R. Pitt

Copyright August 2005

 

Module 1: Stormwater Regulations

Excerpted from Chapter 15, Stormwater Quality Management, R. Pitt, forthcoming book

 

 

 

Introduction

Public Education

Water Use Regulations

Water Quality Regulations

Early Court Cases Concerned with the Effects of Urban Runoff

Jurisdiction Over Urban Runoff Problems

EPA Stormwater Regulations

Phase 2 Permit Requirements

Summary of the Total Maximum Daily Load (Tmdl) Program

General Information for the TMDL Program

Selected Southeastern State Programs

Summary of Stormwater Regulations

Construction Site Runoff Problems

Site Specific Factors Affecting Construction Site Erosion in Birmingham Area

Alabama Rainfall Energy

Factors Affecting Controllability of Construction Site Runoff

Actual Field Performance of Most Construction Site Erosion Controls has been Disappointedly Low

Prevention is the Best and Typically Least Expensive Solution

Local and State Controls of Urban Runoff

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Example Construction Site Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Requirements

Rationale and Purpose

Standards and Specifications for Construction Site Erosion Control

Purpose of Erosion Control Requirements

Site Erosion Control Requirements

Summary of Erosion Control Requirements

Standards and Specifications for Stormwater Runoff Control

Purpose of Stormwater Control Requirements

General Runoff Volume Criteria

Purpose and Benefits of Specific Runoff Control Requirements

Discharge Quality Requirements for Stormwater

Selection of Stormwater Controls

Special Considerations for the Control of Stormwater Toxicants

Need for Adequate Design and Inspection

Requirements for an Example Watershed Protection Ordinance

Potential Applicability of Example Stormwater Runoff Quality Requirements for Different Land Uses

Summary of Regulations and Public Education as Stormwater Control Benefits

Module 1 References

 

 

 

Introduction

Significant elements of a successful stormwater management program involve regulations and associated public education. Without the support of the community, especially their financial support, stormwater management in an area is destined to failure. This module briefly describes some of the emerging public education activities that have been shown to be successful. It also describes the history of stormwater regulations in the U.S., including local and state regulations. It also includes a description of an example local watershed protection ordinance. The costs of stormwater management are summarized, along with a popular local funding mechanism, stormwater utility districts.

 

For any regulations to work there will need to be an existing framework within which to place the regulations (e.g., local ordinances, zoning, planning regulations, etc.) together with dedicated resources to enforce them. Without the institutional systems to set them up and enforce them, they will not be effective. Regulations can be an important pollution prevention practice, with particular application to new developments. This should ensure that the pollution is prevented or controlled at the source, and any implementation and maintenance costs are included as part of the costs of development. Some typical regulations include:

 

· Land use regulations

- zoning ordinances

- subdivision regulations

- site plan review procedures

- natural resource protection

· Comprehensive stormwater control regulations

· Land acquisition

 

Further details on a regulatory approach are contained in Handbook: Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning (Metcalf & Eddy 1993).

 

Public Education

Public education can have a significant role to play because an aroused and concerned public has the power to alter behavior at all levels. However if stormwater management plans are not adequately described and if the public opinion is not considered, the public can work against the implementation of a stormwater plan if viewed as an unnecessary extra cost and as a restriction on freedom (Field, et al. 1994). Gaining the public support, as with all education, is a continuous process and applies to all sectors of the public. However, Poertner (1980) identified public education as perhaps the most neglected phase of solving stormwater problems. He found that very few areas had good public information or community relations programs. Those that had them found them to be helpful in making the public aware of the needs of the community and in obtaining their support, especially when approving improvement bond ballot issues.

 

The residential sector is made up of everyone living in a drainage area. Long-range education goals can be tackled through school programs and short-range goals may be achieved through community groups. Advantage should be taken of working with groups looking for community improvement projects and opportunities arising from news media coverage and the associated publicity.

 

The commercial sector is a fairly large and often diffuse group. Both the owners/managers and their staff will need to be included in any communication activity. Methods of communication may include news announcements in the local press, mailed news items, individual contact, and follow-up contacts to answer questions and to educate new employees. Public education can benefit from failures, such as violations of regulations which result in a citation or fine, and reported in the local press. This not only informs the public about regulations, but it also provides an incentive for the regulations to be followed.

 

The industrial sector is a smaller group and can be educated by direct contact, education of the consultants from whom industry seeks advice, and by education of trade associations. Indirect education opportunities are provided by speaking to meetings of professional organizations and by writing in professional newsletters and journals. Industrial decision makers are a relatively small group, which, when informed or made aware of their obligations, are likely to respond.

 

Stormwater managers should also communicate with other public officials and governmental institutions to ensure that they are aware of the stormwater management program and its implications. Examples include: road, sanitation, and parks departments; and workers at public institutions such as hospitals and prisons.

 

Schumacher and Grimes (1992) gave a detailed description of the Charlotte, NC, public education program, developed as part of their stormwater management program. They recommend a similar program for other areas in order to: 1) inform the public about regulatory requirements, 2) inform the public about financing options, and 3) formally involve special interest groups in the stormwater management process. They recommend that the investment to support the public education component of a stormwater management program be about one to two percent of the annual revenues of the program. Charlotte’s four part public education program included the following:

 

1)       Define the issues. The public needs to be aware that federal and possibly state regulatory issues define much of the stormwater program requirements and therefore costs. However, many local concerns also define the specific need. The public education program needs to let the public know how the local government plans to address the specific issues and concerns, and how much it will cost. Explaining the function of a public utility, or other funding mechanism, is also important. Charlotte also conducted extensive telephone surveys to formally identify and quantify local concerns. As an example, even though stormwater pollution control was directly responsible for only about 15% of the total stormwater management costs in Charlotte, respondents surprisingly rated water quality issues much higher than drainage issues. In addition, the survey helped determine the level of funding the residents were willing to pay to support the stormwater management program. About 1/3 of the residents were willing to pay $6 per month, while more than half were willing to pay $3 per month. They therefore found a greater willingness to support the local stormwater management program than they originally thought.

 

2)       Set objectives. The public education program was also needed to inform and educate the stakeholders and the public at large. It was also needed to seek input, and to involve them through the establishment of a citizen task force. Consensus for the stormwater management program was another important goal of the public education program, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the public education program through follow-up surveys and other vehicles.

 

3)       Identify resources. After the issues and objectives were established, the next step was identifying the available resources. This included public staff and the citizens task force.

 

4)       Outline and conduct activities and tasks. The above three steps enabled this action step to proceed. The development of promotional material, conducting surveys, setting up a hot line, producing newsletters, handling the media, developing slide shows, making presentations at stakeholder meetings and neighborhood meetings, sponsoring special events, and holding public hearings were all important elements of the Charlotte public education program.

 

 

Charlotte felt that this program was extremely successful, but recommended several improvements, including having better records of complaints and better cost estimates for the public (specifically, not glossing over details, or dumbing-down information, but making the information clearer in presentations), to use the hot line to measure the program’s success, and to form the citizen’s task force earlier in the process.

 

A multi-level, multi-target public education program can help to avoid problems in implementing a stormwater management program. Further information on describing the stormwater management program to the public can be found in Designing an Effective Communication Program: A Blueprint for Success (Beech and Dake 1992), and Urban Runoff Management Information/Education Products (EPA 1993).

 

An example of a successful public education effort for stormwater control has been occurring in Tokyo. Local governments in Tokyo have instigated an intensive public education program to encourage stormwater infiltration on private property and to support the Experimental Sewer System (ESS) (Fujita 1993). Local governments prepare various brochures to promote understanding and cooperation. Details of stormwater projects and suggestions for personal actions are also published in local newsletters. The effects and necessity of stormwater infiltration are also often discussed on TV programs and in newspapers. These efforts have been very successful in developing an extremely large stormwater infiltration program that has substantially reduced local flooding and restored groundwater.

 

Illinois is relying on public education as part of its watershed program (WE&T 1996). The state is asking local stakeholder groups to be key decision makers concerning the future of their watersheds. The Illinois EPA has prepared several education booklets stressing community action. An example is a map showing the 33 watersheds in the state, explains what watersheds are, describes how they are threatened, what the state is doing to protect them, and outlines ways that citizens can be involved in the effort. Local watershed groups have been involved for many years in the state, mainly in developing plans for correcting problems and in identifying funding sources. The state will now provide technical assistance to the watershed groups so they can be more active in correcting the problems (identify and report sources of spills and dumps, collect water quality data, etc.).

 

Programs to enhance public education and public participation in reducing surface water pollution were required components of the NPDES stormwater management plans submitted by large and medium sized cities to the EPA. The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, the New Orleans Public School System, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, and the EPA sponsored a local award winning public education program in New Orleans (Austin, et al. 1996). A local art program was supplemented with lake and pumping station tours for school aged children. Much media attention and district-wide efforts went into the program to help explain the unique drainage system of New Orleans, with its below sea level elevation, its system of drainage canals and pump stations to Lake Pontchartrain.

 

Hennepin Parks, of the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, has been conducting studies concerning the role that household landscaping has on the phosphorus content of runoff (Barten 1996 and Mugaas 1996). They found that runoff from lawns constitute a major portion of the total phosphorus runoff load. Of the181 lawns sampled, they found that 96% had high or very high soil phosphorus levels and that almost all of these lawns (95%) receive applications of phosphorus fertilizers. They also found that phosphorus application rates on golf courses were about 80% less than on residential lawns. The unit area phosphorus discharges from the golf courses were also about 1/10 the unit area discharges from the residential areas. The residential area fertilization rates were in excess of the needs. The Minnesota Extension Service, along with other local agencies, have been conducting public education activities to create a better understanding of the potential impact that residential lawn and landscaping practices can have on the local water resources.

 

A new resource has recently been announced for environmental education. The National Environmental Education Standards Project at Northern Illinois University published Environmental Education Materials: Guidelines for Excellence, which gives guidance for developing and selecting educational materials. They will also publish a resources guide soon, containing a guide to high quality environmental educational materials. It is expected that many examples of educational material will be identified that will be extremely helpful for public education efforts of local urban watershed districts. Another important public education resource is available to stormwater managers. The Volunteer Monitor is available free from the editor (supported by EPA) at (415) 255-8049.

 

An important question concerning public education has been measuring its direct water quality benefits. There has been little debate concerning the intrinsic value of public education in stormwater management. However, there has been no quantified measure of receiving water improvements after its implementation. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and Texas Watch are conducting an EPA sponsored evaluation of public education programs in Austin (EPA 1996). A paired watershed monitoring program is being conducted in East Bouldin Creek, one of the most polluted urban creeks in Austin (the study creek), and in nearby Blunn Creek and Harper’s Branch (two control creeks). Local citizens, students, and businesses will adopt creek sections and will carry out such projects as revegetating stream banks, placing signs in the watershed, and stenciling storm drain inlets. Volunteers will monitor the three creeks over an extended period of time, including an initial calibration period before any improvements are made to East Bouldin Creek.

 

Water Use Regulations

Water use laws in the United States are under the administration of the individual states and were designed to either protect water uses (in the arid Western states), or to prevent water drainage damages (in the more humid Eastern states). The drainage laws (riparian laws) are mostly concerned with the rights of upstream and downstream landowners in protecting their property from excessive runoff. In the common law, runoff water was considered a common enemy so no recourse was available to a land owner for flood damages caused by a neighbor's flood control efforts. This has been modified in most states to allow flood control easements through downstream property, or to allow reasonable use to protect your property, but not to injure the property of another.

 

Most of the states east of the Mississippi follow the Riparian Doctrine, which entitles adjacent land owners to the full natural flow of the stream. The stream is to be undiminished in both quality and quantity. The water use must be reasonable and can be sold as property. Water cannot be transferred between different water drainage basins however. During water shortages, all riparian owners have equal rights to reasonable use of the water and the supply is shared. Riparian Doctrine is based on the Code Napoleon and Roman Civil Law, and is not part of English Common Law (Krenkel and Novotny 1980).

 

The Western states have mostly adopted prior appropriation water use laws. Appropriation is made by diverting the water from the water course and applying it to a beneficial use. Early acquired water rights have the highest priority and can take their full share in times of shortages. If the water right is not used, it can be lost. Historically, beneficial uses were measured by their economic value and water quality and wildlife uses had low values. Some states require minimum flows to protect these “uneconomical” uses.

 

Water Quality Regulations

Point sources of water pollution are defined in Section 502 of the 1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” Non-point sources are the remaining pollutant sources, not included in this definition of point sources. This point source definition appears to include almost all water discharges, but important court actions have been necessary to clarify it still further. The most important non-point sources are usually considered to be agricultural, mining, forestry and urban runoff.

 

Before 1948, almost all water pollution control authority was vested in the states and local governments. The legal powers of the different state agencies varied greatly. Funding of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) was especially difficult. The Public Health Service Act of 1912 authorized the investigation of pollution in navigable waters, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 was to prevent oil discharges into navigable waters. The Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA), PL 80-845, was passed in 1948 to establish some federal authority in abating interstate water pollution. The 1948 act suffered from the use of receiving water standards instead of effluent standards and ineffective enforcement (Hanks, Tarlock and Hanks 1974). The receiving water standards only considered the current uses of the water and were difficult to enforce against any single discharger. It was usually not possible to determine which discharger was responsible when the stream standard was exceeded. The early regulations also placed much of the burden of proof on the enforcement agencies. Most of the following water pollution control legislation has been amendments to this 1948 act. Important amendments were passed in:

 

                · 1956 (making the legislation permanent and to fund construction grants for POTWs),

                · 1961 (increased funding for water quality research and construction grants),

                · 1965 (increased construction grants and started research concerning combined sewer overflows),

                · 1966 (removed the dollar limit on construction grants),

                · 1972 (the most important advances to this date),

                · 1977 (to extend some of the deadlines established in the 1972 amendments), and

                · 1988 (to require discharge permits for stormwater).

 

The Refuse Act of 1899 (33 USC 407) was used in 1970 to establish a discharge permit system. This act prohibited the discharge of any material, except sewage and runoff, into navigable waterways without a permit from the Dept. of the Army. This law was written during the "Progressive Conservation Era", when multiple uses of natural resources were first seriously considered. The US Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the law for pollution control in 1966. A court decision later invalidated the program in 1971, however. Because of these difficulties, the WPCA Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) contained a permit program, called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES is the enforcement scheme to control effluent from point sources. The permits are required for all point sources and establish discharge limits based on the available control technology. The discharge limits were set for each industry, based on a series of studies that characterized each industry's waste effluents and existing controls. Future discharge limits were reduced as all facilities were to obtain “best available technology economically achievable” (BATEA) by July 1983. New sources were to obtain discharges representative of a “standard of performance” that was much more restrictive. Non-point sources were originally exempt from the NPDES permit program, but stormwater discharges will be included in the NPDES system under the 1988 EPA proposals (FR CFR 122, 123, 124, and 504, as published in the Federal Register of December 7, 1988).

 

The NPDES was to enable Congress’ goal of no pollutant discharges whatsoever by 1985. Other goals of PL 92-500 included the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreational uses of water by July 1983, to prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants, to continue the funding of POTWs, to develop areawide wastewater treatment management plans, to fund a major resource and demonstration effort to improve treatment technology, and to protect the rights of the States to reduce pollution and to plan their water resources uses.

    

The 1977 Amendments (PL 95-217) extended some of the deadlines, but no waivers were allowed for toxic pollutant discharges. Ad valorem taxes by municipalities to fund treatment projects were allowed, incentives were made for innovative technology, and increased emphasis was placed on the areawide treatment planning (Section 208) studies.

    

The “208” planning studies, which have been completed, recognized the need to control non-point pollution in order to meet the Congressional goals. This section was an incentive to local governments to develop their own plans, with minimal federal input. These plans were to characterize all point and non-point pollutant discharges in designated areas and to develop treatment schemes that would allow the goals to be met. The results of these plans effect the issuance of NPDES permits. Unfortunately, most of these plans were conducted in short time periods with limited technical success. Control measures were recommended with few local demonstrations of their potential success (especially for non-point pollution control). Recognizing these technical short-comings, Congress authorized the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to demonstrate the applicability of various urban runoff control measures in about 30 cities. These studies were completed in 1983 (EPA 1983). With these results, the 208 plans are to be revised under Section 205g. It is foolish to require expensive and possibly low cost-effective controls for point sources when non-point sources are contributing much of the waste loads to a receiving water. Much of these “non-point” discharges are originating from industrial areas (Pitt and McLean 1986) and are mostly caused by “poor housekeeping” (truck spills, dirty storage areas, inadequate refuse collection, etc.), by fugitive air pollutants which settle out over the area, and, possibly most importantly, by direct connections of certain waste streams to the storm drainage system (wash waters, etc.).

    

There have been various other laws affecting non-point water quality management. The most important ones include the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) which requires environmental impact studies, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1965 (PL 94-469).

    

Several court cases have considered the question of whether urban runoff is a point source (and therefore required to have a NPDES permit under the original program) or a non-point source (and exempt from the permit process, but still subject to applicable discharge standards). Urban runoff enters receiving waters usually through a conduit, or sometimes through a ditch (open channel). The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. Costle et al. (568 F.2D 1369, 1977) case found that uniform NPDES discharge limitations were not a necessary precondition for inclusion of agricultural, silvicultural and stormwater runoff point sources into the NPDES program. The regulations (40 CFR Section 125.4, 1975) did, however, specifically exempt separate storm sewers containing only storm runoff uncontaminated by any industrial or commercial activity. This case pointed out that the NPDES program clearly establishes that the discharge of any pollutants is unlawfull: no one has the right to pollute. The pollution continues because of technological limits, not because of any inherent rights to use the nation's waterways for the purpose of disposing of wastes. The exclusion noted above was for administrative reasons, as it was felt that requiring permits on the approximately 100,000 urban runoff point sources would reduce the ability of the EPA to administer the more important industrial and municipal point sources. A plan to use general permits to cover these discharges may be implemented by the states. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that the Congressional intent was to require permits for all point sources, but that the EPA was also to have flexibility in structuring the permits in the form of general or area permits. The Court concluded that the remedy lies with Congress if the EPA is not responsive.

    

Pedersen et al., v. Washington State Dept. of Trans. (611 P.2D 1293, 1980) stated that: "Separate storm sewers, as defined in this section, are point sources subject to the NPDES permit program. Separate storm sewers may be covered either under individual NPDES permits or under the general permit". The State of Washington, Court of Appeals, found that states are not required to implement general permit programs, so discharges could be required to have individual permits if appropriate general permits are not available.

    

United States of American v. Frezzo (642 F.2D 59, 1981) stated that the intent of the NPDES regulations “is to exclude from the NPDES permit program all natural runoff from agricultural land which results from precipitation events.” This case further stated: “When water pollution from irrigation ditches results from precipitation events, that pollution is non-point in nature. However, when discharges from irrigation ditches result from the controlled application of water by any person, that pollution is considered point source and subject to the program proposed herein.” Therefore, urban runoff appears to be considered as a point source, while agricultural ditches are non-point sources during rains and point sources during irrigation periods. Again, the 1988 EPA regulations require discharge permits for certain classes of urban runoff discharges.

 

Early Court Cases Concerned with the Effects of Urban Runoff

There have been many court cases that have tried to identify the parties responsible for causing problems involving urban runoff. The earliest concerns of urban runoff generally involved flooding or decreased flows. When agricultural or undeveloped land is urbanized, much of the land surface is paved with impervious materials (asphalt and concrete). This increases the runoff volumes and rates during rains, and decreases the receiving water flows during dry periods. Several cases have been tried around the country concerning flooding or decreased flows due to urban development. The Orange County Water District sued the City of Riverside in 1959 (1973 C.A. 2D 137) over these issues. Other cases included one in Michigan in 1963 (371 Mich 209), one in Arizona in 1969 (449 P. 2D 616), one in New Jersey in 1973 (126 N.J. Super. 200), and one in the District of Columbia in 1982 (678 F. 2D 222). The outcomes of these trials was very site specific as the development and current land use information along with many other hydrologic factors determines the magnitude of damages that may occur.

    

Water quality questions concerning non-point sources have also been addressed in the courts. The effects of salts in roadway runoff was examined in Vermont (362 F. Supp. 627). Pope v. City of Atlanta (240 Ga. 177, 1977) addressed the potential of urban runoff affecting surface water supplies. The Florida Wildlife Federation et al., v. Goldschmidt (506 F. Supp. 350, 1981) examined the potential effects of urban runoff when an area is changed from agricultural to urban uses. The EPA is evaluating potential sources of highly toxic synthetic organic compounds. They have identified urban runoff as one of several potential sources of more than 1,000 toxic organics that have been detected in drinking water supplies (45 FR 77870).

 

Urban runoff may also affect groundwater. Early studies have detected increased salt concentrations in shallow groundwaters in locations where large quantities of salts are used on roads for ice control. The Sierra Club sued Edwards Underground Water District et al., in 1974 (502 F. 2D 43) hoping to protect a local aquifer from the unknown effects of urban runoff. The Environmental Defense Fund et al., sued Costle et al., in 1977 (439 F. Supp. 980) concerning the decreasing recharge of the Long Island aquifer due to urbanization.

 

Jurisdiction Over Urban Runoff Problems

The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in California petitioned the Contra Costa County Superior Court in 1950 (34 C. 2D 845) to determine its authority in controlling urban runoff. The public corporations were directed to construct drainage facilities across private lands as soon as possible. The City of West Lake Hills, Texas v. Westwood Legal Defense Fund (598 S.W. 2D 681) found that a city can prepare and carry out reasonable plans to control pollution resulting from discharges not traceable to a specific source (such as urban runoff). Certain public agencies can therefore be expected to control urban runoff.

    

Cox (1983) summarized recent water law analyses and found that much attention has been given to questions of federalism relating to implementing of water pollution regulations. Dexter and Schwarzenbart (1982) examined the development of federal common laws of nuisance, relating to water pollution discharges. They felt that Congress did not intend to preempt these common laws with the Clean Water Act. Vance (1982) expressed the need for the federal common law as a mechanism for determining liability of polluters for resulting injury. The elimination of the common law was thought to insulate polluters from liability, especially if pollution across state boundaries was of concern.

 

EPA Stormwater Regulations

The EPA regulations to control stormwater runoff were first published in the Dec. 7, 1988 issue of the Federal Register. These regulations initiated a permit process for urban runoff, but the reporting information required and the schedules vary depending on the land use and the size of the community. The EPA was required by Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 to establish permit application requirements for large municipalities (having populations greater than 250,000) and industrial concerns (including construction operations) by February 4, 1989. Permit application requirements for municipalities having populations between 100,000 and 250,000 were to be established by February 4, 1991. The first applications (for the industries and large cities) were to be submitted by February 4, 1990. The applications for the smaller cities were to be filed by February 4, 1992. Permits are now required for smaller cities also, as part of the second phase of the NPDES stormwater permit program.

               

The phase one general application requirements stressed descriptive information concerning the drainage area, with minimal runoff monitoring requirements. The permit applications mostly relied on the use of simple models to predict annual discharges of pollutants and field analyses for detecting illicit connections and illegal dumping. The permit applications also required a description of any locally required stormwater and construction site runoff controls. Local municipalities were also to establish authority for managing stormwater.

 

Phase 2 Permit Requirements

The Clean Water Act 402(p)(6) initial phase II rule (for small municipalities) was published on August 7, 1995. Its purpose was to designate additional sources of stormwater that needed to be regulated to protect water quality. It required all unregulated sources of storm water discharges to apply for NPDES permits by August, 2001. It affects millions of industrial/commercial facilities, and almost all construction activities. A Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) helped develop the Phase II rule. The committee’s membership included a cross-section of interested stakeholders and they held 14 meetings from 1995 – 1998. They circulated three preliminary drafts for review and comment

 

When it was finalized, the Stormwater Phase II Rule superseded the August 1995 regulation. The original draft was published in Jan. 9, 1998 Federal Register 40 CFR Parts 122 and 123, 63 FR 1563. During the  90-day comment period, more than 550 comments were received. The EPA held public hearings at 6 locations to explain the phase II proposal and to obtain public comment. The final rule was published on  December 8, 1999 in the Federal Register.

 

Two new classes of facilities were designated for automatic coverage on a nationwide basis:

 

1) small municipal separate storm sewer systems located in urbanized areas (about 3,500 municipalities) [phase I included medium and large municipalities]

2) construction activities that disturb less than 5 acres of land (about 110,000 sites a year) [phase I included construction sites larger than 5 acres]

 

A “no exposure” incentive for phase I sites was also proposed for industrial activities. This would exclude about 70,000 facilities. The NPDES permitting authority would need to issue permits (most likely general permits) by May 31, 2002. The rule would require that regulated small MS4 permit programs contain the following components:

 

· develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce discharge of pollutants and protect water quality to the “maximum extent practicable”

· must include six minimum control measures:

-          public education and outreach

-          public involvement and participation

-          illicit discharge detection and elimination

-          construction site storm water runoff control

-          post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment

-          pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations

· must submit a notice of intent (NOI) or permit application and identify for each minimum control measure:

-          best management practices

-          measurable goals

-          timeframe for implementation

-          responsible persons

· must evaluate program and submit reports

 

Flexibility was intended for the phase II rule by encouraging the use of general permits, by encouraging municipalities to determine appropriate stormwater controls, by not require extensive monitoring by permittees, and by recognizing the use of existing programs, including existing structures and mechanisms for public participation.

 

The construction site regulations extends existing phase I regulation for construction coverage to all sites that result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more, but less than 5 acres (designated nationwide) and for all sites that result in disturbance of less than 1 acre (potential designation by permitting authority). The rule requires the use of an ordinance that controls erosion and sediment to the maximum extent practicable, controls other waste at construction sites, sets waivers by the permitting authority, and qualifies local and state programs. The phase II rule waives coverage for construction sites that have a rainfall erosivity factor (NRCS RUSLE rainfall factor “R”) of less than 2 (during the period of construction) (“low rainfall”), an annual soil loss of less than 2 tons/acre/year (“low erosion potential”), or a watershed plan, or TMDL assessment, that addresses the pollutants of concern

 

The rule:

1) ensures control of other waste at construction sites (discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, sanitary waste, etc.)

2) implements appropriate best management practices (such as silt fences, temporary detention ponds, etc.)

3) requires pre-construction reviews of site management plans

4) receives and consider public information

5) requires regular inspections during construction

6) has penalties to ensure compliance

 

If local regulations incorporate the following principles and elements into its stormwater program, then it would be considered as a “qualifying” program that meets Federal requirements.

· Five Principles

1) good site planning

2) minimize soil movement

3) capture sediment

4) good housekeeping practices

5) mitigation of post-construction stormwater discharges

 

· Eight Elements

1) program description

2) coordination mechanism

3) requirements for nonstructural and structural BMPs

4) priorities for site inspections

5) education and training

6) exemption of some activities due to limited impacts

7) incentives, awards, and streamlining mechanisms

8) description of staff and resources

 

The timeframes for implementation of the new municipal and construction permits are 2 to 3 years for permit issuance and NOIs within 90 days of permit issuance.

 

Summary of the Total Maximum Daily Load (Tmdl) Program

Another important emerging regulation affecting drainage and stormwater quality is the TMDL program. The following is summarized from the report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL Program, published on July 1998.

 

The TMDL program is aimed specifically at assuring attainment of water quality standards by requiring the establishment of pollutant loading targets and allocations for waters identified as not now in attainment with those standards. Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act provides that states, with EPA review and approval, must identify waters not meeting standards, and must establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for them to restore water quality. If the states do not complete these actions, EPA must do so.

 

The Clean Water Act has produced significant and widespread improvements in water quality over the last quarter‑century. Knowledge and understanding of water quality problems and the tools to address those problems have advanced in that time as well, but many waters still do not meet State water quality standards, and TMDLs have not been established for most of those waters.

 

The final National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress for 1996 indicated that of the 19% of the nation’s rivers and streams that have been evaluated, 35% do not fully support water quality standards, or uses, and 8% are considered threatened. Of the 72% of estuary waters evaluated, 38% are not fully supporting uses/standards and 4% are threatened. Of the 40% of lakes, ponds and reservoirs evaluated (not including the Great Lakes), 39% are not fully supporting uses/standards and 10% are threatened.

 

Under section 303(d)(1), states are required to identify and establish a priority ranking for waters not meeting water quality standards, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the waters. The EPA is required to review each state’s list of impaired waters. Once the list is established, the states are to develop a TMDL for each listed water. The EPA is also required to review each TMDL (within 30 days of submittal by the State). If the EPA does not approve the list of impaired waters or the state’s TMDL plan, it is required to establish acceptable lists and plans. A water may be in nonattainment for some parameters, but not for others. Generally, the TMDL program uses a parameter ­specific approach. However, the use of a broad, watershed approach, considering all water quality problems and their related causes and solution, is to be preferred and encouraged.

 

In general, a TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water quality problems, contributing sources, and pollution reductions needed to attain water quality standards. The TMDL specifies the amount of pollution or other stressor that needs to be reduced to meet water quality standards, allocates pollution control, or management responsibilities among sources in a watershed, and provides a scientific and policy basis for taking actions needed to restore a waterbody.

 

In 1991, the EPA published guidance explaining the role of TMDLs in watershed protection. In 1992, the EPA amended its regulations to describe in greater detail requirements for states to submit lists of waters needing TMDLs. Among other things, the revised regulations required states to submit lists every two years and to target waters for which TMDLs would be developed during the next two years. Over the past few years, the EPA has continued to publish several additional guidance and policy documents relating to section 303(d)(1) lists and TMDL development.

 

Beginning in 1986, and escalating since 1996, environmental public interest organizations have filed numerous lawsuits under the Clean Water Act’s citizen suit provision (section 505) alleging that the EPA had failed to carry out its mandatory duty to disapprove inadequate state section 303(d)(1) lists and/or TMDLs, or to carry out state program responsibilities where states have failed to do so.

 

By mid 1998, all states had EPA‑approved 1996 section 303(d)(1) lists, but the content and scope of these lists varied greatly. Development of TMDLs has been initiated at an increasing pace in some states, but most TMDLs remain to be completed. Many of the waters still needing TMDLs are impaired by contributions from both point and nonpoint sources. The EPA has undertaken a variety of steps to strengthen the TMDL program.

 

The following are Internet links to various descriptions of the national TMDL program, and to selected southeastern state programs (including 303d listed streams):

 

General Information for the TMDL Program

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html

http://www.tmdls.net/

 

EPA Region 4 Stormwater Permit Information

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/permits/stormwater.html

 

General EPA TMDL Information and National 303(d) Listings

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/states.html

 

Model Sediment TMDL Assessment Protocol (Limno-Tech)

http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=33072

 

Sediment TMDL Protocol (EPA)

http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/sediment.pdf

 

Pathogen TMDL Protocol (EPA)

http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/pathogen_all.pdf

 

Selected Southeastern State Programs

Alabama

General Alabama TMDL program description and links:

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDivision/WQuality/TMDL/WQTMDLInfo.htm

 

EPA fact sheet for AL 303(d) listed streams:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=AL

 

Storm Water Management Authority, Jefferson County

http://www.swma.com/

 

 

Mississippi

Mississippi TMDL reports and 303(d) listed streams:

 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/TWB_2002_303dList/$File/MS2002303dListEV.pdf?OpenElement

 

MS TMDL program

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/TWB_Total_Maximum_Daily_Load_Section?OpenDocument

 

 

Georgia

Georgia TMDL program and reports (scroll down to Water Quality – Watershed Information, and below)

http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/gaenviron_files/gaenviro.htm

 

 

Tennessee

EPA fact sheet for TN 303(d) listed streams:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=TN

 

TN Stormwater Permit program

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/permits/conststrm.php

 

 

Florida

EPA fact sheet for FL 303(d) listed streams:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=FL

 

Status of FL TMDL program

http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/153TShelley.PDF

 

FL Stormwater Permit program

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/MS4_1.htm

 

 

 

Summary of Stormwater Regulations

Water use regulations have been in place in many nations for hundreds of years. These regulations are generally concerned with protection against flooding, and/or sharing water during periods of scarcity. Water quality regulations were first instigated to permit or protect basic beneficial uses of receiving waters, initially restricted to navigation and waste assimilation. In recent decades, protection has been extended to include a broader range of environmental and recreational-based uses.

 

Early regulations affecting stormwater were based on drainage goals, although some progressive communities did include stormwater quality objectives in local regulations affecting stormwater discharges. The Clean Water Act NPDES program was modified in the late 1980s to specifically include non-point sources of water pollutants. The phase I and phase II stormwater discharge permit programs have now affected most communities in the nation. Another important emerging issue affecting stormwater (and traditional discharges) is the TMDL program affecting all listed impaired waters. These impaired waters must now have a watershed-based allocation and treatment plan to ensure compliance with water quality standards.

 

Construction Site Runoff Problems

· Water quality impairment results from sediment discharged, plus associated pollutants (>70% of P and N in the nations streams from eroded sediment)

· Siltation is second largest cause of impaired water quality in the nations rivers and lakes

· Large amounts of sediment reduce stream flow capacity and destroy important aquatic life habitat

· Effects from construction erosion runoff extends well downstream of construction sites

· Erosion rates from construction sites can be 10X erosion rates from row crops and 100X erosion rates from forests or pastures

· Typical construction site erosion yields are 10 to 150 tons/acre/year

 

Site Specific Factors Affecting Construction Site Erosion in Birmingham Area

· Rainfall Energy (Alabama has highest in the nation)

· Soil Erodibility (northern part of state has fine grained, highly erosive soils)

· Site Topography (northeastern part of state has steep hills under development)

· Surface Cover (usually totally removed during initial site grading)

 

Alabama Rainfall Energy

· Rain energy directly related to rainfall intensity

· Rainfall erosion index varies from 250 to 550+ for Alabama (most of state about 350) – highest in the U.S.

· Months having greatest erosion potential are February and March, while September through November have the lowest erosion potential

 

Factors Affecting Controllability of Construction Site Runoff

· Runoff characteristics (flow volume and rate): high because of about 50 to 65 in/yr rainfall and intense storms

· Sediment quantity and particle size (from 70 construction site runoff samples from Birmingham area):

  - Measured suspended solids concentrations at Birmingham area construction sites ranged from

    100 to more than 25,000 mg/L (overall median about 4,000 mg/L).

  - Turbidity ranged from about 300 to >50,000 NTU, with an average of about 4,000 NTU

  - Particle sizes: 90% were smaller than about 20 mm (0.02 mm) in diameter and median size was

     about 5 mm (0.005 mm).

  - Local construction site erosion discharges are about 100 tons/acre/year

 

 

Monitored Local Birmingham Construction Site Runoff Quality

 

Low intensity rains (<0.25  in/hr)

Moderate intensity rains

(about 0.25 in/hr)

High intensity rains

(>1 in/hr)

Suspended solids, mg/L

400

2,000

25,000

Particle size (median), mm

3.5

5

8.5

 

Difficult to effectively use design standards from elsewhere due to high flow energies, high SS concentration concentrations, and very small particle sizes.

 

Actual Field Performance of Most Construction Site Erosion Controls has been Disappointedly Low

· Excellent filter fence installations (well maintained and well constructed) provide about 50% control, maximum. Typical monitored performance has shown negligible benefits due to installation and maintenance problems.

· Rock berms in channels are more robust, but still less than about 25% suspended solids control.

· Sediment ponds can be designed to provide good control (>50%) of suspended solids, but they would have to be very large (about 2% of drainage area) to provide significant removal of fine sediment. Effluent turbidity is still typically high.

 

Prevention is the Best and Typically Least Expensive Solution

1) divert flows around exposed soils

2) schedule site activities to minimize amount of exposed soil

3) use temporary mulch

4) use erosion control blankets in sensitive areas (concentrated flow channels, steep slopes)

 

 

Local and State Controls of Urban Runoff

Many states and cities throughout the United States have regulations that require developers to construct runoff control facilities. Many of these regulations are initially used to only regulate runoff flow rates or to reduce construction erosion losses. Some state court cases have resulted in runoff controls being required as part of the environmental impact statement process (such as Maryland v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F. 2D 1029, 1973 and Veterans Administration Hospital in Tennessee 48 FR 11551, 1983). In the opinion of Parsippany v. Costle (503 F. Supp. 314, 1979), it was recommended that municipalities within the drainage basin adopt regulations that stipulate the use of detention and sedimentation basins.

    

Many state and local agencies throughout the country are currently using construction site erosion and stormwater control ordinances for newly developing areas, as shown on Tables Erosion-1 through Stormwater-12. These tables are derived from a report prepared by the Watershed Management Institute (1997) for the EPA. The Institute compiled a wealth of information derived from an extensive survey they sent to numerous state and local stormwater management agencies throughout the U.S. These tables attempt to list some of the main features of these programs, covering both erosion and stormwater control.


Table Erosion 1. Erosion and Sediment Control Exemptions and Waivers

 

Jurisdiction

Exemptions and Waivers

City of Alexandria, VA

<2,500 s.f.

City of Austin, TX

Agriculture; state facilities, projects disturbing < 1,000 s.f.

City of Bellevue, WA

None

City of Fort Collins, CO

Single family homes

City of Olympia, WA

Agriculture; forestry; public & private projects in right-of-way that add no impervious surface, grading projects that don't require grading permit

City of Orlando, FL

Single family homes not part of subdivision

City of Seattle, WA

Agriculture, forestry, WA DOT projects that comply with Puget Sound Highway Runoff Program, projects discharged directly to receiving water or piped storm drain (under certain conditions), < 750 s.f. new impervious surface or < 2,000 s.f. total impervious surface

District of Columbia

Agriculture, forestry, projects that disturb < 500 s.f. or total cost < $2,500.

City of Winter Park, FL

None

Baltimore County, MD

Agriculture, activities disturbing < 5,000 s.f.

Clark County, WA

Agriculture, forestry, projects disturbing < 2,000 s.f.

King County, WA

Agriculture; single family homes exempt from detailed ES control plan

Kitsap County, WA

Agriculture (Kitsap SWCD stormwater related activities funded by county stormwater program

Maricopa County, AZ

N/A because state NPDES program exempts projects disturbing < 5 acres

Montgomery County, MD

Agriculture, projects disturbing < 5,000 s.f.

Prince George's County, MD

Agriculture

Snohomish County, WA

Agriculture

Somerset County, NJ

See New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee Program Summary.

Washington County, OR

None

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

State NPDES permit exempts activities disturbing < 5 acres; other requirements depend on regulations of 10 local government programs

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Agriculture, forestry, activities disturbing < 5,000 s.f., activities disturbing < 500 s.f. if next to water

South Florida Water Management District

Agriculture using closed water management systems

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Agriculture (with site specific Conservation Plan with appropriate BMPs); forestry (complying with "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

Suwannee River Water Management District

Agriculture (with site specific Conservation Plan with appropriate BMPs); forestry (complying with "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

State of Delaware

Agriculture

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Agriculture (if using approved Conservation Plan with appropriate BMPs); forestry (complying with "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

Maryland Department of the Environment

Agriculture; activities disturbing < 5,000 s.f. or 100 cu. yds.

State of New Jersey

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes not part of larger development, activities disturbing < 5,000 s.f.

State of North Carolina

Construction sties < 5 acres and not located; within ½ mile of a water classified as a High Quality Water, in a coastal county and draining to a saltwater or other classified water, and located in a non-coastal county and draining to or within one mile of a water classified as a High Quality Water or an Outstanding Resource Water.

State of Pennsylvania

Timber harvesting disturbing < 25 acres; agricultural plowing & tilling pursuant to conservation plan; activities disturbing < 5 acres

State of South Carolina

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes not part of large development, utility operations with certificate of environmental compatibility

State of Virginia

Agriculture; forestry; activities disturbing < 10,000 s.f.; mining & gas exploration activities

Washington State Department of Ecology

Agriculture, forestry operation (except for forest conversions); activities disturbing < 1 acre; single family homes


Table Erosion 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Preferred Practices

 

Jurisdiction

Preferred Practices

City of Alexandria, VA

Sediment basins & traps designed to capture 15 cu. yds/acre drainage area.

City of Austin, TX

Sediment basins & traps designed to capture 1,800 cu. yds/acre drainage area.

City of Bellevue, WA

Sediment basins & traps to contain runoff volume from: 10 yr storm for sites < 5 ac., or > 0.25 mi from waters; 20 yr storm for sites > 5 ac. or < 0.25 mi from waters

City of Fort Collins, CO

Sediment basins & traps designed for 100 cu. yds/acre

City of Olympia, WA

Sediment basins & traps to hold 2-yr (24 hr) storm volume.

City of Orlando, FL

Sediment basins & traps to capture 2.33 yr (6 hr) storm.

City of Seattle, WA

Sediment traps to retain runoff volume from 2 yr (24 hr) storm. Basins sized to settle medium silt soil particles (0.02 mm) during peak discharge from 10 yr (24 hr) storm.

District of Columbia

Sediment basins & traps to capture 1,800 cu. ft./acre drainage area.

City of Winter Park, FL

Sediment basins & traps to capture 67 cu. yds./acre drainage area.

Baltimore County, MD

Sediment basins & traps to contain 1,800 cu. yds runoff from drainage area.

Clark County, WA

Sediment traps to hold 2 yr (24 hr) storm runoff; basins to treat 10 yr (24 hr) storm.

King County, WA

Sediment traps to treat 2 yr (24 hr) storm runoff; basins sized for 10 yr (24 hr) storm.

Kitsap County, WA

Sediment traps & basins to treat runoff from 2 yr (24 hr) storm.

Maricopa County, AZ

None

Montgomery County, MD

Sediment basins & traps to capture 1,800 cu. ft/acre drainage area (to be changed to 3,600 cu. ft./ac.)

Prince George's County, MD

Sediment basins & traps to capture 1,800 cu. ft/acre drainage area (to be changed to 3,600 cu. ft./ac.)

Snohomish County, WA

Sediment basins & traps to capture runoff from 10 yr (24 hr) storm

Somerset County, NJ

See New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee Program Summary.

Washington County, OR

Sediment basins & traps to capture runoff from 10 yr (24 hr) storm (RARELY USED)

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Sediment basins & traps to retain 0.25 in of runoff from site.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Sediment basins & traps to capture runoff from 10 yr storm

South Florida Water Management District

None

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Sediment basins & traps to capture 67 cu. yds./acre drainage area

Suwannee River Water Management District

Sediment basins & traps to capture 67 cu. yds./acre

State of Delaware

Sediment traps & basins to retain 3,600 cu. ft./acre of contributing drainage area.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Sediment basins & traps to capture 67 cu. yds./acre

Maryland Department of the Environment

Sediment basins & traps to treat 1 in of runoff from disturbed area

State of New Jersey

Sediment basins & traps to retain 1 inch of runoff from disturbed area

State of North Carolina

Preventive Measures (nonstructural controls)

State of Pennsylvania

Sediment basins to treat 7,000 cfs/acre; sediment traps to treat 2,000 cfs/acre (max. 5 acres)

State of South Carolina

Sediment basins & traps to achieve 80% removal of average annual total suspended solids loading

State of Virginia

Sediment basins to capture 134 cu. yds/acre

Washington State Department of Ecology

Sediment basins & traps to detain 10 yr (24 hr) developed condition design storm

 


Table Erosion 3. Erosion and Sediment Control Allowed Practices

 

Jurisdiction

Allowed Practices

City of Alexandria, VA

Silt fences, gravel const. entrance, slope protection, temp. & perm. veg. stabilization

City of Austin, TX

Construction sequencing, rock berms, filter dikes, diversion swales, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

City of Bellevue, WA

Seasonal limits on disturbed area, silt fence, gravel construction entrance, wheel washes; slope protection; temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

City of Fort Collins, CO

Straw bales, surface roughening, diversions, gravel filters, filter fence, inlet barriers, terraces, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

City of Olympia, WA

Seasonal limits on disturbed area, silt fence, straw bales, gravel construction entrance, slope protection, inlet prot., temp. & permanent vegetation stabilization

City of Orlando, FL

Silt fences, gravel construction entrance, inlet protection, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization, limited exposed areas

City of Seattle, WA

Silt fences, gravel construction entrance, wheel wash, slope protection, inlet protection, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

District of Columbia

Silt fences, vehicle wash area, straw bales, stabilized construction entrance, inlet protection, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

City of Winter Park, FL

Silt fences, straw bales, inlet & slope protection, temp. & perm. veg. stabilization.

Baltimore County, MD

Silt fences, straw bales, inlet & slope protection, temp. & perm. veg. stabilization.

Clark County, WA

Seasonal limits on disturbed area, stabilized construction entrance, wheel wash, slope drain, straw bales, silt fence, mulching, temp. & perm. vegetation stabilization.

King County, WA

Seasonal limits on disturbed area, mulching, silt fences, gravel construction entrance, slope drains, temporary & permanent vegetation cover.

Kitsap County, WA

Seasonal limits on land disturbance, gravel construction entrance, wheel wash, silt fences, straw bales, slope drains, mulching, temp. & perm. vegetative stabilization

Maricopa County, AZ

None

Montgomery County, MD

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

Prince George's County, MD

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

Snohomish County, WA

Mulching, seasonal limitation on disturbed area, silt fences, gravel construction entrance, slope drains, temporary & permanent vegetative stabilization

Somerset County, NJ

See New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee Program Summary.

Washington County, OR

Silt fences, gravel construction entrances, diversions, bio-bags, straw, compost, temporary & permanent vegetation cover

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Mulching, silt fences, temporary & permanent vegetation cover

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Temporary & permanent vegetative cover; mulching; seeding; sodding; erosion blankets; silt fences; gravel construction entrances; outlet stabilization

South Florida Water Management District

None listed.

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Mulching; sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrance, temporary & permanent vegetative cover

Suwannee River Water Management District

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

State of Delaware

Silt fences, straw bales, gravel construction entrances, diversions, slope drains, temporary & permanent vegetation stabilization

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

Maryland Department of the Environment

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

State of New Jersey

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

State of North Carolina

Preventative measures, detention and retention ponds and infiltration devices such as infiltration basins, trenches or underground trenches and dry wells

State of Pennsylvania

Silt fences, temp. & perm. vegetation, diversions, rock filters, riprap, inlet protection

State of South Carolina

Mulching, sodding, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrances, temporary & permanent vegetation

State of Virginia

Sediment traps, silt fences, temp. & perm. veg., diversions, daily street cleaning

Washington State Department of Ecology

Seasonal disturbed area limits, staged clearing, silt fences, gravel construction entrance, mulching, sodding, temporary & permanent vegetative cover, slope drains

 

 


Table Erosion 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Design Criteria Publications

 

Jurisdiction

Design Criteria Publications

City of Alexandria, VA

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.

City of Austin, TX

City's Environmental Criteria Manual

City of Bellevue, WA

Bellevue Development Standards, Chapter 2 and Construction and Water Quality (King County Conservation District)

City of Fort Collins, CO

Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards

City of Olympia, WA

Olympia Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual; Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Volume II

City of Orlando, FL

Orlando Urban Stormwater Management Manual, Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land & Water Management

City of Seattle, WA

City of Seattle Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites: Appendix A, Erosion and Sedimentation Control BMPs

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook

City of Winter Park, FL

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management

Baltimore County, MD

Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook

Clark County, WA

Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Volume 2

King County, WA

Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin

Kitsap County, WA

Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (Chapter II)

Maricopa County, AZ

None

Montgomery County, MD

Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook

Prince George's County, MD

Maryland Standards and Specifications Handbook

Snohomish County, WA

Snohomish County Stormwater Management Manual (based on criteria in Puget Sound manual)

Somerset County, NJ

See New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee Program Summary.

Washington County, OR

Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - BMPs

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Best Management Practices for Northeastern Illinois, NIPC

South Florida Water Management District

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Chapter 6)

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Chapter 6)

Suwannee River Water Management District

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Chapter 6)

State of Delaware

Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Chapter 6)

Maryland Department of the Environment

Maryland Erosion and Sediment Standards and Specifications Manual

State of New Jersey

Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey

State of North Carolina

State of North Carolina: Stormwater Management Guidance Manual and Stormwater Management Site Planning

State of Pennsylvania

Discharge rate for temporary basins = 1.6 cfs/acre (2 yr storm); for permanent basins, discharge rate = 2.75 cfs/acre (25 yr storm);

State of South Carolina

A Guide to Site Development and Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management and Sediment Control; South Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Hand Book for Land Disturbing Activities

State of Virginia

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual

Washington State Department of Ecology

Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound Basin

 


Table Stormwater 1. Stormwater Management Program Exemptions and Waivers

 

Jurisdiction

Exemptions and Waivers

City of Alexandria, VA

<2,500 s.f.

City of Austin, TX

Agriculture, state facilities, single family homes platted lots, & subdivisions (min. lot size > 5 acres)

City of Bellevue, WA

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes not part of plat

City of Fort Collins, CO

Agriculture, forestry not covered in ordinance

City of Olympia, WA

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes, other minor projects

City of Orlando, FL

Single family homes not part of subdivision

City of Seattle, WA

Agriculture, forestry (except when converting to other uses), WA DOT projects that comply with Puget Sound Highway Runoff Program, projects discharged directly to receiving water or piped storm drain (under certain conditions), < 750 s.f. new impervious surface or < 2,000 s.f. total impervious surface

District of Columbia

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes (lot size > 2 acre), projects disturbing < 5,000 s.f.

City of Winter Park, FL

Single family homes not part of subdivision

Baltimore County, MD

Agriculture, forestry, residential < 2 acre lot size AND disturb < 5,000 s.f.

Clark County, WA

Agriculture, forestry, projects < 2,000 s.f. impervious, industrial/commercial projects < 1,000 s.f. new impervious surface

King County, WA

Projects < 5,000 s.f. impervious surface; projects w/ discharge < 0.5 cfs; single family homes not part of plat

Kitsap County, WA

Agriculture (volun. use of BMPs endorsed by local SWCD); forestry (ES controls during & after harvest); single family homes < 5,000 s.f. impervious (exempt (rate control), must have ES control); roof runoff infiltration recommended (may be req'd)

Maricopa County, AZ

Agriculture, mining, single family homes not part of plat

Montgomery County, MD

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes w/ lots < 2 acres

Prince George's County, MD

Agriculture, forestry

Snohomish County, WA

Agriculture; projects < 5,000 s.f. impervious; projects which collect stormwater from more than 5,000 sq. ft. drainage area

Somerset County, NJ

Agriculture, forestry, developments not contributing to downstream impacts

Washington County, OR

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes not part of plat

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

N/A - local governments may have permitting programs

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Agriculture, forestry

South Florida Water Management District

Agriculture using closed water management systems

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Agriculture (w/ site specific Conservation Plan - appro. BMPs); forestry (complying with "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

Suwannee River Water Management District

Agriculture (with site specific Conservation Plan with appropriate BMPs); forestry (comply w/ "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

State of Delaware

Agriculture (if using Farm Conservation Plan prepared by local Soil and Water Conservation District); forestry; single family homes; projects disturbing < 5,000 s.f.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Agriculture (with site specific Conservation Plan with appropriate BMPs); forestry (comply w/ "Florida Silviculture BMP Manual"); single family homes not in subdivision

Maryland Department of the Environment

Agriculture, single family homes (min. lot size > 2 acres); developments which discharge to tidewaters, served by storm drain system, or cause < 10% increase in peak discharge rate (2 yr storm)

State of New Jersey

Agriculture; forestry, single family homes not part of larger development; developments which are minor subdivision (< 2 lots) or disturb < 100 s.f.

Continued

 

 

Table Stormwater 1. Stormwater Management Program Exemptions and Waivers (Cont.)

 

Jurisdiction

Exemptions and Waivers

State of North Carolina

Construction sties < 5 acres and not located; within ½ mile of a water classified as a High Quality Water, in a coastal county and draining to a saltwater or other classified water, and located in a non-coastal county and draining to or within one mile of a water classified as a High Quality Water or an Outstanding Resource Water.

State of Pennsylvania

Agriculture; forestry; developments which have specified amount of impervious area (depending on watershed)

State of South Carolina

Agriculture, forestry, single family homes not part of large development, utility operations with certificate of environmental compatibility

State of Virginia

Single family homes not part of larger development; agriculture; forestry; projects disturbing < 1 acre; mining & oil gas operations elsewhere permitted

Washington State Department of Ecology

Agriculture, forestry (except for forest conversions); activities disturbing < 1 acre; single family homes


Table Stormwater 2. Stormwater Management Program Preferred Practices

 

Jurisdiction

Preferred Practices

City of Alexandria, VA

NONE, but developers use non-land intensive practices

City of Austin, TX

Sedimentation/filtration basins (stormwater quality); dry detention systems (flood control); wet detention, retention/irrigation, filter strips.

City of Bellevue, WA

NONE, but require site specific stormwater plan using appropriate BMPs (wet detention, swales, filters, catch basin inserts, oil-water separators, coalescing plate separators. NO INFILTRATION (slow perc soils w/ easy clogging).

City of Fort Collins, CO

NONE

City of Olympia, WA

Treatment hierarchy: constructed wetlands for > 12 ac impervious; wet ponds & sand filters for < 12 ac impervious; biofiltration for < 12 ac impervious; wet detention vaults for < 2 ac impervious

City of Orlando, FL

Off-line retention, filtration, dry and wet detention

City of Seattle, WA

NONE

District of Columbia

Infiltration preferred, but sand filtration often used (less land req'd). Wet & dry detention, swales, dry wells, rooftop detention, underground detention

City of Winter Park, FL

Retention

Baltimore County, MD

Infiltration preferred AND required when percolation rate > 0.17 in/hr. Extended dry detention, wet detention, sand filters

Clark County, WA

Infiltration basins or trenches preferred (req'd in A and B soils); biofiltration swales, wet detention ponds, filter strips, constructed wetlands, sand filters.

King County, WA

Source controls including forest retention & erosion control; treatment including grass swales, wet detention ponds, filter strips, wet vaults

Kitsap County, WA

Wet detention & biofilt.; infiltration, ext. dry detention, const. wetlands, sand filtration

Maricopa County, AZ

Infiltration practices since retention required for all new development

Montgomery County, MD

Infiltration (when feasible) & sand filters, in combination with dry detention, for discharges to thermally sensitive waters; wet detention/wetland ponds or extended detention in combination with other practices

Prince George's County, MD

Infiltration, extended dry or wet detention, bioretention, grit & oil separators

Snohomish County, WA

Infiltration where appropriate; filtration; biofiltration; wet detention

Somerset County, NJ

Dry detention basins; vegetated swales; wet detention ponds; constructed wetlands; infiltration NOT ALLOWED

Washington County, OR

None specified; swales, extended dry detention, wetland ponds favored; infiltration NOT ALLOWED

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Extended detention basins & retention ponds; modular porous pavement; wetland basins & channels

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Extended detention basins; swales, infiltration, vegetative buffers (esp. when combined with detention)

South Florida Water Management District

Retention, exfiltration trenches, grass swales, wet detention ponds

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Retention, exfiltration trenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet detention, detention with filtration, wetland systems; "BMP Treatment Train" encouraged

Suwannee River Water Management District

Retention, exfiltration trenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet detention, detention with filtration, wetland systems; "BMP Treatment Train" encouraged

 

Continued

 

 

 

 

 

Table Stormwater 2. Stormwater Management Program Preferred Practices (Continued)

 

Jurisdiction

Preferred Practices

State of Delaware

Wet detention ponds & constructed wetlands; extended dry detention & sand filter; infiltration (least preferred)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Retention, exfiltration trenches, pervious pavement, grass swales, wet detention, detention with filtration, wetland systems; "BMP Treatment Train" encouraged

Maryland Department of the Environment

Infiltration, swales, retention, detention (preferred order)

State of New Jersey

Extended detention; wet ponds; permanent pools; infilt. basins; vegetative filters

State of North Carolina

Preventive Measures (nonstructural controls)

State of Pennsylvania

None

State of South Carolina

Wet detention, dry detention, infiltration

State of Virginia

None, but regulations have design criteria for detention, retention & infiltration

Washington State Department of Ecology

Infiltration preferred; pervious & modular pavement; grass swales; vegetated filters; extended dry detention; wet detention ponds; constructed wetlands; sand filters

 


 

 

 

Table Stormwater 3. Stormwater Management Program Currently Used Practices

 

Jurisdiction

Infiltration Basin

Infiltration Trench

Filter

Wet Detention Pond

Extended Dry Detention Pond

Peak Detention Control

Biofiltration

Dry Wells

Swales

Wetlands

Grit/Oil Separators

Underground Detention

City of Alexandria, VA

1

2

6

3

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Austin, TX

 

 

100

4

4

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Bellevue, WA

 

 

1

 

8

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

City of Olympia, WA

10

10

 

20

 

20

40

 

 

 

 

 

District of Columbia

 

 

10

 

2

 

 

72

 

 

 

 

Clark County, WA

 

 

 

35

 

 

150+

1000+

20

4

 

 

Montgomery County, MD

 

75

5

14

10

5

21

 

 

15

 

 

Prince George's County, MD

2

100

 

43

10

16

 

 

 

 

43

9

Somerset County, NJ

 

 

 

2

24

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

Washington County, OR

 

 

4 (compost)

 

10

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

South Florida Water Management District

200

100

 

600

 

 

 

 

400

 

 

 

Southwest Florida Water Management District

1457

54

507

581

 

 

 

 

 

55

 

 

State of Delaware

4-6

22

15-30

125-175

 

 

19-24

 

9-19

4

 

 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

316

 

158

15

 

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

Maryland Department of the Environment

531

 

 

 

464

 

 

 

153

47

285

 

State of South Carolina

325

4

 

100

25 (+ 150 not extended)

175

 

 

400

3

 

 

 


Table Stormwater 4. Stormwater Management Program Water Quality Performance Standards

 

Jurisdiction

Water Quality Performance Standards

City of Alexandria, VA

New development - no net increase in pollutant loading; Redevelopment - decrease loadings by 10%.

City of Austin, TX

No adverse water quality impacts

City of Bellevue, WA

No specified standard

City of Fort Collins, CO

None

City of Olympia, WA

80% removal suspended solids

City of Orlando, FL

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading

City of Seattle, WA

No specified standard

District of Columbia

Oil & Grease < 10 mg/L; reduce organic waste by min. of 85% from confined animal operations

City of Winter Park, FL

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading

Baltimore County, MD

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading

Clark County, WA

No specified standard

King County, WA

No specified standard

Kitsap County, WA

No specified standard

Maricopa County, AZ

No specified standard

Montgomery County, MD

Meet state water quality standards

Prince George's County, MD

Meet state water quality standards

Snohomish County, WA ( standards under adoption)

No specified standard

Somerset County, NJ

Treat 1.25 in (2 hr) storm

Washington County, OR

Remove 65% of total phosphorus

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Treat 80th percentile runoff event volume

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Minimize adverse impacts

South Florida Water Management District

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading; compliance with state water quality standards

Southwest Florida Water Management District

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading; compliance with state water quality standards

Suwannee River Water Management District

80% reduction average annual total suspended solids loading; compliance with state water quality standards

State of Delaware

80% reduction of annual total suspended solids loading

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

80% reduction of annual total suspended solids loading

Maryland Department of the Environment

No specified standard

State of New Jersey

80% reduction of total suspended solids

State of North Carolina

85% removal of total suspended solids (TSS)

State of Pennsylvania

No specified standard

State of South Carolina

80% reduction of annual total suspended solids loading

State of Virginia

No specified standard (draft proposed)

Washington State Department of Ecology

No specified standard

 

 


Table Stormwater 5. Stormwater Management Program Water Quality Design Criteria

 

Jurisdiction

Water Quality Design Criteria

City of Alexandria, VA

Treat 1st 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces using appropriate BMPs.

City of Austin, TX

Sedimentation/filtration to treat min. 1/2" + 0.1" for each 10% increase in impervious area above 20%; WITHIN BARTON SPRINGS ZONE - No increase in pollutant loading for 13 parameters listed in Save Our Springs Ordinance

City of Bellevue, WA

Treat runoff from 6 month (24 hr.) storm using appropriate BMPs.

City of Fort Collins, CO

None

City of Olympia, WA

Treat runoff volume of 6 month (24 hr) storm

City of Orlando, FL

Treat greater of:  1st 1/2 inch of runoff or runoff from 1st inch of rainfall

City of Seattle, WA

Treat runoff from 6 month (24 hr.) storm

District of Columbia

Treat 1st 1/2 inch of runoff or difference in runoff volume from 15 yr (post-development) and 2 yr (pre-development) storms

City of Winter Park, FL

Treat 1st inch of runoff by retention

Baltimore County, MD

Treat 1st 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces using appropriate BMPs.

Clark County, WA

Treat runoff from 6 month (24 hr) storm with appropriate BMPs

King County, WA

Treat 1/3 of runoff from 2 yr (24 hr) storm

Kitsap County, WA

Treat runoff from 6 month (24 hr) storm per WDOE requirements

Maricopa County, AZ

Follow state NPDES regulations

Montgomery County, MD

Treat 1st 1/2 inch of runoff using appropriate practices

Prince George's County, MD

Treat 1st 1/2 inch of runoff using appropriate practices

Snohomish County, WA                       (standards under adoption)

Treat post-development runoff from 6 month (24 hr) storm with appropriate BMPs

Somerset County, NJ

Discharge 90% total inflow volume within 18 hr (SF resid.) or within 36 hrs (MF resid. or non-resid.)

Washington County, OR

Treat 0.36 in of runoff (4 hr storm) from new impervious using appropriate BMPs

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Treatment volume depends on imperviousness & detention time - max. value for 100% impervious is 0.5 in runoff.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Depends on treatment practice:  6 mo storm for swales & runoff from 2 in storm for other practices

South Florida Water Management District

Treatment volume varies from 1.0 in to 2.5 in times % impervious area; dry pretreatment required for discharge to sensitive waters

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Treatment volume varies from 0.5 in to 1.5 in, depending on practice used, receiving water type, amt. Impervious surface

Suwannee River Water Management District

Treatment volume varies from 0.5 in to 2.0 in, depending on practice used, receiving water type, amt. Impervious surface

State of Delaware

Treat 1st inch of runoff by approved BMPs

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Treatment volume varies from 0.5 in to 1.5 in, depending on practice used, receiving water type, amt. Impervious surface

Maryland Department of the Environment

Manage difference between post-development & pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr storms

 

Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Stormwater 5. Stormwater Management Program Water Quality Design Criteria (Continued)

 

Jurisdiction

Water Quality Design Criteria

State of New Jersey

Manage storm > 1.25 in. in 2 hrs or 1 yr (24 hr) storm with release outflow of 90% of volume w/in 18 hrs (resid.) & w/in 36 hrs (non-resid.)

State of North Carolina

Varies with proximity to and the classification of the receiving water and also may be determined by local rules

State of Pennsylvania

Some municipalities requires practices

State of South Carolina

Treatment volume varies from 0.5 in (wet ponds) to 1 in (dry detention, retention) with drawndown w/in 24 hrs

State of Virginia

Treat 0.5 in runoff from project area; detention basins release over 30 hours; infiltration must percolate w/in 48 hrs; retention basins must have permanent pool 3 times greater than treatment volume

Washington State Department of Ecology

Treat runoff from 6 month (24 hr) storm using BMPs appropriate for site

 


Table Stormwater 6. Stormwater Management Program Peak Discharge Performance Standards

 

Jurisdiction

Peak Discharge Performance Standards

City of Alexandria, VA

No increase in rate.

City of Austin, TX

No increase in peak rate, no increase in streambank erosion.

City of Bellevue, WA

100 year storm protection

City of Fort Collins, CO

Depending on basin, can require detention with no increase in rate

City of Olympia, WA

No increase in rate.

City of Orlando, FL

No increase in rate.

City of Seattle, WA

No increase in rate.

District of Columbia

No increase in peak rate.

City of Winter Park, FL

None - rely on SJRWMD requirements

Baltimore County, MD

No increase in rate.

Clark County, WA

No specified standard

King County, WA

Base protection standard & stream protection standard

Kitsap County, WA

No specified standard

Maricopa County, AZ

No increase in velocity & peak rates of washes

Montgomery County, MD

No specified standard

Prince George's County, MD

No increase in rate.

Snohomish County, WA ( standards under adoption)

No increase in rate.

Somerset County, NJ

Performance standards set by county watershed models

Washington County, OR

No increase in rate.

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Performance standards depend on storm and location

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

No increase in rate.

South Florida Water Management District

No adverse impacts

Southwest Florida Water Management District

No adverse impacts

Suwannee River Water Management District

No adverse impacts

State of Delaware

No increase in rate.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

None - set by local government

Maryland Department of the Environment

No specified standard

State of New Jersey

Match pre-development conditions; non-erosive

State of North Carolina

Varies with proximity to and the classification of the receiving water and also may be determined by local rules

State of Pennsylvania

Performance standard set in local watershed plan

State of South Carolina

No increase in rate.

State of Virginia

No increase in rate.

Washington State Department of Ecology

No specified standard; minimize bank erosion

 

 

 


Table Stormwater 7. Stormwater Management Program Peak Discharge Design Criteria

 

Jurisdiction

Peak Discharge Design Criteria

City of Alexandria, VA

Post-development peak rate less than or equal to pre-development rate for 2-yr. & 10-yr. (2 hr.) storm

City of Austin, TX

Post-development rate < pre-development for 2, 10, 25, 100-yr (24 hr) storm

City of Bellevue, WA

< 5 ac. à <0.2 cfs/acre; > 5 ac. à post-development <= pre-development for 2 yr & 10 yr (24 hr.) storm

City of Fort Collins, CO

Post-development rate for 100 yr (1 to 3 hr) storm < historic 2-yr (1 to 3 hr) storm

City of Olympia, WA

Post-development rate not exceed pre-development for 2 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storm. Max. release rates 0.04 cfs/acre (2-yr) & 0.35 cfs/acre (100 yr)

City of Orlando, FL

Post-development peak rate < pre-development rate for 25-yr (24 hr) storm

City of Seattle, WA

< 0.2 cfs/acre for 25 yr (24 hr) storm for   < 9,000 s.f.;  < 15 cfs/acre for 2 yr (24 hr) storm for > 9,000 s.f.

District of Columbia

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr, 10 yr, & 100 yr (24 hr) storms

City of Winter Park, FL

Post-development rate < pre-development rate for 25 yr (24 hr) storm

Baltimore County, MD

Post-development rate < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr (24 hr) storms

Clark County, WA

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr, 10 yr, & 100 yr (24 hr) storms

King County, WA

Base protection: post-development rate < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr storm; stream protection: post-development rate < pre-development rate for 100 yr storm; control duration for 2 to 50 yr storm

Kitsap County, WA

Post-development rate < 50% of pre-development rate for 2 yr (24 hr) storm, & pre-development rate for 10 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storms [SBUH analysis]

Maricopa County, AZ

Site specific analysis required.

Montgomery County, MD

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr (24 hr) storm & when necessary, for 10 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storm

Prince George’s County, MD

Post-development peak rate < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr (24 hr) storms, & for 100 yr (24 hr) storm if downstream flooding potential

Snohomish County, WA ( standards under adoption)

Post-development < pre-development rate for 10 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storm; if no infiltration, rate of detained volume release < 50% of pre-development rate

Somerset County, NJ

Post-development rate < percentage of pre-development rate: 2 yr storm (50%); 10 yr storm (75%); 100 yr storm (80%)

Washington County, OR

Post-development < pre-development rate for 25 yr (24 hr) storm

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Post-development peak rate for 2 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr, 50 yr, 100 yr storm < historic (undeveloped) rate for 5 yr & larger storms

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Post-development < pre-development rate w/ max. 0.15 cfs for 100 yr (24 hr) storm

South Florida Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development rate for 25 yr (3 day) storm (unless downstream designed for higher rate)

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development rate for 25 yr (24 hr) storm

Suwannee River Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development rate for critical duration storm (storm up to 100 yr (24 hr) that produces greatest change)

Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Stormwater 7. Stormwater Management Program Peak Discharge Design Criteria (Continued)

 

Jurisdiction

Peak Discharge Design Criteria

State of Delaware

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr (24 hr) storms; northern 20% of state - same control for 100 yr (24 hr) storm

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Post-development < pre-development rate for 10 yr to 25 yr (24 hr) storm

Maryland Department of the Environment

Post-development rate < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr storms

State of New Jersey

Post-development rate & volume < pre-development rate & volume for 2 yr, 10 yr, & 100 yr (24 hr) storm

State of North Carolina

Varies with proximity to and the classification of the receiving water and also may be determined by local rules

State of Pennsylvania

Level of control (design & rate) established by local gov. in its watershed plan

State of South Carolina

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr, 25 yr (24 hr) storm; must pass 100 yr (24 hr) storm

State of Virginia

Post-development < pre-development rate for 2 yr & 10 yr storms; duration is 24 hr storm (SCS Method) or critical storm (Rational Method)

Washington State Department of Ecology

Post-development < 50% pre-development rate for 2 yr (24 hr) storm; post-development < pre-development rate for 10 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storm

 


Table Stormwater 8. Stormwater Management Program Volume Performance Standards

 

Jurisdiction

Volume Performance Standards

City of Alexandria, VA

None

City of Austin, TX

None

City of Bellevue, WA

100 year storm protection

City of Fort Collins, CO

None

City of Olympia, WA

Maintain 100 year volume on site

City of Orlando, FL

In closed basins

City of Seattle, WA

None

District of Columbia

None

City of Winter Park, FL

None

Baltimore County, MD

None

Clark County, WA

Maintain groundwater recharge; maintain existing flows & levels in downstream channels

King County, WA

None - under study

Kitsap County, WA

Only for certain downstream waters

Maricopa County, AZ

No increase allowed (flood prevention)

Montgomery County, MD

None

Prince George's County, MD

None

Snohomish County, WA ( standards under adoption)

No specified standard

Somerset County, NJ

Offset increased runoff volumes and flow durations that create or add to channel erosion

Washington County, OR

None

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

None

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Minimize increases to lessen downstream flooding, enhance recharge & base flow

South Florida Water Management District

No increase in rate; maintain ground water recharge & downstream baseflow

Southwest Florida Water Management District

In closed basins, no increase for design storm

Suwannee River Water Management District

No net increase in flood storage

State of Delaware

No specified standard

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

None - set by local government (rare except in closed basin)

Maryland Department of the Environment

No specified standard

State of New Jersey

Approximate pre-development hydrology (proposed)

State of North Carolina

Varies with proximity to and the classification of the receiving water and also may be determined by local rules

State of Pennsylvania

No specified standard

State of South Carolina

None

State of Virginia

No specified standard

Washington State Department of Ecology

No specified standard; goal to recharge aquifer, maintain baseflows

 


Table Stormwater 9. Stormwater Management Program Volume Design Criteria

 

Jurisdiction

Volume Design Criteria

City of Alexandria, VA

None

City of Austin, TX

None

City of Bellevue, WA

For detention systems, require multiple release rate

City of Fort Collins, CO

None

City of Olympia, WA

Infiltrate all of 100-yr volume if percolation rate on-site > 6 in/hr. Between 0.5 & 6 in/hr, must infiltrate part of volume

City of Orlando, FL

Retain runoff from 100 yr (24 hr) storm

City of Seattle, WA

None

District of Columbia

None

City of Winter Park, FL

None

Baltimore County, MD

None

Clark County, WA

Post-development < pre-development volume for 2 yr (24 hr) storm; post-development < pre-development volume for 10 yr & 100 yr (24 hr) storms for downstream channels

King County, WA

None

Kitsap County, WA

Post-development < pre-development volume for 100 yr (7 day) storm using SBUH analysis

Maricopa County, AZ

Retain runoff volume from 100 yr (2 hr) storm

Montgomery County, MD

None

Prince George's County, MD

Infiltration required if soil percolation rate > 0.17 in/hr

Snohomish County, WA ( standards under adoption)

Infiltrate runoff from 2 yr (24 hr) storm to extent site conditions allow

Somerset County, NJ

Reduce 2 yr peak rate by 50%

Washington County, OR

None

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

None

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Promote minimizing imperviousness & maximizing infiltration

South Florida Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development volume for all storms up to 100 yr (24 hr) storm

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development volume for all storms up to 100 yr (24 hr) storm

Suwannee River Water Management District

Post-development < pre-development volume for all storms up to 100 yr (24 hr) storm

State of Delaware

None

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Post-development < pre-development volume for 25 yr to 100 yr (24 hr) storm

Maryland Department of the Environment

None

State of New Jersey

Post-development 2-yr peak = 50% of pre-development; post-development 10 yr & 100 yr peak = 75% existing

State of Pennsylvania

May be set by watershed plan

State of South Carolina

None

State of Virginia

None

Washington State Department of Ecology

Infiltrate runoff from 2 yr (24 hr) storm to extent site conditions allow

 

 

 


Table Stormwater 10. Stormwater Management Program Source Controls

 

Jurisdiction

Source Controls

City of Alexandria, VA

Developing Non-Structural BMP Handbook for Auto-Related Businesses (pub. 1995)

City of Austin, TX

“Save Our Springs” ordinance requires all land uses within Barton Springs to use source controls including limits on turf grass & landscaped areas, integrated pest management, chemical storage restrictions, homeowner education packets (lawn care, pest treatment, recycling, household waste disposal, general watershed information)

City of Bellevue, WA

Encouraged esp. for construction and gasoline-related and food-related activities.

City of Fort Collins, CO

Encouraged in city’s NPDES MS4 permit proram. Favor pollution prevention for all land uses. Passive treatment methods incorp. Into master planned drainages to promote habitat protection.

City of Olympia, WA

Encouraged for all land uses; maintenance plans inc. pollution source control for site. Encourage roofing operations or storage areas, placing berms around barrel for secondary containment, directing wash water to sanitary sewer, proper disposal, good housekeeping

City of Orlando, FL

Encouraged on all land uses.

City of Seattle, WA

Enc. All land uses; inspect comm. & indust. Business served by sep. storm sewers; Enc. Roofing for storage areas, berms around barrels for sec. Contain., directing wash water to sanitary sewer, proper waste disposal, good housekeeping (esp. around outside dumpsters)

District of Columbia

Oil recycling, good housekeeping, street sweeping, natural system conservation – all land uses

City of Winter Park, FL

Good housekeeping, landscaping, eduction on commercial and multifamily residential projects

Baltimore County, MD

Encouraged all land uses; rec. limit imperviousness & using buffers to protect streams & wetlands

Clark County, WA

Recomm. Specific land uses, inc. manu., transp. & communication, wholesale/retail sales, service business, public land activities; inc. fuel station, vehicle/equip. wash areas, storage/loading of solid/liquid mat’l, veg. Mgmt practices.

King County, WA

Enc. All land uses – urban (citizen & business education); agriculture (density limits on livestock & limit animal access to streams); construction (clearing limits in wet season)

Kitsap County, WA

Recomm. Manu., transp. & commun., wholesale/retail sales, service business, public land activity; inc. fuel station, vehicle/equip. wash areas, storage/loading of materials, vegetative mgmt

Maricopa County, AZ

Pollution prevention plans that emphasize general housekeeping & using less toxic materials

Montgomery County, MD

Gen. Public info.; edu. Re: proper use of fertilizers/pesticides, proper disposal of oil, antifreeze, & other haz wastes; practices to imp. Health of riparian zones (esp. in proposed special protection areas)

Prince George’s County, MD

As required by County’s NPDES municipal storm sewer system permit.

Snohomish County, WA (stds under adoption)

Encouraged for commercial and industrial land uses; inc. mat’l handling, roofing, proper plumbing

Somerset County, NJ

Encouraged for all land uses. Include material protection & storage, spill prevention & clean-up, fertilizer & pesticide use & management

Washington County, OR

Encourage 25 ft wide buffers – stream corridors & wetlands (new developments); cover prac. Emph.

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Encouraged all land uses; inc. minimizing DCIA, grass buffers, swales, good housekeeping practices

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Encouraged for all land uses

South Florida Water Management District

Dry pretreatment for industrial & commercial land uses; no discharges of industrial waste or hazardous & toxic substances into stormwater system

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Agriculture has site specific farm plan with appropriate BMPs; BMPs include irrigation management, nutrient & pesticide management, field layout, wetland avoidance, buffers.

Suwannee River Water Management District

Indust. & comm.; no disch. Indus. Waste, haz or toxic substance in storm sewer; contain. Plans req’d

 

Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Stormwater 10. Stormwater Management Program Source Controls (Continued)

 

Jurisdiction

Source Controls

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Encourage poll. prev. source controls; emph. educ. for students, citizens, businesses, elected officials, & practitioners - stress interrelationships & how to abate "Pointless Personal Pollution."

State of New Jersey

Site plan/design; nat. feature preserve; min. disturbance/impervious cover; nat. landscape; fertilizer/pesticide controls; haz waste collection

State of Pennsylvania

Encouraged for agricultural activities; include tillage practices, animal waste/ nutrient management

State of South Carolina

Encourage for truck stops, indust., large comm., multi-family resid.; inc. cover loading docks & other  handling areas; street sweep (inc. parking); dry cleaning trash handling areas; sequencing const.

State of Virginia

Enc. alt. to struct. controls; inc. cluster devel., min. imperv. surf. & curbs, open space acquisition, floodplain mgmt, wetlands & steep slope prot., vegetation

Washington State Department of Ecology

Recomm. specific land uses, inc. manu., transp. & comm., wholesale/retail sales, service business,  public land activity; inc. fueling stations, vehicle/equip. wash areas, storage/loading, vegetative mgmt

 


Table Stormwater 11. Stormwater Management Program Other Requirements

 

Jurisdiction

Other Requirements

City of Alexandria, VA

Downstream evaluation required for protection of downstream channel stability.

City of Austin, TX

Downstream evaluation required for protection of downstream channel stability.

City of Bellevue, WA

Downstream evaluation required with maximum velocity specified to assure downstream channel stability

City of Fort Collins, CO

Downstream evaluation required for discharges to master planned facilities. No criteria for downstream channel stability

City of Olympia, WA

Downstream evaluation required with maximum velocity specified to assure downstream channel stability

City of Orlando, FL

Downstream evaluation required for protection of downstream channel stability.

City of Seattle, WA

Downstream evaluation required with maximum velocity specified to assure downstream channel stability

District of Columbia

Downstream evaluation required for protection of downstream channel stability.

City of Winter Park, FL

Lakefront residential units must direct runoff to pervious areas. Downstream evaluation NOT REQUIRED to assure protection of downstream channel stability.

Baltimore County, MD

Downstream evaluation required for suitable outfall and downstream channel stability.

Clark County, WA

Downstream evaluation of capacity required if pre-development runoff calculations do not assume undisturbed forest in determining runoff curve number.

King County, WA

Downstream evaluation required for min. ¼ mile or 15% of drainage system w/ downstream channel stability required when stream protection standard applies

Kitsap County, WA

Downstream evaluation required for at least ¼ mile with downstream channel stability evaluated; flooding & water quality impacts evaluated

Maricopa County, AZ

Downstream evaluation required for any off-site discharges (prevent increase in downstream flooding potential); Downstream channel stability evaluation required where potential problem exists.

Montgomery County, MD

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Prince George’s County, MD

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Snohomish County, WA (stds under adoption)

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Somerset County, NJ

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Washington County, OR

Downstream evaluation required to prevent increase in downstream flooding potential with detention or increased conveyance capacity used as mitigation; no evaluation of channel stability required.

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Downstream evaluation may be required, esp. if no master plan for area; downstream channel stability required using grade control or bank erosion control

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Downstream evaluation recommended; 2 yr storm peak discharge rate of 0.04 cfs/acre to minimize channel erosion

South Florida Water Management District

Downstream evaluation required for natural systems (downstream channel stability)

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Suwannee River Water Management District

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

 

Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Stormwater 11. Stormwater Management Program Other Requirements (Continued)

 

Jurisdiction

Other Requirements

Maryland Department of the Environment

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability

State of New Jersey

Downstream evaluation required for no increase in peak velocities & downstream channel stability

State of Pennsylvania

Downstream evaluation may be required by local government

State of South Carolina

Downstream evaluation required with maximum velocity specified to assure downstream channel stability

State of Virginia

Downstream evaluation NOT required, but discharge must not cause instability of downstream channel

Washington State Department of Ecology

Downstream evaluation required for downstream channel stability; stream channel erosion BMPs must have correction factor which ranges from 20 to 50% of design volume depending on amount of impervious surface

 

 

 


Table Stormwater 12. Stormwater Management Program Publications

 

Jurisdiction

Publications

City of Alexandria, VA

City's Supplement to the Northern Virginia BMP Handbook

City of Austin, TX

Environmental Criteria Manual; Guidance for Compliance with the Technical Requirements of the SOS Ordinance

City of Bellevue, WA

BP How To Manual; Water Quality Protection for Bellevue Business; Consumer Choices - Car Care, Lawn & Garden Care, Home & Bldg. Maintenance; Business Partners, Storm Drain Stenciling Brochure; Stream Team Guidebook or Brochure; IPM Notebook

City of Fort Collins, CO

Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards; Stormwater Utility Brochure, Community Streams - Clean or Under Attack Brochure; Irrigation Ditches Brochure

City of Olympia, WA

Olympia Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual; Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound

City of Orlando, FL

Orlando Urban Stormwater Management Manual

City of Seattle, WA

City of Seattle Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites: Appendix B; Guidelines for Controlling Pollutants Other Than Sediment on Construction Sites

District of Columbia

Oil Recycling; The D.C. Urban Homeowner's Guide on Ground Maintenance

Clark County, WA

County ordinances; Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin

Kitsap County, WA

Ordinance, Stormwater Program booklet & brochure, Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin

Maricopa County, AZ

Arizona NPDES stormwater regulations; Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County (Volume I: Hydrology; Volume II: Hydraulics; Volume III: Erosion Control)

Montgomery County, MD

County stormwater regulations, checklists, and design guidances

Prince George's County, MD

County Stormwater Management Design Manual, 1991; Design Manual for Use of Bioretention in Stormwater Management, 1993; pamphlets on lawn care, car care, etc.

Snohomish County, WA (standards under adoption)

State of the Waters: 1993 Assessment; Stormwater Characterization and Pollution Load Estimattes (May 1994); 1993-94 Watershed Education Program Final Report and Evaluation (Sept. 1994); Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin; numerous publications on watershed management plans for several watersheds and regional detention siting or design reports

Somerset County, NJ

Source controls, fertilizer, & pesticide use by residents.

Washington County, OR

Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook; Portland/USA Water Quality Facilities Technical Guidance Handbook; King County Hydrology/Hydraulics Method Handbook

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver)

Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1 and 2 (rev. 1991); Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - BMPs (1992)

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Model Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance; Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices for Northeastern Illinois

South Florida Water Management District

Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Part IV, Applicant's Handbook

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Part IV, Applicant's Handbook

State of Delaware

Delaware Stormwater Standards and Specifications Manual

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (BMP Design Manual); Florida Silviculture BMP Manual; Stormwater Management: A Guide for Floridians; Model Local Government Stormwater Management Program

State of New Jersey

New Jersey Guide to Stormwater Management Practices (BMP Manual); New Jersey Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual

State of Pennsylvania

 

State of South Carolina

A Guide to Site Development and Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management and Sediment Control; South Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Hand Book for Land Disturbing Activities

State of Virginia

Stormwater Management Handbook (available January 1996)

Washington State Department of Ecology

Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin

 


The following is a summary of some of the current statewide stormwater management programs.

 

 

Alabama

Alabama has NPDES delegated authority from the USEPA. ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management) issues general permits through its Industrial Branch as well as its Mining and Nonpoint Source Section.  ADEM requires Municipal Stormwater Permits for Birmingham, Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile.  Construction site sedimentation and erosion control regulations are implemented by the Mining and Nonpoint Source Section of ADEM.  Along the Gulf of Mexico construction site discharges and other industrial operations are regulated by the Coastal Zone Management Program (Thompson). Local communities can also provide additional requirements. As an example, Mobile has experienced flooding problems for many years. An engineering study identified 92 separate stormwater drainage projects having an estimated cost of about $100 million (Steeves and Chapman 1988). This study recommended that a stormwater management utility be established within the City's Department of Public Works. In 1987, after many public meetings, Mobile adopted a water management plan and approved the concept of a user's fee to pay for these needed stormwater drainage improvements. Besides flood control objectives, this utility would also monitor water quality and plan for future water quality improvement projects. The annual operations and maintenance budget for this utility was estimated to be about $3.5 million. The estimated fees to pay for this service would be about $3 per household per month.

 

Alaska

Alaska does not have NPDES permitting authority. However, permits issued by the USEPA become state permits once the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation demonstrates its ability to issue and enforce these permits. Aside from the basic EPA stormwater permit requirements, the state of Alaska also requires a “qualified personnel provided by the discharger” to inspect certain areas. These areas include disturbed areas of construction sites that have not been stabilized, storage areas exposed to precipitation, structural control measures and locations of entrance and exit to the site. These designated areas must be inspected within 24 hours of any rain event greater than 0.5 inches.

 

Arizona

Stormwater permits in Arizona are issued by the USEPA, as the state does not have permitting authority. Therefore the stormwater permit requirements are nearly identical to those in the general nationwide program, with a few additional requirements. Arizona requires a secondary containment system able to hold the entire contents of the largest single tank plus adequate freeboard to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour rain event for industries storing chemicals defined as priority under SARA. Best management practices have been outlined with regard to runoff control. These BMPs are currently required for agricultural operations using nitrogen fertilizers. Other sources of runoff, such as urban stormwater runoff, resource extraction, grazing and siviculture will soon be subject to BMP compliance as well. Several cities in Arizona have additional regulations to prevent pollution from stormwater discharge.  Examples of these additional regulations are the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa all require retention basins to control construction site runoff.

 

Arkansas

Arkansas has delegated stormwater permitting authority, meaning it issues and regulates its own permits based on the guidelines set forth by the EPA. In addition to these guidelines, the state has established some numeric effluent limitations. For example, coal pile runoff should not exceed concentrations of 50 mg/L maximum suspended solids and pH must be within 6-9. The state has determined parameters which must be measured by permittees as well. Primary metal industries and wood treatment facilities must sample for BOD5, and land disposal facilities must test for ammonia and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen.

 

The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology publishes guidance for detention ponds and erosion control.  If a study of a proposed development indicates flooding problems, a development permit would be denied without stormwater control.  Examples of acceptable controls are on-site storage, off-site storage or an improved drainage system.  The method used for stormwater detention is the modified rational hydrograph method.  This guidance includes tables and graphs for determining time of concentration and rain intensity.  The required volume of detention is evaluated according to the following methods (Contractor’s Guidance):

 

A.      Volume of detention for projects of less than 50 acres shall be evaluated by the ‘simplified volume formula’.

B.       Volume of detention for projects 50 acres or greater but less than 200 acres may be evaluated either by the “simplified volume formula” or the “modified rational hydrograph method”.

C.       For projects larger than 200 acres, the owner’s engineer shall submit a proposed method of evaluation for the sizing of the retention basin or detention basin to the Department Public Works.  The method will be evaluated for a professional acceptance, applicability and reliability by the City Engineer.  No detail review for projects larger than 200 acres will be rendered before the method of evaluation of the retention or detention basin is approved.

D.      Other analytical methods of evaluation of volume of detention require approval by the City Engineer.

E.        

California

California is an NPDES delegated state with general permitting authority, however the state has instituted a fairly large number of requirements stricter than those outlined by the EPA. In contrast to the EPA permit, California has established that the primary activity at a facility does not necessarily determine the category of industrial activity at a location. Each area of the facility is treated differently. For example at a school, although its primary activity is education, the vehicle service area is nevertheless treated as a transportation area. Whether the activity is primary or auxiliary is of no concern under the regulations, each use is considered individually under the permit. Strict guidelines are also in effect as to sources considered to be point sources. Sheet flow from a parking lot is considered to be a point source requiring a permit. This is not the case in most states. Monitoring programs are also stricter than those in effect nationally; guidelines for establishing these programs and the objectives they must accomplish are clearly outlined in the regulations. Sampling must include pH, total suspended solids, specific conductance, and total organic carbon, as well as toxic chemical specific to an individual site. The state has determined that it is not feasible at this time to establish numeric limits for those parameters not listed under a specific industry. Construction site permits require erosion and sediment controls, post-construction stormwater controls, and inspection of the site before anticipated storm events, and after these events to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken.

 

Colorado

Colorado issues its own stormwater permits as an NPDES delegated state. The state has established some numeric effluent limitations. Concentrations of pollutants are limited for the following industries; phosphate manufacturing, fertilizer manufacturing, petroleum refining, cement manufacturing, and coal pile runoff. Construction sites having stormwater permits must be inspected every 14 days and after any precipitation or snowmelt event that causes surface runoff. Coal mining permits establish specific numeric limits for effluents at active and post-mining outfalls. In addition to these limits, control measures also govern drainage control, subsidence, acid runoff control, grading, and other reclamation activities. Any drainage from coal mines must flow into a treatment pond, which is then treated as a point source discharge. In order to obtain a municipal stormwater permit, an area must first establish a record of all stormwater outfalls requiring a large amount of monitoring. Secondly, a stormwater management program must be established. Ben Urbonas of the City of Denver, at a 1987 Maryland training program, reported that simple peak runoff rate controls were not adequately protecting Denver’s streams. Urbanization increased flooding flow rates by about two times in the Denver area, but the critical pollutant carrying flows associated with common storms were increased by several hundred times. Denver then began concentrating on the use of on-site detention, along with sand filters coupled to extended detention facilities, to better control stormwater quality.

 

Connecticut

NPDES permitting authority has been delegated to the state of Connecticut by the USEPA. Permit guidelines have been made more stringent for some specific permits. Industrial sites must have additional means by which to store potentially hazardous materials and measures must be made so that the storage of chemical must be under a roof to minimize stormwater contamination. Salt storage piles must follow the same general guidelines. Monitoring must be done for a range of pollutants three times a year. Acute biomonitoring tests must be conducted yearly for a large number of permittees. Also, industrial stormwater permits disallow visible floatables including scum, except for those naturally occurring. Construction permits also have a relatively large number of additional requirements. Sediment basins are required to accommodate drainage areas greater than five acres of disturbed soil. Construction permits also require full descriptions of measures to be taken to eliminate or reduce stormwater runoff when construction is finished. Permittees need to install stormwater management programs that will remove 80 percent of total suspended solids from stormwater. Velocity dissipation devices are also required.

 

Delaware

Delaware is an NPDES delegated permitting state, following for the most part the general guidelines set forth by the EPA. The state has established additional regulations to address stormwater runoff by construction activities. No more than 20 acres of a single development may be disturbed at a time, and any site that is not worked for more than 14 days must be stabilized. In new developments, stormwater management measures are required. Permanent measures must remove 80 percent of the total suspended solids for the site and be capable of storing runoff from storms up to 100 years. Acceptable BMPs are detention ponds, retention ponds, or sand filter systems. The method encouraged by the state is the development of wetlands to manage the stormwater.

 

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia does not have NPDES permitting authority and therefore permits for this region are issued by the USEPA. It follows that this region’s regulations are nearly identical to those enforced nationally. However there have been some additional restrictions put on industrial dischargers. A numeric limit of 50 mg/L total suspended solids has been set for effluent consisting entirely of coal pile runoff. It is unlawful to meet this limit by merely diluting the runoff with other flows, such as stormwater. Values for pH from coal runoff must fall between 6 and 8.5. In the Chesapeake Bay drainage, industrial dischargers must provide control measures to achieve a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous loads entering the waters of the bay. 

 

Florida

Florida has had stormwater regulations since 1979 (Livingston 1988). The initial Stormwater Rule was revised in 1982 and requires a stormwater permit for all new stormwater discharges and for modifications to existing discharges that were modified to increase flow or pollutant loadings. This state permit program had to be implemented within the framework of the Clean Water Act. Required best management practices must be designed according to site specific conditions and are to be monitored to ensure correct performance. If the monitoring indicates poor performance, the controls must be corrected.

               

Controls that may be required for specific projects include grass drainage swales, percolation ponds, wet detention ponds with filtration, and wetland treatment. Florida has encouraged innovative control designs that promote multiple uses and that can be located on city owned property. Examples of recent innovative controls include the construction of a spreader swale that causes stormwater to overflow onto a city park for percolation. Existing lakes are also being modified to enhance their stormwater control capabilities.

 

Florida is a state with NPDES permitting authority. Additional regulations have been placed on several industries. For example, SWP3 site descriptions for construction sites must include rational method estimates of runoff coefficients for before, during and after the construction project. Post construction controls are to be designed to remove at least 80% of the average annual pollutant loads from a given site whose discharge flows into Outstanding Florida waters. These controls may include stormwater detention structures, retention structures, the use of vegetated swales, or other such similar measures. Velocity dissipation devices must be employed to supply non-erosive outfall discharges. The main goal of these stipulations is to “equalize pre and post development stormwater peak discharge rates and volumes”. The state has stormwater management programs at the state, watershed and local level. In 70 communities in the state, stormwater utilities have been set up and financed by local user fees. Charges are applied based on parcel size and proportion of impervious area to natural area.

 

Georgia

The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 requires that a permit be obtained for many land disturbing activities. These permits examine specific development and erosion control plans but were not required to specifically address stormwater quality controls.

               

Local governments can adopt ordinances to enforce this law, but the State's Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources will have permitting and enforcement responsibilities if no local regulations are passed. However, local review of erosion control plans by the regional Soil and Water Conservation District must be provided. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is commonly asked to provide technical assistance in these reviews. Georgia erosion control plans are prepared with little specific guidance from the Erosion and Sediment Control Act and therefore rely on close working relationships with the local NRCS offices.

 

Georgia is a permitting state under the NPDES program. The major difference in Georgia’s stormwater regulation is the addition of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975. This act requires a permit for any land disturbing activity larger than 1.1 acres.

 

Hawaii

Hawaii has NPDES delegated permitting authority. All permittees in this state must comply with the states basic water quality criteria, which lists prohibited substances. Examples of these are; oil, materials that will form objectionable sludge, substances that will affect the taste or odor of water, pathogenic organisms and others. Discharges are further restricted as to the specific concentrations allowed. They can not contain pollutants in 24-hour average concentrations greater than the values obtained by multiplying the minimum dilution by the applicable standards, and non-carcinogenic pollutants in 30-day average concentrations. For construction sites, BMP plans must be implemented to control construction runoff, these controls must be checked weekly during dry periods and within 24 hours after any rainfall event of 0.5 inches or greater. Pre-construction groundcover may not be disturbed more than 20 days before construction begins. Temporary soil erosion measures must be used where construction will continue for 30 days or more. Measures must be taken to ensure that runoff does not cause erosion. Examples of these measures are; runoff must be discharged through a lined channel or pipe and “all surface water” flowing toward a construction area should be diverted. Muddy waters that have been pumped from a construction site must be held in a settling basin and treated before being released. In addition to the state regulations many local city and county governments have additional regulations for controlling stormwater pollution.

 

Monitoring requirements are outlined for industrial dischargers. Stormwater pollution control plans (SWPCP’s) must be developed and implemented by industrial dischargers.  These SWPCP’s parallel the U.S. EPA’s basline SWPCP’s. Hawaii requires a secondary containment system for industries handling chemicals defined as priority under SARA.

 

Idaho

Idaho does not have NPDES permitting authority, its permits are issued by the U.S.EPA, Region 10. The state has an additional voluntary program for controlling agricultural non-point source pollution. Idaho has additional regulations for runoff from silvicultural and mining sites. The following table “summarizes the current regulations for storm water pollution control” in Idaho.

 

Land Use Activity

Agency of Local Function

Permit, Approved Process, or Authority

Type of Construction

Plan Review

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Review (optional at local level)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits

industrial, commercial and residential over 5 acres

Drainage Plan review

Local public works or building department

Consult local authority

commercial, residential

Storm Water Discharges

To a right-of-way

Local or county highway district

Consult local authority

industrial, commercial, residential

To a natural waterway

EPA and/or local/watershed-based authority

NPDES discharge permit

industrial, commercial, residential

To a privately-owned canal or drain

Local canal or drainage district or EPA

Permission from local canal company or drainage district, NPDES discharge permit

industrial, commercial, residential

To a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) canal

BOR,

EPA

Permission from BOR, NPDES discharge permit

industrial, commercial, residential

From selected industrial facilities

EPA

NPDES stormwater discharge permit

Industrial

Storm Water Disposal

To subsurface through an injection well

Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) regional office

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

Industrial, commercial, residential

Site Preparation/Construction

All new development/ redevelopment

Local public works or building department

Local or county ordinance(s)

commercial, residential

Construction over 5 acres

EPA

NPDES stormwater permit

industrial, commercial, residential

Development project potentially impacting an existing highway

Idaho Transportation Department, Local or county highway district

Idaho Code, Title 18, Chapter 39, Section 7-8

industrial, commercial, residential

Development project potentially impacting an existing drainage facility

Local public works or building department, Canal company, Drainage district

Local or county ordinance(s)

industrial, commercial, residential

Dewatering

Discharges to right-of-way

Local or county highway district

Consult local authority

industrial, commercial, residential

Discharge to a privately-owned canal or drain

Local canal company, Drainage district

Permission form canal company or drainage district, NPDES discharge permit

industrial, commercial, residential

 

 

 

 

Land Use Activity

Agency of Local Function

Permit, Approved Process, or Authority

Type of Construction

Other Permits

Stream Channel Alteration

IDWR

Stream Channel Alteration Permit

industrial, commercial, residential

Filling of wetlands other natural waterways of the U.S.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 343-0671

404 (dredge and fill) permit

industrial, commercial, residential

Source: Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties.

 

Illinois

Illinois has NPDES delegated permitting authority from the USEPA.  The Illinois EPA has general permitting requirements similar to the EPA’s baseline general permit for the following; industrial dischargers, stormwater pollution prevention plans (SPW3), and construction sites disturbing five or more acres of land. Individual municipalities have provisions in their building codes to regulate construction site erosion. The state of Illinois does not regulate detention ponds used for flow attenuation purposes. Those facilities are regulated by some Illinois counties.  The  Illinois EPA publishes the Illinois Urban Manual which includes Soil conservation Service Conservation Practice Standards “Impoundment Structure – Full Flow” and “Impoundment Structure – Routed”. This agency also distributes the U.S. EPA publication, Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices.

 

Indiana

Indiana has NPDES delegated general permitting authority from the USEPA.  Indiana issues general stormwater permits for industrial dischagers and construction sites disturbing five or more acres of land. IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) also regulates stormwater runoff from certain industries using NPDES wastewater permits. Examples of these industries would include the steel and coal mining industries. There are no state level requirements for storm water (only) detention ponds. A facility is free to build one if and how they choose. Sometimes to control flooding, at the local level, there are requirements for storm water detention. If a pond is going to receive wastewater in addition to storm water (i.e., process wastewater) then it would be considered a water pollution treatment/control facility, and there are criteria that must be met.

 

Iowa

Iowa has NPDES delegated permitting authority. Regulations instituted by the state dictate that facilities in sensitive watersheds that contribute to the water quality problems of the area must follow more stringent guidelines. Coal pile runoff is subject to numeric limits of less than 50 mg/L total suspended solids, and pH must be between 6 and 9. The state has also passed sedimentation and erosion regulations for agricultural and construction sites. These laws are enforced on a complaint driven basis, and can lead to an order to undertake corrective action.

 

Kansas

NPDES permitting authority has been delegated to the state of Kansas by the U.S. EPA. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) administers the NPDES program which follows the EPA’s baseline general permit with additional requirements for conforming to water quality standards established by the state.  Construction site permitees are required to prepare stormwater pollution prevention plans (SPW3s). However, industrial stormwater dischargers are not required to develop SPW3s.  A sediment basin is required for construction sites were 10 or more acres of land are disturbed at one time. The basin will provide at least 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, unless the flows are diverted around both the disturbed area and the sediment basin. KDHE has a nonpoint source pollution program and the Department of Agriculture has statewide authority to develop pesticide management areas. One of these has been instituted for the area over the Delaware River.

 

Kentucky

Kentucky is another state with NPDES delegating authority. In Kentucky, this program falls under the Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit program administered by the Kentucky Division of Water. This program applies to construction sites that will disturb five or more acres of land and other industrial facilities. Required BMPs for industrial dischargers are similar to EPA’s baseline general permit.  Construction site permits suggest BMP’s that are baseline and are mostly voluntary. However, mandatory requirements at local municipalities levels are required to be included and implemented.

 

Louisiana

Louisiana is an NPDES delegated state with the authority to issue its own discharge permits. In addition to the guidelines set forth by the EPA, Louisiana has implemented some supplementary standards. Numeric limits have been set for industrial dischargers that limit the amount of total organic carbon that may be discharged to 50 mg/L and oil and grease discharges are limited to 15 mg/L.  Oil and Gas exploration activities have standards for COD (daily max 100 mg/L), total organic carbon (50mg/L), and oil and grease (15 mg/L). These activities are also limited in the amount of chlorides they may discharge into brackish waters. Facilities covered by industrial permits must have a stormwater pollution prevention plan that outlines how numeric limits will be achieved. This plan must also identify potential pollution sources and describe the practices that will reduce pollution and fulfill permit requirements. Louisiana has also developed state stormwater regulations that require a Louisiana Water Pollution Discharge System permit if the potential for water contamination exists, or large volumes of stormwater will be discharged, or in areas where industrial materials are stored. Coastal areas are also of great concern and are therefore subject to additional regulations. Projects within coastal areas must be designed to avoid discharge of nutrients into coastal waters, and to prevent the alteration of oxygen concentration. Development may not damage streams, wetlands, or other features of the environment, and must attempt to avoid the destructive discharges of sediment, pathogens, or toxic substance and to prevent reductions in the productivity of the waters. Attention must also be paid to dissolved oxygen content and heavy metals.

 

Maine

Maine does not have NPDES permitting authority, therefore its permits are issued by Region 1 of the U.S. EPA. The program requirements are similar to EPA’s baseline, however, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Land Quality has developed the Natural Resources Protection Act that imposes additional regulations intended to protect the quality of the receiving water. Under this act, nearly all types of water bodies, as well as dunes, fragile mountain areas, wildlife habitats and wetlands are protected through regulations covering activities of concern. Permits are required when the soil will be altered, or discharges (including fill) may be introduced into these areas. Maine’s Stormwater Management Law requires construction permits for proposed projects; in the direct watershed of a water body most at risk with 20,000 square feet or more impervious area, or in any watershed with 1 acre or more of impervious area or 5 acres or more of disturbed area. This law contains rule standards regarding construction site stormwater quantity and quality. The peak flow of stormwater must not exceed the peak flow prior to construction and does not increase the peak flow of the receiving waters. To protect the quality of the receiving waters three standards are contained in the rule; Total Suspended Solids (TSS), phosphorous, and basic stabilization. The following table is a summary of these standards

.

Project Location/Type

Standards

Watershed of a lake not most at risk. Project with <3 acres of impervious area or £ 5 acres of disturbed area

Basic Stabilization Standard

Watershed of a lake most at risk (severely blooming lake)

Basic Stabilization Standard and Phosphorous Standard

Watershed of a lake most at risk (Not severely blooming lake) Project with ³ 3 arces of disturbed area

Basic Stabilization Standard and Phosphorous Standard

Watershed of a lake most at risk (Not severely blooming lake) Project with <3 acres of impervious area and <5 acres of disturbed area

Basic Stabilization Standard and 80% TSS Standard

or

Basic Stabilization Standard and Phosphorous Standard

Direct watershed of a lake other than a lake most at risk and project with > 3 acres of impervious area

Basic Stabilization Standard and Sliding Scale TSS Standard

or

Basic Stabilization Standard and Phosphorous Standard (may be waived by DEP)

Direct watershed of a lake other than a lake most at risk and project with ³5 acres of disturbed area and <3 acres impervious area

Basic Stabilization Standard and Phosphorous Standard

Direct watershed of a coastal wetland most at risk