1 / 33

Stormwater Management Regulatory Update

April 27 | 2010. Idaho Transportation Department Project Development Conference. Stormwater Management Regulatory Update. Presented by: Steve Burgos, Brown and Caldwell. Agenda. Regulatory Updates: New Proposed Construction General Permit: Sneak Preview

radha
Download Presentation

Stormwater Management Regulatory Update

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. April 27 | 2010 Idaho Transportation Department Project Development Conference Stormwater Management Regulatory Update Presented by: Steve Burgos, Brown and Caldwell

  2. Agenda • Regulatory Updates: • New Proposed Construction General Permit: Sneak Preview • EPA Guidance on Stormwater and TMDLs • MS4 Permits and Impacts of New Guidance • ITD’s Initiatives to Address New Requirements • Questions

  3. Refresher: Federal Permits for Stormwater Pollution Control Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Management Construction Industrial Municipal Construction General Permit (CGP) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)

  4. ProposedCGP is Here! • Released April 15, 2011 • 60 day comment period • Final CGP by January 31, 2012 • Current CGP is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011  • EPA is proposing extension to current permit through January 31, 2012

  5. ProposedCGP Contains New Requirements for: • Required use of electronic Notice of Intent process; • Sediment and erosion controls; • Natural buffers or alternative controls; • Soil stabilization; • Pollution prevention; • Site inspections; and • Permit termination • Generally, the proposed permit is more prescriptive and refines requirements to specific values and/or expectations

  6. Authorization Process / NOIs • EPA proposes to increase “waiting period” from 7 days to 30 days for “new sources” • New 30-day timeframe accommodates endangered species and historic properties-related reviews • EPA proposes to maximize use of electronic NOI • Potentially requiring operators seek coverage using eNOI system

  7. Sediment and Erosion Controls Requirements • Buffers – • “Operators must ensure that, if any waters of the U.S. are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, any discharges flowing through the area between the disturbed portion of the site and the waters of the United States are treated by an area of undisturbed natural vegetation that alone or with alternative sediment and erosion controls achieves a reduction in sediment loads equivalent to a 50 foot buffer.”

  8. Sediment and Erosion Control Requirements • Installation of Controls Prior to Construction: • Operators must install and make operational all sediment and erosion controls prior to conducting earth-disturbing activities in any portion of the site, with certain exceptions • Entrance and Exit Points: • Any entrance and exit points created on the site must be stabilized for a minimum of 50 feet into the site

  9. Stabilization Requirements • Permit includes modified stabilization requirements that define more specifically what EPA expects for temporary and final stabilization • Criteria are proposed for both vegetative and non-vegetative stabilization • Based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation’s (RUSLE) cover management factor, or “C-factor” (erosion control effectiveness) • Vegetative: C < 0.05 • Non vegetative: C < 0.1 for slopes < 15%, C < 0.3 for slope > 15% • Appendix H provides common C-Factors for specific BMPs

  10. Pollution Prevention • Permit includes specific requirements and design standards • Install secondary containment or cover activities • Inspect all construction vehicles once per week • Plastic covering for exposed construction materials

  11. Numeric Effluent Limits • Original proposal: • Beginning 8/1/11, effluent limit of 280 NTU will apply to discharges from sites disturbing 20+ acres • Beginning 2/2/14, effluent limit of 280 NTU will apply to discharges from sites disturbing 10+ acres

  12. Why are NELs being delayed? • National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) filed a challenge to proposed NELs • Contested legality of a numeric limit  • Reminder: Stormwater NPDES Permits typically require management to “Maximum Extent Practicable”

  13. Current Status on NELs • After considering issues raised by NAHB • EPA filed motion asking Court to vacate numeric limit • Remand that portion of the rules back to EPA for reconsideration  "Based on EPA's examination of the dataset underlying the 280-NTU limit it adopted, the Agency has concluded that it improperly interpreted the data and, as a result, the calculations in the existing administrative record are no longer adequate to support the 280-NTU effluent limit.  EPA therefore wishes to re-examine that number through a narrowly-tailored notice-and-comment rulemaking and, if necessary, revise that portion of the limit before proceeding with its defense of the rule."

  14. NEL’s not Included in Proposed CGP • Only included as placeholder

  15. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits • For sites discharging to waters impaired for common pollutants associated with construction activities, such as sediment and nutrients • Tighter stabilization deadlines (immediately initiate stabilization if construction in an area is inactive for 7 days, as opposed to 14 days) • More frequent site inspections (once per week, daily visual inspections) • For sites disturbing 10 or more acres at a time, conduct benchmark monitoring of discharge based on receiving water’s water quality criterion • Permit also proposes to include additional requirements for waters designated as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 waters

  16. Idaho Anti-Degradation Rule Update • On Friday April 15, IDEQ submitted final Antidegradation Rule Package to EPA for review and approval • The Antidegradation Implementation Procedures require three tiers of review for new or expanded NPDES permits   • Tier I waters (about 2/3 of the permitted discharges statewide) will require review to ensure compliance with water quality standards.   • Tier II waters (about 1/3 of the permitted discharges statewide), a social and economic analysis justifying the new or expanded discharge.  • Tier III waters, currently no waters in the state, are not allowed increases from new or existing sources.  • The final rule can be viewed at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/rules/water/58_0102_1001_final.cfm

  17. Site Inspections • If site inspection occurs during discharge-generating rain event • EPA proposes to require operators visually assess quality of discharge • Inspect for color, odor, floating, settled, or suspended solids

  18. Corrective Actions • Current permit requires corrective action • Proposed permit includes specific triggering conditions for corrective action as well as deadlines to fix such problems and document what was done • Initiate work to fix the problem immediately after discovery and complete such work by close of next full work day • If new BMPs required, 7 day window to install

  19. Notice of Termination • EPA proposes to include additional requirements that affect when a site may terminate coverage • Removal of all temporary stormwater controls • Removal of all construction materials, waste, and waste handling devices

  20. Proposed CGP: Questions? Brown and Caldwell

  21. EPA Guidance on Stormwater and TMDLs

  22. 11/12/10 EPA Guidance on Stormwater • Update to 2002 guidance • Four major revisions: • Numeric water quality based effluent limitations in stormwater NPDES permits • Disaggregating stormwater sources in a WLA • Using surrogates to establish TMDL loading capacity • Treating load allocations as wasteload allocations

  23. Reminder: Clean Water Act Objective “Restore and Maintain the Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of the Nations Waters”

  24. Reminder: TMDLs Focused on Achieving Clean Water Act Goals Clean Water Act Goal: “Restore and Maintain the Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of the Nations Waters” Use Classification 1 Instream Criteria 2 303(d) Listing (if impairment) 3 TMDLs 4 NPDES Limits 5 Other Control Strategies 6 For example: Offsets, BMPs

  25. 1. Numeric Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations in Stormwater NPDES Permits . . . So What? • Create “objective and accountable means for managing stormwater” • Future permits will be written with numeric limits for impairments • Most likely tied to TMDL and wasteload allocations assigned to stormwater discharges • NOTE: If under an NPDES permit, stormwater is considered a ‘point source’

  26. 2. Disaggregating Stormwater Sources in a WLA . . . So What? • Traditionally, stormwater given aggregate WLA in TMDLs met through BMPs managed to the ‘Maximum Extent Practicable’ • In future, stormwater will be divided into separate sources much like wastewater NPDES permits are assigned to specific WWTP: • E.g., ITD District X will be given a stormwater WLA • E.g., City of Boise will be given a stormwater WLA • Etc. • Key question: If point source WWTP are facing stringent limits, what about stormwater?

  27. 3. Using Surrogates to Establish TMDL Loading Capacity . . . So What? • Often, there is not enough stormwater data to establish relevant wasteload allocations for stormwater sources • New TMDLs are using surrogates in lieu of actual water quality data

  28. Treating Load Allocations as Wasteload Allocations . . . So what? • For stormwater discharges not currently regulated under NPDES • Load allocation assigned should include language that the load allocation will transition to a wasteload allocation once the discharge is permitted • EX: For TMDLs where MS4 permits are pending (Twin Falls, Moscow, others)

  29. Example: Lower Boise River TMDL

  30. Lower Boise River TMDL Boise River Pollutant Issues • Impairments • Bacteria • Sediment • Temperature • Nutrients • Mercury • Sources • Treated wastewater • Stormwater • Agriculture

  31. Impacts on Treasure Valley MS4 Permittees MS4 Urbanized Areas In Idaho • As TMDL revised, WLA for stormwater is likely for key pollutants • MS4s impacted • ITD District 3 (Ada and Canyon Co.) • ACHD • City of Boise • City of Nampa • City of Caldwell • City of Middleton • Nampa Highway District • Others Coeur D’Alene Lewiston Nampa-Caldwell Idaho Falls Boise Pocatello

  32. ITD Initiatives to Address Coming Changes • Stormwater Management Guide • Standardized policies and procedures for CGP, MSGP, and MS4 compliance • Revised standard erosion and sediment control drawings • http://itd.idaho.gov/design/StandardDrawings.htm • ITD SWPPP Template • Designer Stormwater Training • Revised and updated BMP Manual • Coming in 2011

  33. April 27 | 2010 Idaho Transportation Department Project Development Conference Stormwater Management Regulatory Update Presented by: Steve Burgos, Brown and Caldwell

More Related