USWAC UPDATES REGULATORY BACKGROUND MS4 Program 2010: Utah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

USWAC UPDATES

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2010: Utah delegated implementation of the Clean Water Act MS4 storm water permitting program 2014: EPA deferred national rulemaking on post- construction retention in deference to states. 2015: EPA audited Utah’s storm water program and identified lack of post-construction retention as a deficiency.

MS4 Program

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

SMALL MS4 PERMIT:

2016: RENEWAL WITH RETENTION STANDARD AND LID APPROACHES 2017- 2019: DEFERRED IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS 3X UNTIL MARCH 2020

JORDAN VALLEY MS4 PERMIT

2019: DRAFT RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVELY EXTENDED UNTIL RETENTION STANDARD RESOLVED

JORDAN RIVER TMDL

2017: DEFERRED COMPLETION OF JORDAN RIVER TMDL AND OFFERED PRE- COMPLIANCE CREDIT TO MS4S

MS4 PERMIT RENEWAL DATES

• September 4, 2018

Jordan Valley MS4 Permit

• January 31, 2020

Salt Lake City MS4 Permit

• December 3, 2020

UDOT MS4 Permit

• February 28, 2021

General Permit for Small MS4s

ADDRESSING ISSUES RAISED BY THE PERMIT

Concern DWQ Action Status

SWPPP Template is too long. Revised the template and posted to website. Completed May 15, 2018 There’s a conflict of interest with third party consultants inspecting for MS4s as well as contractors. Modified permit to prohibit conflict of interest. Currently reviewing public comments on draft Jordan Valley MS4 permit. Need for more consistency between the MS4s and what they are requiring. Modified permit conditions to provide clarity and improve consistency.

Currently reviewing public comments on draft Jordan Valley MS4 permit. Draft construction permit revisions Nov 2018

Require an appeals process for fines and upfront enforcement policies. Modified MS4 permit to include a requirement for the appeals process and upfront presentation of the enforcement policy. Currently reviewing public comments on draft Jordan Valley MS4 permit. Increase communication between inspectors and contractors. MS4s over-regulating due to fear of audits and enforcement. Provide training on how to inspect, including educating contractors prior to enforcement. Couple with revised RSI class. October, 2018 Cities not holding themselves to the same standards as contractors. DWQ periodically inspecting city owned projects. May 1, 2018 There needs to be better or more training

• ptions.

1)

Evaluate scope for revising delivery of current RSI training and meet with RSI trainers. Consider separate training for contractors and MS4s inspectors.

Collaborating with UHBA to deliver.

PREVIOUS PERMIT (AUGUST 1, 2010):

“THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS CONTROL MEASURE IS FOR THE HYDROLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT TO MIRROR THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY OF THE PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED SITE OR TO IMPROVE THE HYDROLOGY OF A REDEVELOPED SITE AND REDUCE THE DISCHARGE OF STORM WATER.”

UTAH PERMIT WATER RETENTION STANDARD UPDATE

PERMIT RENEWAL:

“BY MARCH 1, 2020, NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS… MUST MANAGE RAINFALL ON-SITE, AND PREVENT THE OFF-SITE DISCHARGE OF THE PRECIPITATION FROM ALL RAINFALL EVENTS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE 90TH PERCENTILE RAINFALL EVENT…."

UTAH PERMIT WATER RETENTION STANDARD UPDATE

FACT OR FICTION

• THE 90TH PERCENTILE STORM IS REQUIRED AS A FLOOD

CONTROL MEASURE?

• FICTION
• THIS CONTROL IS MEANT AS A WATER QUALITY STANDARD.

IMPLEMENTATION

• "MS4S ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BMPS,

WHERE PRACTICABLE, THAT INFILTRATE, EVAPOTRANSPIRE OR HARVEST AND USE STORM WATER FROM THE SITE..."

• "MS4S ARE TO MAKE LID THE ACCEPTED AND COMMONLY USED

METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER IN THEIR JURISDICTION."

IMPLEMENTATION

• "IF MEETING THIS RETENTION STANDARD IS TECHNICALLY

INFEASIBLE, A RATIONALE SHALL BE PROVIDED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA.”

LID QUESTIONS

• HOW IS THE WATER QUALITY INCORPORATED

INTO THE RETENTION REQUIREMENT?

• THIS IS A NUMERIC INTERPRETATION OF

PREVIOUS PERMITS’ NARRATIVE STANDARD. THE PURPOSE IS TO:

• REDUCE POLLUTANTS TRANSPORTED VIA

STORM WATER CONVEYANCE

• RECHARGE GROUNDWATER
• TREAT STORM WATER VIA INFILTRATION
• REDUCE EROSION ASSOCIATED WITH STORM

WATER RUNOFF, CONVEYANCE, DISCHARGE

• MIMIC PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

AUGUST 1993 TO SEPTEMBER 2018

LID TRAINING

• 4 TRAININGS ACROSS THE STATE
• INTRODUCED THE NEW LID MANUAL

LID QUESTIONS

• CAN WE GET RECHARGE CREDITS BECAUSE OF

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE?

• HOW IS INFEASIBILITY DETERMINED?
• THE MS4 DETERMINES WHAT IS INFEASIBLE.

AS LONG AS SOUND JUDGMENT IS USED DWQ WILL ACCEPT THE MS4’S DETERMINATIONS.

LID QUESTIONS

• ARE THERE PARAMETERS FOR INFILTRATION

OR GROUNDWATER DEPTH TO DETERMINE INFEASIBILITY?

• NO, IT IS THE MS4’S RESPONSIBILITY TO

DETERMINE WHAT PARAMETERS THEY ARE COMFORTABLE ACCEPTING WITHIN THEIR MUNICIPALITY.

LID QUESTIONS

• IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR AN MS4 TO CREATE A MAP OF HIGH GROUND WATER OR POOR

SOILS FOR THEIR CITY AND USE THAT TO DETERMINE LID CONTROLS ARE INFEASIBLE?

• MS4S CAN MAP OUT AREAS OF THEIR CITY WHERE CONDITIONS EXIST THAT MAY MAKE

LID INFEASIBLE. THE MS4 MUST STILL REVIEW EACH SITE AND HAVE DOCUMENTATION STATING WHY IT IS INFEASIBLE.

• IF THE SITE CAN ONLY RETAIN PART OF THE 90TH PERCENTILE STORM IS IT CONSIDERED

INFEASIBLE OR MUST THAT PART BE RETAINED?

• IF ONLY RETENTION OF PART OF THE 90TH PERCENTILE STORM IS FEASIBLE THEN THAT PART MUST BE

RETAINED.

LID QUESTIONS

• ARE THERE CONCERNS ABOUT CONTAMINATION TO GROUNDWATER FROM

LID BMPS? ARE THERE ANY PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO INFILTRATION?

• ACCORDING TO THE EPA - "IF PROPERLY SITED AND DESIGNED, INFILTRATION PRACTICES

SHOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT GROUND WATER"

• THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR PRETREATMENT, HOWEVER PRETREATMENT

SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER AND TO INCREASE THE LIFE OF THE BMP. CONTAMINATION TO GROUNDWATER CAN OCCUR AND THIS MUST BE A CONSIDERATION DURING DESIGN.

LID QUESTIONS

• HOW DOES LID WORK IN AREAS WITH LAND DRAINS?
• IF LAND DRAINS ARE NECESSARY THEN INFILTRATION WILL LIKELY BE INFEASIBLE DUE TO A

HIGH GROUND WATER TABLE. OTHER TYPES OF LID MAY BE POSSIBLE IN THESE AREAS.

LID QUESTIONS

• IS THERE ANY GRANT MONEY AVAILABLE FOR RETROFITS USING LID?
• ACCORDING TO THE DEQ - THERE IS SOME NON-POINT SOURCE FUNDING THAT CAN BE

APPLIED FOR. FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE: HTTPS://DEQ.UTAH.GOV/WATER- QUALITY/UTAH-NONPOINT-SOURCE-MANAGEMENT-PROGRAM

• WHAT ARE THE STORM WATER HARVESTING AND REUSE RESTRICTIONS?
• THE MAXIMUM STORM WATER STORAGE CAPACITY WITH REGISTRATION IS 2,500

GALLONS.

• WITHOUT REGISTERING, A PERSON MAY COLLECT AND STORE IN A MAXIMUM OF TWO

CONTAINERS IF NEITHER CONTAINER EXCEEDS 100 GALLONS.

• HTTPS://LE.UTAH.GOV/XCODE/TITLE73/CHAPTER3/C73-3-S1.5_1800010118000101.PDF

LID QUESTIONS

• WHEN DEVELOPING LARGE SUBDIVISIONS OR PROJECTS IS RETENTION

REQUIRED AT THE SOURCE/LOT LEVEL OR IS PROJECT LEVEL ACCEPTABLE?

• DWQ WOULD LIKE TO SEE STORM WATER RETAINED AS CLOSE TO THE SOURCE AS

POSSIBLE, HOWEVER THE USE OF RETENTION AT THE DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT LEVEL IS ALLOWED AND MAY BE MORE PRACTICAL IN SOME INSTANCES COMPARED TO HAVING RETENTION AT EACH LOT OR SOURCE.

LID QUESTIONS

• HOW DOES DWQ FEEL ABOUT THE USE OF REGIONAL RETENTION

CONTROLS (OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA) OR THE USE OF TREATMENT WHEN LOCAL RETENTION IS NOT POSSIBLE?

• DWQ AGREES WITH THE USE OF EITHER OF THESE ALTERNATIVES WHEN RETENTION AT

THE SOURCE IS INFEASIBLE. THE MS4 MUST DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE IN THESE CASES.

LID QUESTIONS

• IS THERE ANY FURTHER GUIDANCE ON GAP ANALYSIS AND ZONING DEVELOPMENT?
• THE MANUAL REFERENCES A GAP ANALYSIS TOOL FROM CALIFORNIA THAT CAN BE USED FOR A

GAP ANALYSIS: HTTPS://WWW.CASQA.ORG/SITES/DEFAULT/FILES/DOWNLOADS/20171109_GAP_ANALYSIS_USER_ GUIDE.PDF

• THE CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION ALSO HAS AN ORDINANCE WORKSHEET:

HTTPS://OWL.CWP.ORG/MDOCS-POSTS/BETTER-SITE-DESIGN-CODE-AND-ORDINANCE- COW-WORKSHEET-2017-UPDATE/

LID QUESTIONS

• IS THERE GUIDANCE FROM DWQ ON HOW TO MEASURE INFILTRATION

RATES AND WHICH METHODS ARE BEST TO USE?

• NO, BUT THE UCEA GROUP IS WORKING ON SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
• IS THERE AN AFFORDABLE METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING THE HISTORIC

GROUNDWATER TABLE ELEVATION?

LID QUESTIONS

• HOW SHOULD POTENTIAL CAPACITY REDUCTIONS BE ACCOUNTED FOR?
• OTHER COMMON CONCERNS:
• HTTPS://WWW3.EPA.GOV/REGION1/NPDES/STORMWATER/ASSETS/PDFS/A

DDRESSINGBARRIER2LID.PDF

FACT OR FICTION

• LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT IS CHEAPER TO

INSTALL AND MAINTAIN?

LID QUESTIONS

• COSTS OF LID PRACTICES
• " WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, TOTAL LID CAPITAL COSTS WERE LOWER THAN

CONVENTIONAL METHODS, WITH SAVINGS RANGING FROM 15 TO 80 PERCENT."

• REDUCING STORMWATER COSTS THROUGH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) STRATEGIES

AND PRACTICES, DECEMBER 2007, EPA 841-F-07-006

• THE PARAGRAPH CONTINUES - "THE EPA LID STUDY DID NOT COMPARE

MAINTENANCE COSTS, BUT ANOTHER EPA STUDY FOUND THAT LID HAS SIMILAR MAINTENANCE COSTS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL METHODS."

• PRELIMINARY DATA SUMMARY OF URBAN STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, EPA-

821-R-99-012

PROPOSED CGP CHANGES AND UPDATES

• REVISED NOT FORM IS POSTED ON THE STATE

WEBSITE

• ALLOWS FOR PARTIAL NOT
• "HOW TO GET A PERMIT SHEET" DEVELOPED

AND SHARED

VIRTUAL SITE INSPECTION

• CURRENTLY TO ENGINEERS AND JUB ARE WORKING TO DESIGN A

VIRTUAL INSPECTION FOR THE INSPECTION PROGRAM.

NOI RECENT REVIEWS

• LAND DEVELOPMENT
• AREAS INCLUDING MULTIPLE SUB-PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN PROJECT.
• IF AN AREA IS SOLD TO ANOTHER OWNER, THEN THE SOLD LAND MUST BE COVERED

UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

• THE NOI IS MEANT TO COVER ONE AREA PER ONE OWNER.
• RESPONSIBILITY
• IF THE ORIGINAL OWNER/OPERATOR DOES NOT UPDATE THE

NOI/PARTIALLY TERMINATE, THE SOLD LOTS ARE UNDER THEIR PERMIT AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

• DEVELOPERS CAN RECEIVE FINES FOR ISSUES CAUSE BY SINGLE LOT

BUILDERS IN THEIR SUBDIVISION.

NOI RECENT REVIEWS

• TIMEFRAMES
• SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT IS OFTEN ON A DIFFERENT

SCHEDULE THAN LOT DEVELOPMENT.

• DEVELOPER COULD TERMINATE, WHILE A LOT WITH A DIFFERENT

OWNER IS STILL BEING WORKED ON.

CGP UPDATES

• REVISED NOT FORM IS

POSTED ON WEBSITE

• ALLOWS FOR PARTIAL

NOTS

• “HOW TO GET A PERMIT

SHEET” DEVELOPED

CGP GENERAL CHANGES

• EPA FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT FORMAT
• BUFFER REQUIREMENTS MOVED TO APPENDIX A
• REMOVED FROM APPENDICES:
• NOI
• NOT
• EROSIVITY WAIVER
• MS4 LIST
• STORM FREQUENCIES/AVERAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL

CGP GENERAL CHANGES – PART 1 COVERAGE

• NOT UPDATED TO ALLOW FOR PARTIAL TERMINATION/TRANSFER OF LOTS (NEW FORM

NOW ON WEBSITE)

• NO DISCHARGE OPTION REMOVED
• THE STATEMENT THAT A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY IF A SITE CONTAINS ALL STORM WATER WITH

NO RISK TO GROUNDWATER HAS BEEN REMOVED

• PERMIT TERMINATION
• ADDED 60 DAY “GRACE PERIOD” FOR PROJECT COMPLETION

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 1 COVERAGE

• PERMIT RENEWAL
• “AUTOMATIC COVERAGE”

REMOVED.

• PERMITTEE MAY BE REQUIRED

TO “ACKNOWLEDGE” THE REVISED PERMIT

• PERMITTEE WILL BE EMAILED

RENEWAL INSTRUCTIONS

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 2 TBELS

• MAINTENANCE CONCERNS
• ADDRESS IMMEDIATELY IF PRACTICABLE, WITHIN 7 DAYS OR PRIOR TO WEATHER.

PREVIOUSLY REPAIRS NEEDED TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY OR AS IDENTIFIED IN SWPPP.

• TRASH CONTAINERS
• CONTAINMENT OR COVER FOR BLOWABLE OR POLLUTANT PRODUCING WASTE (TARP

, LID, BAGGING WASTE OR LEAK-PROOF CONTAINER)

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 3 WQBELS

• IMPAIRED WATERS
• IF SITE DISCHARGES TO AN IMPAIRED WATER, SWPPP MUST ADDRESS IMPAIRMENT (OTHER

THAN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENTS)

• THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THE FIRST WATER THAT YOU DISCHARGE TO
• THE STATE WILL BE PROVIDING A MAP OF AREAS WITH APPROVED TMDLS WHICH

IDENTIFIES MORE EXACT LOCATIONS.

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 4 INSPECTIONS

• INSPECTION FREQUENCIES
• TEMPORARILY STABILIZED AREAS: TWICE PER MONTH FOR FIRST MONTH

AND ONCE PER MONTH THEREAFTER. USE TO BE ONCE PER MONTH

• STABILIZED PORTIONS OF LINEAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: TWICE PER

MONTH FOR FIRST MONTH AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF >1/2 INCH RAIN

• EVENT. IF NO PROBLEMS, SUSPEND INSPECTIONS. (PREVIOUSLY NO LINEAR

REDUCTIONS)

• ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ARID AREAS: ONCE PER MONTH AND WITHIN

24 HOURS OF >1/2 INCH RAIN EVENT. (PREVIOUSLY NO REDUCTIONS)

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 4 INSPECTIONS

• INSPECTION FREQUENCIES
• ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION IN SEMI-ARID AREAS: DURING SEASONALLY DRY

PERIODS (JUNE-AUGUST FOR WASATCH FRONT) ONCE PER MONTH AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF >1/2 INCH RAIN EVENT. (PREVIOUSLY NO REDUCTIONS)

• FROZEN CONDITIONS: INSPECTIONS REDUCED WHEN FROZEN

CONDITIONS EXPECTED FOR 3 MONTHS. (PREVIOUSLY WAS FOR 30 DAY PERIODS)

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 5 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

• CORRECTIVE ACTION TIMEFRAMES
• ACTIONS THAT REQUIRE NEW OR REPLACEMENT CONTROLS MUST BE

COMPLETED WITHIN 7 DAYS

• DOCUMENT COMPLETION OF CORRECTION ACTION WITHIN 24 HOURS
• PREVIOUSLY WERE REQUIRED “EXPEDITIOUSLY AND BASED ON URGENCY”

OR “AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE”

CGP GENERAL CHANGES - PART 7 SWPPP

• SWPPP WRITER REQUIREMENTS
• CREDENTIALS REQUIRED
• APPLIES TO:
• SITES > 5 ACRES
• CHALLENGING SITE CONDITIONS
• STARTS JANUARY 1, 2021
• SWPPP AVAILABILITY
• 30 MINUTE TIMEFRAME REMOVED
• MUST BE KEPT ON SITE OR ONLINE AS LONG AS

PERSONNEL CAN ACCESS IT

HOW TO PARTIALLY TERMINATE

• PREVIOUSLY THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO CALL DWQ TO UPDATE THE LOTS LISTED ON THE NOI.
• NOT FORM IS CURRENTLY BEING UPDATED TO ALLOW LOT INFORMATION TO BE EMAILED.
• EXAMPLE OF A NOI IN THE DATABASE LISTING LOTS:

HOW THIS LOOKS

• DEVELOPER HAS CGP FOR ENTIRE

SITE, BUILDS ROADS/INFRASTRUCTURE

• DEVELOPER SELLS 5 LOTS (3 TO

ONE OWNER AND 2 TO ANOTHER)

• DEVELOPER SUBMITS A PARTIAL

NOT OR CALLS DWQ TO REMOVE LOTS #7-11

HOW THIS LOOKS

• THE OWNER WITH 2 LOTS DECIDES

TO PERMIT BOTH LOTS UNDER 1 PERMIT USING THE CGP.

• THE OWNER WITH 3 LOTS DECIDES

TO PERMIT EACH INDIVIDUALLY AS COMMON PLAN PERMIT SITES AND HAS 3 PERMITS.

FACT OR FICTION

MUNICIPALITIES MUST REQUIRE DEVELOPERS/CONTRACTORS TO PULL A COMMON PLAN PERMIT FOR A LARGE DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE LOTS?

COMMON QUESTIONS ON COMMON DEVELOPMENT

• SHOULD LOT OWNERS APPLY FOR COMMON PLAN OR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION

PERMITS?

• THIS IS THE OWNER/OPERATOR’S DECISION.
• COMMON PLAN PERMIT
• DESIGNED FOR OWNER/BUILDERS OR VERY SMALL BUILDERS DOING ONLY A FEW HOUSES.
• ONLY COVERS A SINGLE LOT PER NOI.
• MORE EXPENSIVE TO PERMIT THIS WAY FOR MULTIPLE LOTS.
• SMALLER SWPPP AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INSPECTOR TO BE CERTIFIED.

COMMON QUESTIONS ON COMMON DEVELOPMENT

• CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
• COVERS MULTIPLE LOTS WITH ONE NOI.
• LARGER SWPPP AND REQUIRES A CERTIFIED INSPECTOR.
• CHEAPER FOR MULTIPLE LOTS
• LOTS OF LOTS
• VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS MAY HAVE A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL COMMON PLAN PERMITS

TO MANAGE WITHIN THEM. INSPECTION OF THESE AREAS WILL REQUIRE MS4 INSPECTORS TO BE ORGANIZED AND KNOW CHANGES.

WHO IS WORKING ON WHAT?

LAND USE TASK FORCE

• EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE PERMIT LANGUAGE TO RESOLVE HOME BUILDER,

MUNICIPAL, AND REGULATORY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH POST- CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER RETENTION

• CONSIDER REGULATORY AND INCENTIVE BASED APPROACHES ALONG WITH

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

WHO IS WORKING ON WHAT?

UCEA

• DEVELOPING

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE IN:

• INFILTRATION (RATES AND

SYSTEMS)

• STORM
• AVAILABLE TESTING

METHODS

• STANDARD DETAILS

WHO IS WORKING ON WHAT?

USWAC

• COORDINATING WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS THROUGH THE

UNIFICATION COMMITTEE

• BMP SELECTION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE
• INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE