COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORDINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston, P.E.
MEETING DATE: October 28, 2002
OFFICE: Road & Bridge
TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Consider & discuss National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ~NPDES~ Phase II MS4 Stormwater Perrnit
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin Johnston, P.E.
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with
Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, government Code, is a follows:
Meeting scheduted for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: (as,
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation
will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See
Agenda Request Rule Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
/J ' ~~
~J~. ~'li~lc'~

Franklin ]oimston, P.E.
County EnBneer
[.,eonazd Odom, Jr.
Road Administrator
Truby Hardin, Coordinator
Iva Gass, Secretary
Kerr County Road & Bridge
4010 San Mtonio Hwy
Kerrville, Texas 78028
TO: COMMISSIONERS COURT
FROM: FRANKLIN JOHNSTON, P.E.
DATE: October 22, 2002
RE: NPDES, PHASE II MS4 PREMIT
Telephone:830-257-2993
FAX: 830-896-8481
Email: kcroads@IQC.com
Who in Kerr County is applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II MS4 storm water permit? It is my understanding that the deadline is
Mazch, 2003.
The permit includes:
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
1. Public education and outreach
2. Public involvement and participation
3. Illicit dischazge detection & elimination
4. Construction runoff management
5. Pollution prevention during municipal operations
I. Inventory outfalls and prepaze maps
1. Review storm water ordinances
Kerr County Road & Bridge's only interest is to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for
projects which involve more than one acre. This includes road maintenance.
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 Stormwater Permit Applications Page 1 of 8
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II
MS4 Stormwater Permit Applications
How Much Is Too Much? How Much Is Not Enough?
Flint Holbrook, Brian Bates, Ron Butcher, and Jason Gillespie (Programs
Administrator, Soil and Water Conservation District, Greenville County, S.C
As featured in the January 2002 issue of PubUGW~rks Magazine
The state of South Carolina in March 2000 issued Greenville County a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I MS4 Stormwater
permit. Greenville County appealed, stating that the level of effort outlined in
the permit went far beyond the requirements in the federal NPDES regulation,
requiring activities such as fish-tissue sampling, for example. The appeal was
successful, and a revised permit was issued. Officials estimate that the revised
permit saved Greenville County at least $30 million.
caution. When applying for NPDES permits, how much effort is too much? How
much is not enough? What can local governments confidently do now, without
spinning their wheels unnecessarily, to begin meeting NPDES requirements?
Phase II of the NPDES MS4 Stormwater
program affects 5,039 communities in
the continental United States -more
than 20 times the number of
communities affected by NPDES Phase
I. March 10, 2003 is the deadline for
these Phase II communities to submit
a permit application. Despite this
deadline, now only 14 months away,
few communities are scrambling.
Instead, many are taking await-and-
see approach, unsure about how to
begin, what level of effort to pursue,
and how their state will interpret the
federal regulations.
This article outlines the dilemmas faced by Phase II communities, presents
value-added levels of effort that offer benefits beyond NPDES, and gives a safe
protocol for getting started now with the Phase II permit application process.
Dilemmas Faced by Phase II Communities
1. Unlike Phase I requirements, Phase II requirements in the federal regulation
are more loosely worded. In fact, states can provide interpretations of the Phase
II federal regulation. For example, the regulation requires that outfalls be
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3(02
With stories like this, it's no wonder that local governments preparing to embark
on NPDES Phase II MS4 Stormwater permit applications are proceeding with
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 Stormwater Permit Applications rage ~ ut a
mapped, but outfalls and accuracy levels are not well defined. Until states issue
--~ interpretations, many local governments are using the Phase I definition for
outfalls as the standard. For Phase II, outfalls could simply be identified and
located as points on USGS quad maps; or, outfalls could be GPS-located and
verified inside a highly accurate GIS. Since both of these very different levels of
effort would meet the requirements of the federal regulation, which method
should a local government choose?
Z. Many states are still deciding whether to issue a general permit applying to
all Phase II communities, or whether to require individual permits. General
permits allow Phase II communities to begin a compliance program without
going through a lengthy permit application process. Each Phase II community
must agree to all terms and conditions in the general permit. However, states
without sufficient staffing to draft a general permit will have to issue individual
permits, meaning that each Phase II community will have to draft its own
permit for the state's review. If individual permits are used, communities must
comply with certain parts of NPDES Phase I application requirements. What
tasks can Phase II communities be doing while waiting for final word from the
state?
3, States have until November 2002 to provide guidance and an interpretation
of the federal regulation. As a result, some Phase II local governments are
waiting to get started. States issuing general permits have ample authority to
add requirements that aren't in the federal regulation; these requirements could
mean additional tasks and costs for communities. If state interpretations go well
beyond requirements in the federal regulation, communities have the option to
,-. comment during the 30-day comment period on the general permit. If the state
does not respond, communities can appeal the permit within the typical 15-day
window alter the permit is issued.
Nevertheless, Phase II communities that wait until November 2002 to begin the
permit application process might find themselves struggling to complete their
application by March 2003. Political leaders whose communities don`t meet the
deadline will have to face the consequences: steep tines and even
imprisonment.
Value-added Leve{s of Effort That iHeet the Requirements
and Ofi`er Benefits Beyond PIi+~E6
Fhase II communities know that NPDES compliance is a must. Elut because this
is an unfunded mandate, many communities want to piggyback other
applications on top of NPDES to address other infrastructure and information
management challenges and thus get additional benefits. Abare-bones effort
isn't efFlcient or cost-effective if a community can create a better solution that
has applications beyond NPDES.
For example, a community might decide
i r to collect additional attribute data on
---. ~ I outfalls such as dimensions, type,
material, and flow while collecting
outfall locations as required by NPDES.
(Since :!;e ~.~^ts of Sa^terr:bQr , ,
"~. ~/
security of storm systems nas oeCOme a
blip:iiwww.wuolpcxLcuminews/arlicles/ar0IG102.htm iG/3iG2
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 stormwater Permit Applications Page 3 of 8
concern; in some communities, little
information is available on the location
and size of the system.) Or, a
community might decide to GPs-locate
catch basins, pipes, culverts, and other
stormwater structures while in the field
locating outfalls. A community might
want to conduct a condition
assessment, noting items such as
clogged or damaged inlets, to support a
preventive maintenance program. Such
approaches begin to build a foundation
for a complete stormwater system
inventory, collect data for hydraulic modeling, and provide a tool for data
access, management, and manipulation.
A successful NPDES stormwater management program depends on the
community's ability to manage massive amounts of information over time,
generate reports, examine sampling/monitoring histories, identify water quality
trends, make decisions, and do field reconnaissance in a timely manner instead
of spending time hunting for information in office files. Now may be the time to
enhance an existing GIS or create the foundation for a new GIS. Greenville
County, for example, is including sampling histories in its existing GIS, which
will be available in the field via pen-based PCs; has recently completed a bridge
inventory, since bridges are potential sampling stations; and will include maps
and data in the GIS to advance its sediment and erosion control program.
Before beginning data collection, it's important to develop a plan or vision for
the GIS so data can be collected in a manner and format that meets
requirements for both NPDES and additional well-defined applications.
Otherwise, some data collection efforts for NPDES may not be usable for other
applications. Time and money spent on upfront planning can save hundreds of
thousands of dollars later and avoid the problem of creating "throwaway data"
that's not accurate or complete enough for other applications.
A Safe Protocol for Getting Started Now With the NPDES Permitting
Process
March 2003 is approaching fast. While states complete their interpretations of
the federal regulation, Phase II communities can confidently move ahead with
these three tasks required for NPDES compliance:
TASK 1: Audit your existing stormwater quality program.
How does your community measure up to the six minimum control measures
NPDES requires? Understanding your existing stormwater program, and where
deficiencies exist, is crucial before determining additional programming
necessary. Examine your community's response to the following measures:
1. Public education and outreach
Deficiencies might include:
- No printed materials related to stormwater quality
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3/02
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 Stormwater Permit Applications Page 4 of 8
- No distribution system for materials available through federal,
-^ state, or local resources
- No newspaper ads or articles
- No video spots on the local government access cable N station;
- No booth at local festivals
- No K-12 education programs coordinated through public and
private schools
2. Public involvement and participation
Deficiencies might include:
- No "adopt a stream" programs
- No storm drain stenciling programs
- No citizen forum meetings
- No adult classes through the parks and recreation department
- No program direction from stakeholder groups or the public
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Deficiencies might include:
- Inadequate ordinances to prohibit and punish improper
connections to, or dumping into, the storm drainage system
- No system or outfall inventory to track suspected illicit discharges
- No regular inspection schedule to detect illicit discharges
- No standard procedures to follow if an illicit discharge is detected
- No public education of what constitutes an illicit discharge
4. Construction runoff management
-- Deficiencies might include:
- No land disturbance permit-review mechanism
- No inspectors or inspection system to determine if sediment and
erosion control plans are being followed during construction
- No local regulations or guidelines for sediment and erosion control
- Inadequate ordinances to punish offenders
- No permit-tracking mechanism, or inspection-scheduling and
tracking mechanism
- No design manual guidance
5. Post-construction runoff management
Deficiencies might include:
- No requirements for post-construction best management practices
- No mechanism to monitor sites after construction
- No guidance to designers and contractors on favored best
management practices or design standards
- Review and enforcement staff with little to no understanding of
post-development best management practices
- Inadequate ordinances to punish offenders
- No zoning or master planning
- No procedures for estimating pollutant loading or performance on
best management practices
6. "Good housekeeping" (pollution prevention during municipal
operations)
~--, Deficiencies might include:
- No stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) for government-
owned and -operated industrial applications (e.g., fleet maintenance
centers)
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3/02
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 stormwater Permit Applications Page 5 of 8
- No standard procedures for government-controlled illicit discharges
--- (e.g., an oil spill from a city vehicle)
- No maintenance schedules for government-owned and -operated
detention facilities
- Inadequate staff training
- Inadequate post-development best management practices at
government-owned facilities
Some communities are pleasantly surprised to discover that some stormwater
quality-related activities are performed routinely by departments outside the
stormwater management program office. For example, if the department of
streets and roads routinely performs street sweeping, and another department
hosts a household hazardous waste disposal event twice annually, such
activities are considered elements of your stormwater quality program -even if
they aren't managed by the stormwater program office.
TASK 2: Inventory outfalls and prepare maps.
Phase II requires that an illicit discharge detection and elimination program be
established. Procedures must be created for locating areas likely to have illicit
discharges. Therefore, the location of outfalls, land use, landfills and TSDs,
NPDES permitted facilities, and structural stormwater controls will have to be
identified on a topographic map. Following are some recommended levels of
.-._ effort that not only meet NPDES requirements but also provide value-added
benefits for future applications.
1. Topographic map
While a USGS quad map gives a good big-picture perspective, its contour
interval may not be appropriate for making decisions or delineating drainage
areas. A more accurate topographic map with a smaller contour interval can
reveal what land area upstream may be contributing to an illicit discharge.
Communities can use existing aerial photography, depending on its quality and
age, to compile a new topographic map for the NPDES application and for other
public works applications. In some communities, departments may pool efforts
and opt for Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology to Fly new aerial
photography, which can be used to produce highly accurate topographic
mapping.
2. Outfalis
When outfalls are located on a USGS quad map, accuraty can range from 20 to
25 feet. As a result, it may be difficult to find these outfalls again when field
monitoring is required. If field conditions and vegetation change dramatically
from one year to the next, or if the outfall itself changes, location may even be
impossible. What's more, if a third party questions the accuracy and
completeness of your outfall locations on a USGS quad map, you may not be
able to back up the quality of your data.
An existing GIS, developed through a regional effort or by your community, can
be the basis for accurately locating outfalls. If your community doesn't have a
GIS, now may be the time to join with other departments and create a GIS for
data sharing. Differential GPS can be used to capture outfall locations with
submeter accuraty in the GIS. Wootpert uses SmartSurveyor'", a proprietary,
mobile mapping system tailored for each project. SmartSurveyor ensures quality
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3/02
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 Stomtwater Yemut Apphcahons rage O ui a
by prompting crews with predefined pick lists to ensure necessary attributes are
._., obtained in the field. These predefined pick lists ensure consistency between
entries, resulting in a homogenous database with little to no office editing. The
system also lets crews locate utility systems and structure attributes on the Fly,
with complete network connectivity, in a single sweep using GPS backpacks and
pen-based PCs. When outfalis must be revisited later for sampling and
monitoring, and for complying with illicit discharge detection and elimination
requirements, GPS can be used again to precisely locate the required points.
Since all data is collected and maintained in the pen-based PC in GIS format,
only a minimal amount of post processing is required.
If photos of outfalls are desired, consider using a digital camera connected to
the pen-based field PC. In this way, a digital photograph automatically becomes
an attribute of each outfall in the field. Again, post-processing is not required,
and there's no manual matching of photographs with points.
3. Land use
Because most local governments maintain little to no land use data, land use
usually must be compiled for the NPDES application. While land use can
sometimes be generalized from zoning information, often this is insufficient for
the NPDES application. A better method is to determine land use based on
current aerial photography and knowledge of the area.
Land use maps are often used in conjunction with topographic maps to locate
the potential source of an illicit discharge. Different pollutants are typically
associated with different land uses; thus, land use maps can help narrow the
focus when tracking illicit discharges. For example, herbicides, pesticides, and
"' fertilizers are often associated with lawns or golf courses, while antifreeze or
petroleum might be associated with a fleet maintenance yard. Surfactants are
typically found in land uses that contain Laundromats or car washes.
4. Landfills, TSDs, and NPDES permitted facilities
Because landfills, TSDs, and NPDES permitted facilities such as industrial plants
and wastewater treatment plants are considered potential polluters, they
already have NPDES permits. You can locate these facilities on your maps by
referencing the coordinate locations found on the NPDES permit applications for
these facilities. However, using these coordinates to field locate these facilities
can be difficult; GPS is a better method. Because Woolpert's SmartSurveyor
application can record polygons, accurate and complete boundaries of these
facilities, not just points, can be included in your GIS.
Consider enhancing your program by requesting that industrial facilities and
wastewater treatment plants in your community send you their stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans, which include sampling and monitoring records. This
data can then be included in your GIS for reference if future sampling or
continuous monitoring show an elevated level of a particular pollutant. By
examining relevant sampling data from your community's potentially heaviest
polluters, you can narrow your focus and better determine the source of an illicit
discharge.
5. Structural stormwater controls (dams, levies, dikes, and canals
owned by the permittee)
-,. Existing aerial photography can be used as the basis for mapping structural
stormwater controls. However, a better method is GPS. Consider enhancing your
data by GPS-locating all detention and retention basins in your community;
plan/permit reviews can be used to identify approximately where these facilities
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3/02
Level of Effort for NPDES Phase II MS4 Stor[nwater Yermtt Appttcattons rage ~ of s
were constructed. In the past, Woolpert has optimized data collection in the field
by using SmartSurveyor to GPS-locate detention/retention basin polygons, take
digital photographs, and collect detention/retention basin attributes such as
condition. While not required for NPDES, having access to this data on all
detention/retention basins can be a boon for future hydraulic modeling of
watersheds and sub-watersheds.
7ASK 3: Review stormwater ordinances.
The permitted local govemment must be primarily responsible for prohibiting
illicit discharges and must have the authority to impose penalties sufficient to
enforce compliance with its stormwater master plan. A comprehensive review of
all ordinances that may apply to stormwater quality is necessary to establish
that the community has the legal authority to implement the Phase II program.
ORen, a review of the state enabling legislation is also required to determine if
adequate authority has been extended to the local community. Sometimes
deficiencies exist, and revisions to ordinances are required. In many cases,
"parts and pieces" scattered throughout the local codes need to be consolidated
into one ordinance for Implementation.
Conclusion
Remember: To comply with the NPDES
federal regulation, you must comply
with the terms and conditions in your
NPDES permit. As discovered by
Greenville County, S.C., the permit
should focus on what you will do;
level of effort -precisely how you will
comply - is best defined outside the
boundaries of the permit. And for
maximum benefit for the dollars spent,
piggyback additional applications,
beyond stormwater quality, on top of
(NPDES.
If you are one of the many Phase II communities that hasn't gotten started on
NPDES compliance, wait no longer. Get your NPDES budget in order; work with
other departments to pool efforts and satisfy additional applications beyond
NPDES. While waiting for your state to bring the federal requirements into
tighter focus, audit your existing stormwater quality program. Inventory outfalls
and develop maps. Review stormwater ordinances. Educate decision makers in
your local government about the purpose and requirements of the federal
regulation. Remind Chem that NPDES is not going away; the mandate cannot be
ignored and must become a top priority in your community.
Top Pf Page 5ee h "1' ~~~C~PU~ 1 , ePar gO~I~~J!~~S /Sl~~ YrI Y~L1AW~
Sw~'~^~I.[ M
Features I Press Releases I SQmifrars I Awards I Conference Schedule i Articles i Archive
Legal i Contact.US I Nome
http://www.woolpert.com/news/articles/ar010102.htm 10/3/02
THIS FORM REPLACES PREVIOUS FORM 3510-5 (8.98)
See Reverse Ior Instruadone Form Approved. OYB No. IIe4tl-0tY
	Un'ned Sutec Environmentd Protection Agency
NPOES
FORM	~~, EPA Washlrtgton' DC 2ws0
Notice of Intent (NOl) for Storm Water Dtschergles Aacociated vrith
	CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Under a NPOES Carteret Permit
SutNniasbn of this Notice of Invent ooratputes notice that llte party IderttlNW h Section I of this faun Intend6 t0 be authorized by a NPOES permk
issued for 6gn'n water disoharpea essoclated with ConatruCttan activity In the Stdlelln4lan t:ountry l8rq identified in tsectbn If Of tldl fem.
$Ubm199i0n Of this Notice O- InteM also constitutes notice that the party Identified in SecGtm I of Mls form mevb the eligibtity raquirortwrrs h
Pnn 1.8. o} Me gerural pemtlt (hduding ttto9e related to prouCtktn of endangeree species detsnnined through the DtoCedures in Addendum A
'
DAity, and that
of the general permit), understands Met Continued authorization to dicattarge is contingent on nwinfaining permit eligr
imptamatwbn of the Storm Water Po1ltAlpn Prevention Plan required under Part Iv of the general permit will begin at ifte tir!le the pelrnltles
commenttes Work on the Construction project idenBRed h Seaton II below. IN ORDER TO OBTgIN AUTHORILITION. ALL INFORMATION
E T 0 UST BE INCLUDED ON TNI9 ORM. SE TI

1. Oweaa/t~pwatw (Applkent) information
Name: Phone: ( ) -
5tatus of
Address: OwnerlOperator
City: State: ZIP Code: -
II. Pro)cct/Sioe IntOrmation CNou~ to on ndmn
~Y
Project Namx rss ^ No ^
Project Address/locetion:
city: state: ZIP Cods:
""+tude: longitude: County:
r+ac the Stonn Water Pollutlon Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Dean prepared? Yes ^ No ^
Optional: Address of bcation of SWPPP br viewing
^ Address 'rn 8ection 1 above ^ Address to tiectipll 11 above ^ Other atltlres9 ftl known) bebw:
SWPPP
Phone: ( )
Address:
City; State: ZIP Code:
Name of Receiving Water
sad On In9trudion provided in Addendum A d tt+a
~ / permit, ors there arty ista0 erntan~erW a threatened
f !
hronrM1 Der Yam AIenM Y Yam apeaies, Or designated pltfa9l habtel in tM project
Estimated Construction Start DatO Estimated Cempletbn Dato erea7
Estimate at area to pe disturbed (to nearest. acre}: Y66 [] No ^
Estimate of Ukelihood or DI3Chacge (ehtwso only one): I nave eatNfied permR eligibilitywith regard to
protection of endangered species through the
^ Unlikely 3. ^ Once Per week 5. ^ Continual Indicated section d Part L8.3.e.(2) of the permit
t
.
(check tare or more baxaal
2. ^ One par month 2.0 Once per day (e} ^ (b) ^ (c) ^ (d) O
111. Certification
1 certlfy undw penalty of law that Cris Oocumsm end ea aaacnments were preparatl urWer my direGaan 0< aupeNiSk7ft trt aCCardBnCe vrlih fl
system designed to assure mat qualllled pMronnel properly gather and evaluate Me inM7rmation submitWd. t3ased on'nY InqulfY of Ma
person or persons who manage this system. Or theta persons directly reslpnilple br gathering Me hfortnatian, the Intomtatbn subMtlAd
"" ic, q the beet Of my knwvladge and bet-ref, tna, accurate, end Complete. I em aware that Mere era clgn4tlcartt penal4e9 to suttrttittirq false
intormatian, irwi W ing the posslblaty of tine end unpriaerxnere for knowing vlCletlone.
Print Nartso Date: / /
raonm ony vw
SignaWro: