeneral housekeeping and using less toxic materials.


Program goal/objective None - State NPDES program seeks to reducesedimentation of receiving waters.

Exemptions and waivers Not applicable - State NPDES program exempts projectsdisturbing five acres or less.

Preferred Practices None

Design criteria None


The erosion/sediment control program is implemented using federal criteria with federalimplementation, while the stormwater management program uses state and regional crite-ria with regional implementation.

Project Permitting State NPDES general permit for erosion, sediment, andstormwater control on construction sites. Flood ControlDistrict uses individual permits for stormwater quantity.

Review process None listed


Stormwater quantity management approval is required before issuance of a building per-mit, grading permit, or zoning approval.

B-74


Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls NPDES requires contractor to inspect and maintain.

Stormwater systems No frequency specified for inspections performed byMaricopa County Flood Control District.


Penalty provisions are a program component for stormwater quantity. They include civilpenalties with fines. Criminal penalties are those associated with a Class II misdemeanorwhich includes a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work order (used infrequently)Withhold occupancy permitsWithhold other permit applications

As-built certifications are not required.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by the Flood Control District.



Legal entities include Maricopa County Flood Control DistrictPrivate owner for commercial systemsProperty owners association

Inspection frequency None specified. District inspects private systemsonly upon receiving complaint

Inspected by Maricopa County Flood Control DistrictMunicipalities

Oversight agency Maricopa County Flood Control DistrictMunicipalities

O/M responsiblilites The District has maintenance crews assigned toits’ structures. Maintenance includes debrisremoval, repair of eroded areas, repairs tostructures.

Funding source Special taxing districtCost share agreements with municipalities

B-75


Enforcement mechanism For private systems, the District canrequest the County Attorney Office toenforce violation notices. District canconduct maintenance, bill the responsibleparty, and place a lien to recover costs.

Program Resources

The District only implements a stormwater quantity management program.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment control General appropriationsStormwater management Special taxing district

General appropriationsPermit fees

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time Needed ES/SW Administrative 1/2

Engineer 1/4 1/0Inspector 4/7 2/0Scientist 1/Clerical 2/Support 1/ 1/1 1/0


Educational programs are proposed as a voluntary component of the program. The Districtis preparing a plan for a three year stormwater pollution prevention education campaign asrequired for the municipalities which are receiving NPDES stormwater permits. Theplanned program includes the use of brochures, exhibits, monitoring, demonstrationprojects, and monitoring. The target audience includes contractors, consultants, develop-ers, inspectors, and the general public.


There is not close coordination between the County’s stormwater quantity managementprogram and the federal NPDES erosion, sediment, and stormwater management programwhich is implemented through the Arizona NPDES Program.

The District’s flood control program is integrated with local land use planning, zoning,floodplain management, and building approval programs.

No conflicts arise with other programs.

Communication from EPA on NPDES and other related federal programs needs to beimproved.

B-76


Program Evaluation

Measures of success Number of municipalities requiring use of the District’sDrainage Design Manual for all public work projects

Research projects Testing the treatment effectiveness of vegetativetreatment facility (bacteria and plants) to remove oil andgrease in runoff from a vehicle maintenance facility.Vegetative treatment system for agricultural tailwater isbeing designed and will be constructed in the future.



Retrofitting of developed areas is proposed with plans being developed to reduce flooding,water quality degradation, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect riparian andwetland resources.


B-77



JURISDICITON: MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLANDDepartment of Environmental Protection250 Hungerford DriveRockville, Maryland 80850


The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality,ground water recharge, and mandates from federal or state government.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 26.09, Code of Maryland Regulations2. Chapter 19, Montgomery County Code


Program Goals/Objectives To protect, maintain, and restore high chemical, physical,and biological conditions in the County’s waters andwetlands.

To maintain and restore a natural waterway environmentin county streams with habitat supporting varied wildlifeand aquatic life along with appropriate recreational,water supply, and other uses.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes with lots of two or more acres

Preferred practices Infiltration (when feasible) and sand filters, in combina-tion with dry detention, for projects discharging to ther-mally sensitive waters. Wet detention/wetland ponds,perhaps in combination with other practices, in otherareas. Extended detention in combination with otherpractices.

B-78


Practices constructed Practice 1992 1993Infiltration trench 35 40Sand filter 0 5Wet detention pond 8 6Extended dry detention 4 6Peak dry detention 2 3Wetlands 7 8Biofiltration 8 13

Design criteria and guidelines are specified in the County’s stormwater regulations, check-lists, and design guidances.


Water Quality Meet state WQ standards Treat the first half inch of runoff usingappropriate practices

Peak Discharge No specified performance std. Post-development peak rate can notexceed pre-development rate for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm and, when necessary,for the 10-yr and 100-yr, 24-hr storm.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required with downstream channel stability evaluated.


Source Controls General public information, education about proper use offertilizers and pesticides, proper disposal of oil, antifreeze, andother hazardous wastes, and improving the health of riparianzones are encouraged for all land uses, especially those withinthe proposed special protection areas.

Activities just beginning. Will be done in coordination andcooperation with the Maryland Cooperative Extension Serviceand the Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission.


Program goal/objective To protect downstream waters and adjacent property fromsedimentation and erosion caused by land disturbing activities.

Just beginning work on developing a specific performancestandard.

B-79


Exemptions and waivers AgricultureProjects disturbing < 5000 ft2

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps currently are designed to capture1800 ft3/acre, but this will be changed to 3600 cf/acre. Mulching,sodding, staged clearing, silt fence, gravel constructionentrance, temporary and permanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook


Both the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management programare implemented by the local government using state and local criteria.

Project Permitting Individual sediment control permit includes stormwatermanagement requirements. Stormwater management conceptmust be approved before permit application is accepted.

Review process Erosion and sediment control, construction, and stormwater plansalong with supporting technical information are reviewed by county.

A detailed checklist is used for both erosion/sediment control andstormwater management.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans must be approved beforeissuance of a building permit, a grading permit, or a floodplain district permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Inspected twice monthly by county staff

Stormwater systems Inspected daily at critical stages of construction bycounty staff


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $500 per day(for initial violation), or $750 per day (for repeat violations). Criminal penalties are a $1000fine or six months in jail for each day in violation.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold other permit applicationsConfiscate bondObtain court order

As-built certifications are required only for pond systems.

B-80


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by Montgomery County DEP inspec-tor.



Legal entities include City, County, StatePrivate owner for commercial/industrial systemsProperty owners association for residential systems

Inspection frequency Until now, no specified frequency with inspectionsperformed in response to complaints. With newinspection staff, annual inspections are planned.

Inspected by Montgomery County DEP

Oversight agency Montgomery County DEP

O/M responsibilities Maintain structures for structural integrity and forfunctional level of performance.

Funding source No dedicated funding

Enforcement mechanism DEP notifies owner of required maintenance, if notperformed then DEP does it and assesses theresponsible party through tax billings.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment/stormwater General appropriation $528,630 (36%)

control program (FY95) Permit fees $869,400 (60%)Capital improvement fund $ 56,000 ( 4%)

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES/SW Administrative .8/1

Engineer/scientist 1.7/7.25 1/2-3Inspector 10.5/2.9 2/1Clerical 1/1.2Support 2.9/0.95 2/2


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program which are just beingdeveloped. The proposed program includes the use of brochures, and storm sewer stencil-ing. Targeted audiences include contractors, consultants, developers, and the generalpublic.

B-81




The program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protection,floodplain management, tree protection, and building approval programs.

Conflicts arise at times with various environmental programs (stormwater, wetlands, treeprotection) because of conflicting goals. Overall coordination is difficult because of thenumber of agencies involved. Also have conflicts with other programs such as transporta-tion, economic development, and housing.

Communication from the Maryland Department of Environment on NPDES and other stateand federal programs is good.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Work load evaluations including measurement of needs and actualoutput. Number of enforcement actions.


Monitoring Developing program now to improve current efforts. Have volunteermonitoring network. Will include water chemistry, sediments,biological, and flow rates.


The Montgomery County Soil and Water Conservation District began the erosion andsediment control program in the late 1960s with the stormwater management programstarting in 1971. With passage of the Maryland Stormwater Management Act in 1984, thecounty implemented a stormwater management program for quantity and quality. In the late1980s a MOU between the SWCD and the County gave the County responsibility for theerosion and sediment control program.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being done under a separately funded program to reduceflooding, water quality degradation, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquaticresources.


B-82



JURISDICTION: PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLANDWatershed Protection Branch9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 600Landover, Maryland 20785

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate yet integrated programs. The stormwater management review is done separatelybut enforcement of erosion/sediment control and stormwater are done together.

The impetus for the program is flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, groundwater recharge, floodplain protection, and mandates from federal or state government.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Article 29, Title 4, subtitles 1 and 2, Annotated Code of Maryland2. Chapter 26.09, Code of Maryland Regulations3. County Code Subtitle 4 (Building), Division 2 (Floodplain)

Division 3 (Grading, Drainage and Pollution Control)Division 4 (Stormwater Management)


Program Goals/Objectives To reduce, control, or eliminate the adverse results ofstormwater, erosion, and sedimentation on water qualityand flooding.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestry

Preferred practices Infiltration, extended dry or wet detention, bioretention,and grit and oil separators.

Practices constructed Practice 1992 1993Infiltration trench 57 43Infiltration basin 1 1Grit/oil separators 38 38Wet detention pond 20 23Extended dry detention 6 4Peak dry detention 12 4Underground detention 5 4

Design criteria are specified in County Stormwater Management Design Manual, 1991,Department of Environmental Resources, and in Design Manual for use of Bioretention inStormwater Management, 1993.

B-83



Water Quality Meet state WQ standards Treat the first half inch of runoff fromimpervious areas using appropriate practices.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development peak rate can not exceedpre-development rate for the 2-yr and 10-yr,24-hr storms and for the 100-yr, 24-hr storm ifpotential for downstream flooding.

Volume None Must use infiltration practices if soils havepercolation rate greater than 0.17 inches perhour.


Available Publications County Stormwater Management Design Manual, 1991.Design Manual for use of Bioretention in Stormwater Manage-ment, 1993.

Source Controls As required by the County’s NPDES municipal separate stormsewer system permit. Guidance is available through pamphletson subjects such as lawn care, car care, etc.


Program goal/objective To reduce sedimentation and erosion caused by land disturbingactivities.

Exemptions and waivers Agriculture

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps currently are designed to capture1800 ft3/acre, but this will be changed to 3600 ft3/acre. Otherpractices allowed include mulching, sodding, staged clearing,silt fence, gravel construction entrance, temporary andpermanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook


Both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areimplemented by the local government using state and local criteria.

B-84


Project Permitting Individual sediment control permit and stormwater managementpermit.

Review process Erosion and sediment control, construction, and stormwaterplans along with supporting technical information are reviewedby county staff.


Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management plans must be approved beforeissuance of a building permit or a grading permit. Stormwater management plans mustreceive conceptual approval before preliminary plat submission and approval with finaltechnical approval prior to final plat approval.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Inspected every 14 days by project engineer and county staff

Stormwater systems Inspected during construction at key milestones or phases by projectengineer and county staff.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $250 per day(for initial violation), $500 per day (for second offense), $750 per day (for third violation),and $1000 per day for additional violations. Criminal penalties are a $1000 fine or sixmonths in jail, or both, for each day in violation.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsWithhold other permit applicationsCounty conduct corrective work, place tax lien on

property


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by County inspector and by projectengineer.



B-85


Legal entities include City, County, StatePrivate owner for commercial/industrial systemsProperty owners association for residential systems

Inspection frequency Private systems are inspected every three years with publicsystems inspected annually.

Inspected by Prince George’s County Watershed staff (private systems).PGC Public Works & Transportation staff (public systems)

Oversight agency Prince George’s County DER and Dept. Public Worksand Transportation.

O/M responsibilities Established in County design manual. Maintain structures forstructural integrity and for functional level of performance.

Funding source County ad valorem taxes.

Enforcement mechanism County DER notifies owner of required maintenance, if notperformed then county does it and places a tax lien on theproperty.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment Permit fees $ 400,000 (80%)

Special taxing district $ 100,000 (20%)

Stormwater management Permit fees $ 300,000 ( 5%)Special taxing district $8,000,000 (95%)

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed - SW Review ES/SW Inspection Administrative 2 Administrative 1

Inspector 17 Reviewers 10Clerical 1 Clerical 2


Educational programs are a component of the program which is required by the County’sNPDES MS4 stormwater permit. Brochures, demonstration projects, monitoring, exhibits,and storm sewer stenciling are used to educate the targeted audiences of contractors,consultants, developers, and the general public. Two educational programs are conductedannually, each attracting about 80 individuals.



B-86


The program also is integrated with local land use planning, wetlands protection, floodplainmanagement, tree protection, land acquisition, and building approval programs.

Conflicts arise with the programs administered by the Soil and Water Conservation Districtwhich creates duplicative permitting.

Communication from the Maryland Department of Environment on NPDES and other stateand federal programs is good but there is little communication from federal agencies.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success County pilot studies


Monitoring Biological


The Prince George’s County Soil and Water Conservation District began the erosion andsediment control program in the late 1960s. With passage of the Maryland StormwaterManagement Act in 1984, the county implemented a stormwater management program forquantity and quality in 1985.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degrada-tion, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources.

Watershed approaches being used include regional stormwater management systems andemphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-87



JURISDICTION: SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONSurface Water ManagementWall Street Building, Suite 1012930 Wetmore AvenueEverett, Washington 98201

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. They also are integrated with the county’s rivers and watershedmanagement program.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality, andprotecting aquatic habitats.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 36, Revised Code of Washington (Counties)2. Title 25, Snohomish County Code (Storm and Surface Water Management)


Program Goals/Objectives To work in partnership with the citizens to protect andenhance water quality and aquatic habitats, to minimizedamage from flooding and erosion, and to preserve awater resource legacy for future generations.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureProjects which create < 5,000 ft2 impervious surface orwhich collect stormwater from more than 5,000 ft2 ofdrainage area.

Preferred practices Infiltration if soils are appropriate. Other practicesallowed include filtration, biofiltration, and wet detention.

Design criteria currently are specified in the County Engineering Standards. The Snohom-ish County Stormwater Management Manual is in preparation and is based on the PugetSound Stormwater Management Manual (Washington Dept. of Ecology).


NOTE: Performance standards and design criteria for stormwater quality and volumeare pending adoption.

B-88


Water Quality No specified performance std. Use appropriate BMPs to treat the post-development runoff volume from a 6-month, 24-hour storm.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate If can not infiltrate runoff, then thedetained volume can be released at nogreater than 50% of the pre-development rate. Post-development rate cannot exceed pre-development for the 10-yr, 24-hr and 100-yr, 24-hr storms.

Volume No specified performance std. Infiltrate the runoff from a 2-yr, 24-hrstorm to the extent site conditions allow.


Available Publications Numerous publications including watershed management plansfor several watersheds and regional detention siting or designreports. Specific publications of interest include State of theWaters: 1993 Assessment (Oct. 1993), StormwaterCharacterization and Pollution Load Estimates (May 1994), and1993-94 Watershed Education Program Final Report and Evalu-ation (Sept. 1994).

Source Controls Commercial and industrial land uses are encouraged to useapplicable source controls included in the Washington Dept. ofEcology’s Stormwater Management Manual for the PugetSound Basin such as material handling, roofing, and properplumbing.


Program goal/objective To minimize on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation.

Exemptions and waivers Agriculture

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture therunoff from a 10-yr, 24-hr storm. Other practices include mulch-ing, seasonal limits on disturbed area, silt fence, gravel con-struction entrance, slope drains, and temporary and permanentvegetative stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Snohomish County Stormwater ManagementManual which is based on the criteria within the Puget SoundManual.

B-89



Both the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management programare implemented using state, regional, and local criteria with implementation by the localgovernment program. Within the Puget Sound watershed, erosion/sediment control andstormwater management programs are required at the local level as of January 1, 1995.

Project Permitting Noticed exemptions and Individual permits are used for botherosion/sediment control and stormwater management.

Review process Detailed plans and supporting documentation are reviewed byCounty staff to assure compliance with County requirements.


Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before landclearing begins.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required as needed, performed by site engineer or County staff.

Stormwater systems Required as needed. Performed by Dept. of CommunityDevelopment.



Other enforcement procedures Stop work order (used infrequently)

As-built certifications are required for infiltration practices, filtration practices, biofiltrationbut not for detention ponds.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by Dept. of Community Developmentinspector.



B-90


Legal entities include Private owner for commercial systemsProperty owners association in limited cases

Inspection frequency Detention systems are inspected once every fiveyears

Inspected by Public Works Department

Oversight agency Public Works Department

O/M responsibilities Public facility maintenance performed by CountyRoad Maintenance crews.

Funding source Stormwater utility with SF rate of $22 per year

Enforcement mechanism Fines for owners of commercial facilities

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment control Permit fees Highly variable (90%)

Stormwater management WMA Fees $1,880,000REET 597,000DOE grants 1,047,000SRL Fund 200,000Other 1,425,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES/SW Administrative 4 3

Engineer 9 10Scientist 2 2Clerical 3Support 1 5Engineering Technicians 11 10Planner 6 6Water Quality Technicians 1 2Watershed stewards 3 3


Educational programs are a required component of the program. Brochures, shows, exhib-its, monitoring, and storm sewer stenciling are used to educate the target audience ofcontractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, and the general public. A formal educa-tion program currently is under development.

B-91




The program also is integrated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protection,tree protection, floodplain management, land acquisition, and building approval programs.

Communication with the Washington Department of Ecology on NPDES and other stateand federal programs is good.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Number of citizen complaints and drainage problems

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectiveness of different filter media.

Monitoring Water chemistry and flow rates


The surface water management program began in 1988.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued as part of the NPDES MS4 permit toreduce flooding and water quality degradation.


B-92



JURISDICTION: SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEYEngineering Department20 Grove Street, P.O. Box 3000Somerville, New Jersey 03876

This is a stormwater management program. The erosion and sediment control program iscompletely separate from the stormwater program and administered by the New JerseyState Soil Conservation Committee.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water qualityprotection, protection of county roads and stormwater facilities, and requirements imposedby federal and state governments.

The program’s legal authority is established in the State’s county enabling legislationwhich creates county authority over county roads and stormwater systems and empowerscounty planning boards to review any development that may affect them.


Program Goals/Objectives To prevent increases in peak flow rates, depths, andvelocities in channels and at bridges caused bydevelopment activities.

To protect environmental quality of streams whilebalancing need for growth.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestryWaivers may be granted to developments that will notcontribute to immediate downstream impacts. However,these developments must contribute the cost of con-structing on-site stormwater facilities to the countyregional stormwater fund.

Preferred practices Dry detention basins - most commonVegetated swalesWet detention ponds - where depth of permanent pool,dry weather flow, and proper O/M can be achieved atsite.Constructed wetlands - where dry weather flow andproper O/M can be achieved. Not preferred in residentialareas.

B-93


Infiltration practices are not allowed.

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Wet detention 2 0Wetlands 2 0Extended dry detention 24 0

Design criteria are given within the regulations.


Water Quality Treat 1.25 inch/2 hour storm Discharge 90% total inflow volumewithin 18 hours (SF residential) orwithin 36 hours (MF residential,non-resid)

Peak Discharge Performance standards set by Post-development rate is allowed tocounty watershed models be a set percentage of existing rate:

2 yr storm = 50%, 10 yr storm = 75%100 year storm = 80%

Volume To offset increased runoff Reduce 2 year peak rate by 50%volumes and flow durationswhich may create or add tochannel erosion

Downstream evaluation may be required and downstream channel stability is considered

Available Publications Source controls, fertilizer, and pesticide use by residents.

Source Controls Are encouraged on all land uses. Preferred practices includematerial protection and storage to reduce exposure to rainfalland runoff, spill prevention and clean up, and fertilizer andpesticide use and management. Guidance available for residen-tial use of fertilizers and pesticides.


See program summary for the New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee.


The stormwater program is implemented using state criteria for stormwater quality andlocal criteria for stormwater quantity.

B-94


Project permitting A stormwater noticed exemption is required for all land develop-ment sites, unless exempted. Approval is given in the form ofsite plan or subdivision approval by the County Planning Board.

Review process A comprehensive design review is performed on all projectswith special attention paid to hydrologic and hydraulic design ofall stormwater facilities and a structural review of facilities to bemaintained by the county.

A detailed checklist is used for plan review.

Stormwater management approval is required as a condition of zoning approval, site planor subdivision approval and before issuance of a building permit.

Inspections

Stormwater systems Inspected as needed to assure compliance

Performed by County or Municipal government, usually Engineering Dept.


Penalty provisions are a program component and they include civil penalties.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsWithhold other permits


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by County Engineering Department.



Legal entities include County or municipalityPrivate ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Once per year for systems with dams > 15 feetOnce every 2 years for all others

Oversight agency County, municipality, or state (for dams)

O/M activities Grass and vegetation mowing and trimming

B-95


Sediment and debris removalStructural repairs

Funding source General tax revenues

Enforcement mechanism After notification and waiting period, county canperform necessary O/M and bill responsible party

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountSW General appropriations $100,000

Application fees $ 5,000Inspection fees Hourly basis + travel

Note: Application fee amount represents stormwater management portion. Total site plan or subdivision application fees were $29,000 in 1993.

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededAdministrative 1Engineer 2 2 1-2Inspector 1 1Clerical 1Support 1Scientist 1


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the stormwater management program.Activities include demonstration projects, exhibits, and monitoring.

Intended audience includes consultants, local government planning boards, environmentalcommissions, and engineers. One educational program per year is conducted for consult-ants (approximately 30) and one is conducted for the local government staff.


There is close coordination between the County Stormwater Program and the State Ero-sion and Sediment Control Program.

Because of the local institutional framework, the County Stormwater Program is integratedwith local land use planning, zoning, wetlands protection, floodplain management, andbuilding approval programs.

There are conflicts with state wetland and floodplain management programs which oftenprevent or require siting of stormwater facilities, outfall, or maintenance access routes inlocations which hinder construction, maintenance, performance or safety.

B-96


Program Evaluation

Measures of success Review of as-built plans to assure correct construction.Limited flow monitoring to check performance.Annual or bi-annual O/M inspections.

Research projects Sampling shopping mall detention basin for WQ treatmentability.Sampling effluent quality at county recycling centerdetention pond.Constructed wetland pilot and demonstration projects.Rainfall and runoff gaging and analysis.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediment, biological, flow rates


The stormwater program began in 1975 with a focus on flood protection in response todestructive and deadly flooding in 1971 and 1973.


Watershed approaches being used include regional stormwater management systems,waterbody targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-97



JURISDICTION: WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGONUnified Sewerage Agency of Washington County155 N. First Avenue, Suite 270Hillsboro, Oregon 97724


The impetus for the program is flooding and water quality.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Information was unavailable2.3.


Program Goals/Objectives Protect and improve storm/flood protection and surfacewater quality in urban part of county.

Comply with Total Maximum Daily Load requirements onjurisdictions in the Tualatin River basin set in StateAdministrative Rule.

Comply with requirements of NPDES MS4 permit.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes that are not part of a plat

Preferred practices None specified in regulations. Swales, extended drydetention, wetland ponds are favored while infiltrationpractices are not allowed.

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Extended dry detention 2 8Swales (biofiltration) 10 15Leaf compost filters 2 2

Design criteria guidance is provided in Portland/USA Water Quality Facility TechnicalGuidance Handbook.

B-98



Water Quality Remove 65% of TP Treat 0.36 inch of runoff (4 hr storm) fromnew impervious areas using appropriateBMPs.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development rate can not exceed pre-development rate for the 25-yr, 24-hr storm.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required to prevent any increase in downstream flooding poten-tial with detention or increased conveyance capacity used as mitigation. No evaluation ofdownstream channel stability.

Available Publications Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance HandbookPortland/USA Water Quality Facilities Technical GuidanceHandbookKing County Hydrology/Hydraulics Method Handbook

Source Controls The County encourages the use of source control practices such as25 feet wide buffers along stream corridors and wetlands on all newdevelopments. Cover practices are emphasized for erosion control.Technical assistance on the use of controls is available.


Program goal/objective To comply with the requirements of State Administrative Codefor theTualatin river basin.

Performance standard is no visible/measurable (< one cubicfoot) off-site erosion or visible silty runoff.


Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps are designed to capture the runofffrom a 10- yr, 24-hr storm but they are rarely used. Other prac-tices used include silt fence, gravel construction entrance,diversions, bio-bags, straw, compost, and temporary and per-manent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Hand-book


The erosion/sediment control program is implemented using state criteria with local imple-

B-99


mentation, while the stormwater management program uses state and local criteria withlocal implementation.

Project Permitting Individual permits are used, with the Agency also issuing theState NPDES stormwater permit for construction activitiesdisturbing over 5 acres.

Review process Preliminary review conducted at the land use action stage witha detailed review performed at the construction plan approvalstage. Super detailied analysis is conducted at the inspectionstage.


Erosion/sediment control approval is required before issuance of a grading permit whilethe stormwater management approval is required before issuance of a building permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required at least once a week to assure proper maintenance andoperation, with inspections performed by staff from the USA.

Stormwater systems No specified frequency, with inspections performed as needed bystaff from the USA.



Other enforcement procedures Stop work order.Performance bond requirements.


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by USA inspector.



Legal entities include USA or city for BMPs serving SF residentialPrivate owner for other systemsProperty owners association in limited cases

B-100


Inspection frequency Once or twice a year for facilities USA maintains.

Inspected by USA, cities, owner depending on facilityownership.

Oversight agency USA or cities

O/M responsibilities Public facility maintenance includes mowing,debris and sediment removal, which is performedby USA. Private facilities must submit operationand maintenance plan as part of permittingprocess.

Funding source Stormwater Utility Fee (Currently $36/ yr/ SFU)

Enforcement mechanism None

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control Permit fees Highly variable (90%)

Stormwater utility fee (10%)Permit fee is $80+$20/acre ($165) or % of construction value.

Stormwater management Stormwater utility feePermit feesSystem development chargePermit fee is 5% of project cost for plan review andinspections. System development charge is $280 per 2640 ft2

of impervious surface area.

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time Needed ES/SW Administrative 0/2 2/0

Engineer 0/3 1/0Inspector 4/3 0/0 SeveralClerical 1/0Support 0/0 1/0 Plan reviewers

Maintenance


Educational programs are a mandatory component of the program. Brochures, shows,demonstration projects, and storm sewer stenciling are used to educate the targeted audi-ence of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, school children, and the generalpublic. During the past year, one program was given for contractors with 50 attending, oneinspector program attracted 40 attendees, and 25 developers attended one program.Regular programs are given for the public and about 5000 school children attend Tualatin

B-101


River Ranger programs.



The program also is integrated with local land use planning, wetlands protection, floodplainmanagement, wastewater management, and building approval programs.

Conflicts arise with local land use and transportation planning programs, and buildingdepartments, which are administered by different local county and city government agen-cies, because of inadequate communication and coordination.

Communication with the Oregon Department of Ecology on NPDES issues is adequate.Implementation of the Tualatin River Basin Water Quality Management Program involvesmany entities which meet regularly to discuss and coordinate implementation activities.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Public maintenance activities are tracked and evaluatedannually.Participation in public education programs.Monitoring of some BMPs and receiving waters.

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectivenessof leaf compost filter systems, swales, and wetdetention ponds.Collecting baseline water quality data upstream anddownstream of proposed regional water quality enhancementprojects.

Monitoring Water chemistry and flow rates.


The program has been in existence for four years. Its original focus was solving floodingproblems but has evolved to include water quality considerations because of requirementsof the Clean Water Act, especially the establishment of a TMDL for the Tualatin River.

Retrofitting of developed areas currently is being not being pursued but stream restorationprojects are planned and will be implemented in the near future.

Watershed approaches being used include regional stormwater management systems andemphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

B-102



JURISDICTION: URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (DENVER)2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156BDenver, Colorado 80209

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs. The UDFCD is a regional authority responsible for flood protection inthe greater Denver area, covering 36 local jurisdictions and 1608 square miles. The Dis-trict plans, constructs, and maintains multi-jurisdictional stormwater systems into which itcan control discharges. Local governments within the District’s area may establish storm-water management programs. Currently, 33 local governments have implemented storm-water quantity (flood control) requirements, 7 require stormwater treatment for new devel-opment, and 10 require erosion and sediment control at new development sites.

The impetus for the program includes flooding and stream channel erosion.

The program’s legal authority is established in the 1969 state law establishing the UrbanDrainage and Flood Control District for the Denver metropolitan area.


Program Goals/Objectives To protect the life and property of citizens from floodingand to minimize flood damages.

Exemptions and Waivers Not applicable. Local governments may have permittingprograms.

Preferred practices Extended detention basins and retention ponds. Alsoallow modular porous pavement, wetland basins andchannels.

Performance Standards and Design Criteria (Recommended by UDFCD, but must beadopted by locals)

Water Quality Treat 80th percentile runoff Treatment volume depends onevent volume imperviousness and detention

time, maximum value for 100%imperviousness is 0.5" runoff.

Peak Discharge Performance standard depends Peak rate for 2, 5, 10, 50, andupon storm and location 100 -yr storm can’t exceed

historic (undeveloped) rate for5-yr and larger storms.

B-103


Volume No specified performance standard

Downstream evaluation may be required, especially if master plan is not available for thearea, and downstream channel stability is required using grade control or bank erosioncontrol.

Design criteria are specified in Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual

Available Publications Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1 and 2,Revised 1991 ($75)Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - BMPs, 1992($40)

Source Controls Minimizing DCIA, grass buffers, swales, good housekeepingpractices are encouraged for all land uses with guidanceavailable in the District’s manual.


Program goal/objective To reduce erosion and control sediment at construction sites.

Performance Standard Implement recommended practices.

Exemptions and waivers Depends on regulations of the 10 local government programs.The State NPDES permit exempts activities disturbing fiveacres or less.

Preferred practices Sediment basins and traps designed for 0.25 inch of runoff fromthe site. Temporary and permanent vegetative cover, mulching,silt fence.

Design Criteria Recommended in Volume 3 of the Urban Storm DrainageManual.


Both the erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are implementedusing regional criteria with regional and local implementation, with some localities usingadditional local criteria.

Project permitting UDFCD does not regulate stormwater discharges. Localgovernments review and approve stormwater managementplans, and submit major drainageway projects to District forreview.

B-104


Review process Proposed erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement plans submitted by local governments arereviewed by the District, as are the plans for all projects onwhich the District will assist with long-term facility maintenance.

A detailed checklist is not used by the District but may be usedby some local governments.

Stormwater management approval is required before issuance of a building or gradingpermit. Erosion/sediment control and stormwater quality management plan approval maybe required before issuance of a building or grading permit, depending on the local juris-diction.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls No required frequency. Inspected by local government.

Stormwater systems No required frequency. District will inspect 3 times peryear if project is maintained by the District.


Penalty provisions are not a program component at the local level but they are for theState administered NPDES storm water permitting program.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold certificate of occupancy

As-built certifications are required for detention facilities by some local governments. TheDistrict observes construction of facilities for which it will assume maintenance responsibili-ties.

Final inspection of stormwater systems may be performed depending on the local govern-ment.


Maintenance of completed stormwater systems generally is required, depending on thelocal government.

Legal entities include DistrictCounty or municipalityPrivate ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Depends on need, none specified

B-105


Oversight agency County, municipality, or District (for majorfacilities)

O/M activities Grass and vegetation mowing and trimming,sediment and debris removal, structural repairs.

Funding source District tax revenues raise $4 million per year.Some local governments have establishedstormwater utilities.

Enforcement mechanism None

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountStormwater program District special taxing $10 millionNOTE: Erosion and sediment control is a secondary activity.

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededAdministrative 1 1 (ES Control)Engineer 10Inspector 2 4 (2 ES, 2 SW)Clerical 2Support 2 6


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the stormwater management program.The intended audience includes contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, and localgovernment staff. One educational program per year is conducted which usually attractsfrom 100 to 150 persons.


There is some coordination between the District’s Stormwater Program and the StateErosion and Sediment Control Program, with the state recoginizing and supporting theDistrict's BMPs and criteria.

The stormwater program is coordinated with local land use planning, zoning, wetlandsprotection, floodplain management, land acquisition, transportaion, and building approvalprograms.

There are conflicts with federal regulatory attitudes and inflexibility.

Communication from federal agencies on related programs needs to be improved.

B-106


Program Evaluation

Measures of success Major stormwater systems work well, provide multiple benefitsincluding greenbelt making them popular with citizens.

Research projects Constructing and monitoring detention ponds, constructedwetlands, sand filters, sediment vaults, and modular porouspavement to evaluate their effectiveness.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediment, flow rates, flood warning network.


The stormwater program began in 1969 with enactment of the State law creating the Dis-trict. The District has expanded its programs to include planning, designing, constructing,and maintaining major multi-jurisdictional drainageway facilities in support of local govern-ment needs.

Retrofitting is not being pursued.

All stormwater planning is done on a watershed basis with regional stormwater manage-ment systems and waterbody targeting being used.

B-107



JURISDICTION: NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS PLANNING COMMISSION222 South Riverside PlazaSuite 1800Chicago, Illinois 60606

The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, using Section 319 funds, developed amodel erosion, sediment, and stormwater management program which is implementedvoluntarily by local governments in the region. Numerous counties have implemented localprograms based on the regional guidance.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, stream channel erosion, water quality,ground water recharge, protection of stream, lake, and wetland habitat.

The Planning Commission has no legal regulatory authority.


Program Goals/Objectives To develop consistent standards throughout the region,integrating historical flood prevention with emergingconcerns over water quality and resource protection.

To provide technical assistance to local governments,and the development community, on stormwater regula-tions, programs, and BMPs that can help avoid the ad-verse impacts of development on water resources.

To educate elected officials on the merits of a holisticapproach to stormwater management.

Exemptions and Waivers Model program exempts agriculture and forestry

Preferred practices Extended detention basins are the preferred practice withswales, infiltration, and vegetative buffers encouraged,especially in combination with detention.

Design criteria are specified in Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices for North-eastern Illinois (NEILL PC, 1993).

B-108



Water Quality Minimize adverse impacts Recommended treatment volume ranges fromthe six month storm for swales to the runofffrom a two inch storm for other practices.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development rate can not exceed pre-development rate with a maximum of 0.15 cfs/acre for 100-yr, 24-hour storm.

Volume Minimize increases to Promote minimizing imperviousness andlessen downstream and maximizing infiltration.flooding, enhancerecharge and base flow.

Downstream evaluation is recommended as is a 2-yr storm peak discharge rate of lessthan 0.04 cfs/acre to minimize channel erosion.

Available Publications Model Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance (1990)Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices forNortheastern Ill.

Source Controls Not emphasized in model ordinance but generally encouraged.


Program goal/objective To provide technical assistance to local governments, and thedevelopment community, on effective regulations, programs,and practices to minimize the adverse impacts of constructionsite erosion.

Performance Standard Minimize construction site erosion.

Exemptions and waivers Agriculture (In Model Ordinance) Forestry

Activities disturbing < 5000 ft2 or 500 ft2 if adjacent to water.

Preferred practices Sediment basins and traps designed for runoff from the 10-yrstorm. Other practices including temporary and permanentvegetative cover, mulching, seeding, sodding, erosion blankets,silt fence, gravel construction entrance, outlet stabilization.

Design Criteria Specified in Best Management Practices for NortheasternIllinois, NIPC, April, 1993

B-109



Local governments are encouraged to implement the erosion/sediment control and storm-water management program using regional criteria set forth in the NEIPC model ordinance.When implemented, local programs use:

Project permitting Individual permits

Review process Detailed erosion/sediment control plan and stormwatermanagement plan are reviewed. Type of review varies with thelocal government.

A detailed checklist is recommended and used by some localgovernments.

Local governments generally require erosion/sediment contol and stormwater managementapproval before issuing a building or grading permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Varies with local government, generally 5-6 times during project.

Stormwater systems Inspected as needed after construction by local government.


Penalty provisions are a recommended program component which vary with the localgovernment. Civil penalties generally include fines and performance bonds. Criminalpenalties also vary and often are not explicitly stated.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithhold occupancy permitsFines or performance bonds

As-built certifications are recommended, especially for detention facilities, with require-ments set by local governments.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is recommended. Depending on the local govern-ment, they may be performed by the engineer or by untrained building inspectors.


Maintenance of completed stormwater systems generally is required, depending on thelocal government.

B-110


Legal entities include County or municipalityPrivate ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Depends on need, none specified.

Oversight agency None, depends on local government.

O/M activities Not specified. Manual lists recommendedactivities for each practice.

Funding source Varies with local government, no dedicatedsources.

Enforcement mechanism Performance bonds, but rarely used.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source Amount

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time NeededAdministrativeEngineerInspector Information was unavailableClericalSupport


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the recommended program. ThePlanning Commission and local governments conduct 10 to 20 seminars per year on vari-ous topics. Brochures, videos, and demonstration projects are use to educate the intendedaudience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, engineers, and local govern-ment staff.


Coordination between the stormwater program and the erosion/sediment control programvaries depending on the local government.

Depending on the local government, the program may be coordinated with local wetlandsprotection, floodplain management, and building approval programs.

There generally are not conflicts with other programs which hinder effective implementa-tion.

B-111


Communication from federal agencies on related programs needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Depends on local government

Research projects Several Section 319 funded demonstration projects underwaybut most lack adequate monitoring

Monitoring Flow rates


The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission was created in 1957 to provide advice andtechnical assistance to the region’s local governments. In the 1960s and 1970s theCommission’s stormwater management efforts focused on flood control and preventionwith activities such as model ordinances, mapping, etc. A more holistic approach empha-sizing erosion/sediment control, stormwater treatment practices, stream and wetland pro-tection, and more stringent detention criteria has been pursued in the last five to ten years.

Retrofitting stormwater impacts from developed areas to reduce flooding, stream channelerosion, and impairment of water quality and aquatic resources is being pursued throughdemonstration projects.

Watershed approaches are being used including waterbody targeting and emphasis onnonstructural controls.

B-112



JURISDICTION: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTSurface Water Management DepartmentP.O. Box 24680West Palm Beach, Florida 33416

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. The District’s program is integrated with and coordinated with theprograms implemented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and three ofthe state’s other water management districts.

The impetus for the program is flooding, water quality, groundwater recharge, resourceprotection, and federal or state mandates.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (Water Resources Act)2. Chaper 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Protection Act)3. Chapters 62-40, 40E-4, 40, Florida Administrative Code


Program Goals/Objectives Consideration of stormwater quantity (building floor androad elevation, discharge rate) and environmental (wet-lands, endan gered species, water quality) protection.

To reduce the pollutant loading from existing drainagesystems as needed to restore or maintain beneficial usesof water bodies.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture using closed water management systems

Preferred practices Treatment practices including retention, exfiltrationtrenches, grass swales, and wet detention ponds, whichare the most widely used.

Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Swales 200 200Infiltration basin 100 100Infiltration trench 50 50Wet detention 300 300

Design criteria are specified in the Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Part IV,Applicant’s Handbook, especially within the “Basis of Review”.

B-113



Water Quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment volume varies from 1.0 inchaverage annual TSS load and to 2.5 inches times % impervious area.assure compliance with state Dry pretreatment required for dischargewater quality standards. to sensitive waters.

Peak Discharge No adverse impacts The post-development rate can notexceed pre-development for the 25-yr,3 day storm unless downstream systemdesigned for higher rate.

Volume Rules pending - no increase The post-development volume canMaintain ground water recharge not exceed pre-development for alland downstream baseflow. storms up to 100 yr, 24 hour.

Downstream evaluation is required for natural systems with downstream channel stabilityevaluated.

Available Publications Applicant’s Handbook

Source Controls Industrial and commercial land uses must provide drypretreatment. No discharges of industrial waste or hazardousand toxic substances are allowed into a stormwater system.


Erosion control is part of the stormwater management program and implemented as part ofpost permit compliance.

Program goal/objective None listed

Exemptions and waivers Same as stormwater program

Preferred Practices None listed

Design Criteria None listed, but FDEP regulations and NPDES stormwatergeneral permit for construction activities specifies Chapter 6 ofthe Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land andWater Management.


The EPA implements the NPDES stormwater permitting program within Florida. The Dis-trict implements a surface water management program within the south central and south-eastern part of the state using state criteria with regional implementation and regionalcriteria with regional and local implementation. Many local governments also have their

B-114


own criteria.

Project Permitting No notice general permit for projects under 10 acres with lessthan two acres imperviousness, general permits for projectsunder an acreage threshold that varies, and individual permitsfor projects over theacreage threshold.

Review process Permit application includes administrative forms, erosion andstormwater plans, operation and maintenance entity require-ments, engineering calculations and drawings, standards andspecs, etc. which are reviewed and approved. General permitsare issued by staff while individual permits must be approved bythe District’s Governing Board.

A detailed checklist is used for stormwater management.

A stormwater permit is required before any land clearing begins. Local governments areencouraged to put in their Land Development Regulations a requirement that Districtstormwater permits be obtained before a building or grading permit is issued. A Districtstormwater permit is required before applying for NPDES stormwater GP for constructionactivities.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Compliance a part of post construction stormwater management.

Stormwater systems Inspections are required as determined by site engineer and per-formed by the project engineer with the District inspecting sitesduring construction at option of staff.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of up to $10,000per day. Criminal penalties are those associated with a first degree misdemeanor whichincludes a fine of up to $10,000 per day or six months in jail or both.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work ordersNotice of violation, followed by administrative andlegal procedures can lead to consent order.

As-built certifications and record drawings by the supervising construction engineer arerequired.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by supervising engineer, and some-times by a local government engineer.

B-115




Legal entities include Governmental agenciesPublic utility companiesSpecial districtsPrivate owner for commercial systemsProperty owners association

Inspection frequency None specified, as needed to assure operation

Inspected by Owner, contracted service company/engineer, localgovernment.

Oversight agency SFWMD. Local governments encouraged to establishoperating permit system.

O/M responsibilities Specified by design engineer in O/M manual, mainte-nance usually done to repair problems not prevent them.

Funding source Depends on legal entity. State law encourages localgovernments to establish stormwater utility, over 60implemented.

Enforcement mechanism Civil and criminal penalties set forth above, notice ofviolation, consent order.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are two componentsof the District’s Management and Storage of Surface Waters program which also includeswetland resources management.

Program Funding Source Amount MSSW program District advalorem tax $7,000,000 (86%)

Permit fees $1,100,000 (14%)

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed MSSW program Administrative 39

Engineer 33Scientist 25Inspector 10Clerical 15Support 10

B-116



Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures and work-shops are used to educate consultants and developers. One or two workshops are con-ducted each year with anywhere from 50 to 200 individuals attending.


Erosion/sediment control is a secondary aspect of the stormwater management programwith little emphasis unless a water quality violation occurs. The erosion/sediment/stormwa-ter managment program also is integrated with the District’s wetlands protection, floodplainmanagement, water supply, wellhead protection, wastewater management, and land acqui-sition programs.

The State’s stormwater regulatory program also is coordinated with the State’s growth andland use management program, on-site wastewater program, land acquisition program,and water body targeting and management program (SWIM). The SWIM Program, imple-mented by each of the WMDs, develops watershed management plans and programswhich include stormwater pollutant load reduction goals for existing drainage systems.The SFWMD’s SWIM program has targeted 36 water bodies including the Everglades,Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and Lake Okeechobee.

Conflicts exist with the wetland programs of the FDEP and the US ACOE which use differ-ent wetland delineation methods. The 1994 wetlands legislation requires the FDEP and thewater management districts to develop and implement one set of wetland delineationmethods.

The NPDES stormwater permitting program is not delegated to FDEP but is implementedby the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta. Communication occurs between the FDEP and theEPA but not between EPA and SFWMD.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Lack of water quality and flooding problems associatedwith permitted development. Survival of wetlands.

Research projects Everglades research program investigating effects ofagricultural runoff on environmental quality, treatmenteffectiveness of constructed wetlands. SWIM Programconstructing and evaluating urban stormwater manage-ment systems.

Monitoring District has a water quality ambient monitoring programfor certain water bodies.

B-117



The District’s management and storage of surface waters regulatory program began in1976, requiring detention for both stormwater quantity and quality objectives. In 1984,isolated wetland criteria were added in response to Henderson Wetlands Act. In 1993, inresponse to permit streamlining legislation, the state’s wetland resource managementpermits and stormwater permits were merged into a single Environmental Resource Permit.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to address flooding, water quality, streamchannel erosion, and protection of aquatic resources. Stormwater pollutant load reductiongoals (to assure that the beneficial uses of water bodies are maintained or restored) fordrainage systems serving developed areas are required by State Water Policy and arebeing established by the District’s SWIM Program. Goals already have been establishedand implemented for discharges, primarily agricultural, to Lake Okeechobee and the Ever-glades.

Watershed approaches are being used including regional stormwater systems, water bodytargeting and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs. The State’s land and water resourcemanagement programs have been coordinated into a fairly comprehensive watershedmanagement approach. Key components include the stormwater program, wetlands pro-gram, SWIM program, local government growth management/land use planning program,and state and local government land acquisition programs.

B-118



JURISDICTION: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT2379 Broad StreetBrooksville, Florida 34609-6899

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. The District’s program is integrated with and coordinated with theprograms implemented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and three ofthe state’s four other water management districts.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality and resource protection.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (Water Resources Act)2. Chaper 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Protection Act)3. Chapters 62-40, 40D-4, 40, 45, 400, Florida Administrative Code


Program Goals/Objectives To regulate and control the management and storage ofsurface waters within the District to assure environmentalresource protection of water quantity, water quality, andnatural systems.


Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture provided a site specific Conservation Planwith appropriate BMPs are implemented (Notice

Exemption).Forestry operations conducted in compliance with therequirements set forth in the “Florida Silviculture BMP

Manual”.Individual single family homes not part of a subdivision.

Preferred practices Treatment practices including retention, exfiltrationtrenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet deten-tion ponds, detention with filtration, and wetland systems.The “BMP Treatment Train” approach is encouraged.

B-119


Practices installed Practice 1992 1993Infiltration basins 698 759Exfiltration trenches 29 25Detention/filtration 246 261Wet detention 307 274Wetland detention 29 26

Design criteria are specified in the regulations, especially within the “Basis of Review”.Performance Standards and Design Criteria

Water Quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment volume varies from 0.5 to 1.5average annual TSS load and inch depending on the type of practiceassure compliance with state used, the type of receiving water, andwater quality standards. the amount of impervious surface.

Peak Discharge No adverse impacts The post-development rate can notexceed pre-development for 25 yr, 24hr storm.

Volume In closed basins only, The post-development volume can notno increase for design exceed pre-development for all stormsstorm. up to 100 yr, 24 hour.


Available Publications: Applicant’s Handbook

Source Controls Agricultural operations by achieve regulatory compliance byfollowing a pre-application review process which leads to thedevelopment and implementation of a site specific farm planwhich includes appropriate BMPs. Many of the BMPs aresource controls such as irrigation management, nutrient andpesticide management, field layout, and wetland avoidance andbuffers. Guidance is provide through the District’s TechnicalGuideline (SWP/TG-002.01), the USDA SCS Field Office Tech-nical Guide, and from several Cooperative Extension Servicepublications prepared by the Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences at the University of Florida.


Program goal/objective To protect water resources and off-site property by minimizingerosion and preventing off-site sedimentation.


Water quality standard is discharges having a turbidity < 29NTU above background.

B-120



Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture 67yd3 per acre. Other practices include mulching, sodding, stagedclearing, silt fence, gravel construction entrance, temporary andpermanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Chapter 6 of the Florida Development Manual: AGuide to Sound Land and Water Management.


The EPA implements the NPDES stormwater permitting program within Florida. The Dis-trict implements both the erosion and sediment control and the stormwater managementprogram within the south central and southwestern part of the state using state andregional criteria with regional and local implementation.

Project Permitting Notice exemption for agriculture, general permits for projects less thanone hundred acres, and Individual permits for projects over one hun-dred acres.

Review process Permit application includes administrative forms, erosion and stormwa-ter plans, operation and maintenance entity requirements, engineeringcalculations and drawings, standards and specs, etc. which are re-viewed and approved. General permits are issued by staff while indi-vidual permits must be approved by the District’s Governing Board.

A detailed checklist is used for stormwater but not erosion control.


Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Inspections by District staff are required by staff procedureand stormwater systems but not by regulation which only requires inspections as

needed by site engineer or crew. Maintenance required asneeded to maintain operation. Inspections performed byproject engineer or workers with District inspecting sites atoption of staff.

B-121



Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of up to $10,000per day. Criminal penalties are those associated with a first degree misdemeanor includingfines of up to $10,000 per day or six months in jail or both.

Other enforcement procedures Notice of violation, followed by administrative andlegal procedures can lead to consent order or stopwork. Quick enforcement is rare, unless done volun-tarily.


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by supervising engineer, sometimesby District or local government inspector.



Legal entities include Governmental agenciesPublic utility companiesSpecial districtsPrivate owner for commercial/industrial systemsProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Reports must be submitted every eighteen months forfiltration systems and every two years for retention ordetention systems

Inspected by Owner, contracted service company/engineer

Oversight agency SWFWMD. Local governments encouraged to establishoperating permit system

O/M responsiblilites Specified by design engineer in O/M manual


Enforcement mechanism Fines, notice of violation, consent order

B-122


Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are two componentsof the District’s Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) program which alsoincludes wetland resources management.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment/SW control District ad valorem tax + permit fees $5,125,775

Program Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES + SW Administrative 5

Engineer 35 0.5Scientist 16 0.5 (Soil Scientist)Inspector 22Clerical 31Information Specialist 1


Educational programs are not a component of the program. District staff do participate inforums such as the Florida Chamber Environmental Permitting Schools which includeclasses on the MSSW programs of Florida’s water management districts.

Program CoordinationThere is close coordination within the District’s integrated erosion/sediment control andstormwater management program.

The program also is integrated with the District’s wetlands protection, floodplain manage-ment, water supply, and land acquisition programs.

The state’s stormwater regulatory program also is coordinated with the State’s growth andland use management program, on-site wastewater program, land acquisition program,and water body targeting and management program (SWIM). The SWIM Program, imple-mented by each of the WMDs, develops watershed management plans and programswhich include stormwater pollutant load reduction goals for existing drainage systems.The SWFWMD’s SWIM program has targeted nine water bodies including Tampa Bay,Crystal River, and the Winter Haven Chain of Lakes.

The NPDES stormwater permitting program is not delegated to FDEP but is implementedby the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta. Communication occurs between the FDEP and theEPA but not between EPA and SWFWMD.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success District’s stormwater research group selectively monitorsand evaluates permitted stormwater practices.

B-123


Number of SWIM projects implemented

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectiveness of wet ponds, wetland detention, and agri-cultural systems.

Monitoring Water chemistry (long term monitoring seldom used inpermitting)


The District’s management and storage of surface waters regulatory program began in1984 with the delegation of FDEP’s stormwater quality permitting program. The 1984Henderson Wetlands Act led to the creation of the District’s stormwater quantity and wet-land resource management components. In 1988, stormwater quality permitting and storm-water quantity (MSSW) permitting were combined into a single regulation and permit. In1993, in response to permit streamlining legislation, the state’s wetland resource manage-ment permits and stormwater permits were merged into a single Environmental ResourcePermit.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding (local governments),water quality degradation, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic re-sources. Stormwater pollutant load reduction goals (to assure the beneficial uses of waterbodies are maintained or restored) for drainage systems serving developed areas arerequired by State Water Policy and are being established by the District’s SWIM Program.Stormwater PLRGs will be implemented through basin-specific criteria adopted by theDistrict or by inclusion in NPDES MS4 permits.

Watershed approaches are being used including regional stormwater management sys-tems, water body targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs. The State’s land andwater resource management programs have been coordinated into a fairly comprehensivewatershed management approach. Key components include the stormwater program,wetlands program, SWIM program, local government growth management/land use plan-ning program, and State and local government land acquisition programs.

B-124



JURISDICTION: SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTRt 3 Box 64Live Oak, Florida 32060

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. The District’s program is integrated with and coordinated with theprograms implemented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and threeof the State’s four other water management districts.

The impetus for the program includes flooding, water quality, stream channel erosion,resource protection, and protection of wetlands and natural systems.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (Water Resources Act)2. Chaper 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Protection Act)3. Chapters 62-40, 40B-4, Florida Administrative Code


Program Goals/Objectives To prevent adverse impact or harm to water resourcesfrom develop ment generated runoff.


Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture provided a site specific Conservation Planwith appropriate BMPs are implemented (Notice Exemp-tion)Forestry operations conducted in compliance with therequirements set forth in the “Florida Silviculture BMPManual” (Noticed Exemption)Individual single family homes that are not part of alarger plan of development.

Preferred practices Treatment practices including retention, exfiltrationtrenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet deten-tion ponds, detention with filtration, and wetland systems.The “BMP Treatment Train” approach is encouraged.Those specified in the Silviculture Manual.

Design criteria are specified in the regulations.

B-125



Water Quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment volume varies from 0.5 to 2.0average annual TSS load and inches depending upon the practiceassure compliance with state used, type of receiving water, and the

quality standards. amount of impervious surface.

Peak Discharge No adverse impacts The post-development rate can notexceed pre-development for the criticalduration storm (storm up to a 100-yr,24- hour storm that produces thegreatest change).

Volume No net decrease in The post-development volume can notflood storage exceed pre-development for all storms

up to 100-yr, 24-hour.


Available Publications:

Source Controls Industrial and commercial land uses are targeted. Nodischarges of industrial waste or hazardous and toxicsubstances are allowed into a stormwater system.Containment plans are required.


Program goal/objective To protect water resources and off-site property by minimizingerosion and preventing off-site sedimentation.


Water quality standard is discharges having a turbidity < 29NTU above background.


Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture 67yd3 per acre. Other practices include mulching, sodding, stagedclearing, silt fence, gravel construction entrance, temporary andpermanent vegetative cover.


B-126



The EPA implements the NPDES stormwater permitting program within Florida. The Dis-trict implements both the erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater manage-ment program within the north-central part of the State using State and regional criteriawith regional implementation.

Project Permitting Notice exemption for agriculture; general permits for forestry,projects less than one hundred acres; individual permits forprojects over one hundred acres.

Review process Permit application includes administrative forms, erosion andstormwater plans, operation and maintenance entity require-ments, engineering calculations and drawings, standards andspecs, etc. which are reviewed and approved. General permitsare issued by staff while individual permits must be approvedby the District’s Governing Board.

A detailed checklist (computer data base) is used for erosion/sediment control and for stormwater management.


Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Inspections required as needed to maintain proper operation as stormwater systems determined by site engineer or crew. During construction, District

staff inspect projects monthly or bimonthly depending on project.After construction, District staff may conduct inspections on aninfrequent basis while engineer must submit performance certificationevery threeyears.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of up to $10,000per day. Criminal penalties are those associated with a first degree misdemeanor includingfines of up to $10,000 per day or six months in jail or both.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work ordersNotice of violation, followed by administrative andlegal procedures can lead to consent order.

B-127



Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by supervising engineer, usually by aDistrict field representative, and sometimes by a local government engineer.




Inspection frequency Reports must be submitted every eighteen months for fil-tration systems and every three years for retention ordetention systems.

Inspected by Owner, contracted service company/engineer, Districtfield representative

Oversight agency SRWMD. Local governments encouraged to establishoperating permit system.

O/M responsiblilites Specified by design engineer in O/M manual.


Enforcement mechanism Civil and criminal penalties set forth above, notice ofviolation, consent order, corrective action and lien.

Program Resources

The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management programs are two componentsof the District’s Management and Storage of Surface Waters program which also includeswetland resources management.

B-128


Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment/SW control General appropriations $700,000FY1995 Permit fees $120,000

District ad valorem tax $110,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part Time ES + SW Administrative 1

Engineer 3Scientist 3Inspector 4Clerical 2Support 1 (80%)


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, exhibits, andmonitoring are used to educate contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, electedofficials, and the general public.


There is close coordination within the District’s integrated erosion/sediment control andstormwater management program.

The erosion/sediment/stormwater managment program also is integrated with the District’swetlands protection, floodplain management, water supply, wastewater management, andland acquisition programs.

The state’s stormwater regulatory program also is coordinated with the state’s growth andland use management program, on-site wastewater program, land acquisition program,and water body targeting and management program (SWIM). The SWIM Program, imple-mented by each of the WMDs, develops watershed management plans and programswhich include stormwater pollutant load reduction goals for existing drainage systems.The SRWMD’s SWIM program has targeted six water bodies including the SuwanneeRiver, Steinhatchee/Coastal Rivers, Santa Fe River, and Alligator Lake.

The NPDES stormwater permitting program is not delegated to FDEP but is implementedby the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta. Communication occurs between the FDEP and theEPA but not between EPA and SRWMD.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Ambient monitoring programSWIM projects implemented

B-129


Research projects

Monitoring Ambient monitoring program part of FDEP’s statewide networkwith water chemistry, sediments, and biological communitiessampled.


The District’s management and storage of surface waters regulatory program began in1984 with its agriculture and forestry programs implemented pursuant to the HendersonWetlands Act. In 1986, the District implemented a comprehensive surface water manage-ment program with stormwater quality permitting and stormwater quantity (MSSW) permit-ting combined into a single regulation and permit. In 1993, in response to permit streamlin-ing legislation, the state’s wetland resource management permits and stormwater permitswere merged into a single Environmental Resource Permit.

Retrofitting of developed areas is not actively being pursued since the District’s jurisdictionis mainly agriculture, forest, or rural residential with only a few small towns. Stormwaterpollutant load reduction goals (to assure that the beneficial uses of water bodies are main-tained or restored) for drainage systems serving developed areas are required by StateWater Policy and are being established by the District’s SWIM Program. The District’sPLRGs are preservation oriented to prevent degradation of existing environmental quality.

Watershed approaches are being used including water body targeting and emphasis onnonstructural BMPs. The State’s land and water resource management programs havebeen coordinated into a fairly comprehensive watershed management approach. Keycomponents include the stormwater program, wetlands program, SWIM program, localgovernment growth management/land use planning program, and State and local govern-ment land acquisition programs.

B-130



JURISDICTION: STATE OF DELAWAREDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental ControlDivison of Soil and Water Conservation89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401Dover, Delaware 19903

The erosion and sediment control and stormwater management program are integratedprograms. The program is implemented cooperatively by the DNREC and local agencies towhich elements of the program are delegated.

The impetus for the program includes flooding and water quality.

The program's legal authority is established in:1. Section 40, Title 7, Delaware Code (Sediment and Stormwater Act of 1990)2. (Sediment and Stormwater Regulations)


Program Goals/Objectives To provide for the control and management of runoff to reduceadverse effects on the water and lands of the State.

To prevent existing water quantity and water quality problemsfrom becoming worse and to reduce existing problems.

To implement a statewide program in cooperation with localgovernments with a strong focus on educational programs.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture (if using Farm Conservation Plan prepared by localSoil and Water Conservation District)ForestrySingle family homesProjects disturbing < 5000 ft2

Preferred Practices Wet detention ponds and constructed wetrlands are the mostpreferred followed by extended dry detention and sand filtersystems. Infiltration practices are the least preferred becauseof potential for failure.

B-131


Practices InstalledPractice 1992 1993 Practice 1992 1993Infiltration basin 2-3 2-3 Infiltration trench 10 12Swales 4-5 5-10 Sand filtration 5-10 10-20Wet detention 50-75 75-100 Wetlands 1 3Biofiltration 4 15-20

Design criteria are specified in the regulations and in the Delaware Stormwater Standardsand Specifications Manual.


Water quality Remove at least 80% of the Treat the first inch of runoff using theannual TSS loading approved BMPs

Peak discharge No increase in rate Statewide - post-development rate nogreater than pre-development for the2 year and 10 year, 24 hour storms.

Northern 20% of state - same controlbut for 100 year, 24 hour storm.

Volume No specific performance standard

Available Publications Delaware Stormwater Standards and Specifications Manual


Program goal/objective To control erosion at the source and to prevent sediment frommoving off-site.

To conduct education, training, and certification programs forthe regulated community.

Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture

BMPs Preferred Sediment traps and basins designed to hold 3600 cf per acre ofcontributing drainage area. Other practices specified in theHandbook include silt fence, straw bales, gravel constructionentrances, diversions, slope drains, and temporary and perma-nent vegetative stabilization.

Design criteria are specified in the Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook(1989).

B-132



The erosion/sediment control and stormwater management program is implemented by theDNREC and delegated local agencies (SWCDs, local governments) using state criteriaand by local agencies using state approved local criteria.

Project Permitting Noticed exemptions and individual permits are required forstormwater management while general permits and individualpermits are used for erosion/sediment control approvals. Gen-eral permit provided for utility construction which disturbs over5000 square feet and for commercial or industrial projectsdisturbing less than one-half acre. Noticed exemptions andgeneral permits provide automatic coverage of a project uponapplication. Individual permit applications receive a detailedreview.

Detailed checklists are used for both erosion/sediment controland stormwater mangement plan review.

Sediment control and stormwater management approvals are required before issuance of abuilding permit or a grading permit.

Inspections

Erosion and sediment control Required but no frequency mandated although onceevery two weeks is recommended. Inspected by state orlocal ES inspectors and, on some projects, by statecertified inspector.

Stormwater management Required but no frequency mandated. Inspected by localES and SW inspectors


Penalties are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $200 to $2,000 perday. Criminal penalties include fines of $500 to $10,000 per day.

Other enforcement mechanisms Stop work orderWithhold building permitsWithhold occupancy permits

As-built certifications are required only for infiltration practices.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by local ES and SW inspectors.

B-133


Maintenance of Stormwater Management Practices


Legal entities include Public agenciesPrivate entityProperty owner association


Inspected by Local government

Oversight agency Delaware Department of Transportation and the NewCastle County Dept. of Public Works. Final enforcementby DNREC.

O/M responsibilities Not specified, depends on type of practice.

Funding source Depends on local government, no dedicated fundingsources.

Enforcement mechanism DNREC can initiate legal actions if system notmaintained.

Program Resources

The erosion, sediment, and stormwater management programs are combined budgetentities.

Program Funding Source 1992 Annual AmountES + SW General appropriations $882,000 (63%)

Permit fees $240,489 (17%)Local sources $286,441 (20%)

Program Staffing Position Full time Part time NeededES + SW Administrative 6 1

Engineer 11 2 1Inspector 10 4 5Clerical 5 1Scientist 1Support 2


Educational programs are a component of the program with a training and certificationprogram for inspectors and contractors required by the program's statute and regulations.

B-134


In the last year, over 500 contractors attended one of six sessions while 65 inspectorsattended the only session. Brochures, slide presentations, exhibits, and demonstrationprojects are used for education.


There is close coordination within the integrated erosion, sediment and stormwater man-agement program.

The program currently is not greatly coordinated with other programs. New emphasis onbetter coordination with state wetlands and NPDES programs.

Conflicts arise with the wetlands program concerning the use of or placement of stormwa-ter facilities within wetlands and with the maintenance of wet detention ponds and wetlandsconstructed for stormwater treatment and management purposes. Conflicts arise with theNPDES program with respect to coordinating the state and NPDES stormwater permittingprograms and with conflicting requirements for general permitting.

Communication with EPA on related programs needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success By the number of individuals attending training courses andreceiving their state certification.

Research projects Evaluation of the treatment effectiveness of wet ponds, sandfilters, and constructed wetlands.

Monitoring Not a program component but state has NPS biomonitoringprogram.

Program Evolution to Watershed Management

The erosion and sediment control program was initiated in 1980. In 1990, the Sedimentand Stormwater legislation was enacted which modified the existing erosion and sedimentcontrol program and established a comprehensive statewide stormwater managementprogram. This program was implemented on July 1, 1991. Implementation is by theDNREC and by local entities (SWCDs or local governments) to which elements of theprogram have been delegated. The program statute allows designation of priority water-shed upon request by local government. The Silver Lake watershed which includes Doveris the first. Monitoring and modeling of hydrology and environmental quality is underwayfor use in development of a watershed management plan which will address retrofittingexisting land uses, treatment for new land uses, and the use of nonstructural and structuralcontrols

B-135


Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding and water qualitydegradation.

Watershed approaches are just beginning to be used including regional stormwater man-agement systems and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs

B-136



JURISDICTION: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONStormwater/Nonpoint Source Management Section2600 Blair Stone RoadTallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

The erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. Additionally, the FDEP program is integrated with and coordinatedwith the programs implemented by four of the state’s five regional water managementdistricts.

The impetus for the program is water quality and resource protection.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (Water Resources Act)2. Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Protection Act)3. Chapters 62-25, 62-312, and 62-400, Florida Administrative Code (Note: These formerly were numbered as Chapters 17-25, 17-312, etc)


Program Goals/Objectives To minimize water quality problems caused by stormwa-ter, either during construction or afterwards, by requiringproper treatment and management.


Exemptions and Waivers Agriculture provided a Conservation Plan withappropriate BMPs is implemented.

Forestry operations conducted in compliance with therequirements set forth in the “Florida SilvicultureBMP Manual”.

Single family homes that are not part of a larger plan ofdevelopment.

Preferred practices Treatment practices including retention, exfiltrationtrenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet deten-tion ponds, detention with filtration, and wetland systems.The “BMP Treatment Train” approach is encouraged.

B-137


Practices installed Practice 1993 Practice 1993Infiltration 316 Detention/filtration 158Swales 53 Wet detention 15

Design criteria are specified in Chapter 62-25, FAC, and in the Florida DevelopmentManual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (FDEP, 1988).


Water Quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment volume varies from 0.5 toaverage annual TSS load 1.5 inches depending upon the type of

practice used, type of receiving water,amount of impervious surface

Peak Discharge None - set by local govt. Typically the post-development rate cannot exceed pre-development for a 10 to25-yr, 24-hour storm .

Volume None - set by local govt. Typically the post-development volumeseldom done except in can not exceed pre-development forclosed basin a 25 to 100-yr, 24-hour storm.


Available Publications: Florida Development Manual: A Guide for Sound Land and WaterManagement (BMP Design Manual)

Florida Silviculture BMP Manual, 1993 Stormwater Management: A Guide for Floridians Model Local Government Stormwater Management Program

Source Controls The state’s stormwater/nonpoint source/watershed managementprogram encourages the use of pollution prevention and source con-trol practices. Strong emphasis on education programs for students,citizens, businesses, elected officials, and practitioners which stresshow they each contribute to and how they each need to help abate“Pointless Personal Pollution”. Many programs educate about environ-mentally friendly home landscaping (Florida Yards and Neighbor-hoods, Environmental Landscape Management, Florida AgriculturalInformation Retrieval System).


Program goal/objective To prevent off-site sedimentation, especially of water bodiesand conveyances.

Performance standard is to retain sediment on-site.Water quality standard is discharges having a turbidity < 29

NTU above background.

B-138



Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to capture 67 cyper acre of drainage area. Other practices include mulching,sodding, staged clearing, silt fence, gravel construction en-trance, temporary and permanent vegetative cover.



The EPA implements the NPDES stormwater permitting program within Florida. The FDEPimplements both the erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater manage-ment program within the northwestern part of the state (the area served by the NorthwestFlorida Water Management District) using state criteria with state implementation. In theareas of the state served by the other four water management districts (Suwannee River,St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, South Florida), the state erosion, sediment, and storm-water management program is implemented cooperatively by FDEP and the WMDs usingthe district’s regional criteria. Additionally, some local governments have adopted localcriteria which are more stringent than FDEP or WMD criteria with these implemented bythe local government program.

Project Permitting General and Individual permits are used, depending on the typeof stormwater treatment practices used. GPs allow constructionto begin within 30 days and are available for swales, retention,wet detention, detention with filtration, or a combination ofthose. IPs required for wetland systems and for innovativeBMPs.

Review process Permit application includes administrative forms, erosion andstormwater plans, operation and maintenance entity require-ments, engineering calculations and drawings, standards andspecs, etc. which are reviewed and approved by stormwaterengineer.


A stormwater permit is required before any land clearing begins. Local governments areencouraged to put in their Land Development Regulations a requirement that state (DEP orWMD) stormwater permits be obtained before a building or grading permit is issued. Astate stormwater permit is required before applying for NPDES stormwater GP for con-struction activities.

B-139


Inspections

Erosion/Sediment Controls Required as needed to assure proper operation; done bysite engineer or staff.

Stormwater systems Required as needed during construction to assureproper operation;done by site engineer or staff. FDEP inspects few sites,upon complaint


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $10,000 perday. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $50,000, or imprisonment for five years, orboth.

Other enforcement procedures Notice of violation (can lead to stop work)


Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by supervising engineer, sometimesby FDEP or local government inspector.




Inspection frequency As needed

Inspected by Owner, contracted service company/engineerLocal government

Oversight agency FDEP. Local governments encouraged to establishoperating permit system with annual inspections.

O/M responsibilities Specified by design engineer in O/M manual.

Funding source Depends on legal entity. State law encourages localgovernments to establish stormwater utility, over 60

B-140


implemented.

Enforcement mechanism Fines, notice of violation, consent order

Program Resources

The erosion, sediment, and stormwater management program are a combined budgetentity. Additionally, the budget includes portions of the wetland resource permitting pro-gram since all of these permits are combined when needed by a project.

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment/SW control General appropriations Highly variable (90%)

Permit fees

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part time Needed ES + SW Administrative 2 1 1

Engineer 12 3Inspector 3 1 8

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part time Needed

ES + SW Scientist 6 2 3Clerical 1 3Attorney 4


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Brochures, slide shows/talks, exhibits, monitoring, demonstration projects, and storm sewer stenciling are used toreach the target audience of contractors, consultants, developers, and the general public.Workshops for design engineers are conducted cooperatively with the Florida EngineeringSociety and with local ASCE chapters. The Florida Department of Transportation Environ-mental Section annually conducts several workshops on erosion/sediment control andstormwater management. A voluntary training and certification course for stormwatersystem operators has been established in association with the Florida Water and PollutionControl Operators Association and the Florida Association of Stormwater Utilities. Cur-rently, a training and certification program (modeled after the State of Delaware’s success-ful program) is being developed for erosion, sediment, and stormwater inspectors and forsupervising contractors. Implementation of the 32 hour course for inspectors and the eighthour course for contractors will begin in late 1995.


There is close coordination within the integrated erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement programs.

The program also is integrated with the Department’s wetlands protection, wellhead pro-

B-141


tection, and environmental permitting programs for wastewater, drinking water, solid waste,and hazardous waste.

The state’s stormwater regulatory program also is coordinated with the state’s growth andland use management program, on-site wastewater program, land acquisition program,and water body targeting and management program (SWIM). The SWIM Program, imple-mented by the WMDs, develops watershed management plans and programs which in-clude stormwater pollutant load reduction goals for existing drainage systems.

Conflicts arise with federal programs such as the ACOE Section 205 Flood Control Pro-gram which creates cooperative agreements with local governments to solve floodingproblems by channelizing natural streams and creeks. Conflicts also arise with some stateprograms such as the newly revised stormwater requirements in the growth managementprogram. Most recently, new requirements imposed by the solid waste program has led toproblems in disposing of materials that accumulate in stormwater systems or that arecollected by street sweepers.

The NPDES stormwater permitting program is not delegated to FDEP but is implementedby the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta. Communication with the EPA NPDES program staffis very good. The EPA staff supported and cooperated with DEP’s desire to have theNPDES stormwater permitting program implemented on a county-wide basis, rather thanon a population basis.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Improved environmental quality measured through the SurfaceWater Ambient Monitoring Program which includes a NPSbioassessment component and estuarine sediment monitoring.

Local government stormwater utilities implemented.Successful education and public involvement activities.SWIM projects implemented.

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatment effective-ness of wet ponds, extended dry detention, sand filters, catchbasin inserts, wetlands, packed-bed wetlands, regional sys-tems.Development and refinement of bioassessment methods andmetrics for rivers and lakes. Refinement of estuarine sedimentassessment methods and ecological guidelines.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, biological community


Recognition in the mid-1970s of the importance of stormwater as a leading source of

B-142


pollutant loading to Florida’s rivers, lake, and estuaries led to the implementation of Chap-ter 17-4.248, Florida Administrative Code in 1979. This rule required owners of stormwaterdischarges that were a significant source of pollution to obtain a permit and treat theirrunoff using appropriate BMPs. In February 1982, this rule was replaced by Chapter 17-25,FAC, (now Chapter 62-25) which requires owners of all new stormwater discharges toobtain a permit and treat their runoff to remove 80% of the pollutant loading using site-specific appropriate BMPs. The rule’s design criteria are updated periodically as newinformation about the treatment effectiveness of BMPs is available. Implementation of therule is delegated to four of the state’s water management districts allowing the merger ofDEP’s stormwater quality requirements with the WMD’s stormwater quantity (flood control)requirements. In 1993, in response to permit streamlining legislation, the state’s wetlandresource management permits and stormwater permits were merged into a single Environ-mental Resource Permit. As part of the development of the ERP regulations, more uniform,statewide stormwater requirements will be created leading to greater consistency and lessconfusion among the regulated public.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce flooding, water quality degrada-tion, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources. Stormwater pollut-ant load reduction goals (to assure that the beneficial uses of water bodies are maintainedor restored) for drainage systems serving developed areas are required by State WaterPolicy and are being established by the WMD’s through the SWIM Program.

Watershed approaches are being used including regional stormwater management sys-tems, water body targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs. The state’s land andwater resource management programs have been coordinated into a fairly comprehensivewatershed management approach. Key components include the stormwater program,wetlands program, SWIM program, local government growth management/land use plan-ning program, and state and local government land acquisition programs.

B-143



JURISDICTION: MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTStormwater Management Program2500 Broening HighwayBaltimore, Maryland 21224

The erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs.

The impetus for the erosion and sediment control program is sedimentation while flooding,stream channel erosion, water quality, and ground water recharge were the impetus for thestormwater program.

The legal authority is established in:1. Sediment Control

a. Environmental Article, Title 4, Subtitle 1, Annotated Code of Marylandb. Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26

2. Stormwater Managementa. Environmental Article, Title 4, Subtitle 2, Annotated Code of Marylandb. Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.09.02


Program Goals/Objectives To preserve or recreate pre-development runoff charac-teristics.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureSingle family homes with minimum lot size of 2 acresDevelopments which: · discharge directly to tidewaters · are served by existing storm drain system · cause < 10% increase in peak discharge rate for a 2- yr storm

Preferred practices In the following order: infiltration, swales, retention,detention

Practices installed Practice 1990 1991 1992* 1993*Infiltration 264 223 36 8Swales 58 93 2 0Dry detention 104 75 9 2Extended detention 112 106 47 9Shallow marshes 19 23 5 0

B-144


Oil/grit separators 197 85 3 0Other 249 206 33 1

* Funding cuts reduced data input into the Statewide BMP tracking system

Design criteria are specified in regulations.


Water Quality No specified performancestandard Manage the difference between thepre-development and post-development 2 and 10 -yr storms.

Peak Discharge No specified performance standard The post-development rate can notexceed pre-development for a 2 and10-yr storm.

Volume No specified preformance standard

Downstream evaluation is required with downstream channel stability evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Source Controls No answer


Program goal/objective To minimize environmental impacts of constructionTo protect water quality

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureActivities disturbing < 5000 ft2 or 100 yd3

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed for 1 inch ofrunoff from the disturbed area. Other practices include mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fence, gravel constructionentrance, temporary and permanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Maryland Erosion and Sediment Standards andSpecifications Manual.


The erosion and sediment control program is implemented by the Maryland Dept. of theEnvironment using state criteria (for state and federal projects). Most other projects areapproved by the local Soil and Water Conservation District which is delegated this respon-sibility and which uses state criteria but can adopt additional local criteria. Administrationof the stormwater program is similarly shared by the Maryland Dept. of the Environmentand by local governments which are delegated responsibility for the program.

B-145


Project Permitting General permits available for single family homes and routinehighway maintenance. Individual permits used primarily. Stateand federal projects permitted by Maryland Dept. Environmentwith most other projects approved by local SWCD (erosion andsediment control) and the local government (stormwater mgmt).

Review process Permit application includes administrative forms, erosion andstormwater plans, operation and maintenance entity require-ments, engineering calculations and drawings, standards andspecs, etc. which are reviewed and approved.

A detailed checklist is used for both erosion/sediment controland for stormwater management.

A sediment control permit and a stormwater permit are required before a building or grad-ing permit is issued.

Inspections

Erosion/Sediment Controls Required every two weeks and performed by state or localgovernment entity.

Stormwater systems Required as needed and performed by state or project engineer.


Penalty provisions are a program component. Civil penalties include fines of $5,000 perday. Criminal penalties include fines of $5,000 per day, one year imprisonment, or both.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work ordersWithholding occupancy permitsWithholding other permitsNotices of violationPermit and plan approval suspensionBond on propertyPlace lien on property

As-built certifications by the supervising construction engineer are required.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by local government or by supervisingengineer.



B-146


Legal entities include Public agenciesPrivate entity or ownerProperty owners association

Inspection frequency Once every three years


Oversight agency Local government

O/M responsibilities Specified by local government at inspection

Funding source Depends on legal entity, one local governmenthas established an ad valorem tax

Enforcement mechanism FinesProperty liens after O/M contracted out

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment/SW control General appropriations Highly variable (90%)

Permit feesPlan review feesNPDES construction GP fee

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part time Needed ES/SW ES +SW Administrative 6 3-4 / 3-4

Engineer 6 6-8 / 6-8Inspector 25 20 / 24Scientist 6 6-8 / 10Clerical 6 2


Educational programs are a required component of the program. State and local agenciesuse brochures, slide shows, exhibits, demonstration projects, and storm sewer stenciling toeducate the intended audience of contractors, consultants, developers, and inspectors. Ina typical year, six training programs are held which attract 400-600 contractors, 200-400developers, 20-40 consultants, and 50-100 inspectors.


There is close coordination between the erosion and sediment control program and thestormwater management program.

B-147


These programs also are coordinated with the state’s floodplain and wetlands protection,wellhead protection, wastewater management, water supply, and land acquisition pro-grams and with local programs such as land use planning, zoning, tree protection, andbuilding approval.

Conflicts arise between the wetlands and stormwater management programs at both thefederal and state levels.

Communication from federal agencies on related programs such as NPDES and NPSneeds to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Successful education and public involvement activitiesWater quality

Research projects BMP evaluation program to determine the treatmenteffectiveness of sand/peat filters, and siphons for temperaturemitigation. Third statewide survey of infiltration practices underway. Erosion and sediment control standards and specificationbeing revised.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments for NPDES MS4s


The erosion and sediment control program was created by 1970 legislation authorizinglocal governments to establish ES control programs. In 1984, the legislation was revised torefine enforcement and penalty provisions giving the state responsibility for enforcementbut allowing delegation to local governments with an approvable program. In 1984, thelegislation also broadened the program’s focus to include stormwater management, withmost implementation by local governments.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued in limited areas to reduce flooding, waterquality degradation, stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources.

Watershed approaches being used include regional stormwater management systemsimplemented by local governments, water body targeting and tributary strategies as part ofthe Chesapeake Bay Program, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs using the NPDESstormwater permitting program.

B-148



JURISDICTION: STATE OF NEW JERSEYErosion and Sediment Control Program Stormwater Management ProgramState Soil Conservation Committee NJ Dept. Environmental ProtectionCN 330 CN 423Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Trenton, New Jersey 08625

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs. The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) adminis-ters, in cooperation with local governments, the stormwater management program. TheN.J. Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee administers, in coop-eration with local soil and water conservation districts, the erosion and sediment controlprogram. An Interdepartmental Soil Conservation Agreement signed by the two agencies in1990 sets forth coordination mechanisms for the two programs.

The impetus for the erosion and sediment control program includes stream channel ero-sion, water quality, and conservation of soil and water resources.

The impetus for the stormwater management program includes flooding, stream channelerosion, water quality, ground water recharge and protection of wetlands and stream corri-dors.

The programs’ legal authority are established in:1. Sediment Control

a. Program authority - N.J.S.A. 4:24-1 et. seq. (Soil Conservation Act)b. Regulations - N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et. seq.

2. Stormwater Managementa. Program authority - N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 (Stormwater Mgmt Act)b. Regulations - N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater Mgmt Regulations)


Program Goals/Objectives To require the implementation of stormwater plans and ordinances atthe local level which will:

· reduce flood damages.· minimize increased runoff rates and pollution from new development· reduce erosion from development and maintain the integrity of stream channels.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes not part of a larger plan of development.

B-149


Developments which:· are minor subdivisions (< 2 lots)· disturb < 100 ft2

Preferred practices Extended detention is used in most cases, with wet ponds withpermanent pools used where dry weather flow is adequate. Infiltrationbasins are used where subsurface conditions are suitable. Veg-etated filter strips are used also.

Design criteria are specified in the N.J. Guide to Stormwater Management Practices.


Water Quality 80% reduction in TSS Use practices above to manage a storm ofgreater of 1.25" in 2 hours or the one year, 24hour storm with an release outflow of 90% ofthe volume within 18 hours for residentialprojects and within 36 hours for all others.

Peak Discharge Match pre-development The post-development rate and volume can notconditions, non-erosive exceed pre-development for a 2, 10, and 100-

year, 24-hour storm.

Volume Proposed - approximate Reduce post-development 2-yr peak to 50% ofpre-development hydrology pre-development, reduce post-development 10

and 100-yr peak to 75% of existing.

Downstream evaluation is required to assure there is no increase in peak velocities withdownstream channel stability evaluated to assure compliance with state erosion and sedi-ment program requirements.

Available Publications: N.J. Guide to Stormwater Management Practices (BMPManual)N.J. Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Best Management Prac-tices Manual (In publication)

Source controls Will be included in revised stormwater management regula-tions. These will include site planning and design, preservationof natural features, minimum disturbance and impervious cover,natural landscaping, fertilizer and pesticide controls, and haz-ardous waste collection.


Program goal/objective Prevention and control of soil erosion and sedimentation fromland disturbing activities.

Protect and enhance water quality.

B-150


Exemptions and waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes not part of a larger plan of developmentActivities disturbing < 5000 ft2

Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed for 1 inch ofrunoff from the disturbed area. Other practices include mulch-ing, sodding, staged clearing, silt fence, gravel constructionentrance, temporary and permanent vegetative cover.

Design Criteria Specified in Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control inNew Jersey.


The erosion and sediment control program is implemented by the State Soil ConservationCommittee and by local governments (31 approved programs) and local Soil and WaterConservation Districts using state criteria. Administration of the stormwater program in-volves all levels of government. The N.J. DEP issues state stormwater permits and NPDESstormwater permits using federal and state criteria. Local governments can receive stategrants (when funds are appropriated) to develop stormwater master plans and implementstormwater ordinances and programs. These local programs use state and local criteria.

Project Permitting Erosion and sediment control plans are certified “in compli-ance”. Stormwater program uses noticed exemptions, generalpermits, individual permits, and approvals associated with otherpermits including NJPDES stormwater permits, stream en-croachment, wetlands, or coastal permits. Regional stormwaterentities must approve in special areas.

Review process Application for soil erosion and sediment control plan certifica-tion includes ES and SW plans, specifications, sequencing ofactivities, stability analysis of channels and structures, O/Mplans.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control and, insome locales, for stormwater management.

Certification of the erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater permit are requiredbefore a building or grading permit is issued.

Inspections

Erosion/Sediment Controls As needed or determined by SWCD; performed by SWCD

B-151


Stormwater systems As needed, structures emphasized; performed by SWCD or projectengineer.


Penalty provisions are a component of both programs. The erosion and sediment controlprogram has civil penalties with fines of up to $3000 per day with each day considered aseparate violation. The stormwater program includes civil penalties and criminal penaltieswith fines of up to $250,000 per day or up to $1,000,000 per day if polluting without apermit and causing damage to the public.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orders (both programs)Withholding occupancy permits (ES program)Withholding other permits (SW program)

As-built certifications are required by some local programs and by the state if a stormwatersystem includes a dam which is five feet or higher.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed in some locales by the local SWCDand by the state if the system includes a dam taller than five feet.




Inspection frequency None - varies with local government

Inspected by State or local government

Oversight agency Permitting agency, local government

O/M responsibilities Specified by local government ordinances

Funding source Depends on legal entity

Enforcement mechanism Property liens after O/M contracted out orperformed by local government.

B-152


Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion and sediment control General appropriations Varies (0% now)

Certification fees $2-3 million (100%)

Stormwater management General appropriationsPermit fees, FinesBond Act $1 million

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part time NeededES Control Administrative 21 1 2

Engineer 2 2Inspector 42 3Support 3Clerical 26 3

SW Management Administrative 1(For MS4 Program) Engineer 1 2

Scientist 1 1 2Clerical 1Support 2


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the erosion and sediment controlprogram and a required component of the stormwater program. The erosion/sedimentcontrol program uses brochures, newsletters, exhibits, demonstration projects, and profes-sional short courses to educate the intended audience of contractors, consultants, devel-opers, inspectors, general public, students, and elected officials. In a typical year, threetraining programs are held which attract 100 developers and 150 consultants, with a singleprogram for 88 inspectors, and four programs for 200-350 workers in cooperating agen-cies. The stormwater program’s educational efforts are less formal, relying upon bro-chures, exhibits, and demonstration grants and projects.


There is close coordination between the erosion /sediment control program and the storm-water management program, with a formal interagency agreement.

The erosion/sediment control program is coordinated with the local floodplain managementand building permit programs. Coordination between the stormwater program and otherlocal programs varies depending upon the locale.

Conflicts arise between the erosion/sediment control program and the state wetlandsprotection program and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act program, both of which

B-153


have technical criteria which conflict with ES standards and specifications. The stormwaterprogram also notes conflicts with goals and regulations of other state environmental pro-grams.

The stormwater program staff believe that communication from federal agencies on relatedprograms such as NPDES and NPS needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success None listed for either program.

Research projects Bioengineering for streambank stabilization.Effectiveness of filter strips, use of wildflowers in detention

pond.Runoff quantity and quality at various land uses.Whippany River Watershed Mgmt Plan developing TMDLsfor point sources and BMPs for nonpoint sources.

Monitoring Water chemistry, sediments, flow rates


The erosion and sediment control program was created by 1976 legislation authorizingSWCD’s to establish ES control programs if municipalities did not require developers toprepare ES control plans. In 1981, the Stormwater Management Act was enacted withstate regulations adopted in 1983. The Act regulates management of stormwater from newdevelopments; requires, if state funding is available for grants, local governments to pre-pare stormwater master plans and to implement stormwater ordinances; and, authorizeswatershed level planning.


Watershed approaches and plans are promoted by the Stormwater Management Act withregional stormwater management systems, water body targeting, and nonstructural BMPsencouraged.

B-154



JURISDICTION: STATE OF PENNSYLVANIAErosion and Sediment Control Program Stormwater Management ProgramDept. of Environmental Resources Dept. of Environmental ResourcesBureau Land & Water Conservation Bureau Land & Water Conservation400 Market Street 400 Market StreetHarrisburg, Pa. 17105-8555 Harrisburg, Pa. 17105-8555

The erosion /sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs. Both are directed at the state level by the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (PDER). However, program implementation rests primarily withlocal governments, with the stormwater program being a component of county watershedplanning.

The impetus for the erosion/sediment control program is water quality, along with therecent NPDES stormwater permitting requirements for construction activities.

The impetus for the stormwater management program is flooding, specifically that associ-ated with Hurricane Agnes in 1972.

The programs’ legal authority are established in:1. Erosion and Sediment Control

a. Program authority - Pa. Stream Cleans Law, 35PS691-1 et. seq.b. Regulations - Pa. Erosion Control Code, Title 25, Chap. 102.1 et. seq.

2. Stormwater Managementa. Program authority - Stormwater Management Act, PS864, No. 167 and,

32PS ss680.1 et seq.b. Regulations - Stormwater Management Grants and Reimbursement - Title 25,

and Chapter 111.


Program Goals/Objectives Encourage stormwater planning on a watershed basisMaintaining existing flow conditionsEncourage local administration and managementEncourage implementation of stormwater treatment

BMPs for new development.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestryDevelopments which have a specified amount of impervi

ous area, depending on the watershed.

B-155



Performance standards and design criteria for recommended practices are specified inlocal watershed plans.


Water Quality No specified performance standard Some municipalities require practices

Peak Discharge Performance standard set in local Level of control (design storm and rate)watershed plan. established by local government in its

watershed plan.

Volume No specified performance standard May be set by watershed plan.

Downstream evaluation may be required by local government.

Available Publications:

Source controls Are encouraged for agricultural activities. Farms are encour-aged to get conservation plans that include tillage practices,animal waste management, and nutrient management. Guid-ance is available through the NPS program, Cheasapeake BayProgram, or local Soil Conservation Districts (SCD).


Program goal/objective To minimize erosion and sediment pollution to waters of theCommonwealth from all earth moving activities.

Requires development, implementation, and maintenance of anadequate erosion and sediment control plan.

Exemptions and waivers Timber harvesting operations disturbing < 25 acres and agricul-tural plowing and tilling pursuant to a conservation plan areexempt from earth disturbance permits.Activities disturbing < 5 acres are exempt from NPDES permits.

Preferred Practices Sediment basins are designed for 7000 cfs/acre while sedimenttraps are designed for 2000 cf/acre with a maximum drainagearea of 5 acres. Other practices include silt fence, temporaryand permanent vegetative cover, diversions, rock filters, riprap,and inlet protection.

Design criteria Discharge rate for temporary basins of 1.6 cfs/acre for the 2-yrstorm and a 25-yr storm rate of 2.75 cfs/acre for permanent

B-156


ones.


The erosion/sediment control program is implemented by the State DER and by 66 CountyConservation Districts using federal, state, and local criteria. Administration of the storm-water program involves local governments which implement local and, at times, watershedcriteria.

Project Permitting Erosion/sediment control plan authorization includes NPDESgeneral ermits for projects of 5 to 25 acres, and individualpermits for projects greater than 25 acres or for projects with ahigh potential for violating water quality standards, dischargingtoxics, or discharging into a high quality or exceptional valuewater body watershed. Stormwater plans are not required orpermitted .

Review process CCD reviews application which includes ES control plan, speci-fications, O/M plans, for completeness (GP) and technicalcompliance (IP). Stormwater requirements and review processvary with the local government, usually part of site plan review.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control plan review.

Erosion/sediment control plan approval is required before a building or grading permit isissued for projects disturbing over 5 acres. Stormwater requirements depend on localgovernment and stormwater plan.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls IPs have monthly inspections, GP inspections vary; performedby Conservation District.

Stormwater systems Requirements set by local government or stormwater plan.


Penalty provisions are a component of both programs. The erosion/sediment control pro-gram has civil penalties with fines of up to $10,000 per day with each day considered aseparate violation. Criminal penalties include fines of $100 to $10,000 per day or 90 daysin jail. The stormwater program allows the State DER, which oversees municipalities andcounties developing and implementing watershed plans, to file suit forcing a local govern-ment to comply and can recommend withholding state funding for violators.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orders Erosion/sediment program Withholding other permits

B-157


Withholding building permits

As-built certifications are may be required by local programs.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed in some locales by the local govern-ment.




Inspection frequency None - varies with local government


Oversight agency Municipalities

O/M responsiblilites Specified by local government, typically includemowing, sediment and trash removal,structural repairs


Enforcement mechanism Varies with local government, may include requiring long term bonds.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/sediment control General appropriations $4.5 million from counties

$1.5 million from DERPermit fees $204,000Plan review fees $550,000

Stormwater Management General appropriations $595,000

B-158


Progam Staffing Position Full Time Part time NeededES Control Administrative 1 1Average per CCD Clerical 1 166 CCDs in state ES Technician 1 1

District Manager 1

SW Management Administrative 1 1Engineer 3 4Clerical 1


Educational programs are a voluntary component of both programs. The erosion/sedimentcontrol program uses brochures, slide shows, exhibits, demonstration projects, and moni-toring to educate the intended audiences of contractors, consultants, developers, inspec-tors, general public, and elected officials. In 1993, 27 training programs were jointly heldattracting 700 contractors, 600 developers, and 630 consultants. Additionally, 20 programsattracted 450 loggers, while two sessions were attended by 100 PennDOT employess, anda single program was held for 25 game commission staffers. The stormwater programconducts public meetings in each watershed during watershed planning process.


The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program are notwell coordinated.

The erosion/sediment control program is coordinated with the local wetlands protection,wastewater management, water supply, and building permit programs. Coordination oc-curs between the stormwater program and other Departmental permitting programs and theDOT, along with the wetlands/floodplain management and wellhead protection programs.

Conflicts arise between the stormwater program and the wetland protection program whichlimits the use of land and discharge locations.

Communication from federal agencies on related programs such as NPDES and NPS isgood.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success ES Control Program - CCD evaluation of compliance.SW Management Program -· 90% of municipalities in studied watersheds have implementedstormwater management ordinances.· 40 watershed plans encompassing 29 counties, 421 munici-palities have been developed.

B-159


Research underway Developed model for structural controls (PSRM-QUAL)Assessment of nutrient loadings in urban areasEvaluation of BMPs in urbanized watershed (Paxton Creek)

Monitoring Water chemistry, flow rates, biology


The erosion/sediment control program was created in the early 1980’s as an earth distur-bance permit program, which, in October 1992, was replaced by the current NPDES con-struction permit. The stormwater management program arose in response to flooding fromHurricane Agnes in 1972. In the mid-1980s, watershed level planning was encouraged with56 plans current out of 356 watersheds.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being encouraged to correct flooding, water qualitydegradation, stream channel erosion, and protection of aquatic resources. Funding isprovided through the “PENNVEST” program which provides loans to local governments forconstructing infrastructure.

Watershed approaches are not being used but are being considered.

B-160



Jurisdiction: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINAStormwater ManagementSouth Carolina Dept. of Health & Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, South Carolina 29201

The erosion and sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs.

The impetus for the program is flooding and water quality protection.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Title 48 Chapter 14 (Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act of

1991)2. Chapter 72-300 (Standards for Stormwater Management and Sediment Re

duction)


Program Goals/Objectives To reduce flooding and water quality problems caused bystormwater and sediment by establishing minimum standards for a uniform statewide program.

To encourage implementation of the program at the locallevel.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestrySingle family homes not part of a larger plan of develop-ment.Utilities operation activities conducted under a certificateof environmental compatibility issued by the PublicService Commission.

Preferred practices Regulations discuss treatment practices including wetdetention, dry detention, and infiltration.

Design guidelines are given in the regulations and in:A Guide to Site Development and Best Management Practices For Stormwater

Management and Sediment Control (May 1992).S.C. Storrmwater Management and Sediment Control Hand Book for Land Disturb

ing Activities (January 1994)

B-161


Practices installed Swales 400 Wet detention 100 Oct 1992 - June 1994 Infiltration basins 325 Dry detention 150

Infiltration trench 4 Extended dry det 25Wetlands 3 Peak detention 175


Water Quality Remove at least 80% of the Treatment volume varies from 0.5 halfaverage annual TSS load. (wet ponds) to 1 inch (dry detention,

retention) with drawdown within 24 hrs.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate. Post-development rate can not exceedpre-development for a 2-yr & 25-yr, 24-hr storm; must pass 100-yr, 24 hour.

Volume None

Downstream evaluation is required with maximum downstream channel velocity specifiedto assure stability.

Available Publications: A Guide to Site Development and Best Management PracticesFor Stormwater Management and Sediment Control(May 1992)

S.C. Storrmwater Management and Sediment Control HandBook for Land Disturbing Activities (January 1994)

Source Controls Covering loading docks or other places where sources arehandled, street sweeping parking areas, dry cleaning of trashhandling areas, and sequencing of construction are encouragedat truck stops, industrial or large commercial projects, multifam-ily residential projects


Program goal/objective To prevent erosion and then trap sediments.Performance standard is 80% removal efficiency or 0.5 ml/Lsettable solids concentration at peak of 10-year, 24-hour designstorm, whichever is less.


Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps are designed to achieve aboveperformance standardfor 10-yr, 24-hr storm. Other practicesused include mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fence,

B-162


gravel construction entrance, temporary and permanent vegeta-tive cover.

Design Criteria Specified in A Guide to Site Development and Best Management Practices For Stormwater Management and Sediment Control (May1992).

S.C. Storrmwater Management and Sediment Control HandBook for Land Disturbing Activities (January 1994).


The NPDES and State stormwater management and sediment reduction permitting pro-grams are implemented by the South Carolina Department of Health and EnvironmentalControl. The State erosion, sediment, and stormwater management program uses Statecriteria which can be implemented by local governments to which the program is del-egated.

Project Permitting Individual permits are used. They incorporate erosion, sedi-ment, and stormwater control requirements.

Review process Activities disturbing two acres or less which are not part of alarger plan of development submit simplified stormwater man-agement and sediment control plan, not reviewed or approved.Submissions for projects over two acres include a completestormwater management and sediment control plan with plansfor activities disturbing two to five acres reviewed within tendays and within 20 days for projects over five acres.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control andstormwater management.

Erosion/sediment control and stormwater management approval is required before issu-ance of a building or grading permit, or before issuance of a SCDOT encroachment permit.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls Required weekly or after each half-inch rain,done by permittee.Permitting agency inspects periodically. Repairs or maintenancerequired as needed.

Stormwater systems Same as erosion controls with inspections performed by the permit-ting agency.


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include civil penalties with fines of

B-163


$1000 per day.

Other enforcement procedures Stop work orderWithholding occupancy permitsWithholding other permit applications

As-built certifications by an engineer are required.

Final inspection of stormwater systems is performed by permitting agency inspector uponreceipt of as-built certification.



Legal entities include Governmental agencies for residentialPrivate owner for commercial/industrial systems


Inspected by Permitting agency inspector

Oversight agency Permitting agency

O/M responsibilities Specified by design engineer in O/M manual

Funding source Depends on legal entityState law encourages local governments to estab-lish stormwater utility

Enforcement mechanism Fines of up to $1,000 per day

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountErosion/Sediment/SW control General appropriations $400,000 (80%)

Permit fees $100,000 (20%)

NOTE: Permit fee is $50/acre with a maximum of $1000 with federal, state, and localgovernment projects free. Cost to run state program is $80/acre but permit fees onlybring in $10/acre.

B-164


Staffing Position Full Time Needed ES +SW Administrative 1 1

Engineer 7 3Inspector 18 10Scientist 1 2Clerical 2 2


Educational programs are a voluntary component of the program. Approximately six pro-gram a year are given with two programs each given for contractors, developers, andconsultants. Each program typically attracts about 25 persons.


There is close coordination within the integrated erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The program is closely coordination with State wetlands protection and floodplain manage-ment programs.

Conflicts arise with the impoundment policy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Communication from federal agencies on related federal programs needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success Meeting permit time deadlines set by State lawMonthly inspections

Research projects Developed charts, nomographs and simplified calculation meth-ods to size structural and nonstructural controls to achievedesired 80% sediment removal level. Developing model toroute sediment through storm sewers.

Monitoring None


Efforts began in 1983 to enact a statewide stormwater law with the first success being theState Lands Act of 1984 which required regulation of state lands. South Carolina’s Storm-water Management and Sediment Reduction Act was enacted in May 1991 with the regula-tions adopted on June 26, 1992. Like Delaware’s law, which it is patterned after, SouthCarolina’s law allows for the selection of “designated watersheds” in which watershedmanagement plans are to be prepared and implemented.

B-165


Retrofitting of developed areas is not being pursued. However, SCDOT is cooperating toretrofit problem areas when road systems are upgraded.


B-166



Jurisdiction: STATE OF VIRGINIAErosion and Sediment Control Program Stormwater Management ProgramDept. of Conservation & Recreation Dept. of Conservation & Recreation203 Governor Street, Suite 206 203 Governor Street, Suite 206Richmond, Virginia 23219 Richmond, Virginia 23219

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areseparate programs. Both are directed at the state level by the Virginia Department ofConservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. However, programimplementation rests primarily with local governments.

The impetus for the erosion/sediment control program includes water quality and streamchannel erosion.

The impetus for the stormwater management program includes flooding, stream channelerosion, ground water recharge, water quality, and to protect the physical, chemical, andbiological characteristics of streams.

The programs’ legal authority are established in:1. Sediment Control

a. Program authority - Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4, Code of VirginiaErosion and Sediment Control Act

b. Regulations - Virginia Regulations 625-02-00, Erosion and Sediment Control

2. Stormwater Managementa. Program authority - Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1, Code of Virginia

Stormwater Management Actb. Regulations - Virginia Regulations 215-02-00, Stormwater Management


Program Goals/Objectives Manage the quality and quantity of stormwater resultingfrom land conversion and development to protect waterquality, living resources, and property.

Exemptions and Waivers Single family homes not part of a larger plan of develop-mentAgricultureForestryProjects disturbing less than one acreMining and oil/gas operations permitted under Title 45.1

B-167


Preferred practices None, but regulations list design criteria for detention,retention, and infiltration.

Design criteria are specified in the regulations.


Water Quality None at present. Draft Treatment volume is 0.5 “ runoff from projectones proposed. area. Detention basins release over 30 hours,

infiltration systems must percolate within 48hours, retention basins must have a permanentpool at least three times the treatment volume.

Peak Discharge No increase in rate Post-development peak rate can’t exceed pre-development rate for 2-year and 10-year storm.Duration is a 24-hour storm (SCS method) orthe critical storm (Rational method).

Volume No performance standard

Downstream evaluation is not required but the discharge must not cause instability of thedownstream channel.

Available Publications: Stormwater Management Handbook in preparation, availableJanuary 1996.

Source controls Encouraged in the regulations as an alternative to structuralcontrols. Clustering land development, minimizing impervioussurfaces and curbing, open space acquisition, floodplain man-agement, and protection of wetlands, steep slopes, and vegeta-tion are promoted.


Program goal/objective To control soil erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater fromland disturbing activities to prevent unreasonable degradationof State waters, properties, stream channels and other naturalresources.

To establish minimum statewide requirements and provide fordelegation of the program to local governments.

Exemptions and waivers AgricultureForestryActivities disturbing < 10,000 ft2

Mining or oil/gas exploration activities

B-168


Preferred Practices Sediment basins are designed for 134 yd3/acre. Other practicesinclude sediment traps, silt fence, temporary and permanentvegetative cover, diversions, daily street cleaning

Design Criteria Specified in Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook(1992)and Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual (1995).


The erosion/sediment control program is implemented by the State Dept. of Conservationand Recreation and by local governments or local soil and water conservation districtsusing minimum state criteria. The stormwater program is implemented by the State Dept.of Conservation and Recreation which permits state projects and by local governmentswhich have established approved local programs.

Project Permitting Individual permits are used by both the erosion/sediment con-trol and the stormwater management programs.

Review process Application is thoroughly reviewed for completeness and accu-racy.Information includes ES control plan, specifications, O/M plans;SW management plan, specifications, calculations, hydrology,O/M plans, etc.

A detailed checklist is used for erosion/sediment control planreview. A checklist is under development for the stormwaterprogram.

Erosion/sediment control plan approval and stormwater plan approval is required before abuilding or grading permit is issued.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls At least once every two weeks, within 48 hours of a runoff producingstorm event, at end of project prior to release of performance bond.Performed by certified inspector or by permitting agency.

Stormwater systems Periodic but no set schedule. Performed by local government orstate permitting agency.


Penalty provisions are a component of both programs. The erosion/sediment control pro-gram has civil penalties with fines of $100 to $3000 per day and fines of $1000 to $10,000per day for unpermitted sites, with each day considered a separate violation. Also can useadministrative fines which can not exceed $2,000 per violation. Criminal penalties include

B-169


a Class I misdemeanor with fines of $2,500 per day or 30 days in jail. The stormwaterprogram has civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation. Criminal penalties include a ClassI misdemeanor with fines of $1,000 per day or 30 days in jail or both.

Other enforcement procedures Erosion/sediment program Stop work orders

Revoke permitWithholding other permitsWithholding building permitsIssue “notice to comply”

Stormwater program Revoke permit


Final inspection of stormwater systems are not performed.




Inspection frequency Twice a year


Oversight agency Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

O/M responsibilities Depends on type of system.


Enforcement mechanism Varies with local government, may include performing work and recovering costs from systemowner.

Program Resources

Program Funding Source Amount Erosion/sediment control General appropriations $760,000

Permit fees*

* Local government may charge administrative fees commensurate with services provided

B-170


Stormwater management General appropriations $236,000

Program Staffing Position Full Time NeededES Control Administrative 1 1

EngineerScientist 11 33Trainer 2Clerical 1 1

SW Management Engineer 5 4


Educational programs are a mandated component of the erosion and sediment controlprogram and a voluntary component of the stormwater program. The erosion/sedimentcontrol program uses brochures, slide shows, demonstration projects, and monitoring toeducate the intended audience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, andlocal program staff. State training and certification programs are held for erosion andsediment control program inspectors, plan reviewers, and administrators. In 1993, sixtraining programs were jointly held for contractors, developers, and consultants with anaverage of ten individuals per session; eight training programs were attended by 320inspectors; six programs attracted over 200 citizens; and four sessions attracted 160 otherpersons, many being local program staff.


There is close coordination between the erosion/sediment control program and the storm-water management program.

The erosion/sediment control program is coordinated with local land use planning, zoning,building permit, and water supply programs. Coordination occurs between the stormwaterprogram and the land use planning and wetlands/floodplain management programs.

Conflicts arise between specific design or permitting requirements of the state erosion andsediment control program and the Virginia PDES general permit for construction activities.The state stormwater program and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act conflict becausethe former program is technology based and the latter program’s stormwater requirementsare performance based. To resolve these conflicts, both agencies and a legislative commit-tee are working on the development of consistent stormwater management criteria whichwill work for both agency's programs, as well as the Department of Environmental Quality'sVPDES program.

Communication from federal agencies on related programs such as NPDES and NPSneeds to be improved.

B-171


Program Evaluation

Measures of success ES Control Program - State reviews and rates implemen-tation of local programs to assure compliance with mini-mum state requirements.

SW Management Program - Adoption of local programs that meet minimum Staterequirements, implementation of BMPs.

Research underway Demonstration projects evaluating effectiveness of newlydesigned sediment basin, detention structures, infiltrationpractices. O/M manual being prepared.

Monitoring No response


The erosion and sediment control program was created in 1973 with adoption of the Ero-sion and Sediment Control Law. The first edition of the Virginia Erosion and SedimentControl Handbook was published in 1974 with a second edition published in 1980. By1977, local ES programs had been established in 172 localities. In 1988, law revised toimprove compliance and enforcement including establishment of 20 positions at the Statelevel. In 1990, the revised regulations were adopted with the third edition of the Handbookpublished in 1992. Changes to the law in 1993 created the mandatory certification programand again enhanced enforcement. The ES Regulations were revised in 1994.

The stormwater management program began with passage of the Stormwater ManagementAct in 1989 with the first regulations adopted in 1990. In 1993 the General Assembly es-tablished a subcommittee to study the efficiency and consistency of the program’s regula-tions leading to a revision of the Act in 1994 which exempted certain linear developments.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued as part of watershed planning to correctflooding, water quality degradation, and stream channel erosion.

The Stormwater Management Act encourages watershed planning and the use of regionalsystems, waterbody targeting, and nonstructural controls.

B-172



JURISDICTION: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYP.O. Box 47600Oympia, Washington 98504-7600

The erosion/sediment control program and the stormwater management program areintegrated programs. Additionally, the Department has a separate program for sedimentcontamination and sediment quality standards issues.

The impetus for the program includes stream channel erosion, water quality, fisheries andshellfish resource protection, and requirements imposed by federal and state legislation.

The program’s legal authority is established in:1. Federal Clean Water Act (NPDES Stormwater Regulations)2. Chapters 90.70 (Puget Sound Water Quality Authoity) and 90.48 (Water

Pollution Control)3. Chapter 173-201A, Washington Administrative Code (Surface Water Quality

Standards)4. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan


Program Goals/Objectives To protect shellfish beds, fish habitat, and other re-sources.

To prevent the contamination of sediments from urbanrunoff and combined sewer overflows.

To achieve standards for water and sediment quality byreducing and eliminating harm from pollutant dischargesfree from stormwater and CSOs throughout PugetSound.

Exemptions and Waivers AgricultureForestry operations, except forest conversionsActivities disturbing < 1 acre or single family homes only

must comply with erosion and sediment controlsrequirements.

Preferred practices Infiltration practices are preferred where site conditionsallow. Other practices used include pervious and modu-lar pavement, grass swales, vegetated filter strips, ex-tended dry detention, wet detention ponds, constructed

B-173


wetlands, and sand filters.

Design criteria are specified in Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget SoundBasin (1992).


Water Quality No specific performance Treatment volume is the runoff from thestandard 6-mo, 24-hr storm which must be

treatedusing BMPs appropriate for site.

Peak Discharge No specific performance Post-development rate can not exceedstandard. Goal is to minimize 50% of pre-development for a 2-yr, 24-streambank erosion. hrstorm nor pre-development for a 10

and 100-yr, 24-hour storm .

Volume No specific performance Infiltration of runoff from a 2-yr, 24-hrstandard. Goal is to recharge storm is encouraged when conditionsaquifer, maintain baseflows. allow its use.

Downstream evaluation is required with downstream channel stability evaluated. Streamchannel erosion BMPs must be designed with a correction factor which ranges from 20 to50% of the design volume depending on the amount of impervious surface.

Available Publications: Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin(1992).

Source Controls Manual includes recommended source controls for specific landuses including nearly 20 types of businesses, transportationand communication activities, wholesale and retail businesses,service businesses, and public lands. Guidance is provided forsource control BMPs including fueling stations, vehicle wash-ing, materials handling, storage tanks, and vegetative manage-ment.


Program goal/objective To prevent erosion and minimize sediment transport by disturb-ing as little of the site as possible and stabilizing it as quickly aspossible.

No specific performance standard.


Preferred Practices Sediment basins and traps which are designed to detain andtreat the 10-yr, 24-hr developed condition design storm. Other

B-174


practices include seasonal disturbed area limits, staged clear-ing, silt fence, gravel construction entrance, mulching, sodding,temporary and permanent vegetative cover, slope drains, etc.

Design Criteria Specified in Stormwater Management Manual for the PugetSound Basin.


The Washington Department of Ecology implements the NPDES stormwater permittingprogram within the State. The erosion/sediment control program is implemented by theWDOE using State criteria. The stormwater management program is implemented usingState criteria with implementation by WDOE and local governments, some of which haveadditional local criteria.

Project Permitting At the state level, only Washington NPDES stormwater permitsare issued with general permits for construction activities dis-turbing over 5 acres and for industrial stormwater dischargers.

Review process N/AA detailed checklist is not used.

Industrial stormwater GP requires applicant to go through procedures required in the StateEnvironmental Policy Act.

Inspections

Erosion/sediment controls NPDES Stormwater GP for construction activities requires inspec-tions at least once every seven days and within 24 hours after anystorm of greater than 0.5 inches of rain. Inspections done by siteengineer or workers with maintenance performed as needed toassure proper performance.

Stormwater systems No requirements at state level. Local governments may establish.


Penalty provisions are a program component. They include public rebuke for not complyingwith the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and civil penalties with fines of$10,000 per day or up to one year in jail or both.

Other enforcement procedures None

As-built certifications and record drawings are not required by state program.

Final inspection of stormwater systems may be required by local governments.

B-175





Inspection frequency As needed

Inspected by Varies with local government, DOT for their sys-tem.

Oversight agency Each local government. WDOE oversees andenforces if water quality standards violated, alsohas oversight of DOT within the Puget Soundbasin.

O/M responsibilities Specified by design engineer in O/M manual

Funding source Varies with local government.

Enforcement mechanism Generally, local governments use enforcementavailable through local ordinances

Program Resources

Program Funding Source AmountNPDES SW General appropriations Highly variable

NPDES Permit fees

Program Staffing Position Full Time Part time NeededNPDES SW Administrative 1 2 ?

Engineer 4 ?Scientist 3 2 ?Planner 1 ?Inspector 1 ?Clerical 1? Question Marks denote lack of response


Educational programs are a required component of the program. Brochures, slide shows/talks, exhibits, newsletters, demonstration projects, and storm sewer stenciling are used to

B-176


reach the target audience of contractors, consultants, developers, inspectors, and thegeneral public. The number of workshops varies each year with over 200 persons attend-ing the three given this past year.


There is close coordination within the integrated erosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagement program.

The program also is coordinated with the Department’s wetlands protection and floodplainmanagement programs and with local land use management and building approval pro-grams.

Conflicts arise over funding among the various State programs.

Communication with the EPA on NPDES needs to be improved.

Program Evaluation

Measures of success The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is revisitedevery two years with details on progress, or lack of progress, inimplementing the Plan's tasks and meeting it's schedules.

Research projects The Department's Centennial Clean Water Fund is paying fornumerous BMP projects implemented by local governments.The DOE funded a study of wastes picked up by vactors fromdifferent types of land uses.

Monitoring None in stormwater program.


The stormwater program at the WDOE began in 1988 with a focus on meeting the goals ofthe Puget Sound Management program. Requirements imposed by the Federal CleanWater Act led to the establishment of the WDOE NPDES stormwater regulations in 1992.Planning on expanding the state stormwater program throughout the state where it will beadvisory except as required under NPDES.

Retrofitting of developed areas is being pursued to reduce water quality degradation,stream channel erosion, and to restore/protect aquatic resources. The Puget Sound Planrequires retrofitting within that basin.

Watershed approaches are just beginning to be used including regional stormwater man-agement systems, water body targeting, and emphasis on nonstructural BMPs.

Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management: A...

Documents

Transcript of Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management: A...