NATIONAL HIGHWAY RUNOFF WATER-QUALITY DATA AND METHODOLOGY SYNTHESIS

COORDINATION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC

Chapter 2 of:

Young,G.K., Stein, S., Cole, P., Kammer, T., Graziano, Bank F., 1996, Evaluation and management of highway runoff water quality: Federal Highway Administration Final Report FHWA-PD-96-032, 480 p.

2.1 FEDERAL LEGISLATION (FHWA-PD-96-032)

2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were designed to create a vehicle for considering environmental amenities consistent with other national needs, such as economic development, in a systematic manner (Corbitt, 1990). The basic requirements of NEPA are purely procedural, through establishing a policy of the Federal Government to use all practicable means to administer Federal programs in the most environmentally sound fashion, and imposing environmental responsibilities on all agencies of the Federal Government (Finley and Farber, 1992). NEPA establishes judicially enforceable obligations which require all Federal agencies to identify the environmental impacts of their planned activities. Under the Act, Federal agencies are required to determine whether a proposed action constitutes a "major Federal action which will significantly affect" (42 U.S.C.  4321 - 4370) the quality of the human environment (Doppelt, et al., 1993). This requires the organization to conduct a preliminary investigation of the potential environmental affects of their action, and determine if further investigation is required. The results of these efforts are reported in an environmental assessment (EA), or a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), depending on the potential adverse effects identified. Unless the findings of the preliminary investigation, or the EA, indicate "no significant impact," the agency must prepare a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), including the following components, as set forth in section 102(2)(c) of the Act:

(c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on -

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

The subsection goes on to require the Federal agency to consult other agencies with jurisdiction over or special expertise concerning the environmental problem involved. (Finley and Farber, 1992). The EIS can, and should, include a cost-benefit section in which the feasibility of the proposed and alternative projects can be evaluated based on economic as well as environmental benefits and costs. Another important aspect of NEPA was the establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is primarily charged with advising the President about environmental matters. However, the CEQ also advises and supplements regulations for agencies to carry out the NEPA process. For example, CEQ regulations enacted for NEPA state that one of the alternatives the agency must consider in any EIS is the alternative of doing nothing, or the "no action" alternative.

The enactment of NEPA added a new dimension to the planning and decision-making process of Federal and State agencies in the United States. NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct preliminary environmental impact analyses as early in the planning process as possible and, in all cases, prior to the undertaking of the project or action. This environmental assessment process (also referred to as the "NEPA" process) has had a profound effect on the way major projects with significant Federal agency involvement are planned and implemented. The NEPA process is carried out in a public forum, with ample time for the general public, special interest groups, local authorities or Federal agencies to challenge or comment on the findings. A project challenged on the basis of NEPA noncompliance may be seriously delayed or modified.

The NEPA legislation, and its procedural requirements, are the umbrella under which environmental impacts are evaluated for all substantial Federal projects, and has been the springboard for which many other environmental regulations are applied and enforced. For highway operations and projects, any major effort which involves Federal funding, oversight, or permits is subject to the NEPA process and environmental concerns must be considered before implementation. In following NEPA, State DOTs require public notice (through publications and/or hearings) of intended projects and permit applications. This public interaction allows any individual or group to raise concerns about the environmental impact of a project, soliciting additional efforts by the DOT. Mitigation efforts under NEPA may ultimately include limiting the magnitude of the project, repairing or restoring the affected environment, reducing the impact through preservation and maintenance operations, or avoiding the impact by not implementing the project.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2 The Clean Water Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Originally, this act was entitled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (FWPCA) which prescribed a regulatory system consisting mainly of State-developed ambient water quality standards applicable to interstate or navigable waters. In 1972, FWPCA amendments established a system of standards, permits and enforcement aimed at "goals" of "fishable and swimmable waters by 1983" and "total elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable waters by 1985." (33 U. S.C.  1251 (a) (2)). Further amendments were passed in 1977, when the Act was officially denominated The Clean Water Act (CWA). Today, the CWA is the nation's primary mechanism for protecting and improving water quality. The broad purpose of the Act is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," (33 U.S.C  1251 (a)), and its emphasis is to declare unlawful the unregulated discharge of pollutants into all waters of the United States.

The main strength of the CWA is its comprehensive, nationwide approach to water quality protection which requires Federal, State, and local governments to act cooperatively for the achievement of common goals. The Act makes the States and the EPA jointly responsible for identifying and regulating both point and nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution. Point sources are controlled by a permit-based system, while nonpoint sources are approached with a management strategy. The Act's framework thus allows for both environmental quality (water quaity standards) and technology-based (treatment processes and Best Management Practices) approaches to water pollution control. Each State is required to develop and adopt water quality standards which enumerate the designated uses of each water body as well as specific criteria deemed necessary to protect or achieve those designated uses. The CWA requires States to develop and implement water quality standards in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance.

Under current EPA regulations, water quality management planning is focused on priority water quality issues and geographic areas. This process requires the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which sets the amount of pollution that may be allowed while still complying with water quality standards. These allocations are implemented through the issuance of permits for point sources and the use of BMPs for nonpoint sources. In addition, State water quality programs are required to integrate three components (1) a designation of uses for all State waters, (2) criteria to meet those uses, and (3) an antidegradation policy for waters that meet or exceed criteria for existing uses (40 CFR  131.10 - 131.12). State water quality management plans are also required to identify priority point and nonpoint problems, consider alternative solutions, and recommend control measures. In order to comply with the CWA, State water quality standards must, theoretically, include indicators of the health of ecological habitats and the level of biological diversity, and ambient water quality standards were to be supplemented by discharge standards in the form of effluent limitations applicable to all point sources.

The Act also specifically provides that State water quality criteria must include both numeric standards for quantifiable chemical properties and "narrative criteria or criteria based upon bio-monitoring." (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(a)). As defined in the Act, the term "biological monitoring" means: the determination of the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due to the discharge of pollutants by techniques and procedures, including sampling of organisms representative of appropriate levels of the food chain appropriate to the volume and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the effluent, and at appropriate frequencies and locations (33 U.S.C.  1362).

CWA amendments, EPA regulations, and State water quality programs addressing point and nonpoint sources have continued to evolve over the years as increased knowledge is accumulated on the impacts of urban development. Stormwater runoff from increased impervious surfaces in urban areas has emerged as a significant threat to water quality. Several sections of the CWA apply to urban runoff, both as a point and nonpoint source of pollution, as well as impacts of any activities which may result in the disturbance of natural wetlands, regulated by section 404 of the Act. The following paragraphs describe these sections, with emphasis on their relevance to stormwater runoff and highway operations.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.1 Discharge Regulations - NPDES (Section 402) (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Amended section 402 created a permit system, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under which discharge permits could be granted by EPA or by States with EPA-approved programs. Under the Act as amended, the NPDES permitting program regulates discharges into navigable waters from "point sources." The CWA defines a "point source" as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged" (33 U.S.C.  1362(14)). Any discharges by point sources, except in compliance with the limitations imposed in a permit, were declared unlawful. This includes stormwater discharges, with the exceptions of agricultural stormwater runoff, and return flows from irrigated agriculture. Permits had to incorporate applicable effluent limitations established under sections 301, 302, 306, and 307, including enforceable schedules of compliance to meet future deadlines established by the Act. It is a condition of all NPDES permits that the permittee comply with discharge limits based on the use of "best technology" and with discharge monitoring and reporting obligations. A 1987 amendment prohibits backsliding; with limited exception, new permits cannot be less stringent than existing permits for the same facility (Finley and Farber, 1992).

Under the CWA, permitting for industrial and municipal stormwater discharges is to be implemented in two phases. Under phase I, NPDES permits are required for municipal separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000 or 100,000 people, respectively), and for industrial stormwater discharges (Terrene Institute, 1994). Permits may also be issued if the EPA or the State determines that a stormwater discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or significantly contributes pollutants to U. S. waters. Under phase II, EPA is to prepare reports to Congress that assess the remaining stormwater discharges, determine the nature and extent of pollutants in these discharges, and establish procedures to control these discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality. The EPA is then charged with establishing a comprehensive program to regulate these, as well as phase I, stormwater discharges.

As of the publication of this document, regulations for phase I stormwater discharges have been fully implemented by EPA, and phase II regulations have recently been issued (August 1995). Phase II regulations apply to "all point source discharges of stormwater from commercial, retail and institutional facilities, and from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations under 100,000" (40 C.F.R.122). Phase II regulations provide States with broad authority over the management and control of these discharges, although EPA will continue to provide guidance to the States for developing phase II management programs. Permitting may or may not be a part of the final phase II program, as EPA is open to exploring a number of nonpermit control strategies. If the final phase II program, expected to be finalized by March 1, 1999, is to include permit requirements, phase II dischargers will be expected to apply for permits by August 7, 2001. Phase II permitting is expected to be implemented after this deadline. In the meantime, EPA has delegated authority to States to identify and require permits for "those [phase II] dischargers that are contributing to a water quality impairment or are a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S" (40 C.F.R. 122-124).

The regulations promulgated by the EPA for phase I stormwater discharges require an NPDES permit for runoff from industrial activities and large and medium municipalities. On November 16, 1990, the EPA issued permit application requirements for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, including:

• Heavy manufacturing/light manufacturing.
• Recycling facilities.
• Transportation facilities.
• Construction projects (over 5 ac [2.023 ha] in size).
• Steam electric power generating stations.
• Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
• Mining/oil and gas.

Although some of these activities apply to highway operations and activities, the overall approach to controlling stormwater runoff from roads and highways is through joint permitting with municipalities. Therefore, the remaining discussion will focus on regulations and guidance relevant to municipal stormwater runoff management set forth in section 402. It is important to recognize, however, that for industries located within municipalities covered by an NPDES permit, there may be municipal requirements on stormwater discharges from their industrial facilities. The industry should check with its local authority responsible for stormwater management.

For municipal stormwater discharges subject to NPDES permitting, the EPA or delegated State authority may either issue one system-wide permit covering all discharges from municipal separate storm sewers or issue distinct permits for appropriate categories of discharges. This includes all discharges owned and operated by the same municipality, located within the same jurisdiction, all systems that discharge to the same watershed, discharges within a system that are similar in nature, or individual dischargers. Therefore, municipal stormwater discharge owners/operators must either participate in the permit application with one or more other owner/operators, submit a distinct permit application for their own discharge operations, or be a co-applicant submitting a permit under control of a regional authority, such as a recognized jurisdiction or a watershed. The permits may specify different conditions related to different discharges covered by the permit depending on local management plans and physical characteristics. However, co-permittees need only comply with permit conditions relating to discharges for which they are operators.

A permit application consists of two parts, where information provided includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Part 1

• Statement of Legal Authority, including proof that the operator has legal authority over the stormwater discharge system, ordinances/contracts/orders prohibiting or supporting activities previously described in the permit application or stormwater management program, interagency agreements among coapplicants, and inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance or noncompliance with permit conditions (including illicit discharges).
• Source Characterization, including topographic map, location of major outfalls, location and permit number of other NPDES permittees, location of major structural stormwater discharge controls, identification of public parks, recreation areas, and description of land use practices.
• Discharge Characterization, - Monthly mean rain and snow fall estimates including average number of storm events, existing quantitative data describing the volume and quality of discharge, a list of water bodies that receive discharges including a description of how pollutants from discharge may accumulate and cause degradation, and a brief description of the known water quality impacts.

Part 2

• Management Program Description, including existing strategies to control pollutants from the systems, existing structural and source controls, identifying and preventing illicit discharges, and emergency spill response programs.

Fiscal resources available for the implementation of the permit activities must also be stated. The municipality is then expected to use this information to develop a stormwater management program designed to reduce the discharge of these pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

NPDES permitting authority is delegated to States who have water quality management and pollution control programs approved by EPA. In cases where a State does not have an approved program, authority remains at the Federal level with EPA. Regardless of the approval authority, most State Department's of Transportation (DOTs) have entered into the NPDES permitting process as co-applicants with the legal jurisdiction (e.g., city, county) in which the stormwater management measures will be undertaken for runoff control. However, this is not always the case and the highway practitioner should be familiar with the stormwater management strategies employed by the State where the activity or project is to take place.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.2 Discharge of Dredge and Fill Material (Section 404) (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Section 404 of the CWA requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material. The regulation gives the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) broad authority for permits covering any area flooded or saturated often enough to support "vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Doppelt, et al., 1993). Thus, a broad range of wetlands are subject to the permit requirement. Within the permit program, the Corps issues or denies Department of the Army permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands.

The definition of "discharge of dredged material" is any physical digging into the bottom of a water body, including wetlands, and includes certain types of excavation activities such as mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization, and other activities that destroy or degrade waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. 1344). "Fill material" is defined as any material used to change the bottom elevation or replace waters, including wetlands, with dry land. Fill material may consist of rock, sand, dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharges (U. S. EPA, Region 2, 1993). "Wetlands" are defined in the CFR as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (40 C.F.R. 230.3). Therefore, any activities which, at a minimum, meet the above definitions and which impact a "wetland" as defined above are subject to the permitting process under section 404 of the CWA. Many States have adopted their own permitting criteria which at a minimum includes the above defined activities, but may be more stringent than Federal guidelines.

Highway operations most affected by section 404 would be the construction of roads and bridges which could potentially alter wetlands near the construction site(s). Stormwater runoff from highways typically does not constitute a dredged discharge or fill material, unless it can be demonstrated that the runoff material significantly changes bottom elevation or replaces waters with dry land material. An interesting area where technical research and regulation are in the process of colliding is the use of wetlands for stormwater control mechanisms. Prior to the major wetlands protection legislation, wetlands have long been used as receiving waters for stormwater discharges, however intentional use of natural wetlands systems for stormwater management is no longer an option. More recently, constructed wetlands are being considered for use as BMPs to utilize the natural flood control and nutrient removal capabilities of a wetlands system. Caution should be exercised when considering wetlands as pollutant filters due to the negative perceptions of citizens and environmentalists and, more importantly, because of their complex roles as sources, sinks, and transformers of pollutants. Depending on local hydrology, climate, and topography, wetlands which trap pollutants (as sinks) may periodically discharge pollutants into local surface waters or groundwaters. In addition, chemical processes within the wetland may often transform pollutants introduced into the system into other harmful chemical species or compounds.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.3 Nonpoint Source Pollution (Sections 208 and 319) (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Amendments to the CWA passed in 1987 constituted the most ambitious water quality provisions to address nonpoint source pollution (runoff from agricultural and urban areas). Pre-1987 law made an ineffectual effort to deal with the problem in section 208 and the 1987 amendments yielded a new section 319 to further address the problem (Finley and Farber, 1992). The new language has had the significant effect of broadening the range of Federal activities which are subject to State review and comment. States are required to identify water bodies in which water quality standards cannot be met without control of nonpoint source pollutants, and to establish management programs for these water bodies. The plans are to include "best management practices" for categories of sources, a schedule of implementation milestones, and appropriate regulatory measures. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to States to assist them in implementing management programs that have been approved. In effect, section 319 allows States to demand full evaluation and disclosure of water quality impacts and places increased emphasis on the in-stream biological effects of proposed activities rather than on BMP utilization and water-column chemistry (Doppelt, et al., 1993). Significantly, the amendments seem to impose a more site-specific planning approach, requiring States to develop and implement their management programs on a "watershed-by-watershed basis" to the maximum extent practicable. Although the plans must be approved by EPA, all polluters, including Federal land management agencies, are required to attain State water quality standards. Thus, just as point sources must comply with the effluent limitations in their NPDES permits, nonpoint sources of pollution must comply with State water quality standards.

Certain categories of stormwater discharges fall under the purview of the nonpoint source pollution regulations. Under current guidelines, stormwater discharges from municipalities serving a population of less than 100,000 are not subject to the NPDES permitting process, unless the EPA or the State determines that a particular discharge contributes significantly to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. However, these sources still must be managed to comply with the CWA regulations governing nonpoint source pollution. The States, in consultation with EPA, should identify these sources, determine the nature and extent of pollutants discharged through these sources, and establish procedures and methods to control discharges and/or mitigate water quality impacts. In response, most States have approved nonpoint source management programs which set forth guidance for project planning, nonpoint source controls, and mitigation methods to protect the integrity of receiving waters.

Highway construction and operation contributes to impervious surface area in the watershed, and regular use and operations cause an accumulation of pollutants on the surface from oil, tires, dust, grease and other materials which may be washed into receiving waters through rain events. Therefore, activities associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of roads and highways are subject to State regulations and programs addressing nonpoint source pollution. Proper planning, controls, and mitigation techniques, as set forth by the State or the EPA, are to be utilized by the responsible parties involved in the project.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.4 Water Quality Certifications (Section 401) (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The purpose of section 401 of the CWA is to ensure that federally permitted activities comply with the Act, State water quality laws and any other appropriate State laws. This is accomplished through a State certification process. Any applicant for a Federal permit for any activity that could result in a discharge of a pollutant to a State's waters is required to obtain a certification from the State in which the activity is to occur (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 1993). In essence, the State certifies that the materials or pollutants discharged comply with the effluent limitation, water quality standards, and any other applicable conditions of State law. Examples of Federal permits and licenses requiring State certification include: NPDES permits, section 404 permits, permits for activities regulated by the Rivers and Harbors Act, and hydroelectric discharge-related activities (Doppelt, et al., 1993). If the State denies the certification, the Federal permitting agency must deny the permit application. If the State imposes conditions on a certification, the conditions become part of the Federal permit (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2). A certification obtained for construction activities must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the structure (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 1993).

Certification processes differ from state to state, with some states participating early enough in a project's development to have an impact on determining alternatives and mitigation processes (Doppelt, et al., 1993). Typically, the process begins when the State receives the permit information from the Federal agency receiving the request from the applicant. The State regulatory agency designated with certification authority notifies the Federal permitting authority of its decisions concerning certification for the proposed activity. States must act to grant or deny certification within a reasonable time (not to exceed one year) after a request is received, or certification authority will be deemed to have been waived (Doppelt, et al., 1993).

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.5 Supplemental Water Quality Protection Programs (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The National Estuary Program. Section 320 of the CWA authorizes Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for specific legislatively designated estuaries in the United States. This program focuses on point source and nonpoint source pollution in geographically targeted high-priority estuarine watersheds. EPA assists the local, regional, and State governments in developing conservation and management plans that recommend priority corrective actions and compliance schedules to restore estuarine water quality, fish populations, and other designated uses of the waters. Urban runoff was cited in the "National Water Quality Inventory, 1992 Report to Congress" as the most significant source of pollutants contributing to the failure of estuaries in meeting their designated water quality uses. Consequently, recommended actions and schedules will continue to integrate and strengthen runoff controls measures into the final protection plans.

Clean Lakes Program. Section 314 establishes projects and programs to control pollution sources to lakes, and to protect and restore the quality of lakes. Eligible activities include identification and classification surveys of all publicly owned lakes, State lake water quality monitoring and assessment, and public education. Lake restoration projects typically include three phases: a diagnostic/feasibility study; a restoration/protection implementation program, and post restoration monitoring. Although the program is non-regulatory, highway or urban runoff which directly impacts local publicly owned lakes which are managed through the Clean Lakes Program may require special attention through source control or mitigation measures to minimize runoff impacts.

Wetlands Protection Programs. Section 104 of the CWA establishes and funds the State Wetlands Program, and the Wetlands Protection Program, among other water quality projects. These programs are designed to provide funding for activities in target watersheds for wetlands identification and public education, and to increase the ability of State programs to protect wetlands resources. Under the State Wetlands Program, eligible activities include developing new State wetlands protection programs, watershed protection demonstration projects, and State wetland conservation plans to supplement State wetlands protection under section 404 of the CWA or other Federal legislation and programs.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.2.6 Federal Legislation Affecting Specific Regions (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Some water resources in the United States, due to their potential for adverse impacts, their value as a natural resource, or both, have been identified specifically in the Federal legislation for increased protection and management measures. Federal and State agency regulations promulgated for these areas may require extra steps be taken in planning, control, or mitigation of potential adverse affects if the projects are planned in the State or region of the designated resource. Examples of such resources include, but are not limited to:

• The Chesapeake Bay, through the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and other federally funded "Bay" programs.
• The Great Lakes, through special provisions set forth in the Clean Water Act.
• The Edward's Aquifer, through special provision set forth in section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulations promulgated by EPA under 40 CFR 149.100.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) was passed by Congress in order to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." (16 U.S.C. 1452) The Act established a program to encourage States and territories to develop comprehensive programs to protect and manage coastal resources, including the Great Lakes (Terrene Institute, 1994). Much of the Act is geared toward managing and steering development of coastal energy resources. To encourage States to develop coastal zone management programs, Congress incorporated several major incentives in the CZMA. For example, the Act provides Federal grants to States for the development and administration of coastal management programs. The Act also provides a mechanism by which a State can allocate some of its funds to a local government or interstate agency, thus encouraging the coordination of coastal management on a regional level.

The CZMA is overseen by the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). However, the Act focuses on the States as being key players in the management of coastal zone areas. The legislation emphasized the State leadership in the program, and allowed States to participate in the Federal program by submitting their own coastal zone management proposals to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) at NOAA for approval. To receive Federal approval and implementation funding, States and territories had to demonstrate programs and enforceable policies sufficiently comprehensive and specific to regulate land and water uses and coastal development, and to resolve conflicts between competing uses (Terrene Institute, 1994). Once the OCZM has approved a State program, Federal agency activities within a coastal zone must be consistent "to the maximum extent practicable" with the program.

Areas subjected to CZMA planning include wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat. Management plans developed by States must include an inventory and designation of coastal resources, designate those of national significance and establish standards to protect those so designated. The State plans should also include a process for assessing and controlling shoreline erosion, and a description of the organizational structure proposed to implement the program with specific references to the inter-relationships and responsibilities between various jurisdictions. States are also encouraged to prepare special area management plans addressing such issues as natural resources, coastal-dependent economic growth, and protection of life and property in hazardous areas. These resource management and protection plans are accomplished through State laws, regulations, permits, and local plans and zoning ordinances. Section 307(c) of the CZMA requires any nonfederal applicant, seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the State's coastal zone, to furnish a certification that the proposed activity will comply with the State's coastal zone management program. No Federal permit will be issued until the State has concurred with the applicant's certification of consistency (U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 2, 1993).

The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) specifically charged State coastal programs and State nonpoint source programs to address nonpoint source pollution issues affecting coastal water quality. Under CZARA, coastal States must develop appropriate management programs in order to continue to receive funding and participate in the CZMA. EPA has developed technical guidance to help States develop the CZARA mandated control programs. The guidance specifies management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters, including coastal stormwater control. Management measures are defined as "economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutant to coastal waters; that is, they reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction available through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, site criteria, operating methods or other alternatives" (Terrene Institute, 1994). Coastal stormwater control programs are not intended to supplant existing coastal zone management programs or nonpoint source management programs (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1993a). Rather they serve to update and expand existing programs and are to be coordinated closely with other nonpoint source management plans (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991).

Many States have an approved coastal zone management plan which may apply to activities in specific local regions, jurisdictions, or areas within the State. In these designated areas, projects affecting coastal waters, ecology, or land use may require additional permitting and/or compliance with State laws or local zoning regulations and ordinances.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.4 Safe Drinking Water Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The primary objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA), as amended extensively in 1984, are twofold: (1) to protect the nation's sources of drinking water, and (2) to protect public health to the maximum extent possible, using proper water treatment techniques (U.S.C.  300f-300j). The Act establishes the need to set contaminant levels to protect public health. The SDWA directs EPA to set health-based standards for contaminants in drinking water and to require water supply system operators to come as close as possible to meeting the standards by using the "best available technology" that is economically and technologically "feasible." Primary enforcement responsibility may be delegated to States which request it, if they adopt drinking water regulations no less stringent than the national standards and implement adequate monitoring and enforcement procedures (Finley and Farber, 1992). The Act also requires procedures for inspection, monitoring, and record keeping (Corbitt, 1990).

Additional sections of the SDWA address the unique concerns of underground sources of drinking water and controls for contamination of these sources. Section 1421 requires EPA to establish minimum requirements for effective underground injection control (UIC) programs applying to five classes of wells (defined by 40 CFR  144.3). EPA has stated that all States are required to submit a UIC program, and that once established, all underground injections are unlawful and subject to penalties unless authorized by a permit. No injection will be authorized by permit if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into Underground Sources of Drinking Water, (USDW) (40 CFR  144.1) and such a permit will not be issued until the applicant can prove that discharge or disposal into the USDW will not affect drinking water integrity. This has prompted States to develop multi-faceted programs to protect groundwater resources and recharge areas that supply public water systems. Under these programs, wellhead protection strategies have been developed. Wellhead protection typically involves delineating the boundaries of a recharge area, identifying potential sources of contamination in the recharge area, and controlling those sources to prevent release of contaminants. SDWA section 1442, Wellhead Protection, provides technical assistance and funding to States and local governments designing and implementing wellhead protection programs. Eligible activities include delineation of wellhead protection areas, identification, mapping, and sampling of contamination sources, public education, and development of ordinances (Horner, et al., 1994). Long-range planning and control for future land use is also typically included in these programs. Any highway projects, including maintenance operations or BMP implementation, may therefore by subject to additional planning and analysis, and possibly permitting, if they are within the recharge area and apply to State or local wellhead protection rules.

A provision of the SDWA requires protection of surface water discharges in areas designated as sole or principal source aquifers. The regulations set forth criteria for identifying critical aquifer protection areas (CAPAs), which are sole or principal source aquifers (as defined by  1424(e) of the SDWA) and are determined to be vulnerable to contamination due to local hydrologic or geologic characteristics and/or potential for contamination. The regulations allow States or municipalities to designate such aquifers as "CAPAs," thereby providing for development of an area-wide groundwater protection program ( 1427, SDWA). The program may identify actions in the protection area which would avoid adverse affects on water quality, and limits on Federal, State, and local government financially assisted activities and projects which may contribute to degradation of such groundwater, or any loss of natural surface and subsurface infiltration and purification capabilities ( 1427, SDWA). While the program is essentially nonregulatory, Federal financial support for projects may be withheld if harm to the a designated aquifer may occur. Mitigation measures for activities that may contaminate the aquifer (including highway runoff) are typically required to assure Federal funding of the project. Any project in a sole-source aquifer area receiving Federal financial assistance must be coordinated with the regional EPA office. There are some principal aquifers in the country, such as the Edwards Underground Aquifer in Texas, where the resource is designated as the sole or principal drinking water source for the area, and if contaminated would create a significant hazard to public health. As a result, more strict regulations apply (set forth in 40 CFR 149.100), and projects planned in the area of the aquifer are inventoried, reviewed, and approved by the general public, local authorities, State environmental agencies, and the EPA.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.5 Other Federal Legislation (FHWA-PD-96-032)

2.1.5.1 The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act(FHWA-PD-96-032)

This act establishes the Wild and Scenic River System , and its purpose is limited to protection of "certain selected rivers of the Nation, which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable qualities" (16 U.S.C.  1271-1287). It essentially provides for a mechanism to determine if a river (or river segment) can meet certain eligibility requirements for protection as a wild and/or scenic river (Corbitt, 1990), and protects designated rivers from activities which may adversely impact those values. The Department of the Interior has ultimate authority for administering the program, but States can designate rivers for inclusion in the system. The Act's framers intended for most private land's rivers to enter the Wild and Scenic River System through the State designation and management provisions (Doppelt, et al., 1993). However, the Department of Agriculture administers and designates rivers in the national forests (Corbitt, 1990).

It is the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) to "protect the free-flowing condition to protect its water quality, and fulfill other vital national conservation purposes" (16 U.S.C  1271). In planning for the use and development of water and land resources, Federal agencies must give consideration to potential wild and scenic river areas (Corbitt, 1990). For the purposes of WSRA, water resource actions are defined as any project or action that could affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river, e.g., dredge/fill operations, placement of riprap, etc. (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 1993). Under section 7(a) of the WSRA, Federal actions on water resources are prohibited if they result in a direct adverse effect on the characteristics which result in a river's WSRA classification. The Department of the Interior has determined that actions within a quarter mile, or within the visual field of the designated river could have a direct impact (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 1993).

As of 1993, 32 States have conservation programs of some form where rivers or river segments, and their associated riparian environments, are protected under State Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation. As a result, many State regulations prohibit or restrict dams, protect designated rivers from channelization or diversion, or have instituted comprehensive controls for land use planning, water quality and waste-control, transportation planning and local zoning requirements. Each State maintains its own administration over designated rivers or river segments through a State or regional authority, such as the U. S. EPA Region, National Park Service, or other State environmental agency. Authority is often delegated to local jurisdictions through the establishment of riverine or river corridor commissions.

Highway construction and operations near designated river segments are subject to restrictions developed by the State. Even if such activities are temporary, any disruptions to the normal flow of the river (e.g., dams, drainage alteration), increased sediment loads (construction areas) or significant increases to pollutant loads (e.g., increased runoff volume), may be restricted by State-enacted WSRA regulation. Through the NEPA and/or permitting processes, the DOT should be notified if its actions are subject to restriction under the WSRA.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.5.2 Endangered Species Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

This Act seeks to conserve endangered and threatened species through requiring Federal agencies, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to ensure that their actions "do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modifications of the critical habitat of such species" (16 U.S.C.  1536). An endangered species is "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "(16 U.S.C.  1532). A species is threatened if it is "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future through all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C  1532). The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) takes jurisdiction over listings for terrestrial and native freshwater species, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for listings of marine species or anadromous species (Doppelt, et al., 1993). Under the Act, the FWS and NMFS determine critical habitat for the maintenance and recovery of endangered species, and requires that the impacts of human activities on species and habitat be assessed. While States can compile their own lists of species and the degrees of protection required, species on the Federal list are under the jurisdiction and protection of the Federal Government, and a violation of the act carries Federal penalties (Corbitt, 1990). Another important provision of the Act is the establishment of an Endangered Species Committee to grant exemptions from the Act.

When a species is listed under the ESA, the lead Federal agency is required to issue a biological assessment whenever an action in which the Federal Government is involved (as in the issuance of Department of Army permits) "may affect" a listed or threatened species (16 U.S.C 1536). The agency must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service if the results of the biological assessment show a listed species may be affected by the project. If an action will jeopardize a listed species or its habitat, the lead agency must provide mitigation measures for, or alternatives to, the proposed activity (Corbitt, 1990). Projects that impact such areas may be subject to ESA regulation even if a "water right" exists through Federal or State compact in compliance with State water laws or the Clean Water Act. As a matter of law, the ESA supersedes most other Federal laws and policies. Given this, it is still unclear whether State water law and water rights are immune to ESA regulation. However, the caselaw indicates that the ESA does authorize a reduction in the power of existing water rights through regulation (Doppelt, et al., 1993).

The ESA applies to activities directly affecting water resources designated as "critical habitat" areas, and may include receiving waters from highway or urban runoff. For example, stream quality in the Pacific Northwest has become an important issue in regards to protection of the salmon population. Highway construction, runoff quality, mitigation activities, and maintenance may be subject to review under the ESA due to the identification of certain receiving waters as "critical habitat" for salmon runs. In many cases, the NEPA process required for all significant Federal activities uncovers the existence of a listed species, and the subsequent EIS must deal with potential adverse impacts, project modifications or the project site relocation.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.5.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as it exists now, is the culmination of a long series of pieces of legislation, dating back to the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, which addressed the problem of waste disposal. The RCRA of 1976 gives EPA broad authority to regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes and encourages the development of solid waste management plans and nonhazardous waste regulatory programs by States. The Act identifies and defines four classes of hazardous wastes based on physical chemical properties: ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity. Four lists, containing approximately 1000 distinct chemicals have been published, and they include waste chemicals from nonspecific sources or by-products of specific industrial processes. The Act also requires comprehensive tracking of hazardous wastes from generation to transport and disposal, which involves a distinct process of record keeping, labeling, and storage. States are required to develop hazardous waste management plans and submit them to EPA for approval. Solid waste disposal sites are to be inventoried to determine compliance with sanitary landfill regulations issued by the EPA.

In 1984, amendments to RCRA filled in gaps in the 1976 legislation. Provisions added in 1984 required notification of underground tank data and regulations for detection, prevention, and correction or releases; incorporation of small-quantity generators (generating between 100 and 1000 kg of hazardous waste per month) into the regulatory scheme, and corrective action by treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for all releases of hazardous waste regardless of when the waste was placed in the unit.

The EPA promulgates regulations under RCRA, but like many other Federal acts, the States are encouraged to develop management programs and eventually take over enforcement responsibilities. To date, many States have chosen to allow the Federal programs to suffice as the State program to avoid the expense of designing and enforcing programs. The U. S. Department of Transportation has enforcement responsibilities for the transport of hazardous wastes.

RCRA provisions may be relevant under some highway construction and maintenance projects, depending on the nature of the activity, proximity to receiving waters, and characteristics of the site. RCRA, or its State or local counterpart, applies to the proper storage, use, and disposal of solid wastes (e.g., plastics, scrap metals, wood materials, rubber, plastic), petroleum or petroleum based products (e.g., oils, greases, etc), and other chemicals used in construction (e.g., detergents, paints, solvents, etc.). Therefore, any highway construction activities which utilize these materials are subject to the provisions of RCRA for use and disposal. This would include vehicle and equipment maintenance and upkeep procedures at DOT-owned facilities.

Go Back to laws page

2.1.5.4 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FHWA-PD-96-032)

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is designed to regulate the use and safety of pesticide products within the United States. In 1972, amendments to FIFRA were passed that constituted a major restructuring of the Act to provide that the environmental harm resulting from the use of pesticides does not outweigh the benefits. Specific provisions of FIFRA require the evaluation of risks posed by pesticides, registering pesticides with the EPA, classification of pesticides for specific use, restricted use of pesticides harmful to the environment, and enforcement of these requirements through inspections, labeling and State regulation. The EPA establishes regulations concerning registration, inspection, fines, and criminal penalties, and to stop the sale of some pesticides. Primary enforcement responsibility has been assumed by the States. FIFRA requires that each State have adequate laws and procedures to assume primary authority.

Highway operations potentially subject to FIFRA provisions include any practices to maintain vegetation which involve the application of pesticides. This may also include regular maintenance operations of BMPs which utilize vegetative controls. State pesticide control programs will provide details on the procurement, use, management, storage, and disposal of pesticide chemicals, and precautionary measures to ensure protection of local receiving waters from contamination.

Go Back to laws page

2.2 STATE LEGISLATION (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Federal legislation applying to stormwater management and runoff control is dispersed among the major acts and programs discussed in section 2.1. However, most regulations promulgated by the act's delegate authority for administration and enforcement to the States once the responsible Federal agency approves their overall management approach. Many States have taken advantage of the delegation authority in order to address the environmental issues and concerns most critical to the welfare of their natural resources and human populations. It is not surprising therefore, that programs developed in response to the Federal regulations vary significantly between States, depending on the State infrastructure, existing water resources, and priority pollutants. The general framework for developing State programs addressing stormwater runoff through NPDES permits, nonpoint source pollution programs and stormwater management programs is presented below. However, the practitioner should consult the State authority or EPA regional office in order to obtain detailed regulations that apply to planned projects or activities. Appendix A contains a listing of agency contacts, by State, who have authority over these water quality programs.

2.2.1 State Approaches to NPDES Programs (FHWA-PD-96-032)

As of 1994, 39 States have approved NPDES programs, implemented through legislation, where management and permitting authority is delegated to a State agency (Terrene Institute, 1994). For NPDES compliance, States have established programs to cover the major permitting conditions set forth under section 402 of the CWA for industrial and municipal stormwater discharges, and have established procedures for applying for permits to address the nature of the permitted activity and the stormwater control measures to be used. Currently, State NPDES regulations address the CWA requirements for discharge permits in municipalities serving a population greater than 100,000, for runoff from industrial activities into the storm sewer system, and for construction projects that disturb greater than 5 acres of land. Since these are federally mandated, there is little variability between States on what specific activities are regulated in the NPDES system (although some States may institute more strict requirements for critical or protected water resources). The administrative authority and the permit application process does vary significantly between States, depending on the agency delegated NPDES authority, and the structure of water quality control agencies. A brief description of NPDES programs in some States, and their impact on State transportation departments is presented below.

California: In California, water quality control is managed at the State level by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRC) who interacts directly with the EPA Regional office. However, Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have been established to deal with public and private institutions affected by the NPDES permitting regulations, including the State Department of Transportation, CALTRANS. NPDES permits, including municipal, construction, and industrial permits, are issued and enforced by the RWQCBs. CALTRANS responsibilities are divided among 12 districts within the State, and each district is responsible for complying with State NPDES stormwater regulations. Permits issued for CALTRANS activities are either from the appropriate RWQCB or negotiated and issued jointly between the RWQCBs where projects effect multiple regions. Permits may be issued to CALTRANS covering activity in an entire region, or for one to many CALTRANS districts. Each permittee is responsible for the appropriate monitoring and paperwork activities associated with the conditions of the permit, including timely notification of permit violations.

Colorado: Colorado's NPDES system is overseen by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). In implementing the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS), the CDPHE issues several general permits covering municipal, industrial, and construction activities and encourages the regulated community to submit applications for coverage under the general permits, as opposed to individual permit applications. Coverage under the permit requires that a Stormwater Management Plan be prepared and submitted with the permit application.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initiated its permit process by first identifying which outfalls were associated with highway right-of-ways, and therefore are the responsibility of CDOT. The discharges associated with these outfalls were interconnected with the municipal systems and required application for a municipal NPDES permit. As part of the application process, CDOT is required to conduct stormwater quality monitoring, analysis of pollutant constituents, and dry weather screening to identify possible illicit discharges. Separate general permits are required for CDOT's construction (> 5 acres) and industrial activities, which are currently general permits. CDOT reports working towards a single permit to cover all of their regulated construction activities.

Oregon: In Oregon, the main water quality agency is the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This agency is responsible for issuing NPDES permits, and encourages storm sewer owners within the same jurisdiction to file as coapplicants for the municipal stormwater permits. Water quality criteria in certain areas of Oregon may be further restricted when activities effect waterbodies designated as "water quality limited." Regulations protecting these waterbodies are set forth in other Federal and State legislation. However, the Oregon DEQ is responsible for designating "water quality limited" systems, and sets criteria for Total Maximum Daily Loads of the offending pollutants impacting these systems.

The DEQ encouraged the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to file as a coapplicant with each jurisdiction applying for a municipal NPDES permit, as opposed to applying for a system-wide permit for ODOT activities only. For construction activities, ODOT receives regional permits for these projects, eliminating the need to apply for individual permits for each project.

Regardless of implementation scheme, State NPDES programs all share several fundamental characteristics designed to control stormwater nonpoint source pollution by ensuring that the responsible parties in stormwater conveyance perform the following tasks:

• Obtain, or be included in, a discharge permit where applicable.
• Characterize runoff pollution from stormwater discharges they are responsiblefor, including on-going monitoring and identification of illicit discharges.
• Identify appropriate measures to reduce and/or mitigate the effects of these discharges through stormwater management plans, public education for source controls, and best management practices (BMPs).

Go Back to laws page

2.2.2 State Approaches to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (FHWA-PD-96-032)

During 1989 and 1990, EPA and the States began implementing programs required under section 319 of the CWA addressing nonpoint source pollution. Section 319 promotes a watershed approach to nonpoint source controls through a two step process (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994). The first step was to conduct assessments of State waterbodies, determine the impacts from nonpoint sources, and identify the leading sources of pollution and the major pollutants involved. With assistance and direction from EPA Regional offices, all States have completed and approved assessments of their existing waterbodies. Although agricultural runoff was continuously cited as the leading source of nonpoint pollution, assessment data published by the EPA in 1992 state that urban runoff contributed to 4 percent of the usage impacts to wetlands, 4 percent of the impacts to rivers, 7 percent of the impacts to coastal waters, 7 percent of the impacts to lakes and 11 percent of the impacts to estuaries (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). Not surprisingly, EPA regions I, II, III (in the highly developed Northeast), and the District of Columbia reported that urban runoff was the major contributor, or one of the major contributors to nonpoint source pollution. Assessment report also revealed that siltation and nutrients were the primary pollutants conveyed through nonpoint sources, and that the resource uses most affected by nonpoint source pollution were biological integrity and recreational activities.

Upon completion of the assessments, States began the second step of the process developing nonpoint source pollution management programs to address the problems identified in their nonpoint source assessment reports. Specifically, the management programs are required to include the following:

• Identification of BMPs and measures to reduce pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.
• Implementation programs for BMPs and mitigation projects, including programs for technical and financial assistance, training, enforcement, and demonstration projects.
• Schedules and annual milestones for their program, including BMP implementation.
• Discussion of sources of Federal and other assistance and funding to support the program.
• Identification of Federal programs and projects that the State reviews for consistency with the program.

During development of the management programs, States focused first on lakes and rivers as the main water resources for nonpoint source pollution protection, most likely because the CZMA, CWA section 404, and other Federal legislation covering coastal zones and wetlands, already emphasized controlling nonpoint source pollution. Since then, wetlands protection programs and coastal zone nonpoint source control programs have continued to evolve and integrate with the nonpoint source management programs under the CWA, section 319.

State activities under the Nonpoint Source program are designed to support one or more of the five basic themes of the national program. These are: (1) increase public awareness, (2) develop potential solutions to NPS problems (3) encourage economic incentives for environmental friendly practices, (4) improve State NPS regulatory capacity, and (5) develop a good scientific foundation for water quality evaluation and monitoring (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994). The specific aspects of State programs include a number of legislative, educational, and technological endeavors to initiate nonpoint source pollution controls and demonstrate the efficacy of such measures. The following projects are most often included in State NPS management programs:

• Development of State legislation to initiate State NPS programs and to establish State authority over NPS issues, and set forth requirements for ongoing control, monitoring and impact assessment of NPS pollution. Some programs include requirements for permitting and/or certification of specific activities or projects.
• Production of guidance materials on land development, stormwater management, erosion/sedimentation control, pest management/pesticides, and agricultural waste management which include the application of BMPs, planning guidance, permitting requirements, and monitoring practices.
• Public education programs such as project-oriented handbooks to responsible parties (developers, road commissioners, forestry-related businesses, farmers), and good housekeeping procedures for the private citizen. Some programs also include citizen "whistle-blowing" and monitoring participation.
• Demonstration projects for particular BMPs under differing land use practices, including construction, agriculture, and urban areas.
• Groundwater and surface-water monitoring programs to expand water quality and NPS impact assessments, and to provide ongoing water quality data to measure NPS program performance and BMP efficiency.

Currently, most States have refined their NPS management programs to include BMPs and planning and design strategies that have proven effective in their area for mitigating water quality impacts encountered in many land use practices. The results are often submitted in the form of guidance manuals or State regulatory publications distributed to participants in State and local projects. The lead participants for particular projects, such as the State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), have responded by issuing their own guidance manuals to be followed by their constituents in the field. The State environmental agency contact (Appendix A) or the EPA Regional Office for the State can also provide details on the most current requirements for NPS control.

Go Back to laws page

2.2.3 State Approaches to Stormwater Management (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Since the origination of Federal and State NPDES and NPS programs, stormwater management has evolved from simple flood control objectives to include water quality issue in most States. As the regulatory programs evolved, stormwater management planning became a method to weave together requirements developed through NPDES, NPS, CZMA, and other water quality programs into a single, cohesive plan for stormwater management and runoff pollution control at the State and local level.

Although stormwater management is best carried out locally (due to their predominantly local effects), local governments are constrained by their resources and powers permitted them by State legislatures (American Public Works Association, 1981). Therefore, the main role of the States is to provide enabling legislation for local stormwater management programs. The States most often implement stormwater management strategies through legislation which specifies goals and provides financial resources to local governments and municipalities. Stormwater management plans and objectives are best achieved when the problems and issues are stated clearly, and when the varying needs of different jurisdictional areas are included in the overall strategy. An effective approach will recognize the interdependence of neighboring areas within the State, and the need to share the responsibility for a cohesive State-wide program. To accomplish this, many States have enacted legislation focusing specifically on the development and implementation of stormwater management throughout the State. According to the American Public Works Association (1981), one of the most advanced programs of shared responsibility is in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where tasks are shared between various levels of government having different authority and responsibility. The Pennsylvania State government has undertaken the following tasks:

• Developing technical guidelines for preparing stormwater management plans.
• Designating which watersheds are to be studied to define the level of effort for each county.
• Preparing recommended model ordinances to be adopted by local jurisdictions.
• Providing technical assistance to local institutions for preparation of watershed management plans.
• Providing financial assistance to counties in the form of grant awards.

Under the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act, county governments prepare and adopt stormwater management plans for each watershed, which are subject to periodic review by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Input from local municipalities in each county is required, and is provided through a watershed advisory committee. This committee includes a representative of each affected county and additional representatives from county and municipal agencies. The county governments are responsible for public participation in the planning and implementation efforts. Municipal and county governments are given authority to adopt and implement ordinances for zoning, subdivisions, construction, site preparations and other aspects of land development that are consistent with the county-adopted watershed plans.

In metropolitan areas, watershed areas often extend over more than one community and potential problems related to runoff may impact more than one jurisdiction. Because watershed boundaries rarely coincide with political boundaries, intergovernmental cooperation is required to provide effective stormwater management. Most States have provided local governments as many options as possible to organize responsibilities for drainage, flood control, and stormwater management. Often the State will establish a separate agency that operates on behalf of the affected local jurisdictions. These multi-jurisdictional agencies may be organized for a single purpose (i.e., stormwater management) or may cover a wide range of functions. These districts play important roles in planning, regulating and coordinating stormwater programs and projects, although the local public works agencies may have ultimate responsibility for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement. Regardless of the institutional framework, the real muscle of any stormwater management program is implemented and enforced at the local level, in response to local concerns (American Public Works Association, 1981).

Go Back to laws page

2.2.4 Local Stormwater Management (FHWA-PD-96-032)

At the local level, competing economic, transportation, development, social and environmental objectives must be considered and reconciled through a policy-setting strategy by determining goals and objectives of the program, procedures to govern the overall effort, and specific operational requirements (American Public Works Association, 1981). Goals and objectives are often set forth by the States in terms of maintaining water resource uses and required water quality criteria. However, the local governments may require more specific objective statements to comply with these water quality requirements when designing their stormwater management approach. Useful design criteria stem from clear and concise articulation of local stormwater management policy. In effect, the criteria represent the explicit and orderly tabulation of planning and engineering parameters which, when utilized by technical personnel, will result in a plan or facility which is consistent with the adopted State and local policies (American Public Works Association, 1981). According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1993), different approaches can be employed, using one or more of the following components:

1. On-Site Stormwater Management. This approach provides a regulatory framework for stormwater management on a project by project basis. Localities require developers to design and install stormwater management practices for a specific project or activity as they arise. The locality adopts performance standards compatible with the goals and objectives of their stormwater management plan. The developer (or responsible project authority) develops plans for stormwater management that are reviewed by the local government to ensure that practices and facilities are designed and installed in compliance with the adopted local standards. Using only this approach for the stormwater management program may lead to a piece-meal approach to stormwater controls where peak discharges could converge and cause downstream flooding and pollution problems. On-Site Stormwater Management works best in the context of a comprehensive area-wide program that accounts for all stormwater management activities in the locality.
2. Regional Stormwater Management. This approach involves the establishment of a single stormwater facility strategically located to control stormwater runoff from multiple development projects. Regional facilities reduce costs for planning separate on-site controls and eliminate the need to set aside land for stormwater management within each project, as in the on-site approach. This is a relatively new approach, most facilities are placed on land owned by the jurisdiction that will be serviced (e.g., county), or a developer for a community or subdivision may set aside land for a regional facility. Land requirements are usually larger than for individual BMPs, however the ultimate savings in land requirements will be realized if many developers and/or existing communities can be serviced through this facility. Retrofitting stormwater facilities after development is also possible with this approach. On-site controls can be used in conjunction with this approach to improve water quality before it is discharged into the regional system. Regional BMPs usually require an overreaching county plan to coordinate inputs from developers and citizens for their development. However maintenance usually is the responsibility of the county and may be funded through local taxes or additional assessments for stormwater management.
3. Watershed Stormwater Management. This approach usually requires the cooperative effort of multiple jurisdictions, or the establishment of new organization authority to deal with stormwater management issues at the watershed level. Typically, the program includes on-site and regional stormwater controls developed based on watershed-wide studies. Model simulations are often employed to predict hydrologic patters and water quality changes resulting from land usage and the impacts of particular land altering projects. The results of the watershed analyses are used to determine the most effective location and design of regional stormwater management facilities and specific on-site control requirements.

Once an overall stormwater management plan is established, the ongoing roles for local governments include the following tasks (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993):

1. Planning. This includes the establishment of a program described above, as well as ongoing modifications to the stormwater management plans as projects and activities continue in the jurisdiction, or in response to reported stormwater runoff problems. The municipality may develop policies, programs, regulations and other recommendations to chart the future course of the community in terms of stormwater management.
2. Regulation. Regulatory statutes governing stormwater management in the jurisdictional area are the most important methods available to local governments. The objectives of these initiatives is to limit stormwater runoff from developed sites to predevelopment flow rates and volumes with the most common goals set for flood control, pollutant removal, and erosion and sediment control. Ordinances adopted by various local governments may fall into one of several categories: zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regulations, environmental control ordinances, and plumbing and sewer ordinances (American Public Works Association, 1981). The most effective ordinances are those that include a policy statement, reflect current and future land use patterns, provide performance based criteria for monitoring and approval, provisions for construction, operation, and inspection of structural measures, and define financing responsibilities (American Public Works Association, 1981). More specifically, the ordinances should include the technical data used in determining peak runoff flows maximum allowable runoff rates, as well as the acceptable methods for computing required storage volume. Other technical items include measures to address water quality such as BMP structures, design specifications, and pollutant removal criteria. These details are designed to meet the State and local criteria for runoff volume and quality usually set forth in previous regulations adopted by the legislative body (American Public Works Association, 1981).

DOTs need to be aware of the implications of State and local imposed regulations on their activities. Quite often, the DOT joins together with local municipalities in developing stormwater management programs and applying for permits applicable to certain discharges. The responsibility for all aspects of stormwater management, as they relate to highway runoff, therefore becomes shared between the DOT and the local jurisdictions.

One of the first tasks for the DOT is to determine the relative contribution that their activities make to the total stormwater conveyance in the jurisdiction, and what structural components of the system are, or will be, their responsibility. Once established, the DOT typically determines the problems associated with these areas, in terms runoff volume and pollutant constituents. Prior research, computer software, and mathematical models developed by scientific and regulatory communities are available to assist the practitioner in these determinations. Lastly, the DOT assesses the potential impacts of these problems, and establishes a series of structural and nonstructural alternative measures to control these impacts. Included in the practical control measures are procedures for their continued operation and maintenance, and monitoring activities to ensure continued effective performance. The State, in turn, will usually participate in this process to ensure that the DOT procedures comply with State and local regulations and water quality criteria. Most State DOTs have developed manuals to familiarize highway practitioners with the institutional requirements of stormwater management, including permit stipulations, and to guide the practitioner through DOT procedures for complying with regulations and meeting stormwater management goals.

Go Back to laws page

2.2.5 Public Involvement and Education (FHWA-PD-96-032)

Stormwater management plans and their structural components require publiceducation and community buy-in so that programs are readily accepted and used (Horner, et al., 1994). Increased water quality protection can be realized through enlisting the assistance of concerned members of the general public. Involving community members in the decision process increases the information base and the diversity of the interests considered in the development of solutions. Feedback from the public on the effectiveness of the existing solutions is a valuable resource for program development and assessment (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987). There is a need to educate the public about the processes which govern stormwater runoff pollution and the responsibility each individual can take to mitigate its effects. The public should be aware that stormwater runoff picks up pollutants associated with pesticides and lawn fertilizers that are used by local landowners and carries them into neighborhood streams which eventually discharge into the drinking water supply for themselves and other residents. Since effective stormwater management practices can be enhanced by changing individual behaviors and lifestyles, an information program should educate citizens about the issues of stormwater management, and make citizen involvement a part of the process. Areas for which education would be beneficial include the correct use of lawn fertilizer, effective litter control, care of grassed swales and acceptance (even maintenance) of neighborhood BMP facilities (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987). An initial step in developing a public education program is to determine what messages are the most important to convey, and stress these messages at every opportunity. The tone and complexity of the message depends on the community's composition and sophistication (Terrene Institute, 1994).

Stormwater runoff pollution affects everyone in the community. It is important to make sure that public education efforts are tailored to particular audiences (e.g., business people, developers, homeowners) and their individual needs and interests. The support and involvement of environmental groups, associations, State conservation districts, and other public or private organizations provide additional means to disseminate information and foster program backing (Terrene Institute, 1994). A targeted public awareness campaign uses a variety of tools to convey a message and attain stated goals, including (Terrene Institute, 1994):

1. Public meetings/hearings. Public meetings provide a mechanism to respond to local concerns and bolster public support. During the early phases of project/program development, public hearings and meetings are often utilized in compliance with the EA or EIS requirements of NEPA. DOTs may also schedule public forums or local meetings to discuss upcoming projects and their impacts. Public gatherings, club meetings, special conferences, and workshops can be appropriate venues to discuss stormwater programs and projects.

   To utilize the public meeting process effectively, some knowledge should be obtained about the community in terms of size, age distribution, education and commuting patterns. This knowledge can be used to customize presentations to the needs and interests of the audience in order to gain support. A public opinion survey prior to the scheduled meeting often provides good familiarity with the community and a basis for measuring public opinion (Terrene Institute, 1994). In addition, agendas and other materials describing the program and the issues to be discussed should be disseminated to potential attendees in advance of the meeting to provide time for review and familiarization with the meeting topics.

   Involvement and attendance of local elected officials is also important. Their presence serves to validate the program and provides the community with assurance of government support. The support of local elected officials also conveys to the public the importance of the program and provides a mechanism to present the joint efforts of the participants (municipality, DOT, other public/private organizations). Government or local judiciary representatives can also discuss and validate the legal implications of the program in terms of permitting requirements or proper compliance activities. The community should be aware that proper enforcement of the law includes an appropriate issuance of penalties for violators, and through education, perhaps penalties will be more reflective of the damages imposed on the environment (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987).

2. Educational materials. Written materials should be distributed as much as possible to inform the public of the nature and purpose of the local stormwater program. Brochures and posters from EPA, the State water authority, or local governments can be distributed to schools, civic groups, and businesses to further support your message. River/lake festivals, county/city fairs, and other special events provide opportunities to make your message known to a variety of audiences. Fliers or other inserts can be included with local utility bills and public notice mailings.
3. Media. Local newspapers or cable TV channels provide an excellent method to convey information on activities impacting the community. As the program progresses, press releases and articles can be used to notify the public of upcoming meetings or hearings, and to inform the community of progress made in the stormwater program. Photos of BMP locations, BMP construction activity, citizen involvement activities also provide invaluable information and recognize active citizens for their assistance. News programs, notices and public service announcements can perform similar functions through local cable TV channels.
4. Offer field trips. Field trips involving schools, civic groups, or environmental organizations can go far in educating the public on the need for stormwater management as well as the solutions and mitigation practices. Seeing the watersheds problem has much more impact than reading about it. These can be coordinated through the stormwater management participants.

Some other programs involving the public have also proven effective and can be employed by DOTs and municipalities to foster public support, as well as improve the effectiveness of their structural and nonstructural program components. Conscientious citizen groups can perform certain monitoring and maintenance activities to reduce the resource requirements of the responsible agencies. These activities include:

1. Storm Sewer Stenciling (Horner, et al., 1994). Stenciling storm sewer inlets with messages such as "Dump no wastes, drains to lake (bay, river)" can greatly increase public understanding of the relationship between pollution sources and receiving waters. These programs often are conducted by youth groups or civic associations.
2. Econeighborhood programs (Horner, et al, 1994). These programs designate econeighborhoods and secure residents' commitment to maintain neighborhood BMPs through trash removal and weeding practices, etc. These groups can also report structural damage or indications of illicit discharges to the local authorities. Econeighborhood programs also may establish and follow "good housekeeping" practices for water quality control. Procedures for lawn fertilization, oil, grease disposal, and other chemical disposal practices are included in the good housekeeping program.
3. Signs (Terrene Institute, 1994) Certain physical components of the local stormwater system (e.g., BMPs) could be items of interest in the community. Signs explaining their function, purpose, and design can raise citizen interest in these structures and their role in the local stormwater management program. Pointing out such features also helps people conceptualize the program and substantiate the use of public funds for the program. Descriptive signs can mark watershed boundaries, explain BMP technology, identify critical protection areas, promote specific behaviors in certain places, and identify cooperators in project.
4. Citizen Monitoring (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987). Environmentally conscious citizens have made great contributions to local programs nationwide. Citizen groups can collect valuable information on basic parameters, they can monitor and identify problems, collect surface water samples and measure some water quality parameters. There are two advantages to citizen monitoring. First, it is an economical way to gather high quality data, and second, it is a valuable tool to build grassroots interest in water quality issues. In addition to helping officials identify and avert potential water problems, citizen groups build public support for the program and remedial actions.

   Despite these benefits, a volunteer program needs careful handling. Consider the following recommendations concerning volunteer monitoring programs.

   • Citizen monitoring projects should not stand alone but should be integratedinto a total water quality management program.
   • A qualified water quality specialist should develop the sampling design, analyze data, and prepare the final report.
   • A qualified water quality specialist should train and supervise volunteers in the field, review data frequently, and work closely with the State water quality agency.
   • Volunteers should be carefully recruited and trained by a qualified water quality specialist. Periodic training may be necessary to replace drop-outs and refresh monitoring skills of current volunteers.
5. Continuing education. As part of the ongoing education process, planning and plan review staff, developers, site designers, construction foremen, and inspectors need periodic training or refresher courses on the stormwater management program and the structural controls adopted by the local governments. States often provide seminars concerning erosion and sediment control, but local governing bodies and DOTs strengthen the education base by providing more specific programs targeted on stormwater management, BMPs employed, water quality criteria, maintenance and monitoring practices, and source controls.

Methods used to institutionalize educational programs are simple and relatively inexpensive to implement. Through the assistance of local technical consultants or through materials provided by the State regulatory agencies, educational information can be produced in various forms. Seminars and informational pamphlets concerning the existing regulations and their effect on the environment are likely to improve support and enforcement of the programs (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987).

Because stormwater management is a continuing concern related to development and individual lifestyles, a water quality program must be established and embraced to succeed (Terrene Institute, 1994). Even the best planned programs cannot succeed without community participation and cooperation. Citizen monitoring groups and solid public information and education programs are invaluable tools to be planned for and nurtured (Terrene Institute, 1994). Through the above activities, municipalities, DOTs, and other State and local agencies can work together through the stormwater management programs or through permit requirements to inform the community of local plans to institute stormwater quantity and quality controls, and solicit public participation in achieving goals.

Go Back to laws page

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES (FHWA-PD-96-032)

American Public Works Association, 1981, Urban stormwater management: American Public Works Association Special Report, no. 49, 285 p.

Camp, Dresser and McKee.,Inc., Larry Walker Associates., 1993c. California Best Managemnt Practices - Municipal, California State Water Resources Councli Board, Alameda, CA.

R.A. Corbitt, 1990. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 628 pp.

B. Dopplet, M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr, 1993. Entering the Watershed, Pacific Rivers Council, Island Press, Inc., Washington, D.C.

R.W. Finely and D.A. Farber, 1992. Environmental Law in a Nutshell, 23rd Edition, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 355 pp.

R.R. Horner, J.J. Skupien, E.H. Livingston, and H.E. Shaver, 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993. Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development, Second Edition. NY DEC, Division of Water, Syracuse, NY.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission,1987. BMP Handbook for the Occoquan Watershed, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Annandale, VA.

Terrene Institute, 1994. Urbanization and Water Quality, A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment, Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protectin Agency, Region 2, 1993. Wetlands Regulation Guidebook for New York State, EPA-902-R-93-004, Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch, New York, NY.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Section 319 Success Stories, EPA-841-S-94-004. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1992. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control Programs, EPA-841-R-92-003, Washingon, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Go Back to laws page

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
10 Bearfoot Road
Northborough, MA  01532
(508) 490-5000

Maintainer:

Last modified:  Wednesday, March 22, 2000

URL: http://ma.water.usgs.gov/fhwa/qw/lawtxt.htm