Responses to SurveyMonkey instrument - Center for...

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesIndustrial Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey

Ind. SW Permit Reqs 1 of 1166

Industrial Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey. September 23, 2009.Respondent Completion Date

Yes No

Region 9 08/20/2009 Yes

Alaska 09/01/2009 No

Arkansas 08/19/2009 No

California 08/11/2009 No

Colorado 08/18/2009 Yes

1. Does your agency permit non-regulated industrial categories?

Response Option



Respondent Completion Date 1. Does your agency permit non-regulated industrial categories?

Connecticut 08/24/2009 No

Florida 08/04/2009 No

Indiana 07/28/2009 No

Kansas 07/21/2009 Yes

Louisiana 07/22/2009 No

Michigan 11/25/2009 Yes




Minnesota 08/14/2009 Yes

Mississippi 08/28/2009 Yes

Missouri 08/10/2009 Yes

Montana 07/30/2009

Nebraska 08/18/2009 No

Nevada 07/24/2009 No

New Jersey 07/20/2009 Yes




North Carolina 08/06/2009 No

North Dakota 07/23/2009 No

Ohio 07/22/2009 Yes

Oregon 08/05/2009 Yes

Rhode Island 09/01/2009 Yes

Texas 07/30/2009 No




Vermont 08/11/2009 No

Virginia 07/22/2009 Yes




Washington 08/05/2009 Yes

West Virginia 08/05/2009 Yes



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Industrial Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey. September 23, 2009.

Open-Ended Response Yes No

No

No

No

No

2. Please describe how your agency is able to permit non-regulated industrial categories.

3. Is your agency empowered to require that industries reduce the quantity of stormwater discharges?

Although rare in actual practice, non-regulated facilities may be designated for permitting based on water quality concerns.

not common, but we have the ability to. Only example I can think of is a permit issued to a baseball stadium.



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No

No

No

No

No

Conventional authority to address significant contributors of pollutants when so designated.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is able to permit non-regulated industrial categories through a "significant contributor" process. Our rules state permit authorization may be required for a discharge, or category of discharges within a geographic area, if it is determined by the department to be a signficant contributor of pollutants to waters of the state or to contribute to a violation of water quality standards.



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



Yes

State Pollution Control Law No

No

No

No

Yes

Minnesota law provides that the commissioner can designate for permit coverage any facility not currently regulated under our State Disposal System powers.

Missouri State Regulation(s) 10-CSR 20-6.200(1) Storm Water Permits (A) & (B).

Facilities determined to be significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the State.



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



No

No

No

No

First, we'd maintain under our state law we can regulate any "point source" storm water discharger not prohibited from regulation by US EPA. Second, we had regulated some storm water discharger categories prior to the 1990 storm water regulations, so categories not covered by those regulations we continue to permit. Third, we use the designation authority when necessary.

We have a unique general permit for industries within the Columbia Slouhg Watershed (1200-COLS permit). This permit was developed based on a TMDL and included additional facilities that are not listed in EPA's federal regulations for needing an industrial stormwater permit.



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



No

NoWe designate them based on significant contributor of pollutants or contributing to the violation of WQ standards



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



Yes

No

making a case-by-case determination that a facility is a significant contributor of pollutants

Our multi sector industrial stormwater permit has sector W which is for any industrial activities we feel need permit coverage that are not specifficaly covered under the multi sector permit.



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

4. Please describe the specific circumstances under which industrial stormwater discharge quantity can be limited.



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas




Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


Here is the current permit language that specifies when flow control BMPs are required: Stormwater Peak Runoff Rate and Volume Control BMPs: Stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment shall be evaluated to determine if flow control is necessary to satisfy the state AKART requirements, prevent pollution of state waters, or comply with state water quality standards. At a minimum, the SWPPP must include a narrative that describes how the Permittee determined if flow control BMPs are/are not required. Permittees which choose not use approved SWMMs or other technical guidance documents approved by Ecology to meet this requirement must include within the SWPPP the technical basis for their chosen BMPs as described in the introductory paragraphs of section S9.Where required, the SWPPP shall include appropriate BMPs from Volumes I and III of Ecology’s SWMM or equivalent manuals.



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Other. Please describe:

5. What techniques are required to reduce the volume of industrial stormwater discharged? Select all that apply.

6. Your agency oversees the industrial stormwater program with:

Contractor inspection with state oversight of contractors

State inspection

Both state inspectors and contractors inspect industrial facilities.

There is no regular inspection of industrial facilities.

State inspection


State inspection




Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



State inspection

Contractor inspection with state oversight of contractors

State inspection

State inspectionState inspection

State inspection



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



Not applicable State inspection

State inspectionState inspection

There is no regular inspection of industrial facilities.

State inspection

Reuse in industrial applications, additional stormwater management requirements with increases in impervious cover, separation and infiltration of "clean" runoff before it is commingled with stormwater associated with industrial activity.

State inspection



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



State inspection

State inspection

State inspection

We are in the process of revising our permit and are looking to EPA's MSGP permit to guide us. THe MSP direst facilites to evaluate control measures inlcuding those that minimize impervious areas and infiltrate runoff. But they are not required to install specific BMPs.

State inspection

State inspection



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



State inspection

State inspection



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



Infiltration BMPs (ponds, swales, etc.) State inspection

State inspection



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Yes No

Yes As required in the EPA MSGP 2008

Yes

Yes

Yes

6. Your agency oversees the industrial stormwater program 7. Does your state's industrial stormwater program require sampling?

8. Industrial stormwater sampling is conducted by:

Other. Please specify:

If sampling is required only under specific circumstances, please describe those circumstances below.

Permit holder

State agency

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Permit holder

Quarterly visual samples are required of all permitted facilities. Analytical sampling is required only of certain types of industrial activity. For example, hazardous waste facilities, concrete products, salvage yards, etc. Compliance monitoring is required at a subset of these facilities.

Permit holder

Permit holder

Benchmark sampling is required for certain sectors of Industrial Stormwater. Effluent limitations apply to some SIC codes.

Permit holder

Sampling is required for discharges from secondary containment structures required by State or Federal Law, from lands on Michigan's List of Sites of Environmental Contamination (Part 201), and from other activities which may contribute pollutants to the storm water for which the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality determines sampling is needed. This sampling is completed as part of a Short-Term Storm Water Characterization Study.

Permit holder



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



Yes

No

Yes All run-off is sampled at least quarterly.

No

Yes

Yes

Permit under public review and notice at this writing.

Permit holder

TMDL, Water Priority Chemical Spill, Coal Piles

and EPA inspections

Permit holder

State agency

Permit holder

Only for Industrial facilities that have effluent limitations, or if any facility has experienced a significant spill.

Permit holder

Permit holder



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Permit holder

Sampling required for some industrial sectors as specified in permit.

Permit holder

Our current industrial general permit sampling requirements is patterned on US EPA's original industrial general permit.

Permit holder

Permit holder

State agency



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



Yes

Yes SIC/sector driven

Permit holder

Permit holder



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



Yes

Yes

Permit holder

Permit holder



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option



9. If industrial stormwater sampling is tied to a storm event, what portion of the discharge is sampled?

Municipality

First fl

FirstFirst flush (



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



First flusFirst flus

First flu



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



Other parties if and as necessary (federal/state/municipal)

First

First flush (



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



First flush

First flush (f

Municipality



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



First flus



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



First flu



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Grab

first hour of discharge


10. Industrial stormwater samples are taken with:

Grab

Grab

Grab

Sampling Procedures: For facilities with holding ponds or other impoundments, sampling shall be performed at the outlet from the pond. If no discharge from the pond to surface waters occurs, then no sampling is necessary. Please note that if any process water mixes with stormwater, all of the water is considered to be process water and must be covered under a CDPS industrial wastewater discharge permit. All such samples shall be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event that is greater than 0.1 inches in magnitude and that occurs at least 72 hours from the previously measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event. If the collection of a sample can not be obtained occurring at least 72 hours from the previous measurable event, the sample must be taken from a storm event meeting conditions as close to these as possible, and the discharger shall submit with the monitoring report a description of why obtaining a sample at least 72 hours following the previous measurable event was not possible. The grab sample shall be taken during the first thirty minutes of the discharge. If the collection of a grab sample during the first thirty minutes is impracticable, a grab sample can be taken during the first hour of the discharge, and the discharger shall submit with the monitoring report a description of why a grab sample during the first thirty minutes was impracticable.

Grab



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



See above.

Grab

Grab

Grab



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



After 30 minutes. Grab samples after first flush.

First flush (60 minutes of discharge)

Whenever there is a discharge. Ideally within the first 30 minutes from the onset of discharge

Grab

Grab

Grab



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



Grab

Permit directs permittee to sample first flush but allows samples to be collected later where conditions do not allow collection in the first 30 minutes.

Grab

Grab



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



Grab

Grab



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



First hour after discharge begines

Grab



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Grab


11. If composite samples are taken, they are:

Both grab and composite


Flow weighted

Time weighted

The permit holder decides



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan







Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey









Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas




Flow weighted



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia







Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

14. How often must industrial stormwater analytical data be submitted?

Open-Ended Response Monthly

Two times a year

typically annual, when required.

12. What is the required sampling frequency for industrial stormwater permit holders? Be sure to indicate whether you are referring to sampling for benchmarks (targets) or effluent limitations.

13. How is the industrial stormwater analytical data reported?

Electronic submittal

Paper submittal

Self retained

Paper submittal

Paper submittal

two storms per wet season - no benchmarks or effluent limits

Paper submittal

Paper submittal



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

14. How often must industrial stormwater analytical data be submitted?12. What is the required sampling frequency for industrial stormwater permit holders? Be sure to indicate whether you are referring to sampling for benchmarks (targets) or effluent limitations.


Paper submittal

Benchmark: Quarterly during years 2 and 4. If year 2 results are below the benchmark, year 4 is waived. Compliance (effluent limitations): Annually Visual: Quarterly

Paper submittal

For those facilites under a general permit sampling is required annually. Individual permits are also require annual sampling, however based on the industry the agency may require more frequent sampling of storm water runoff.

Paper submittal

Paper submittal

Sampling is required when stormwater may be contaminated based on observation or other data.

Paper submittal



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



Once per quarter for limitations.


Paper submittal

Varies depending on facility/activity, but typically twice per year at each required sampling location (outfall).

Paper submittal

For effluent limitations facilities are required to sample once a quarter.

Self retained

Paper submittal



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



2/yr benchmarks

once per year

annual

Paper submittal

Paper submittal

Self retained

4 times per year for benchmarks. 2 samples from July 1 to December 31 and 2 samples from January 2 to June 30th.

Paper submittal



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



benchmark, 4 times per year, (once each quarter) for first year

Paper submittal

Paper submittal



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



Quarterly sampling for benchmarks (and certain facilities also have effluent limitations.

Paper submittal

Benchmark sampling once every 6 months

Paper submittal



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

14. How often must industrial stormwater analytical data be submitted? 15. Please select the pollutants for which sampling is required in your state.

Annually Other. Please specify: pH

As specified in the EPA MSGP 2008

Annually pH

Annually pH

Annually

Semi-annually



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Annually pH

Annually pH

Annually

Upon completion of the Short-Term Storm Water Characterization Study.



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


Annually pH

pH

pH

pH

Depends on the sampling frequency, but as stated in previous response it would typically be semi-annually



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


pH

Annually pH

pH

Annually pH

Semi-annually



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


Annually pH



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


pH

Annually pH



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

15. Please select the pollutants for which sampling is required in your state.

TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Total Arsenic Total ZincTSS (Total Suspended Solids)

Total Copper

TSS (Total Suspended Solids)




Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Total Arsenic Total ZincTSS (Total Suspended Solids)

Total Copper




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


Total Arsenic Total Zinc



TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Total Zinc


Total Copper


Total Copper


Total Copper


Total Copper



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Total Arsenic Total Zinc

Total Zinc



Total Copper


Total Copper


Total Copper



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


Total Arsenic Total ZincTSS (Total Suspended Solids)

Total Copper



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


Total Zinc Total Copper




Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Total Lead Total Iron Total Phenols

Total Chromium

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Total Lead Total Iron Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


Total Lead Total Iron



Total Lead

Total Chromium (Cr 3+)

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus

Total Phenols

Total Chromium

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen

Total Phenols

Total Chromium

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus

Ammonia as Nitrogen




Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


Total Lead

Total Lead

Total Lead

Total Lead

Total Chromium

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus

Total Phenols

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus

Total Chromium

Total Phosphorus

Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



Total Chromium

Total Aluminum


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


Total Lead


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Fluoride Naphthalene Other pollutants. Please list below:

oil and grease, electroconductivity

varies by permit/activity

BOD5 (5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand)

Sampling requirements do not include analysis for specific pollutants.

It depends on the category, see EPA MSGP 2008

Oil and Grease, COD, TSS, pH are four basic parameters tested by all facilities in addition to any specific parameters required for a particular facility.



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Fluoride

It varies depending on the facility type.

oil & grease, mercury, selenium, silver, magnesium. Not every facility that samples monitors each parameter listed. Specific pollutants of concern are identified for each sector based on the SIC code/activity.




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


Others. See permit.

Naphthalene



Chromium is speciated (Cr III and CrIV). Additionally, any other pollutant of concern via reasonable potential that Missouri has WQ criteria on or in some cases without criteria but has a interest in (best professional judgment justification needed). Settleable Solids Oil & Grease


Pollutants required to be sampled for may include any of those listed above as well as other pollutants depending on what is necessary based on federal ELGs or determined to be appropriate on a case-by-case basis



Oil and grease Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Benzene Toluene Ethalene Xylene Turbidity



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


oil and grease, e.coli

settleable solids; turbidity; O&G; TTO; fecal coliform; Cd; ethylene glycol


Required parameters vary by industry type


O & G, TKN, Tot. Cadmium, Ammonia, Tot. Magnesium, Diss. Magnesium, TOC, Tot. Barium, Tot. Cyanide, Tot. Mercury, Tot. Selenium, Tot. Silver, Pentachlorophenol, Tot. Nickel, Tot. Coliform. This is the total list of pollutants that a discharge may have to sample. No discharger category would have to sample all of them.




Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


Fluoride Naphthalene

sector specific requirements, based on EPA's MSGP


We pretty much require the same parameters as EPA's 2008 MSGP.



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


All Facilities have Turbidity, Oil and grease, Zinc, and pH; if they exceed the zinc benchmark 2x, they must also sample for copper and lead (in future sampling events). Additional sector-specific pollutants are also required: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/industrial/ISWGPfinalpermit101508.pdf


total recoverable zinc, total recoverable lead, total recoverable iron, total recoverable zinc, total recoverable aluminum, surfactants, oil and grease, total recoverable copper, Ammonia, Chloride, Cyanide



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

17. For each pollutant listed, please indicate the benchmark (target) in mg/L and the industrial sector(s) to which it applies. If no benchmark exists for a given pollutant, please write "n" in the box provided.

Yes pH

Yes

Yes

16. Do your agency's industrial stormwater permits require sampling for benchmarks or targets?

No, but numeric effluent limitations exist.

Sampling for specific pollutants is required, but no benchmarks (targets) or effluent limitations exist.





Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

17. For each pollutant listed, please indicate the benchmark (target) in mg/L and the industrial sector(s) to which it applies. If no benchmark exists for a given pollutant, please write "n" in the box provided.16. Do your agency's industrial stormwater permits require sampling for benchmarks or targets?

Yes

Yes 6 - 9 s.u.

6.0-9.0 S.U. (this is an effluent limitation) Sector A, D, E, O. Sector S is a benchmark.




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


Yes

Yes See note below

Yes




Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


Yes

Yes

Yes

6 - 9; SIC 20,21,24,28,3273,33-38,4221-4225,5015,5093; + indiv. permits w/exposure risk

6.0 - 9.0; coal pile runoff, wood products, chemicals, meat processing, fats & oils, primary metals, waste treatment, landfills, auto & scrap salvage, air Trans


1200-Z permit: 5.5 to 9.0 SU 1200-COLS : 5.5 to 8.5 SU



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


Yes same as EPA's MSGP

Yes 6-9 su, E, G, S



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


Yes

Yes 6-9 Sectors E, H, V, W



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Total Zinc Total LeadCOD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)


TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

Total Arsenic

Total Copper



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


n

varies varies varies varies varies varies varies

120.0 mg/L; Sectors A, B, G, K, N, S, U

100.0 mg/L; Sectors A, D, E, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, U

.016854 mg/L; Sectors A, K

.117 mg/L; Sectors A, C, F, N, Q, Y, AA

.0636 mg/L; Sectors A, F, N

.0816 mg/L; Sectors C, K, M, N, Q



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


See note below See note below See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


0.067;" 0.007; "

n

120; SIC 20,21,24,28,4221-4225,5093, Landfills; + individual permits w/exposure risk

100; SIC 10-14,20,21,24,28,2951,3273,33-38,4221-4225,5015,5093,Landfills; "

0.36; individual permits w/ exposure risk

0.03; SIC 285,33-38,5015,5093; + individual permits with exposure risk

120mg/L; wood products, chemicals, meat processing, fats & oils, waste treatment, landfills, auto & scrap salvage, air trans.

100mg/L; wood products, chemicals, meat processing, fats & oils, primary metals, waste treatment, landfills, auto & scrap salvage. Coal pile runoff limit 50 mg/L

0.1685mg/L; wood products, primary metals, waste treatment

0.117mg/L; coal pile runoff, chemicals, primary metals, scrap salvage

0.0636mg/L; coal pile runoff, wood products, primary metals, scrap salvage

0.0816mg/L; primary metals, waste treatment, landfills, auto & scrap salvage

1200-Z permit: 130 mg/l 1200-COLS: 50 mg/l

1200-Z permit: 0.6 mg/l 1200-COLS : 0.24 mg/l

1200-Z permit: 0.1 mg/l 1200-COLS : 036 mg/l

1200-Z permit: 0.4 mg/l 1200-COLS: .06 mg/l



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


120, S n100, A, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, U, AD

0.05, A, G, K

0.12, C, F, G, N, Q, Y, AA

0.018, A, F, G, N

0.12, G, K, M, N



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


120 mg/l Sectors A, B, D, F, G, H, I, J, L, P, R, W

100 mg/l Sectors A, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, P, R, S, T, U, V



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Total Iron FluorideTotal Phenols

Total Chromium

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


n n

varies varies varies varies varies varies varies

1.0 mg/L; Sectors C, E, F, H, L, M, N, O, Q, AA

.75 mg/L; Sectors C, E, F, H, M, N, Q, AA

19.0 mg/L; Sectors K, S

.68 mg/L; Sectors C, G, J, U, AA

2.0 mg/L; Sector C

Sector C has an effluent limitation of 75 mg/L daily max; no benchmarks



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


See note belowSee note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


1;SIC 285 10; " 2; "

n n n n

1.0; individual permits w/exposure risk

4.5; for discharges to Trout waters and "

0.75; individual permits w/ exposure risk

7.2;for all individual permit sw discharges to NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters)

6; individual permits w/ exposure risk

1.0mg/L; wood products,

15.0 mg/L; chemicals, meat processing, fats & oils, air Trans

0.68 mg/L; chemicals, meat processing, fats & oils, air Trans

2.0 mg/L; chemicals

1200-COLS : 0.16 mg/l



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


n 0.016, A, N n 2.2, C, U 2, C n1 mg/l, C, E, F, G, H, L, M, N, O, Q, AA

0.75, C, E, F, H, M, N, Q, AA



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


4 mg/l sector H

0.68 mg/l sector C,J,O,V

2 mg/l sector C



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Other pollutants (please specify) Yes No

See EPA MSGP 2008 Yes

Yes

18. Do your agency's industrial stormwater permits include numeric effluent limitations?

Naphthalene




Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

17. For each pollutant listed, please indicate the benchmark (target) in mg/L and the industrial sector(s) to which it applies. If no benchmark exists for a given pollutant, please write "n" in the box provided. 18. Do your agency's industrial stormwater permits include numeric effluent limitations?

n Yes

Yes

No

30 mg/L; Sector S, U

Sector K: mercury, .0024 mg/L; selenium .2385 mg/L, silver .0318 mg/L, magnesium .0636 mg/L

Note parameters and benchmarks are applied based on the facility's sic type.



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


See permit. Yes

See note below YesSee note below

Note: Montana typically uses benchmark values from most recent EPA Storm Water Industrial Multi-Sector General Permit



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


1; " 30; " No

n Oil & grease, Yes

Yes

visual-all sectors; settleable solids-SIC10-14; NTU-SIC10-14;O&G-all sites w/vehicle maint activities;Cd-SIC285, 5093;fecal-SIC201,landfills;ethylene glycol-SIC5015,5093;TTO-SIC5015,5093,selected subsets of SIC33-38.

30.0 mg/L; meat processing, fats & oils, air Trans

1200-COLS: 33mg/l

E.coli 1200-Z landfills & sewage treatment plants and 1200-COLS: 406 counts/100 ml, oil and grease: 1200-Z and COlS permits-10 mg/l



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


Yes

n 30, B, S, U YesSectors G, K, N - same as EPA 2008 MSGP; TKN 1.5, K, S, U, Z; TPH 15, P



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


Yes30 mg/l sector H,J



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

19. For each pollutant listed, please indicate the numeric effluent limitation in mg/L and the industrial sector(s) to which it applies. If no effluent limit exists for a given pollutant, please write "n" in the box provided.

pH Total ZincCOD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)


TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

Total Arsenic

Total Copper



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


n n n n n6.0-9.0 S.U. Sectors A, D, E, and any facility with coal pile runoff

50.0 mg/L; Sectors D, E and any facility with coal pile runoff



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


6.5 - 9.0

See note below See note below

90 mg/L daily maximum & 60 mg/L monthly average

100 mg/L daily maximum & 50 mg/L monthly average

Depends on Beneficial use of the stream (i.e., Water Quality)



See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


6.0-9.0; coal pile runoff

n n n n n

n n n n n

50mg/L; coal pile runoff

6.0-9.0 S.U. coal pile runoff

50mg/l coal pile runoff

6.0 to 9.0 SU for cement manufacturing-material storage piles and paving and roofing materials from aphalt paving or roofing emulsion per ELGs

50 mg/l for steam powered electric power generating-coal pile runoff per ELG



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


same as EPA's MSGP



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option



Total Chromium

Total Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


n n n n n n n 105.0 mg/L daily max, Sector C



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey







12.1 mg/L daily maximum 4.6 mg/L monthly average

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below

See note below



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


n n n n n n n n

n n n n n n n n



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option


Fluoride

See EPA MSGP 2008

Naphthalene


Other pollutants (please specify)

not required for all discharges, varies by permit/activity



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


n n75.0 mg/L daily max, Sector C

Sector A facilities with wet deck storage have a no discharge for debris.

For some sectors of Industrial Stormwater permit limitations are required for various parameters.



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


See permit.

See note below

45 mg/L daily maximum & 30 mg/L as a monthly average

Settleable Solids 1.5/1.0 mL/L/Hr (daily max/monthly avg) & Oil & Grease 15/10 mg/L daily max/monthly average

See note below

See note below

Note: Typically depends on federal Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) value



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


n n n n

n n n oil and grease from paving and roofing materials from aphalt paving or roofing emulsion



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


All ELs are the same as EPA's 2008 MSGP



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


75 mg/l max daily 25 mg/l average monthly sector C but only SIC code 2874



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

21. Is industrial stormwater sampling data being used?

Benchmarks (targets) No

Yes Yes

Federal ELGs

20. What are the industrial stormwater pollutant limits based on? If not applicable, write "n" in the

box provided.

Numeric effluent limitations

Yes. It is being used to establish permit limits.



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

21. Is industrial stormwater sampling data being used?20. What are the industrial stormwater pollutant limits based on? If not applicable, write "n" in the

box provided.

EPA's MSGP EPA's MSGP

Usually any numeric limitations applied are based on Guidelines for the facility type.



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


box provided.

n

No

EPA and state’s experience with various sectors.

More stringent Technology vs. Water Quality.

Yes. It is being used to establish permit limits.

Typically from most recent EPA Storm Water Industrial Multi-Sector General Permit

Federal Effluent Limitation Guideline



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


box provided.

EPA multi-sector general permit

ELGs

1/2 FAV generally; other similar bases as determined when 1/2 FAVs not available

EPA multi-sector general permit, Steam electric point source category

from original EPA ind. gp may have originated from 40 CFR 423

most-acute water quality standards with a dilution rate



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


box provided.

EPA's permit EPA's permit No

EPA EL GuidelinesEPA 1995 MSGP and variations by Virginia



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


box provided.

Levels at which under should not cause a violation in state water quality standards

to be consistent with EPAs MSGP



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

21. Is industrial stormwater sampling data being used?

Yes No

Yes

No

No

22. Is follow up sampling required based on industrial stormwater sampling results?

23. Are there different seasonal requirements for industrial stormwater

sampling?

Yes. It is being used to establish permit controls.

Yes. It is being used for another purpose:

Yes, my state does have different seasonal sampling requirements.


frequent high results may trigger follow-up inspections and/or enforcement.


complaince with effluent limits and to indicate adequacy of BMPs



Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

21. Is industrial stormwater sampling data being used? 22. Is follow up sampling required based on industrial stormwater sampling results?


sampling?

Yes

No

No

No

Analytical data is used to evaluate the effectiveness of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.


is being collected to evaluate level of sucess of facility controls.




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey



sampling?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes




Removal or addition of any pollutant parameter.



Yes it is being used for conventional benchmark or compliance monitoring purposes




Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas



sampling?

Yes

adjust/add BMP controls No

No

No


We hope permittees are using it to evaluate their SWP3's effectiveness and making revisions when appropriate.

It is being used to evaluate BMP performance and to determine how many facilities are meeting benchmarks



Respondent

Vermont

Virginia



sampling?

Yes

YesYes. It is being used to establish permit controls.



Respondent

Washington

West Virginia



sampling?

NoUsed to see if the Stormwater pollution prevention plan is working.



Respondent

Region 9

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

no sampling June through September


sampling?

24. Please describe your state's different seasonal sampling requirements.

No, my state does not have different seasonal sampling requirements.





Respondent

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


sampling?









Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey


sampling?


Quarterly, including winter thaws.

Currently seasonal sampling is for bacteria and ammonia, however, this does not effect industrial storm water run-off. If available, Missouri uses acute criteria and ammonia has an acute criteria, and seasonal differences only apply to chronic criteria

Depends on case-by-case sites and sampling locations. Sometimes snowmelt runoff is sampled instead of rainfall event runoff.




Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas


sampling?








Respondent

Vermont

Virginia


sampling?






Respondent

Washington

West Virginia


sampling?



Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesMunicipal Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey

Municipal Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey. September 23, 2009.Respondent

Yes No

Region 9 08/14/2009 Yes

Alabama 08/21/2009 YesAlaska 09/01/2009 Yes

California 07/29/2009 Yes

Completion Date

1. Do municipal stormwater permits issued by your agency contain sampling requirements?

Response Option


Respondent Completion Date


Colorado 08/18/2009 Yes

Connecticut 08/18/2009 Yes

Florida 07/30/2009 Yes




Illinois 08/19/2009 Yes

Indiana 07/30/2009 No

Kentucky 09/01/2009 Yes

Louisiana 07/22/2009 Yes





Minnesota 07/23/2009 Yes

Mississippi 08/28/2009 No




Missouri 07/29/2009 No

Montana 07/30/2009 Yes

Nevada 07/21/2009 YesNorth Carolina 07/28/2009 Yes





Oklahoma 08/18/2009 Yes

Oregon 07/22/2009 Yes

Ohio 07/22/2009 No

Rhode Island 09/01/2009 Yes

Texas 07/30/2009 Yes




Utah 08/13/2009

Virginia 08/14/2009 Yes


West Virginia 08/26/2009 Yes


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Municipal Stormwater Permit Requirements Survey. September 23, 2009.

Comments:


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

annual monitoring required upstream and downstream of the MS4 discharges

Phase I permits have sampling requirements. Phase II Draft permit has a sampling requirement if the MS4 community has an approved TMDL that has urban runoff related impairments.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas

only for Phase 1 municipal stormwater permit

Not wet weather but for outfalls with discharges during dry weather conditions.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Phase I have analytical monitoring requirements in their permits. Phase II permits do not have analytical monitoring.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

Quarterly

2. What is the required sampling frequency for MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permit holders? Be sure to indicate whether you are referring to sampling for benchmarks (targets) or effluent limitations.

varies throughout State. Each Regional Board sets the monitoring requirements for the municipalities. Monitoring would be for benchmarking or informational.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


Monitoring plan in Phase I individual permits, frequency varies.

Once a year. No benchmarks. No ELGs.

Regulated Phase I MS4's are required to have a monitoring plan to help assess the implementation of their Stormwater Managment Plan. The plans vary in terms of the scale and scope of the monitoring required. The majority of our MS4's are conducting ambient-monitoring with approximately 8-12 sampling events each year.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


At least Annually

Quarterly for each watershed site. These are sampling for benchmarks, there are not effluent limitations.

Applicable to Phase I MS4's only: Report requirement. 2/year sampling at representative outfalls.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


36" or greater outfalls to waters with E. coli or phosphorus TMDLs must be monitored once to collect a representative sample of a wet weather event. Dry weather screening for illicit discharges is also required.

Frequency- Monthly for phase 1 MS4s only (no monitoring for phase 2 MS4s). There are no effluent limitations.. c. Permittee shall provide an analysis of the monitoring and sampling results. The purposes of analysis include: 1) Characterizing pollutant event mean concentrations; 2) Estimating total annual pollutant load to bodies of water; 3) Estimating total annual volume to bodies of water; 4) Estimate effectiveness of stormwater system management devices and practices, and 5) Calibrating stormwater models.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

NevadaNorth Carolina


In each of seven permitted cities, two locations are each sampled bi-annually

Phase I MS4 must develop monitoring programs. Small MS4s (Phase II) are not subject ot monitoring unless identified under a TMDL.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


2 times per year at 6 representative monitoring locations in micro-watersheds

Neither. As explained sampling is only required for outfalls with discharges during dry weather conditions.

One per season- effluent limitations

Please note that the sampling requirements are only for the Phase I MS4 permittees. No Phase II permittees are required to monitor. So all the answers provided in this survey are based on this information. Since the Phase I MS4 permits are individual NPDES permits, the frequency is varied. For example, a permittee may be required to conduct in-stream sampling at 4 locations up to 6x/year and monthly monitoring at a another location, and MS4 outfall monitoring at one location 3x/year during a permit cycle. A sampling plan must be developed to meet monitoring objectives, including an assessment of the Stormwater Management Plan. The monitoring requirements are not related to effluent limitations.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Varied

Twice a year. Benchmarks only.

We have not effluents limits for analytical monitoring. The purpose of monitoring is to determine the effectiveness of BMPs and the change of water quality.

Our Phase I Permit includes specific monitoring requirements where data is being collected. That permit requires 3 main monitoring components: S8D Stormwater Monitoring (Characterization), S8D Targeted Program Effectiveness and S8F BMP effectiveness monitoring. Frequencies are listed below: 1. S8F BMP effectiveness: Two BMP types at four sites, ports are required to monitoring one type at two sites. Frequency of monitoring is at least 12 storm events per year (influent and effluent sampling) until permit requried statistical goals are met. This program is anticipated to last one to two years, but dependent upon reaching goals. 2. S8D Stormwater Monitoring (characterization): Each permittee is required to monitor 3 outfalls representing various land uses. Port are required to monitoring 1. Frequency includes up to 14 storm events per water year. 3. S8E Target program effectiveness: Each permittee is required to monitor to answer two questions: The effectiveness of a targeted action and effectiveness of achieving a targeted environmental outcome. All projects range with frequency and is dependent upon what the permittee chooses to monitor. Some programs include monitoring sediment/stormwater/conducting surveys. The Phase I permit requires no benchmarks/effluent limitations.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


3. If municipal stormwater sampling is tied to a storm event, what portion of the discharge is sampled?

First flush (first 30 minutes of discharge)


first flush, as well as compositing the next 8 hours (if possible) to arrive at event mean concentrations.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


varies by plan

Sample 6 outfalls during the first 6 hours of the storm.



Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Dry weather sampling and wet weather sampling



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


"Representative" samples. The term is currently open to interpretation by the permittees, but the state is working on guidance or a definition.

1) Over the non-ice time period (approximately March through November), continuous flow dataloggers will be employed to detail continuous flows. The Permittee shall obtain flow paced and grab samples for parameters listed in Table 1 for selected 0.1 inch or greater storm events, using reasonable efforts to i. monitor large loading events, and ii. monitor ten storm events annually. 2) During the typical ice period (approximately December to March), winter thaw grab sampling will be performed on two occasions.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana






Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


First flush up to 3 hrs.

1. Composite sampling: the first 3 hours of discharges; 2. Grab sampling: the first 2 hours of discharges.



Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Varied

Base flow grab samples are taken. Grab samples on the rising limb of the hydrograph and flow weighted compsits during the storm event. The monitoring program is up to the MS4 phase I facility to design, so it may vary from facility to facility. We have three phase I facilities in Utah.

For S8F BMP effectiveness and for S8D stormwater characterization: At least 75% of the storm event hydrograph for storms less than 24 hours in duration. For storms longer than 24 hours, 75% of the hydrograph of the first 24 hours only.



Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

4. What sample collection method is used?

Grab Composite Both grab and composite Other. Please describe:

Grab

Composite


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


varies by plan

Grab

*At this time, Florida does not require a specific sample collection method. Most Phase I MS4's are collecting grab samples.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Grab

Grab


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


see #3 aove

Not defined yet. Grab samples are used for flows during dry weather (IDEP).


Respondent

Missouri

Montana






Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas




Grab



Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



Flow-weighted composites

Grab

Grab, composite, biological, physical


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

5. If composite samples are taken, they are: 6. How is the municipal stormwater analytical data reported?

Flow weighted Time weighted Other. Please describe:Permit holder decides


depends on the Region, but mostly time weighted.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


varies by plan

Permit holder decides


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Flow weighted


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Composite samples can be either flow-weighted or time-weighted depending on the circumstances.



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


Flow weighted

Flow weighted


Permit holder decides


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Flow weighted

Flow weighted

Flow weighted


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

6. How is the municipal stormwater analytical data reported?

Other. Please describe: Monthly

7. How often must municipal stormwater analytical data be submitted?

Paper submittal

Self retained

Paper submittal

all three are in use throughout the State. The State is pushing for more electronic reporting though.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

6. How is the municipal stormwater analytical data reported? 7. How often must municipal stormwater analytical data be submitted?

Paper submittal

Paper submittal

Paper submittal


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Annual Reporting

Paper submittal

Monitoring results are submitted in the annual report.

Paper submittal


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Paper submittal

Paper submittal

The Permittee shall submit as part of the Annual Report required under Part V.G of this permit a brief narrative summary description including relevant Excel spreadsheet with table(s) and graphics, which includes: 1) the date and duration of the storm events sampled, 2)rainfall estimates of the storm event which generated the sampled discharge, and 3) the duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event. 4) a tabular summary for website publication for informational purposes.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Paper submittal

Self retained



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


All of the above.Self retained

Self retained

Paper submittal


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Paper submittal

Self retained

Analyzed results are submitted as part of the annual report.

Paper submittal

permit currently requires the permittee to submit in Excel form and hard copy form, the data; however, we are in the process right now of having the permittee submit to Ecology's Environmental Information Management (EIM) system. It is anticipated that beginning with the first data submittal in March 2010, the data will go into EIM, but this decision has not yet been finalized as of the date of this survey

Paper submittal

It could be submitted electronically, but usually via paper DMRs.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

8. Please select all pollutants for which sampling is required in your state's municipal stormwater permits.

Quarterly Annually pH Hardness

Annually pH

Annually pH

7. How often must municipal stormwater analytical data be submitted?

Semi-annually


Oil & grease

Conductivity

Oil & grease

Conductivity


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

8. Please select all pollutants for which sampling is required in your state's municipal stormwater permits.7. How often must municipal stormwater analytical data be submitted?

Annually pH Hardness

Annually

varies by plan

Oil & grease

Conductivity


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Annually



Oil & grease

Oil & grease


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


pH


Once during the permit term for TMDLs. Each outfall, once every 5 years for IDEP.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



pHSemi-annually

Oil & grease


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



pH Hardness

pH


Oil & grease

Conductivity

Conductivity

Oil & grease


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia




Annually

Oil & grease

Conductivity


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


Turbidity Ammonia

Turbidity

BOD5 (5 Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand)

COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)

Dissolved Phosphorus

Total Phosphorus

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Ammonia + Organic Nitrogen


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


Turbidity AmmoniaCOD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)

Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Ammonia

Ammonia




Total Phosphorus





Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Ammonia

Total Phosphorus



Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Total Phosphorus



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


Ammonia




Total Phosphorus




Total Phosphorus





Total Phosphorus




Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Ammonia

Turbidity




Total Phosphorus



Total Phosphorus


Total Phosphorus


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


E. coli

E. coli

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform

Fecal streptococcus



Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


E. coliTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Nitrate + Nitrite



Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform


Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


E. coli


Nitrate + Nitrite


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


E. coli

E. coli


Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform

Fecal coliform


Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal streptococcus


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform

Fecal streptococcus


Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform


Nitrate + Nitrite


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


Other pollutants. Please list below:

Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Flow, TSS

enterrococcus, chloropyrifos, & metals also included in most permits. Constituent requirements vary from Region to Region.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


varies by plan

Rainfall pH in addition to the sample pH.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Total Recoverable Lead, Total Recoverable Copper, Total Recoverable Cadmium, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total Phenols, Total Dissolved Solids

TDS; Total Cd, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn; Temperature; Total PCBs; Chlorides; Chlorine Note parameter sampling and reporting applies to Phase I MS4's only.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Screening dry weather flows requires pH, ammonia, surfactants, and temperature.

Chloride, Total Copper, Total (as Cu) Flow, monthly total Flow, daily avg. Carbonate (as CaCo3) Lead, Total (as Pb) Precipitation Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) Zinc, Total (as Zn)


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Total Nitrogen Copper (total recoverable) Lead (total recoverable) Zinc (total recoverable) Estimated Flow (gpm)



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


TDS, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, lead, zinc, temperature,

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Total Cadmium, Total Copoer, Total Lead, Total Zinc, Temperature, total Mercury, and total thallium

MS4 Outfall and In-stream include all previously checked parameters plus the parameters identified below: MS4 Outfall - Particle Size Distribution, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Total and Dissolved Copper, Lead, Nickel and Zinc, In-stream - Dissolved Oxygen, Chloride, Total and Dissolved Copper, Lead, Nickel and Zinc, Chlorophyll a


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


Varies by permit. Some is TMDL driven.

Total metals: cadmium, copper lead, zinc. dissolved metals: cadmium copper lead zinc. Parameters may vary for each phase I facility.

The above list is for the S8D Stormwater monitoring component. This list also includes the following: total petroleum hydrocarbons (grab samples), chloride, methylene blue activated substances, ortho-phosphate, total and dissolved copper, zinc, cadmium and lead (mercury in commercial and industrial areas only), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, herbicides (2,4-D, MCPP, Triclopyr), insecticides (Diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, dichlobenil, prometon), and fungicides (pentachlorophenol) S8D also has a sediment monitoring program (use of in-line stormwater traps). Parameters include:total solids, grain size, total organic carbon, zinc, cadmium, lead and mercury, PAHs, phthalates, phenolics, PCBs and pesticides (pentachlorophenol, diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion only) The S8F BMP monitoring program includes: For basic, enhanced or phosphorus treatment BMPs: TSS, particle size distribution, pH, total and ortho-phosphorus, hardness, total and dissolved copper and zinc. For oil control BMPs: TSS, particle size distribution, pH, NWTPH-Dx and Gx, and oil sheen. S8F also includes measuring accumulated sediment within the BMP and sampling for total solids, grain size, total volatile solids, NWTPH-Dx, total phosphorus, and total cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. S8E: parameters are dependent upon the permittee choosen program.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

10. For each pollutant, indicate the benchmark (target) in mg/L. If no benchmark exists for a pollutant, please indicate by writing "n" in the box provided.

Yes pH

Yes

9. Does your state's municipal stormwater program require sampling for benchmarks (targets)?

No, but numeric effluent limits exist.

Sampling for specific pollutants is required, but no benchmarks (targets) or effluent limits exist.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

10. For each pollutant, indicate the benchmark (target) in mg/L. If no benchmark exists for a pollutant, please indicate by writing "n" in the box provided.9. Does your state's municipal stormwater program require sampling for benchmarks (targets)?




Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana





Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi





Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Yes between 6-9 standard units

No, but numeric effluent limits exist.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


Yes


see comments in other sections




Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia







Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


HardnessOil & grease

Conductivity

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)


Total Phosphorus



Respondent

Missouri

Montana



10 mg/L 80 mg/L 0.41 mg/L 125 mg/L


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


Turbidity Ammonia E. coliAmmonia + Organic Nitrogen


Nitrate + Nitrite

Fecal coliform

Fecal streptococcus


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


Other pollutant (please specify)



There are no statewide standard benchmarks.

benchmarks are determined by each regional board


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Total Nitrogen 2.00 mg/L

Total Copper 0.040 mg/L

Total Lead 0.165 mg/L


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

12. For each pollutant, indicate the effluent limitation in mg/L. If no effluent limitation exists for a pollutant, please indicate by writing "n" in the box provided.

Yes No pH Hardness

No

No

11. Does your state's municipal stormwater program contain numeric effluent limitations?

Oil & grease

Conductivity

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

12. For each pollutant, indicate the effluent limitation in mg/L. If no effluent limitation exists for a pollutant, please indicate by writing "n" in the box provided.11. Does your state's municipal stormwater program contain numeric effluent limitations?

No


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



No


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


No


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


Turbidity AmmoniaDissolved Phosphorus

Total Phosphorus




Nitrate + Nitrite


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


E. coliFecal coliform

Fecal streptococcus





Municipal Action levels are being included in some permits, and are based on factors including WQ objectives for the water body in question.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Most are median concentrations from Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) information, oil and grease is compared to


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


The benchmark is based on progress towards meeting the WLA identified in the TMDL


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Benchmarks (targets) State agency Volunteers

13. What are the pollutant limits based on?

14. Municipal stormwater sampling in your state is conducted by: Select all that apply.

Numeric effluent limitations

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



Volunteers

Volunteers

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



Permit holder

Permit holder


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Permit holder

Typically and routinely by permit holder, but other federal/state/municipal parties as necessary

Permit holder


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



Volunteers

Permit holder

Permit holder

Permit holder

consultants, if contracted by the permittee

Permit holder


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

16. Are additional controls required based on the sampling results?

Other. Please specify: Yes No Yes

No

No

No Yes


15. Is additional sampling or follow up sampling required based on the sampling results?

If yes, please describe situations in which additional sampling is required.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

16. Are additional controls required based on the sampling results?14. Municipal stormwater sampling in your state is conducted by: Select all that apply.


Yes Yes

No

No Yes

sometimes, varies by plan

Permit holder is responsible but volunteers or third party may be used.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



No Yes

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



Yes

No

Yes for IDEP work that identifies an illicit discharge.

The Permittee shall to the extent feasible, develop and implement a cooperative monitoring, analysis and reporting effort between the Permittee and all other adjacent MS4s, government agencies and watershed districts


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Can be required if necessary on a case-by-case basis



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



No

No

No

Yes

Additional sampling or analysis for other parameters is based on the initial analytical results, but not required.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



No

No Yes

No

No


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option


No

No

additional BMPs need to be implemented

If yes, please describe situations in which additional controls are required.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


sometimes, varies by plan

No

Yes, if sampling results indicate a problem with a specific parameter, the MS4 should implement corrective action(s). Corrective action(s) include but are not limited to structural BMPs, retrofits, public education, etc.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


No

If there is an approved TMDL, the MS4 should revisit the choices in BMPs, if the monitoring shows no reduction in the pollution.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


No

E. coli or Total P findings trigger a requirement to develop and prioritize actions to reduce the pollutant load to TMDL reach. Follow-up procedures are needed when dry-weather screening identifies likely illicit discharges.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Results compared to benchmark values to assess potential pollutant sources and consequent BMP effectiveness. These regulated Small MS4s may need to consider additional BMPs and/or other measures as necessary.



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


No

No

BMPs, special studies, or limits during permit renewal


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


No

For TMDL WLAs

No

Maybe, it depends if the permittee discharges into an impaired water body or a water body with a TMDL.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

17. Why is the sampling data being used or not used?

18. Are there different seasonal requirements for muncipal stormwater sampling?


The data are being used to determine compliance with the MEP standard established in the CWA. Each Regional Board would make this determination.



Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



do not understand question

We use it to build a municipal sampling database. Once we have a large enough database, we can conduct statistical and other analyses.

The sampling data is used to help assess the effectiveness of the MS4 stormwater managment plan implementation.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



Being used by the MS4s to judge effectiveness of their MS4 programs.


To document whether their bmp's and other control measures are effective.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



Use to reduce daily loads or identify illicit discharges

The purposes of analysis include: 1)Characterizing pollutant event mean concentrations; 2) Estimating total annual pollutant load to bodies of water; 3)Estimating total annual volume to bodies of water; 4) Estimate effectiveness of stormwater system management devices and practices, and 5) Calibrating stormwater models. The data will also be used for anti-degration and TMDL purposes.



Respondent

Missouri

Montana




To determine program effectiveness

Results compared to benchmark values to assess potential pollutant sources and consequent BMP effectiveness. These regulated Small MS4s may need to consider additional BMPs and/or other measures as necessary. With limited data now available, data from Montana's seven largest cities through this effort will be holistically collected and used for various planning purposes by the regulating agency and permittees in order to



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



the sampling data is being used for water quality assessment report.

The sampling data has been used to determine trends in surface water quality associated with the MS4. The sampling data has also been used to characterize pollutant loads from land uses and to identify illicit discharges or connections. Some sampling has been conducted to determine BMP effectiveness.

It is only used for the detection, tracking and elimination of illicit discharges and to set priorities for the IDDE program.

For assessing the need for limits or other controls


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



Sampling data is used to develop an annual loading in pounds.

Other than TMDLs, it is used for long term results monitoring


S8D Stormwater Monitoring (characterization) data is used to evaluate runoff characteristics and pollutant loading from various land uses within a permittees jurisdiction. We are looking for changes over time related to stormwater management actions within the drainage basin S8F BMP effectiveness data is used to test the BMPs listed in Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. We want to know how well these BMP types are performing, what they are removing etc. S8D targeted program effectiveness data is used to evaluate a specific stormwater management program element (public education, IDDE, source control etc.) to see if these tyeps of programs are making a difference in smaller drainage


It is used to determine effectiveness of program and to meet WLAs if applicable.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Open-Ended Response





Some Regions require dry weather monitoring over and beyond wet weather monitoring. The dry season is considered (in most areas) to be between June and Sept


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



varies by plan




Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana




There is a dry weather sampling and a wet weather sampling.



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi




1)Over the non-ice time period (approximately March through November), continuous flow dataloggers will be employed to detail continuous flows. The Permittee shall obtain flow paced and grab samples for parameters listed in Table 1 for selected 0.1 inch or greater storm events, using reasonable efforts to i. monitor large loading events, and ii. monitor ten storm events annually. 2)During the typical ice period (approximately December to March), winter thaw grab sampling will be performed on two occasions.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Depends on the sampling location and other factors, snowmelt may be sampled instead of rainfall event runoff.



Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas








Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



when applicable, wet season and dry season.


Monitoring requirements for S8D (Stormwater Monitoring) have a seasonal frequency unlike S8F (BMP effectiveness). S8D requires 60-80% of the sampled storm events to be captured during the wet season in Western Washington (October 1 - April 30th) and 20-40% captured during the dry season (May 1 - September 30th). Since there are no Phase I jurisdictions located in Eastern or Central Washington, the wet and dry seasons only in Western Washington apply to the monitoring requirements.



Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Yes No Open-Ended Response

No

Yes

20. Are there additional sampling requirements for the permittee if the MS4 discharges to a water body with a TMDL?

21. Please describe additional sampling requirements for an MS4 that discharges to a water body with a TMDL.

Flow will be sampled in areas affected by a TMDL. The mass of the constituent would then be determined by multiplying the flow with concentration.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



varies by plan

No

No


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



Yes

No

Yes

No

If the permittee discharges to a waterbody that has a TMDL that has an urban related impairment then sampling is required for the Phase II MS4s. Otherwise, it is not a requirement.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



Yes

No

No Yes

See previous sampling details


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Yes

Yes

Yes

Sampling requirements depend on the TMDL. A MS4 could be asked to monitor the entire gamut of potential urban contaminants and associated paramaters. A typical recommendation is quarterly sampling of at least 3 grab samples and one low flow from selected representative sites. We have one existing cooperative TMDL monitoring project via a set of 6 regulated MS4s for the James River TMDL around Springfield, Missouri

Will depend on potential future wasteload allocations built into MPDES permitting authorizations.

Phase I/II MS4 subject to a TMDL must develop a monitoring programs.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



No Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

addtional sampling requirements will be specified in a TMDL report.

All of the parameters where a Waste Load Allocation has been identified for a MS4 in the applicable TMDL

We are in the process of addressing bacteria issues.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



No

Yes

Yes

Yes

monitoring of any facility operated by MS4 operator where pollutant of concern has been historically or currently stored or could be a If monitoring is required in Appendix 2 of the Phase I permit, the permittee is required to conduct the monitoring according to a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) approved by Ecology. Appendix 2 (Total Maximum Daily Load TMDL Requirements) specifically lists the name of the TMDL, the location where the TMDL requirements apply, parameter, affected permittees, the action required, and monitoring Our MS4 general permit states that the Stormwater Management plan must include BMPs specifically targeted to achieve the WLAs prescribed by the TMDL. The permittee must include a monitoring component in their


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Yes No

Yes

22. Does your agency utilize Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals to further control MS4 discharges beyond the 6 minimum measures?


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


Yes

Yes

No


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


Yes

No

Yes

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Yes

Yes

Additional management controls may be required


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

The stormwater management program must include or be adjusted to meet the schedules, objectives or wasteload allocations set in TMDL(s) that may be applicible to the MS4.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia


No

No

Yes

No


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Open-Ended Response Yes

Yes

23. Other than additional sampling requirements, please describe how TMDLs are utilized to further control MS4 discharges.

24. Does your state utilize contractor inspection of municipal storm water discharges with state oversight of the contractor?

one example is in Los Angeles, where TMDL requirements for Trash include installation and maintenance of "full capture" devices. It is similar to other areas of the State in that more BMPs are required to treat storm water than in areas without a TMDL.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



varies by plan Yes

Yes

If discharging to a TMDL waterbody, they must review their Stormwater Management Plan and make any modifications necessary to comply with the TMDL.


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



After establishment of an approved TMDL for a pollutant of concern in the permittee’s stormwater discharges during this permit term, the permittee shall identify the impaired stream segment(s) and/or tributaries to those impaired stream segments and the location of all known MS4 major outfalls discharging a pollutant of concern under the TMDL to those segments or occurring within those segments. The permittee shall evaluate the discharge load associated with the identified MS4 major outfalls for the pollutant, including monitoring, reporting and/or otherwise, at issue. Prior to any reopening of this permit under paragraph D.1. above, the permittee shall consider and propose applicable and appropriate Best Management Practices for its MS4 to reach the wasteload goal of the TMDL, and a schedule of implementation for those Best Management Practices. Nothing herein shall prevent the permittee from pursuing a variance or exceptions based upon a use attainability analysis or the criteria for exceptions set forth in 401 KAR 10:031. Applicable limitations, conditions and requirements contained in the TMDL are also to be addressed in the SWQMP.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



No

Permittee must identify and prioritize actions that they determine will improve water quality.

Additional BMPs may be required to meet WLAs. These may be selected from a list of options provided by the agency or developed by the MS4 to meet the WLA.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




We are behind in implementing TMDL-associated requirements for those MS4s that discharge to listed or TMDL encumbered communities. However, we are in the process of requiring flow control in the Hinkson Creek watershed for the three co-permittees in Boone County. Low Impact Development and retrofit measures will be prescribed.

Wasteload allocations based on TMDLs in future MPDES permit authorizations. Also, regulated Small MS4s must address pollutants of concern for listed inpaired waterbodies in their required Storm Water Management Programs through BMPs and measures to help comply with water quality standards in the receiving surface waters.

Phase I/II MS4 subject to a TMDL must develop specific monitoring programs for the pollutant of concern.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



No

The MS4 must show progress towards meeting the WLA identified in the TMDL. This is accomplished by showing reductions in pollutant loading by modeling the pollutant loads from the MS4 and accounting for reductions achieved through BMP implementation. Each permit cycle the MS4 permittee is required to show additional progress towards meeting the WLA by implementing additional BMPs to reduce the pollutants of concern. This often requires additional BMPs to be implemented beyond the six minimum measures.

A little more detail to my previous answers. Phase I MS4s do have some form of sampling, either chemical or in-stream biological. Phase II MS4s currently do not sample. TMDLs have influenced Phase I MS4 permits by adding sampling requirements. TMDLs have influenced regulated MS4s construction/post-construction MCMs in light of specific watershed construction general permits.

TMDL specifies changes to the 6 minimum control measures if pertinent to the Pollutant of Concern MS4 GP requires delineation of contributing areas to outfalls discharging to waters with approved TMDLs that identify impacts from wet weather discharges. TMDL Implementation Plans that may include structural BMPs will be required to be prepared for the MS4 GP that will be issued later this year.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



We specifically require actions by the permittee in order to address the TMDL. These actions are in the form of best management actions.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

No Yes No

No No

Yes


25. Are unregulated storm water discharges within the MS4 areas addressed, such as industries or commercial establishments with large parking lots with direct discharge to surface waters?


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



Yes

No No

No


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



No No

No Yes

No No

No No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



No No

No No

The MS4 may chose to regulate the previous examples


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




No Yes

No Yes

No Yes


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



No

No Yes

No Yes

No No

No No

No No


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



No No

No No

No

No No


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

26. Please describe how your agency addresses unregulated stormwater discharges that are within the boundaries of an MS4.

27. How does your agency regulate storm water in municipalities that are not automatically regulated under the Phase I or Phase II federal regulations?

Open-Ended Response

By significant contributor designation

By population. Please explain population criteria below.


we address these discharges just like every other municipal storm water discharge. In our permits we require the local municipality to draft and adopt ordinances to ensure that the local agency has proper authority to enforce the provisions of the permit. So it would be through the local municipality that the "unregulated" discharges are managed.



Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



primarily by public education requirements


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



These are addressed locally for new development and re-devleopment projects through local MS4 ordinances



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



These are covered by IDDE or special conditions for known


We do not regulate storm water in municipalities that are not automatically regulated under the Phase I or Phase II federal regulations.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




Our three Phase Is are required to do an industrial inspection program. They are also required to monitor for broad assessment of discharges the city-wide system. Our 149 Phase IIs are encouraged to develop an industrial inspection program.

Regulated Small MS4s may create their own local requirements which may apply to these (such as ordinances)as a part of their MPDES permit-based Storm

They are regulated by the MS4


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas




Phase 1 MS4 is required to implement a dry/wet weather screening program. Phase 2 The MS4s have monitored pollutant loads from unregulated stormwater sources to determine the pollutant loads based on land use.




Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia





Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Other. Please specify

27. How does your agency regulate storm water in municipalities that are not automatically regulated under the Phase I or Phase II federal




Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida





Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana






Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas





Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia






Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

Yes

27. How does your agency regulate storm water in municipalities that are not automatically regulated under the Phase I or Phase II federal 28. Are unregulated communities addressed in your state’s municipal stormwater program?

Please describe your answer choice:


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida


Yes

Designation based on various factors, including population growth and water quality impairment

We have developed permits to cover discharges not otherwise regulated under Phase I or II such as our commercial stormwater permit. We have also included industries in our industrial permit that are not in the MSGP. We do not yet have any MS4 permits for towns that are not otherwise covered in Phase I or II.

Florida's NPDES Stormwater Program does not use the term unregulated community. As appropriate, we can designate other regulated Phase II MS4s. Designation requirements include: discharges deemed to be significant contributor of pollutants to surface water where a TMDL has been adopted Areas with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and a population of at least 10,000 and discharge to a Class I (Drinking Water Source) or Class II (Shellfish Harvesting) water bodies or physically interconnected to another regulated MS4 public petition


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana


We have not designated MS4s beyond those required federally, but do have the option to designte others based on significant impacts to water quality.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi


Yes

An unregulated discharge of municipal storm water could be regulated if the state designated them as a significant contributor.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana



Yes

any community that is less than 1,000 within the urbanized area or less than 10,000 outside the UA.

"Unregulated community" is not specifically defined

We do not define a unregulated community. Regulated communities are defined by the Phase I/II regulations.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas


No

Yes

Yes

Yes

By population, density, discharge to sensitive waters, high growth or growth potential adn contguity to an unbanized area.

Communities not subject to the Phase I or Phase II EPA regulations. However, unregulated communities may be required to develop a stormwater strategy through a TMDL implementation plan if they have been identified as a Designated Management Agency under a TMDL.

We follow the federal definitions. We designated appendix 7 communities based on our 303(d) list at the time. We have authority to designated additional communities if warranted.

In addition to TMDL designation of MS4s, there are requirements for MS4s outside of Urbanized Areas that are either in CDPs witha minimum population and MS4s that discharge to Special Resource Protection Waters.

Based on an Urbanized areas with 1000 or less people. These can apply for waivers.


Respondent

Region 9

AlabamaAlaska

California

Response Option

No Open-Ended Response

No

No

28. Are unregulated communities addressed in your state’s municipal stormwater program?

29. Please describe how your agency is addressing unregulated communities-by requiring monitoring, etc.


Respondent

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida



No

No

As appropriate, we can designate other regulated Phase II MS4s. Designation requirements include: discharges deemed to be significant contributor of pollutants to surface water where a TMDL has been adopted Areas with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and a population of at least 10,000 and discharge to a Class I (Drinking Water Source) or Class II (Shellfish Harvesting) water bodies or physically interconnected to another regulated MS4 public petition


Respondent

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana



No

No

No

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi



No

No

Specific non-typical MS4s are addressed by Phase II General Permit


Respondent

Missouri

Montana




No

No

Indirectly potentially addressed if permitted Small MS4s elect to do so through their Storm Water Management Programs. See previous responses.


Respondent

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas



No

No

Unregulated communities may be required to develop a stormwater strategy through a TMDL implementation plan if they have been identified as a Designated Management Agency under a TMDL. The implementation plans often reflect the six

Please refer to comments under 27. There are no monitoring requirements for communities outside of the UAs or designated CDPs.


Respondent

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia



No

No

No

No

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesConstruction Stormwater Survey

Construction Stormwater Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option Design Standards BMPs

Region 9 08/03/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Connecticut 07/23/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Florida 07/24/2009 BMPs

Indiana 07/27/2009

Kansas 07/22/2009

Completion Date

1. Does your agency have existing regulations for the purpose of regulating storm water discharges associated with construction activities? If so, do the regulations specify design standards, performance standards, specific best management practices (BMPs), or numeric limitations?

Performance Standards

Numeric limits

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards





Louisiana 08/07/2009

Massachusetts 08/19/2009

Michigan 11/24/2009

Missouri 08/14/2009 BMPs

Montana 07/29/2009

North Carolina 07/31/2009 Design Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards




North Dakota 08/13/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Ohio 08/06/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Oregon 08/05/2009 BMPs

Texas 07/24/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Utah 07/27/2009 Design Standards

Vermont 08/14/2009 Design Standards BMPs

Virginia 08/05/2009

Narrative Standards


Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards

Narrative Standards





Washington 08/18/2009 Design Standards BMPsPerformance Standards

Narrative Standards


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Other (please specify) Yes No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

1. Does your agency have existing regulations for the purpose of regulating storm water discharges associated with construction activities? If so, do the regulations specify design standards, performance standards, specific best management practices

2. Has your agency developed an interactive electronic map that permit applicants can use to locate wetlands and/or outstanding resource waters or to determine whether a particular section of river is on the 303(d) list?

Other (please specify)

We require BMPs but not specific ones. The operator can choose which are most effective for their project considering the site conditions. The exception is that we require a sedimentation basin providing 3600 cubic ft of storage for projects disturbing 10 or more acres (where attainable). Also, silt fences or an equivalent measure are required for all side/downslopes.

We have regulations allowing permitting of SW construction discharges. The regs do not address narrative standards, design standards, performance standards, BMPs or numeric limits.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



method of regulation is not specified in the regs No

Yes

No

Benchmark (i.e., settleable solids) Yes

no specific bmps No

Yes

Numeric limits are specified in the EPA issued NPDES General Permit. MA does not have primacy therefore does not issue NPDES permits. MA does not have regulations for the purpose of regulating storm water discharges.

NC has an Erosion and Sedimentation Act that sets requirements for controlling sediment from disturbed areas


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No


Respondent

Washington



benchmarks Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. Does the electronic map tool allow users to locate the following types of waterbodies?

Impaired streams and rivers on the 303(d) list - Yes

Impaired lakes and wetlands on the 303(d) list - Yes

Wetlands - Yes

Outstanding Resource Waters (e.g. trout streams, ecologically sensitive waterbodies, etc.) - Yes


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Not applicable

Yes Yes Yes Yes Losing streams, sinkholes (groundwater)

Our interactive map just shows areas where stormwater and buffer requirements apply. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/msi_maps.htm


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


Yes

Yes Yes not all impaired waters are mapped, primarily just stormwater-impaired


Respondent

Washington


Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

4. Does your agency recommend and/or require permittees to implement specific best management practices (BMPs) for the purpose of regulating storm water discharges associated with construction activities?

The agency recommends specific storm water BMPs that applicants can implement on a voluntary basis.

The agency requires applicants to install specific storm water BMPs.

The agency has not developed specific BMP requirements or recommendations.








Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina




The agency does not require any specific BMPs. The agency has three manuals (BMP Manual,





Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia










Respondent

Washington




Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

No Yes

5. If your agency recommends and/or requires that operators implement specific BMPs, does the NPDES construction stormwater general permit contain a list of recommended/required BMPs, or does your agency refer applicants to a stormwater BMP manual? Choose all that apply.

Recommended/Required BMPs are listed in the general stormwater permit - Yes

Recommended/Required BMPs are listed in the general stormwater permit - No

Recommended/Required BMPs are listed in a stormwater BMP manual - Yes

Recommended/Required BMPs are listed in a stormwater BMP manual - No


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


Yes Yes

No No

No No


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes No

No Yes

No Yes

Yes


Respondent

Washington


Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


5. If your agency recommends and/or requires that operators implement specific BMPs, does the NPDES construction stormwater general permit contain a list of recommended/required BMPs, or does your agency refer applicants to a stormwater BMP manual?


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

5. If your agency recommends and/or requires that operators implement specific BMPs, does the NPDES construction stormwater general permit contain a list of recommended/required BMPs, or does your agency refer applicants to a stormwater BMP manual?

Another agency in our department administers our Erosion and Sediment Control Program and we partner with them on our construction program. They have a manual that you can access at the link below. http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/publications.html Our Division (Water Quality) has a manual for stormwater management BMPs - you can access at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp_forms.htm


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


organized by category of BMP No

No

No

No

6. If your NPDES construction stormwater general permit contains a list of recommended/required BMPs, how is the list of BMPs organized? For example, are the BMPs organized according to the type of construction activity?

7. Has your agency developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities that discharge storm water to water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards?


Included in a list of e&s and structural controls

There is not a master list of BMPs. They are presented throughout the permit as appropriate. For example, under the Stabilization Practices section, seeding, geotextiles, etc. are listed.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



No

Not Applicable No

Yes

No

Erosion & Sediment Controls; Stormwater Management Measures; Housekeeping Best Management Practices http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp2008_finalfactsheet.pdf


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Listed in an appendix to the permit. No

No

Yes

No

No

No

our permit has specific design standards for sediment ponds as well as post-construction bmps for large construction

They are organized based on the phase of the contruction activities

They are listed and identified by type http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/stormwat.shtml#handbook


Respondent

Washington



NoOrganized into 12 Elements or categories of BMPs


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


8. Has your agency developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities that discharge storm water to water bodies that have total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)?

9. Please specify the BMP requirements that permittees may be required to implement if they discharge stormwater to a waterbody that has a TMDL.



Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



Not Applicable

Yes

Not Applicable

In addition to the BMPs they are to obtain a site-specific operating permit for their activies, which may (and usually does) require the permittee to comply with effluent limitations (specific to the 303(d) list impairment or the TMDL.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Yes Our permit has specific bmp requirements for only those stream impaired for sediment or turbidity. We have a map for those listed waterbodies in the state but we do not have an interactive map for all impaired waterbodies. The BMPs for TMDL and 303(d) listed waterbodies for sediment and turbidity: compost berms, erosion control mats, trackifiers used with perimeter


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Yes No Yes No

10. Has your agency developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities that discharge storm water to waterbodies that are meeting water quality standards? For example, does your agency require the implementation of specific BMPs for the purpose of antidegradation?

11. Has your state developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities that discharge storm water to high quality waters and/or outstanding state resource waters? Outstanding resource waters may include ecologically sensitive waterbodies, recreational waterbodies, etc.



Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



Yes No


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Yes Nosee response on previous slide


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. If your agency requires the installation of specific storm water BMPs to ensure that outstanding water resources continue to meet water quality standards, please list the types of BMPs that are required.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

7 8 9 Yes No

No

No

No

No


13. Has your agency developed specific BMP requirements for different types of construction activities? For example, has your agency developed a specific set of BMP requirements that applies to one type of construction activity, and a different set of requirements that applies to a different type of construction activity?


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



No

No

No


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Washington



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4


14. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, meaning specific BMP requirements have been developed for different types of construction activities, please list the different categories of construction activities. For example, your agency may have developed specific sets of BMP requirements for residential construction activities, industrial construction activities, and AFO-related construction activities.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



We are looking at some areas where different control measures may be applied. For example, our current draft GP renewal would require some specific measures near certain aquatic TES. In other areas certain classified waters have more stringent requirements.

Aquatic Federally Listed TES

Areas draining to Outstanding Resource Waters


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



we have developed 2 watershed specific permits which apply to all construction activities within those watersheds


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

5 6 7 8 9 10


15. Do BMP requirements vary according to the size of the construction activity?

BMP requirements are the same for all permitted construction activities





Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina







Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia








Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Open-Ended Response


16. Please explain why your agency has developed different BMP requirements that vary according to the size of the construction activity?

BMP requirements vary according to the number of acres disturbed.



Primarily it is the type of sediment control measures. Small sites can use sed swales or minibasins. Large sites must use full sed basins with designed outlets.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



No; expected effectiveness of BMPs is the same for all permitted construction activities


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia




sediment basins required for certain conditions. Specific post-construction design criteria for large construction.


Really? Because our BMPs are designed to fit the situation.


Respondent

Washington




Sediment ponds are required for drainage areas 3 acres and larger. Sediment traps or other sediment control devices are required for smaller drainage areas.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Open-Ended Response Agency Studies

Agency Studies

17. If your state agency requires permittees to install specific storm water BMPs, please explain how the BMPs were selected.

18. If your agency has developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities, how was BMP effectiveness assessed?

Industry Research

Permit refers to e&s manual with a comprehensive list of BMPs. The manual includes a matrix that allows a designer to select the appropriate BMPs according to the nature and conditions of the development.

Industry Research


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



Agency Studies

We allow the permittee to decide what BMP can be utilized. However, a SWPPP may require that they upgrade the BMP if it is determined that it is not working

Currently we only do this under certain 401 Water Quality Certifications.

Industry Research


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



with coordination with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other State manuals.

Industry Research

BMPs are selected based on the preference of the operator with the end goal that significant amounts of sediment may not leave the site. Operators are required to explain in their plan their rationale for which BMPs are selected/not selected.

Based on extensive research we borrowed NY's manual.

Industry Research


Respondent

Washington



Agency StudiesThrough the development of a stormwater technical manual (advisory committee, public process, etc.)

Industry Research


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


19. If your state agency has not developed specific BMP requirements or recommendations, how is BMP effectiveness routinely determined?

Product Specification

Site Inspections


Agency Studies

Industry Research

Product Specifications


Site Inspections


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Effieciency requirements


Respondent

Washington




Site Inspections


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


No

No

No

No

No


20. Is BMP effectiveness determined for non-permitted sites?

Site Inspections

BMP effectiveness is not evaluated

Application and effectiveness presented in EPA guidance documents. Erosion and sediment controls plancs are reviewed prior to authorization of the permit.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



Yes

No

No

No

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Yes if staff receives a complaint or happens upon the site.

Site Inspections

Failure of BMPs is only time "adequacy" is determined. No review of SWPPP for adequacy is done.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Site Inspections


Respondent

Washington



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


No

No

No

No

No

21. Please explain how BMP effectiveness is evaluated.

22. Does your agency require monitoring of stormwater discharges associated with construction activities? In other words, are permittees required to monitor stormwater discharges for parameters such as TSS, ph, oil and grease, etc.?



Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Inspections of both permitted and non-permitted sites.

Visual observation of the discharge(s) from the site and of the receiving water body; and inspecting the installation and maintenance of BMPs


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Through wet weather observations.


Respondent

Washington



Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

24. Please indicate the parameters that must be monitored.

Open-Ended Response TSS - Yes TSS - NO

23. If operators are only required to monitor stormwater discharges under special circumstances, then please explain the circumstances that may warrant parameter-specific stormwater monitoring.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

24. Please indicate the parameters that must be monitored. 23. If operators are only required to monitor stormwater discharges under special circumstances, then please explain the circumstances that may warrant parameter-specific stormwater monitoring.

rain event


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


Yes

discharge observed NO

our Big Darby construction permit requires TSS monitoring from sediment basins.


Respondent

Washington


NO


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


pH - Yes pH - NO Total Phosphorus - Yes

Total Phosphorus - NO

Total Nitrogen - Yes

Total Nitrogen - NO

Oil and Grease - Yes

Oil and Grease - NO


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


NO NO NO NO


Respondent

Washington


Yes NO NO NO


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


Other (please specify) Yes No 1

No

No

No

No

25. Does your agency use models or other assessment tools to determine which BMPs should be implemented or to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed BMPs?

26. Please list the models or other assessment tools that your agency uses to evaluate storm water BMPs.

Dissolved Oxygen - Yes

Dissolved Oxygen - NO


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

24. Please indicate the parameters that must be monitored. 25. Does your agency use models or other assessment tools to determine which BMPs should be implemented or to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed BMPs?


No

No

No

settleable solids No

No

No


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



No

No

No

No

No

NO turbidity No

No


Respondent

Washington



NO NoTurbidity is required for sites 5 ac and larger. Sites disturbing 1-5 ac are required to use either a turbidity meter or a transparency tube.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No

No

No

No

No

No


27. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards construction activities consider the impacts of storm water discharges on receiving water bodies? For example, has your agency developed specific BMP requirements for construction activities that discharge stormwater to 303(d) impaired water bodies, outstanding water resources, or high quality waters?


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



No

No

Yes

No

Yes


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No


Respondent

Washington



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Other (please specify) Open-Ended Response


28. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please provide details.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



We do not have a specific BMP plan for construciton activities that discharge to "sensitive" waters; however, we do have regulations that allow us to either develop a site specific operating permit or to deny the issuance of the construction permit.

For Outstanding Resource waters there are specific buffer requirements and the construction activity can only have a maximum of 20 acres disturbed at any time.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Affects risk category

we have developed special watershed specific permits for the Big Darby Creek Watershed and Olentangy River Watershed. These permit contains more stringent reqts than our statewide general permit.

discussed in previous slide. We require operators to install certain BMPs if discharging to impaired waterbody for sediment or turbidity.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes

No

No

No

No

No

29. Does your agency make a distinction in its regulatory approach between wetlands and other water bodies? In other words, has your agency developed specific storm water regulations that only pertain to wetlands?

30. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please provide details about the wetland-specific storm water regulation(s).

31. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, and/or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina




No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes We have specific regulations related to wetlands. These are not specific to stormwater control, but more permitting approaches.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia




No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No Yes

our construction permits require conditions to protect the natural hydrology, hydroperiod and wetland flora for concentrated storm water flows to wetlands


Respondent

Washington




No Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

32. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certification.

No

No

No

No

No


Contractors - Yes

Contractors - No

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Designers - Yes

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Designers - No

BMP installers - Yes


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

32. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certification.31. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, and/or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

No

No

No Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

32. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certification.31. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, and/or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


BMP installers - No

Personnel that inspect BMPs - Yes

Personnel that inspect BMPs - No



Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


No Yes Agency Staff- Yes


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


Require design build certification of the BMP by the PE.


Respondent

Washington


Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Open-Ended Response Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Inspections Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Fines or citations

33. If your agency does not require contractors or BMP installers to obtain certification, how do you ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

34. What compliance and enforcement options are available to your agency. Does your agency use any of the following strategies to enforce permit compliance?

Certification is encouraged but we also recognize certifications from other States as well as training and other practical experience in the field.

This is monitored through agency regulatroy inspections and self monitoring by the owner, contractor, etc. The state Rule also requires that installers and those performing self monitoring are trained individuals. A trained individual is a person that has knowledgde about storm water, but not neccessarily a formal cetification.

Site inspections are do on a complaint response basis only.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina



Site inspections by DEQ field staff Fines or citations

Fines or citations

SWPPPs, Inspections, Self-monitoring Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans submitted by the applicant become enforceable upon permit coverage approval. Complaints are investigated and enforced.

The responsibility is placed on the permittee, local permitting agency, and agency staff.

self-reporting of non-compliance (bmp failure). Most often blamed on "act of god" precip events.

Appropriate professionals are required to do designs, etc. The state's licensing boards have the authority to determine the "appropriate" professionals for various types of engineering and professional work.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia



Through site inspections. Fines or citations

site inspections Fines or citations

Fines or citations

Through regular inspectiosn and visual monitoring Fines or citations

Inspections Fines or citations

site inspections Fines or citations

Fines or citations

We do not require certification. But we require operators/site inspectors to have knowledge/education in principles of erosoin and sediment control. We also rely on agency inspections or compliants to follow up on sites that are not properly installing or maintaining sites.


Respondent

Washington



Fines or citations


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


Violation notice letters

Consent decrees or judgments

Consent orders




Consent orders



Consent orders

AG referals



Consent orders



Consent orders


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


Injunctions



Consent orders

Consent orders



Consent orders



Consent orders

Settlement Agreements



Consent orders



Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia




Consent orders



Consent orders






Consent orders



Consent orders



Consent orders


Respondent

Washington




Consent orders


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Open-Ended Response

escalating enforcement

Deny permits.

Enforcement actions are taken as appropriate.

Level of fines increase with frequency of violations.

35. How does your agency handle contractors that repeatedly violate NPDES storm water permit requirements?

The state Rule focus is to permit the project owner or that individual that has financial control over the project. Contractors are not permitted or co-permitted, but the agency does have the authority to take action against a contractor in addtion to the owner upon demonstrating that the contractor is repsonsible for a violation. The contractor by operating on a permitted project; essentially falls under the permit of the owner.


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


As determined appropriate by our Enforcement/Legal staff.

See #34 above. However, not very many repeated violators.

Escalating Fine structures for repeat violators.

Take escalated enforcement action against the permittee they are working for and sometimes directly against the contractors.

Each permit authorization is looked at separately; no mechanism for bad contractors over multiple sites.


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


enforcement

yes

escalating penalties

formal enforcement action

Enforcement

Increased inspections and, depending on severity, escalated enforcement.


Respondent

Washington


administrative penalties


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Yes No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

36. Has the primary permitting authority delegated storm water program responsibilities to other state departments or sub-state jurisdictions (cities, counties, commissions)?


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No; however, the state’s storm water program is tie-barred to the


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

Washington


No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

37. How does your state agency regulate the other agencies?

Open-Ended Response

By state statute, every town regulates e&s for any project disturbing over 1/2 acre. DEP does not regulate these programs but, rather, backs them up with the construction gp.

We have delegated authority to ad minster a construction runoff program to 152 city and county Municipal Sep. Storm Sewer System entities ( MS4).


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


Town Conservation Commissions issue Order of Conditions to contractors to control storm water. The state can issue a Superceding Order of Conditions upon appeal to the state by an aggrieved party.

By statute, the DEQ must periodically audit state, county and municipal agencies responsible for administering and enforcing their respective SESC programs.

City of Columbia can issue their own construction permits (land disturbance); however, the department still inspects and can seek enforcement


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


We have agreememtns with local agencies to implement permits on our behalf. Do regularly discuss and meet annually to identify and issues that may arise in the implementation of the program. But we do per se regulate them. We work in a partnership relationship. These local agencies review the plans, inspect sites more frequently and follow up on complaints and identify violations. DEQ retain enforcement authority for issuing civil penalties to operators for violations of DEQ permit.

Through optional MCM 7 in the MS4 permitting program for small and medium MS4s


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

39. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate the types of organizations or agencies that your agency partners with.

Yes No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

38. Does your agency partner or network with other agencies or programs to increase the overall effectiveness of your storm water program?

Watershed councils

Drain Commissions

Water Commissions


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

39. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate the types of organizations or agencies that your agency partners with.38. Does your agency partner or network with other agencies or programs to increase the overall effectiveness of your storm water program?

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

watershed associations


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Washington


Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


Other Other Other

cities counties

MS$s

Town wetland and conservation officers

Soil conservation districts

MS4 operators. While not an official partnership, the MS4 operators provide information on the construction permit and conduct inspections under their own authority at sites that discharge into their systems.

Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD)


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


sister state agencies lake associations

EPA Fish & Wildlife

All agencies identified in Numbers 36 and 37 above.

Interested 3rd parties (which may include the above commisions and councils)

Other Department Agencies noted below:

Division of Land Resources (Sediment Control)

Divison of Soil and Water Concervation


Respondent

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia


Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Local Cities

Municipalities

EPA, COE, NRCS

DEQ


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas


Other Other


Respondent

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina


Stakeholders

Division of Coastal Management

Local Governments; Universities; Cooperative Extension

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesConstruction Stormwater Non-point Source Survey

Construction Nonpoint Source Pollution Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option Yes No Yes

Region 2 07/24/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRegion 3 07/29/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Region 8 7/23/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Region 9 08/10/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Florida 7/20/2009

Georgia 7/21/2009 Yes Yes Yes

Indiana 7/23/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Iowa 07/30/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes


Completion Date

1. Does your agency have a Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program?

2. Has your agency developed specific recommendations or requirements for managing the following types of nonpoint source pollution?

3. Has your agency developed specific recommendations/requirements for controlling nonpoint source pollution associated with "earth change" activities such as construction activities? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.


Urban/Municipal run-off - Yes

Agricultural run-off - Yes

Forestry run-off - Yes






Louisiana 08/04/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Maine 08/06/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Michigan 7/21/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minnesota 07/23/2009 NoMissouri 7/22/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nevada 08/05/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey 7/21/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes






North Carolina 08/02/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

North Dakota 7/23/2009 Yes Yes

New Mexico 08/04/2009 Yes Yes Yes

Oregon 07/23/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vermont 08/14/2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Virginia 08/06/2009 Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

No

No


4. Has your agency developed specific recommendations and/or requirements for NPS pollution associated with the following types of activities? If your agency does not specifically target NPS pollution associated with these types of activities, please choose "Not Applicable."


Construction activities in urban settings

Construction activities in agricultural settings

Forestry activities

Not Applicable



Forestry activities



Forestry activities


Forestry activities








Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



No



Forestry activities


Forestry activities

Not Applicable

Not Applicable



Forestry activities




Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



No

Forestry activities



Forestry activities






Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas



5. If your agency does not have a NPS program, how is nonpoint source pollution managed?

6. Does your agency's NPS management plan specify numeric limitations, design standards, performance standards. Does the plan recommend specific best management practices (BMP)?

Design Standards


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey




Design Standards

Design Standards


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia




Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section has primary responsibility for urban construction ESC. Division of Forest Resources has primary responsibility for implementing standards for forestry. Our agency, Division of Water Quality, addresses post-construction runoff control.

Design Standards

Design Standards

Design Standards


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


7. Does your agency recommend specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the purpose of managing NPS pollution associated with earth change activities? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not


Numeric Limitations

Best Management Practices (BMPs)







Numeric Limitations


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


7. Does your agency recommend specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the purpose of managing NPS pollution associated with earth change activities? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes




Plan mentions general BMPs (not specific ones) and external references






Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


7. Does your agency recommend specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the purpose of managing NPS pollution associated with earth change activities? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes




Coastal NPS Program only






Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No

8. Has your agency developed BMP requirements for nonpoint source pollution associated with the following types of earth change activities? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.

Agricultural earth change activities - Yes

Agricultural earth change activities - No

Urban earth change activities - Yes

Urban earth change activities - No

Forestry-related earth change activites - Yes

Forestry-related earth change activites - No


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

No No No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Yes Yes

No Yes No

We have BMPs that are applicable to both, but we dont differentiate, hence we could have answered "no"


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

9. If your agency recommends specific BMPs for the purpose of nonpoint source (NPS) management, how do you assess the effectiveness and/or performance of those BMPs?

Agency Studies

Industry Research




Agency Studies

Agency Studies

Agency Studies

Industry Research


Agency Studies

water monitoring, modeling


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections NJCAT

Agency Studies

Industry Research

Agency Studies

Studies, inspections very limited in scope



Industry Research



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Site Inspections

Agency Studies

Industry Research

Compliance oversight of local governments who implement regulatory mandates.

Agency Studies

Industry Research

Industry Research


Agency Studies

Industry Research



Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Open-Ended Response

sediment delivery calculator

10. What other methods does your agency use to select BMPs for the purpose of NPS managment?

11. If your state agency has not developed specific BMP requirements for the purpose of nonpoint source management, how does your agency assess the effectiveness and or performance of BMPs?

Agency Studies

Industry Research


Evaluating the change to water quality, assuming that the changes is as a result of BMP implementation.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



TMDLs and watershed plans Agency Studies

Industry Research

Many NPS BMPs are covered in stormwater plans and NPDES permits; sitl fences for example. Throguh grants we can ask for additional NPS BMPs. We keeps lists of preferred BMPs obtained from EPA and NRCS, and others.

New Jersey Stormwater BMP Manual Technical Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



Academic research

We conduct requests for proposals for projects to reduce nonpoint source pollution loading, and select from among competing proposals which include BMPs selected by the applicants.

On-site monitoring of proprietary manufactured BMPs.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


12. Does your agency require monitoring of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution associated with urban earth change activities? In other words, does your agency require either permittees or the regulatory authority to monitor nonpoint source pollution for parameters such as TSS, ph, oil and grease, etc.?

Site Inspections



Monitoring is required

Monitoring is recommended

Monitoring is not required or recommended








Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey





Site Inspections






Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia





Meet Coastal NPS Program Management





Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes


13. Is monitoring only recommended/required under certain circumstances?



Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



No

No

Yes

Yes


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Open-Ended Response TSS pH

14. Please describe the circumstances under which your agency may recommend or require monitoring of NPS run-off associated with urban earth change activities. An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.

15. If your agency requires monitoring of NPS pollution associated with earth change activities, please specify the parameters that must be monitored. An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.

Total Phosphorus

As a result of implementation. This may include before, during, and after implementation.

Monitoring would be required when an NPDES permit is required. If no permit is required, then monitoring is usually not required, unless the activity is part of a demonstration project or if there is an obvious violation that requires monitoring in as part of an investigation.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



Remediation projects. TSS pH

If the project is suspected of having the portential for heavy NPS impacts, permits might ask for monitoring downstream.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



As part of TMDL Implementation Plan

TSS

Requirement to monitor is based on discharge of visibly discolored runoff

Monitoring of manufactured BMP's is required for new products that do not yet have an established record of performance in this state.

Total Phosphorus


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Pathogens Pesticides Other (please specify)


Nitrite + Nitrate

Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

It's not required, unless required by permit or monitored as part of a water qualilty investigation.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


we seldom require NPS monitoring if it is required parameters would depend upon potential sources.

Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Hazardous Materials, Metals, Hydrocarbons


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


Not specifically required

turbidity


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

17. What is the frequency of the monitoring?

Permittee

Permittee

16. If your agency requires monitoring of urban run-off, who is responsible for the monitoring?

Regulatory Agency


After each storm event

Once per month

Once every four months

Once per year

Once per month

Usuallly not required for general urban runoff


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey

17. What is the frequency of the monitoring?16. If your agency requires monitoring of urban run-off, who is responsible for the monitoring?

Permittee

limited to NPDES SW permit program (point sources)

could be either - seldom required to monitor NPS


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

17. What is the frequency of the monitoring?16. If your agency requires monitoring of urban run-off, who is responsible for the monitoring?

Permittee





Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

17. What is the frequency of the monitoring? 18. Does your agency recommend/require monitoring of nonpoint source pollution associated with agricultural earth change activities? In other words, does your agency require either permittees or the regulatory authority to monitor nonpoint source pollution for parameters such as TSS, ph, oil and grease, etc.?

Once every two years or more




Monitoring is not recommended/ required





N/A, unless part of a study, an investigation, or under a permit



Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey





varies on situation if it is required at all



Varies with each project, usually monthly or quarterly



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia









Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No TSS pH

19. Is monitoring only recommended/require

d under certain circumstances?

20. Please describe the circumstances under which your agency may recommend or require monitoring of NPS pollution associated with agricultural earth change activities.

21. If your state agency recommends monitoring of NPS pollution associated with agricultural earth change activities, please specify the parameters that must be monitored.

Open-Ended Response

Total Phophorus

Total Nitrogen


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

19. Is monitoring only recommended/require

d under certain circumstances?

20. Please describe the circumstances under which your agency may recommend or require monitoring of NPS pollution associated with agricultural earth change activities.


Yes

Yes

TMDL Implementation Plan offered.

same as urban-trigger is discharge of discolored water


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Pesticides Pathogens Permittee


22. If your agency requires monitoring of agricultural run-off, who is responsible for the monitoring?

Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen


Regulatory Agency



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


22. If your agency requires monitoring of agricultural run-off, who is responsible for the monitoring?

turbidity Permittee

Not required

Not required


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

23. What is the frequency of the monitoring?

Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

24. Does your agency use models or other assessment tools to determine which BMPs should be implemented or to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed BMPs?

After each wet weather event

Once per month

Once every four months

Once per year

Once every two years or more



Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey

23. What is the frequency of the monitoring? 24. Does your agency use models or other assessment tools to determine which BMPs should be implemented or to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed BMPs?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

23. What is the frequency of the monitoring? 24. Does your agency use models or other assessment tools to determine which BMPs should be implemented or to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed BMPs?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Not required

After each wet weather event

if they trigger the requirement


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

25. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, what models or other assessment tools are used?

1 2 3 4 5

STEPL AVGWLF HSPF Region 5

See USEPA web page

GIS land use assessment for sediment delivery

GIS streambank assessment for sediment delivery

GIS urban assessment of impervious surfaces

GIS gully assessment for sediment delivery


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


ANNAGNPS Model SWAT Model GIS TMDL ModelingField Investigation

MDEP Lakes Phosporus Control Method

1 MDEQ ‘Pollutants Controlled’ Document (also called the EPA Region 5 ‘Pollutants Controlled’ Spreadsheet) 2. STEPL (EPA Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads)


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


STEPL SSTEMP WEPP-Roads

Modified Schueler's Simple Method for Urban Stormwater Nutrient Loading

State-developed Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet for agricultural N loading

EPA's "Region 5 model"


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


6 7 Yes No

No

No

Yes

26. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards urban nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special nonpoint source BMP requirements for earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey

25. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, what models or other assessment tools are used? 26. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards urban nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special nonpoint source BMP requirements for earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

25. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, what models or other assessment tools are used? 26. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards urban nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special nonpoint source BMP requirements for earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion or sedimentation of surface waters. Earth change activities include construction activities in urban and agricultural settings. Earth change activities do not include the practice of plowing and tilling soil.

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


No

No

No

27. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please explain.

28. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards agricultural nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special BMP requirements for agricultural earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion


MS 4 communities are required to develop plans to incorporate BMPs as part of their stormwater requirements. For discharges to impaired waters, we're developing watershed management plans with recommended BMPs to addressing impairments.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


28. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards agricultural nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special BMP requirements for agricultural earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion

No

No

No

No

No

No

If the waterbody is a 303(d) Listed waterbody, then more restrictive BMPs can be required.

new developnment in wshed of impaired waters & waters at risk must meets more stringent level of control in Maine Stormwater Rules; Residual designation authority invoked for 1 impaired water.

Permits may have special conditions if discharges are associated with TMDL streams.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


28. Does your agency's regulatory approach towards agricultural nonpoint source pollution account for impacts to receiving water bodies or watersheds? For example, does your agency develop special BMP requirements for agricultural earth change activities discharging to 303(d) impaired water bodies that have TMDLs? An “earth change” is a human-made change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result in soil erosion Yes

No

No

Yes

No

We implement nutrient regulations for 303d-listed waters whose impairment is driven by nutrients. Included are rules addressing urban runoff for both new and existing developed lands.

If a project discharges to a stormwater-impaired water it affects its risk category

More frequent inspections and ESC and SWPPPs that address the specific impairment.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Open-Ended Response Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes

No Yes

No

No Yes

No


30. Does your agency make a distinction in its regulatory approach between wetlands and other water bodies? In other words, has your agency developed specific NPS regulations that only pertain to wetlands?

31. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please provide details about the wetland-specific NPS regulation(s).

32. Does your agency require that contractors, BMP installers, or those responsible for monitoring BMPs receive specialized training to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey





No

No

No Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia





Yes

No

No

No

same as urban No

Yes Yes

As with #27, nutrient strategies include rules for agriculture.

We have state regulations that protect both isolated wetlands and other waters of the state wetlands. Parallel federal regulations - no net loss; avoid, minimize, mitigate; mitigation multipliers.

Delineation and additional protection areaa upstream of the wetland where certain land used are limited or prohibited.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

No

Yes Yes

No

Yes No No

No


33. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate which professionals are required to receive specialized training.

Contractors - Yes

Contractors - No

BMP Installers - Yes

BMP Installers - No

BMP Inspectors - Yes

BMP Inspectors - No


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



No

No

No No Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



No

No

No

No

No

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications.


No

No

33. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate which professionals are required to receive specialized 34. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

Contractors - Yes

Contractors - No

Contractors who install ag BMPs are required to be approved by local soil and water conservation districts. BMPs that require an engineered design would require a certified contractor to install the BMPs.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications.33. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate which professionals are required to receive specialized 34. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

Yes No


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications.33. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please indicate which professionals are required to receive specialized 34. Does your agency require contractors, BMP installers, or those responsible for monitoring BMPs to obtain certification to ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications.

Open-Ended Response

inspection


BMP installers - Yes

BMP installers - No

Personnel that inspect BMPs - Yes

Personnel that inspect BMPs - No


For regulatory programs - random site inspections. For grant-funded activities, reporting and random site inspections.

BMP installation is monitored by municipalities in urban areas or soil and water conservation districts in rural areas.

Use Technical Assistance for most BMPs


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications. 36. If your agency does not require contractors or BMP installers to obtain certification, how do you ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

No Yes Through on-site inspections

site inspections

Through local governments and complaints and inspections.

up to permittee and inspector if applicable

Oversite is provided by localized Soil Conservation Districts who review and certify erosion and sediment plans for any land disturbance 5000 sq ft or greater.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia

35. Please indicate which professionals are required to obtain certifications. 36. If your agency does not require contractors or BMP installers to obtain certification, how do you ensure that BMPs are installed and maintained correctly?

site inspections

Yes Each constru

Compliance monitoring of projects we permit directly, and local government program compliance oversight.

Follow-up with technical support when possible.

New Mexico does not have NPDES primacy. Several of the above questions are answered in the negative because EPA has authority to set those requirements. Our agency does have authority under Section 401 Meet TMDL NPS Pollutant specific Load Allocation

Through inspection by a local government ot state agency immediately after BMP installation. A maintenance plan is required before a permit is issued. Maintenance by agreement and by non-government bodies has been a problem.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No

Yes

Yes

Yes

NA No

37. Regarding NPS pollution, what compliance and enforcement options are available to your agency?

38. Has your agency delegated program responsibilities to other state agencies or sub-state jurisdictions (cities, counties, commissions)?

Fines or citations



Consent orders


ask for money back

Fines or citations



Consent orders

Fines or citations



Consent orders


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Fines or citations


Fines or citations

violation notice letters

consent decrees or judgments

consent orders

Withhold payment to grantee until all issues are resolved

Fines or citations



Consent orders

No NPS enforcement unless tied to a permit.

Fines or citations


Fines or citations



Consent orders

Stop work orders


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Fines or citations



Consent orders

Reference of non-compliance issues to EPA and USACEMust meet instream water quality standards

Fines or citations



Consent orders

Fines or citations



stop work orders


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


oversite Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

39. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how does your agency regulate these agencies?

40. Does your agency partner or network with other agencies to increase the overall effectiveness of your NPS program?

Coordination with local programs that enforce comparable regulations or implement limited aspects of the state regulations.

It depends upon the program. For onsite wastewater, the state provides oversight of county sanitarians who regulate septic systems by having authority to revoke or overturn county actions that do not meet state regulations. In stormwater permitting, local MS 4 municipalities are required to oversee construction site activities and compliance would be enforced by the state or EPA, upon request from the state.


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey



Through training, complaints, and inspections. Yes

Program approval required. Confirmed through periodic program audits. Yes

Yes

biyearly oversight/visits and plan reviews Yes

YesState Soil Conservation Committee made up of reps from NJDOT, NJ Dept of Ag, and NJDEP


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia



Yes

Yes

Yes

State statutes Yes

Yes

No

We have statutory authorities to require counties and municipalities to implement post-construction stormwater programs. Construction erosion and sedimentation control is delegated voluntarily.

Periodic reviews of locally run programs and issuance of corrective action agreements backed by the authority to issue fines.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

41. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please provide the names of the other organizations or agencies that you partner with.

1 2 3 4 5

All Federal All State

NRCS EPA

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Indiana Department of Agriculture

Iowa Dept of Agriculture

State Conservation Commission

Natural Resources Conservation Service

University Research and Extension Programs

Conservation Districts

Resource Conservation Districts


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


LDAF LDNR LDWF LDHH

USGS USDA NRCS

EPA NRCS

too many to list

Farm Bureau

Local Government Entities

Various other MDEQ divisions

Various MDNR divisions

University Extension

Local watershed groups

other state program

NJ Department of Agriculture

NJ Department of Transportation

League of Municipalities

NJ Builders Association


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


NRCS

Watershed Councils Districts, et. al. Public

EPA COE NRCS

Division of Soil and Water Conservation

Division of Forest Resources

Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section

Division of Environmental Health

Division of Waste Management

Soil Conservation Districts

Water Resource Districts

NDSU Extension Service

ND Department of Agriculture

United States Forest Service

USDI Bureau of Land Management

New Mexico Energy Minerals and Natural Resources Department

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Resource Conservation and Development Councils

All applicable local, state, federal agencies


Respondent

Response Option

Region 2Region 3

Region 8

Region 9

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


6 7 8

Nonprofit Organizations

Watershed Districts

Kansas Water Office


Respondent

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

MinnesotaMissouri

Nevada

New Jersey


Department of Health (state)

Epartment of Consrvation (state)

local governemtns

NJ Department of Community Affairs


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

Virginia


Ecosystem Enhancement Program

Office of Environmental Education

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Resource Conservation & Development Councils

Other local governments

Other non-profit organizations

Other state agencies

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesWet Weather Monitoring Survey

Wet Weather Monitoring Survey. September 23, 2009.Respondent


9/1/2009 bacteria - Fecal coliform, E. coli and Enterococcus

California 07/28/2009 Yes

Connecticut 07/30/2009 Yes

Florida 07/28/2009 Nutrients, BOD, Fecal coliforms, copper No

Georgia 07/24/2009 fecal coliform, TSS Yes

Idaho 09/10/2009 Yes

Completion Date

1. Please list the chemicals or other pollutants that your state has found to frequently exceed ambient surface water quality standards during wet weather conditions.

2. Does your state require regulated parties to monitor the impacts their wet weather discharges have on ambient surface waters?

Response Option

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)

TSS, Specific Conductance, TDS, Zn, Cu, Cr, Se, NO3-N, TKN, P, Bacteria (total and fecal coliform), Diazinon, and PAHs





Indiana 08/25/2009


Michigan 08/03/2009 No

E coli & probably some of the currently in use pesticides, most likely atrizine but it wouldn't be "frequent" basis, just "frequent" on an application season basis..

Ammonia Arsenic Atrazine Cadmium Chromium Copper E. coli Fecal coliform Lead Nickel Selenium Zinc Currently, Kansas' ambient surface water quality standards do not have specific numeric surface water quality standards addressing elevated concentrations of total nitrogen (as N), total phosphorus (as P), and total suspended solids, but none-the-less they are a concern during runoff episodes or during conditions of elevated stream flow.

E. coli Mercury and PCBs are elevated in wet weather samples, but also are frequently elevated in dry weather. TSS, TDS, and phosphorus have been found at high levels in wet weather, although no numeric WQS exist for these parameters.





Minnesota 08/10/2009

Nutrients, Turbidity/TSS, Chloride, pathogens

Yes


New Hampshire 07/22/2009 No

New Jersey 08/03/2009 No

New Mexico 07/24/2009 DO, E coli No

Missouri does not have wet weather water quality standards. Wet weather situations are investigated for the impact they have on non-wet weather conditions. E. coli washing in during wet weather, for example, can cause dry weather impacts.

E.coli, fecal coli, enterococci, chlorophyl a, pH, aluminum, zinc, turbidity, dissolved oxygenOur group does not record that information. However we find significant amount of TSS from our permitted sites that we are trying to control





North Carolina 08/03/2009 No

North Dakota 07/23/2009 Sediment and Fecal Coliform No

Ohio 07/24/2009 Yes

Utah 08/13/2009 No

Washington 08/17/2009 fecal coliform bacteria

Washington 08/06/2009 No

Turbidity, Flow Volume (evidenced by incised stream channels and subsequent impacts to biological integrity), Fecal Coliform.

bacteria, oxygen demanding substances - BOD, debris/floatables

We do note the weather conditions during ambient sampling, but I do not believe an analysis has been done to differentiate between wet and dry weather results.

Fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity, suspended solids, organochlorine pesticides, PNAs, PCBs, and various metals.





Wisconsin 07/27/2009 No

Wyoming 07/22/2009 No

As mentioned to UM graduate assistants, I am a stream biologist that deals very little with WQ standards. Answers to questions characterizing WI WQ Standards Programs may frankly, be inaccurate. pH, phosphorus, ammonia (for which Standards exist) do exceed "Standards" during wet-weather flows, nitrates, chlorides, suspended solids, etc. for which Standards do not exist often are found in high concentrations during wet weather flow.

sediment is one, but there is little research done on this topic


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



3. Please select any monitoring requirements your state imposes on regulated parties to assess the impacts their wet weather discharges have on ambient surface waters.

Permitted industrial facilities are required to monitor ambient water quality near their facilities.

Permitted municipalities are required to monitor ambient water quality near their stormwater outfalls.

not applicable. ORSANCO does not require any monitoring of permittees


some industrial sw dischargers that may be causing or contributing to a violation of WQS


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan


A few industrial facilities and municipalities are required to monitor the impacts of their wet weather discharges on the ambient surface water quality, but in general, many are not.


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico


Phase I cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) must perform

a variety of monitoring

Phase I cities must do monitoring to satisfy these: 1) Characterizing pollutant event mean concentrations;2) Estimating total annual pollutant load to bodies of water;3) Estimating total annual volume to bodies of water;4) Estimate effectiveness of stormwater system management devices and practices, and5) Calibrating stormwater models.

Most facilities monitor only their discharge. Abient monitoring is conducted outside of wet weather events.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington


Permitted industrial facilities are required to monitor ambient water quality near their facilities.



Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

4. Does your state monitor the impacts of wet weather discharges on ambient surface waters?

If there are only specific circumstances under which such monitoring occurs, please describe those circumstances below.

weekly monitoring for bacteria in the Ohio River May - Oct within major CSO communities


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan


Yes

Yes

Yes

ambient monitoring of E coli and seasonal monitoring of pesticides (when resources allow)

Under the umbrella of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program administered by the State of Kansas. In addition, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's ambient stream chemistry monitoring program conducts year-round, bimonthly surface water quality monitoring, regardless of prevailing weather conditions, from specific monitoring locations dispersed throughout the State of Kansas. Many sites are located immediately above or immediately below major urban settings. The monitoring schedule is developed in most cases four years in advance of bimonthly monitoring activities. On average, approximately seventeen to twenty-five percent of the samples are obtained during runoff episodes or during conditions of elevated stream flow.

Wet weather sampling is conducted according to site-specific needs. Examples include flow-stratified sampling of major Great Lakes tributaries, monitoring to support the development of TMDLs and some enforcement cases.


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico


Yes

No

No

No

Ambient river monitoring programs within or funded by the MPCA that specifically capture all, including wet weather, discharges include: the Major Watershed Load Monitoring Network (pollutant loads are calculated at the 8 digit and larger scale); Clean Water partnership Projects (8 digit HUC and smaller scale); and some TMDL projects (8 digit HUC and smaller scale). Also use satellite and plane-based remote sensing. Yes, we have an extensive monitoring effort underway with many partners.The MPCA has several in-house ambient monitoring programs like the biologically based Intensive Watershed Monitoring effort (IWM) and stream assessment focused Milestone Monitoring that do not specifically target but may periodically capture wet weather discharges. The IWM, while biologically focused also collects water quality samples on a temporal schedule. The MPCA also provides funds to local organizations and local units of government to assess surface waters through Surface Water Assessment Grants. Sampling is again temporally based but may again capture periodic wet weather discharges.

During development of a TMDL, or if there is a specific concern associated with stormwater that the state is attempting to gather data on.

Not specifical unless the day the ambient monitoring sampling is done during arian event. There are some special project that are tracking down an impaired area and they target rain events

A scheduled sample may be collected during wet weather conditions but this is an issue of luck rather than planning NM has conducted one study focused on water quality during storm events related to Los Alamos national lab - this is the only example of wet weather sampling we have conducted. No more sampling of this type is currently planned


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington


Yes

Yes Onlyon a case-by-case basis, like development of TMDLs

Yes

No

No

Yes

May occur in very specific circumstances, such as: -suspected or observed WQ standard violations from industrial or construction activity SW discharges, -scheduled ambient monitoring at NC stations may fall during a wet weather event -individual SW permit requires permittee to sample up- and downstream (but this is not routine; not even sure how many, if any, we have in our program right now) -some of the Phase I MS4 communities in NC have developed ambient monitoring programs that include wet weather monitoring (e.g., Charlotte) and/or sample during suspected WQ standard violations -Regional Offices may initiate effort to determine causes of impairments in regional waterbodies potentially affected by wet weather discharges

Biosurveys or water bodies - aquatic life. Bacteria monitoring as well.

Our monthly monitoring program does not target wet weather, but we sample during wet weather if it happens to be wet on our scheduled sampling day.

TMDL studies, commercial shellfish growing area evaluations, and citizen complaint response and fish kills


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming


Not as a regular task. It is primarily done when wet weather issues are suspected or when wet weather impacts show up in regular ambient monitoring.


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


5. Does your state monitor the following water quantity related impacts of wet weather discharges on ambient surface waters? Select all that apply.

Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat

My agency does not monitor the quantity related impacts of wet weather discharges on ambient waters.


Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



Channel morphology

Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico


Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington


In-stream habitat


Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming


Stream flashiness

Channel morphology

In-stream habitat


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Other. Please specify: Equipment


6. Has your state made any organizational changes to effectively monitor wet weather discharges or to effectively monitor the impacts those wet weather discharges have on ambient surface waters? Select all that apply and describe your choices.

Increased personnel

Other technology

Increased personnel

We do not collect specific data as described. However, as part of our monitoring program we monitor biological health which includes a detailed habitat assessment and we also monitor sediment characteristics


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



Equipment

Via Kansas Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Grant Funds - Assessment of stream channel stablility

Other technology


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



Nutrients and sediment EquipmentIncreased personnel

Other technology: Improved data management system, web based data access


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



To explain above: NC has a robust biological monitoring program that assesses the biological integrity of streams throughout the state; suspected stressors often include stormwater impacts. Also, agency may consider potential stormwater impacts on any parameters routinely monitored.

see previous response - as part of biosurvey all above are looked at as part of the biosurvey.

Some work has been done with instream habitat and channel morphology in forest areas under forest practice rules, but it is uncommon in other settings.

Increased personnel


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



Monitoring done only as needed.

While there is not a systematic process across the state to evaluate wet weather flow impacts on stream physical features, individual biologists trying to quantify factors degrading streams or that limit biological quality will measure the above physical features.


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Please describe your answer choice(s):


My state has not made any organizational changes to effectively monitor wet weather discharges or the impacts wet weather discharges have on ambient surface waters.


Has been part of our ambient monitoring program for over 20 years


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



When I refer to monitoring it is for the actual collection of environmental samples; we do have people who "monitor" in the EPA sense of writing permits, checking compliance, staffing enforcement actions, processing 319 grants to other organizations. etc


We have provided funding to USGS and other consultants over the years to monitor specific parameters during wet weather events (e.g. Cryptosporidium, nutrients, metals, PCBs, and E. coli)


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico


In 2007 the MPCA and state Department of Natural Resources initiated the Major Watershed Load Monitoring Network (MWLMN). Staff were hired to monitor water quality at locations along Minnesota’s major rivers and from the outlets of major tributaries draining to these rivers. State-of-the-art equipment and data management software were purchased to help ensure the success of this program. Real-time and archived discharge and water quality data will be made available to the public through a developing, cooperatively shared (with other state agencies), website.



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington





The state has increased the number of permit writers to handle Phase I and II stormwater permits. Some construction stormwater inspectors have also been hired.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming





Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Open-Ended Response Increasing Decreasing

5% Increasing

Unknown Decreasing

7. Approximately what percentage of your state's water quality monitoring budget is devoted to wet weather monitoring?

8. Your agency's total annual wet weather monitoring costs are:

Remaining the same

Cant break this out, part of ambient monitoring

Remaining the same


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



Approximately 25% Increasing

very little except for the serendipitous dollars spent during or after rainfall events

Remaining the same

I am not aware of a specific state budget devoted exclusively to wet weather monitoring other than what is afforded through routine ambient surface water monitoring and sporadic state and federal sponsored grants.

Remaining the same


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



Increasing

Unknown Decreasing

Roughly 15-20% of the MPCA’s condition/trend monitoring budget is spent on the grab sampling and load calculation components of the Major Watershed Load Monitoring network; the Department of Natural Resources also contributes a significant amount of staff time and operating expenses to establishing and maintaining the flow stations.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



N/A

?

Increasing

Remaining the same

Don't know - funds are not specifically earmarked.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



less than 5 percent Increasing

n/a Remaining the same


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



1 Yes

1 Yes

No

No

9. Approximately how many FTEs does your state devote to wet weather monitoring activities?

10. Are surrogate or indicator measurements used to simplify wet weather monitoring?

Not just to wet weather, for all ambient montoring


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



Yes

No

Yes

none are devoted to wet weather sampling type monitoring

I am not aware of any FTEs devoted to wet weather monitoring activities other than what is affored through routine ambient surface water quality monitoring acitivities.

Less than 5 FTEs. Much of the wet weather sampling is done via contractors rather than DEQ staff.


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



Yes

Less than 1 No

No

The MPCA devotes 7.5 FTEs to the load monitoring network, and numerous additional staff also support Clean Water Partnership and TMDL projects that also collect wet-weather monitoring data; the Department of Natural Resources also employs about 9 FTE to install and maintain (including data managment) the permanent gaging stations of the network.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



Yes

No

No

Yes

it's tolled up into our entire program and difficult to quantify.

Don't know - funds are not specifically earmarked.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



maybe 2 FTEs Yes

0


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Open-Ended Response Contractors In-house staff Other. Please specify:

Contractors In-house staff

total coliform, WET testing Contractors

In-house staff

11. Please list the types of surrogate or indicator measurements used to simplify wet weather monitoring.

12. Who collects wet weather samples? Select all that apply.

Fecal coliform, E. coli and Enterococcus

municipal employees (the permittees)

Much of our ambient monitoring is done by local governments and our regional water management districts


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



E coli In-house staff

In-house staff


MS4 Permit tee /Urban storm water programs

E. coli is a surrogate for pathogens TSS is a surrogate for sediment


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



In-house staff


In-house staff

Sediment for turbidity. Biology as an indicator of the overall or cumulative effects of frequency , duration, and magnitude of runoff events and other stressors.

Local organizations, universities, local units of government.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



N/A N/A


Aquatic Life attainment - fish and bugs.

In-house staff

Phase I storm water permitted facilities.

Turbidity for TSS. Rainfall rate (inches/day) for shellfish bed closures. Fish tissue burdens for PBDE, pesticides, etc.

Some grants are provided to conservation districts, counties, and municipalities to collect samples under an approved quality assurance plan.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



In-house staff

n/a

Stream channel morphological features (% eroded banks, base-flow versus bankfull measures, etc.) information is used to provide some understanding of event-flow impacts on stream physical habitat (primarily in urbanized watersheds)

U.S. Geological Survey staff


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



Yes

No

NA No

13. How is the timing of wet weather sample collection matched to the hydrograph?

14. Is there any monitoring of the effects wet weather discharges have on the concentrations of 'emerging contaminants'- pharmaceuticals, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), etc- in ambient surface waters?

daily flow estimates from Corps of Engineers and/or National Weather Service are used

generally, there is a composite of the first flush flows. (within the first 1/2 hour) Compositing a sample up to the next 8 hours.


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



luck of the draw No

No

No

Typically with ISCO sampler, capturing rising and falling limbs and close to peak.

USGS collects flow-stratified samples from major Great Lakes tributaries consistent with the hydrograph at its stream gages. Use of automated samplers also helps match samples with peak flows.


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



Yes

No

No

Programs focused on calculating pollutant loads (CWP, TMDL, MWLMN) are biased to storm sampling. Sixty to eighty percent of annual samples are targeted to periods of wet weather discharge. Sample collection frequency along storm hydrographs is proportional to flow; sampling is most intense during the periods of greatest flow.

This is a complex answer. It depends on what question we are trying to answer.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



N/A No

No

No

No

No

Yes

This is done by the Phase I facilities and was described in the MS4 questionairre that was filled out. It is matched to the hydrograph

Varies by study - we try to get rising, peak and falling periods if possible. Often that isn't possible, so composite samples are taken or a single grab sample is matched to its position on a hydrograph.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



No

n/a No

By use of flow-activated automated water sampling devices (primarily installed by USGS).


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



No

chloropyrifos and pyrethroids Yes

No

No

15. Please list the emerging contaminants being monitored in ambient surface waters during wet weather events.

16. Are wet weather pollutant loads monitored?


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



No

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



PAHs, PFCs

No

No

Yes, the Clean Water Partnership and Major Watershed Load Monitoring efforts compute pollutant loads on a seasonal and annual basis respectively. Some TMDL projects also compute pollutant loads.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



No

No

Yes

Yes

No

YesPBDEs, Acetaminophen, Caffeine, Carbamazepine, Cimetidine, Codeine, Cotinine, Diltiazem, Hydrocodone, Ketoprofen, Metformin, Nicotine, Paraxanthine, Salbutamol, Sulfamethoxazole, Trimethoprim, and Estrone


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



Yes


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



No

Yes

Yes

No

17. Please describe your approach to monitoring wet weather pollutant loads.

18. Are aquatic toxicity tests conducted on wet weather discharges?

a monitoring station will also collect flow data at the time of sampling. Thus allowing for the mass of the pollutants to be calculated from the concentration data. In the case of trash, the weight of trash collected is used to determine the load reduction.


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



No

No

Yes

Incorporating the statewide ambient stream chemistry monitoring program's water quality data with available United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow data and supplementing with any pertinent locally collected water data to derive instant loads.

Flow-stratified sampling; use of automated sampling equipment


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



No

No

a. River stage is accurately tracked b. Discharge measurements collected and ratings developed according to USGS protocolsc. Stage is converted to discharged. Approximately 35 samples/site are collected annually, sample collection is strongly biased to “wet weather” periods. e. “Flux” an interactive software program originally developed by Dr. Bill Walker and the USACE and recently ugraded by the USACE and the MPCA is used to calculate annual pollutant loads from annual discharge and water chemistry data.


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington



No

No

Part of CSO LTCP Characterization. No

No

No

Yes

The phase I facilities are required to calculate loading from each of their monitoring sites.

If enough samples are collected, multiple regression analysis is used. Otherwise simple averaging techniques are applied.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming



Yes

Studies done as needed. No

These tend to be site or issue-specific studies by USGS, Regional Planning Commissions, WWTP and WI DNR, e.g. CSO overflow issues, urban flooding and stream erosion problems, evaluation of increasing % impreviousness in watersheds, etc.


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



Yes

No

LC50 No

Yes


19. Please list the aquatic toxicity test methods that are being used.

20. Does your state do any continuous monitoring with sondes?

If there are specific circumstances under which aquatic toxicity tests are conducted, please describe them below:

generally it is tied into the term of the NPDES permit. Varies throughout state.

EPA 821-R-02-012 (Acute) and EPA 821-R-02-013 (Chronic)

Totally inappropriate for wet weather discharges


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan




No

Yes

As needed on a site-specific basis. Yes

Some were done late in the last century but none recently as far as I know

However, MS4 Permit tee /Urban storm water programs up for renewal in 2010 may have new requirements for aquatic toxicity testing on wet weather discharges.

Acute and chronic testing is conducted on C. dubia, D. magna, and/or fathead minnow.


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico




Not usually. Yes

No

No

One municipal separate storm sewer permit [MS4] had WET tests, because of toxicity in the receiving stream that seemed to be attributable to the storm water flowing from the city.

Acute Cerio daphnia dubia, acute Pimephales promelus


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington




No

Yes

Yes

Exception: We have large airport permits which require aquatic toxicity testing on discharges associated with de-icing activities, which may be considered a wet weather monitoring event. These permits might be in the NPDES SW program, but more commonly are part of the NPDES WW program.

Only used on effluent under permit requirements of POTWs.

Whole effluent toxicity on rainbow trout; Ceriodaphnia; fathead minnow; Selenastrum; topsmelt; herring; mysid shrimp, oyster, urchin, and mussel larvae.


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming




In limited projects: CSO evaluations, parking lot run-off studies, airport snowmelt (deicer run-off), etc.

While not a toxocologist, Cerio Daphnia, Fathead Minnow in lab tests, a few in-situ studies with caged fish.


Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Open-Ended Response

21. Please describe the extent of continuous monitoring sondes in your state.

22. Does your state use the following source identification methods to distinguish between different wet weather sources contributing to a single stream -e.g., upland erosion vs. stream bank erosion as sources of sediment? Please select all that apply.

Genetic fingerprinting of bacteria

Sediment fingerprinting

Multiple antibiotic resistance

primarily for dissolved oxygen-related issues

Used as needed to better characterize ambient conditions over time


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan



On a very limited basis and normally conducted by United States Geological Survey (USGS) under a state contract.

Sediment fingerprinting

Not done on a routine basis. Rather, sondes are deployed as needed to achieve monitoring study objectives.



Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico



The MPCA’s Intensive Watershed Monitoring effort deploys sondes for limited time periods when sampling watersheds, primarily for DO monitoring. Although regional variability exists, several Clean Water Partnerships collect continuous data from sondes. The Major Watershed Load Monitoring Network will be deploying continuous turbidity sensors at several watershed outlets throughout the state in 2010.



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington




We are just beginning a pilot program of continuous oxygen (LDO) monitoring at a few select stations. We've been monitoring continuous temperature at about 70 stations statewide since 2001.

Usually pH, DO, conductivity, temperature on 2-5 day deployments. Rhodamine probe used for dye detection for time-of-travel studies. Some long-term deployments of temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen are being evaluated.



Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming





Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option


Bacteriophages

Bacteriophages


Chemical methods

Fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratios

Geochemical tracing

My state does not use any source identification methods.

Chemical methods




Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan


Geochemical tracing

Chemical methods



Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington


Bacteriophages





Chemical methods


Respondent

Wisconsin

Wyoming





Respondent

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Response Option



one special study uses bacteriodales

22. Does your state use the following source identification methods to distinguish between different wet weather sources contributing to a single stream -e.g., upland erosion vs. stream bank

most source IDing would be dependant on the geographical region within the state.


Respondent

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan


Toxicity reduction evaluation studies.

our groundwater monitoring staff are working with us to measure ground/surface water interactions and to measure the age of groundwater


Respondent

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico


On a large scale the state has not adopted any of the source identification methods listed above for determining nonpoint pollutant sources and source contribution. However, the MPCA has funded small scale studies to determine the effectiveness and accuracy of genetic fingerprinting of bacteria, sediment fingerprinting, and geochemical tracing.

site specific studies use a variety of methods


Respondent

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Utah

Washington

Washington


We do none of these on a routine basis. Special projects have used some of these methods.

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesCSO Survey

Combined Sewer Overflows Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option No

Region 1 08/17/2009

Region 5 07/27/2009

Region 9 08/03/2009

California 08/04/2009 No

Connecticut 07/21/2009

Georgia 07/30/2009

Completion Date

1. Has your state identified CSOs, either recently or in the past?

Yes. They have all been eliminated.

Yes. More than half have been eliminated, but some remain.

Yes. Less than half have been eliminated.









Indiana 07/27/2009

Iowa 07/22/2009

Kentucky 08/18/2009


Maine 08/10/2009

Maryland 08/28/2009









Massachusetts 08/04/2009

Michigan 11/25/2009

Minnesota 07/31/2009

Missouri 07/31/2009

Montana 08/17/2009

Nevada 07/27/2009










New Hampshire 07/22/2009

New Jersey 07/28/2009

New York 07/27/2009

North Dakota 07/21/2009

Ohio 07/24/2009

Oregon 07/23/2009

Rhode Island 08/31/2009

Virginia 07/22/2009












Washington 08/21/2009

West Virginia 08/10/2009

Wyoming 07/27/2009 No




Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia

2. What methods does/did your agency use to control CSOs? Select all that apply.

Treatment Skimming

Treatment

Treatment Skimming

Treatment

Treatment

Full sewer separation

Additional treatment plant capacity








Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland


Treatment

Treatment












Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Treatment

Treatment

Treatment Skimming











Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


Treatment

Treatment Skimming

Treatment

Treatment

Treatment










Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Treatment

Treatment Skimming







Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia


Other. Please specify: Disinfection

Storage and pumpback.

storage and treatment disinfection

storage tanks

3. If your agency requires/required treatment as part of its CSO controls, please describe all treatment methods used. Indicate disinfectant dose/residual concentration and/or storage basin retention time, if applicable.

Very high chlorine doses, at least 15 minutes detention, dechlorination before discharge

some disinfected - see http://www.sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfwater.org/

Chlorine disinfection, Chlorine concentration must meet water quality standards after blending with secondary treatment process

yes, the biggest ones are using UV. for the rest, TRC


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

2. What methods does/did your agency use to control CSOs? Select all that apply. 3. If your agency requires/required treatment as part of its CSO controls, please describe all treatment methods used. Indicate disinfectant dose/residual concentration and/or storage basin retention time, if applicable.

Not applicable, none identified

Adequate to meet wqs, dechlor required if cl used.

This is a system that will be installed in 2009 so we don't have the particulars yet.

elimination of CSOs, even though full separation is not being pursued. This approach is embodied most frequently in our consent agreements with KY's 17 CSO communities.

Wet weather storage followed by treatment.

Doseage not set, but limits are. Coastal - fecal coliform 200 col/100 ml, Freshwater - E. coli Class B max. daily 236/100 ml & geo. mean of 64/100ml; Class C max. daily 236/100 ml & geo. mean of 126/100 ml.: TRC range from 0.1 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L depening on dilution. 1.0 for dilutions greater than 100.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Contact time = 15 minutes, peak flow, Residual concentration=0.02mg./l.

High rate screening, skimming and disinfection.

10 to 15 mg/l dose. Goal of 1 mg/l residual.

More than 98% of the sewers have been separated and only 8 potential discharge points remain from a total of 85 in 1984. No overflows have occured in more than 2 years.


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


CL or UV(if high level solids rem'l)

chlorination

Storage and "pump back"

as needed to meet 1000 E.col/100ml and as required by EPA to meet 9 min controls

Solids/Floatables Control on all CSO Points, with no bypassing of facilities, 20% CSO Points eliminated todate.

Swirl Concentrator Instream aeration Deep tunnel

is ased on the use of a specific waterbody

Storage - collection system and at POTW.

Reduce I/I - all strategies I don't know what "skimming" is.

Localities eliminated most CSOs in Virginia on their own. We have 3 CSO localities left. All are permitted and doing their LTCP. The agency doesn't control the CSOs per se, we just permit them.


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Use of green infrastructure projects to direct stormwater from entering collection system. Examples include: green roofs, rain gardens, vegetated swales, permeable pavement and rain barrels.

I don't have the details of the treatment methods, but a host of options are available.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Storage basin Other. Please specify.

yes Primary treatment


Varies widely; volume designed to capture enough to control a particular storm (typically 3-month storm).

Screening to capture flotables and gross solids - typically 1/4".

see: http://www.sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfwater.org/

storage basin to provide primary treatment


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland


30 min detention time

NA

Some plants have overflow storage capacity which will then feed back into the treatment plant when flows are lower.

the above-referenced controls are not required by regulation, but have been employed by some communities. A good deal of pilot testing is occurring with respect to various disinfection agents (e.g., paracetic acid)

No specific parameters, however must provide solids settling and floatables capture.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Screening and disinfection, pump-back to POTW for full treatment.Retention time for a one year storm = 60 minutes for two, 1.25 mgd storage tanks.

full treatment for 1year - hour event; 30 minutes of detention for 10 year-1 hour event

All inflow to WWTPs from CSOs had to be treated as sewage.


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


Nashua has underground storage

Solids/Floatables Control at all CSO Points

n/a

NH is a non-delegated NPDES state so treatment is as required by EPA with state input

off line storage systems as being used in the NYC abatement programs. NYC has completed CSO storage tanks in paergegut, flushing bay COS drainage areas. Currently being built is the Alley creek SCO storage tank

Swirl concentrators are also used in NYC and Onondaga County to remove floatables and to treat COS discharged.

site specific(usually target 4 or fewer events/typ yr)

Minimum treatnmment is 80% solids removal(ballasted floc)

usually primary clarifier or unused basin if not used for treament

primary clarification enhanced with ferric chloride or other


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Sedimentation followed by disinfection


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia


No

Yes

No

No

4. Are any green infrastructure practices or

techniques being utilized in any of

your agency's CSO tributary

areas?

5. Please describe any green infrastructure practices or techniques being utilized. You may also name specific projects that use green infrastructure and provide web links to supporting information.

see: http://www.sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfwater.org/


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland




areas?


No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Two CSO communities, Louisville and the Northern KY Counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton (Northern KY Sanitation Dist. #1) are employing significant GI strategies. Louisville MSD has the most extensive GI program. For further information, call Brian Bingham at Louisville MSD (502-540-6000)


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada




areas?


Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Recent construction includes power shaving for pumps, lighting, and the use of green materials for buildings, retro-fits, and glass. Heating, cooling evaluations include analysis for max efficiency. Plantings suggested require less water, maintenance. Parking areas designed with green in the mix.


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia




areas?


Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes See Cinci MSD web site

Yes

Yes LID construction design

No

City of Portsmouth will be doing some BMP retrofits over time for new construction/redevelopment and for some separation projects

Green infrastructure practices are being proposed in Metro WWTP drainage area in Syracues to reduce flow to CSO system.

permeable pavement, bioswales, enhanced runoff capture and infiltration, some green roofs


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming




areas?


Yes Green roofs

Yes

No

Use of green infrastructure projects to direct stormwater from entering collection system. Examples include: green roofs, rain gardens, vegetated swales, permeable pavement and rain barrels.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Yes No

No

Yes

No

Yes

6. Are any of the CSO control practices implemented in your state innovative?


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland


No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


No

Yes

No

No

No

No


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Yes

Yes

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Open-Ended Response Yes

Yes

see: http://www.sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfwater.org/ Yes

Yes

Yes

7. Please describe your state's innovative CSO control practices and name any specific projects. Where available, please provide web links to any supporting information.

8. Does your agency follow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) model for control of CSOs?

The nine Min. control technology are included in all the CSO permits as a requirement. City of Atlanta has a consent Decree from the State of Georgia and EPA requiring them to many different controls and treatments, this CD is on the city's web page of cleanwateratlanta.org.


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland



Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The innovative CSO control practices stem from an innovative approach to applying a stringent standard and time frame for all CSO areas to meet this requirement. Creation of a state CSO policy and Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project were integral in establishing the State of Michigan as a leader in CSO control. Click on weblink below for more information (especially the section of the 2007 Annual CSO/SSO report that highlights the history of CSO control in MI): http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3715---,00.html


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Portland CBWWTP Portland big pipes Astoria denver street retention project Yes

Yes

Yes

NYC installed instream aeration in Newtown Creek to bring DO up to water quality standard level. Rochester constructed a deep tunnel to capture all CSOs.


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming



Yes

Most are used nationwide. Yes

Using green roofs to reduce runoff volume in urban areas. This was a local/city initiative.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia



9. If your agency does not follow U.S. EPA's model, what are your state’s CSO control standards?


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland



No I don't know what 'EPA's Model" is. What are you referring to?

No

No Not Applicable, none identified.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada



No State CSO Policy. Presumptive approach adequate treatment defintion: Retention, for transportation and treatment at the wastewater treatment plant, of combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the one-year, one-hour storm, Primary treatment of combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the ten-year, one-hour storm(thirty minutes detention or the equivalent for settling, skimming, and disinfection), and Treatment of combined sewage flows generated during storms in excess of the ten-year, one-hour storm to the extent possible with facilities designed for lesser flows.

In the Twin Cities area, separate was being done as far back as the 60's. In 1984 the State Legislature enacted a program to separate remaining sewers in 10-years. This has been considered to the long term control plan for Minnesota. Separation of all sewers. CSO permits, first issued in the 70's, contain requirements that are similar to the the 9 minimum controls.


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming



No Wyoming has no CSO's.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants

10. Please identify funding sources available for CSO programs in your state. Select all that apply.

State Revolving Fund Loans

CSO bonds from permitting agency





Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland


Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants








Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants









Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants

Federal grants











Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Federal grants

Federal grants




Respondent

Response Option

Region 1

Region 5

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Georgia


wastewater service charges city bonds

10. Please identify funding sources available for CSO programs in your state. Select

CT funds these projects with the Clean Water Fund, which contains a small EPA grant and the remainder of the funds are from the State of CT. CSO projects receive a 50% grant and a 50% loan at 2% over 20 years.

State and Atlanta's bonds are two sources of Atlanta's CSOs


Respondent

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland


NA

Bay Restoration Fund

federal stimulus funds (low interest loans as well as grants) and a range of financing by the sewer utilities themselves.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Special state legislation.

Currently there is only the SRF program. In 1984 the State Legislature enacted a program to separate remaining sewers in 10-years and provided more than $100 million in grants over the program. The Federal grants program was still active then and more than $30 million in federal grants were used.


Respondent

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia


State Grants

All funding sources available for other ww infrastructure


Respondent

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming


Small City's Grants Loans

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesSSO Survey

Sanitary Sewer Overflows Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option Yes No Yes No

Arizona 08/14/2009 Yes No

Colorado 08/21/2009 Yes NoConnecticut 07/21/2009 Yes No

EPA HQ 08/05/2009 Yes Yes

Florida 07/24/2009 Yes No

Completion Date

1. Has your state identified SSOs?

2. Does your agency issue permits for SSOs?





Georgia 07/20/2009 Yes No

Indiana 08/04/2009 Yes No

Iowa 07/22/2009 Yes No

Kansas 07/21/2009 Yes No





Kentucky 08/20/2009 Yes No

Louisiana 07/28/2009 Yes No

Massachusetts 07/31/2009 Yes No

Michigan 11/25/2009 Yes No

Minnesota 08/03/2009 Yes No

Missouri 08/10/2009 Yes No

Montana 08/17/2009 Yes No

Nevada 07/27/2009 Yes No





New Jersey 07/28/2009 Yes No

New York 07/23/2009 Yes Yes

North Carolina 07/28/2009 Yes No

North Dakota 07/21/2009 Yes No

Ohio 07/24/2009 Yes No

Oklahoma 07/21/2009 Yes No

Oregon 07/28/2009 Yes Yes





Region 1 08/05/2009 Yes No


Region 5 07/24/2009 Yes NoRegion 6 07/23/2009 Yes NoRhode Island 08/31/2009 Yes No

Texas 08/13/2009 Yes No

Virginia 07/22/2009 No No

Washington 07/30/2009 Yes NoWisconsin 08/27/2009 Yes Yes





Wyoming 07/27/2009 No No


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

Sanitary Sewer Overflows Survey. August 31, 2009.


Yes

NoNo

No

No

3. If your agency issues permits for SSOs, what are the treatment requirements that must be met prior to discharge?

4. Does your agency exercise SSO enforcement discretion above a certain size storm or utilize some other set level?

I'm responding to this survey for U.S. EPA - in most States, an authorized State issues the permits. However, in States without authorization, EPA issues permits - my responses relate to EPA issued permits. EPA permits for POTWs are to prohibit SSO discharges to waters of the U.S.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas



Yes

Yes

No

No

All the federal Clean water Act and rules and regulations including Georgia's


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada



Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon



No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

NYSDEC has classified SSOs into the following 3 types: Type 1 - approved emergency bypass to protect POTW or pump station, listed in permit, refer to bypass rules for reporting. Type 2- Oveflow Retention Facilities - listed in permit with specific limits and mintoring Type 3- all other SSOs, illegal subject to enforcement.

We stopped issuing permits in the fall of 2007 because EPA objected to how we were permitting SSOs. We are working to develop a solution. Prior to 2008, there were no treatment requirements for SSOs, instead they were simply prohibited except in response to the 5 year winter storm event or the ten year summer storm event.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4

Region 5Region 6Rhode Island

Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin



No

No

NoYesYes

No

No

YesYesSSOs are prohibited except under extreme

circumstances. All WPDES specific permits contain reporting requirements for SSOs, as well as a general SSO permit issued to satellite collection systems.


Respondent

Wyoming



No


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

Open-Ended Response

5. Please indicate the size storm or other level which allows for enforcement discretion.

It is variable depending on the history of noncompliance, the volume of the SSO and the proximity to waters of the U.S.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Independent of storm size.

We do not pursue enforcement for SSOs based on any one individual storm event. We instead look at the history of each system reporting overflows on a year-to-year basis.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Floods

Our SSO enforcement discretion is exercized with respect to frequency duration, volume and number of overflows. There is no design storm which drives our enforcement activity.

25 year/24 hour storm event(3.9 inches of precipitation equivalent during a 24 hour period in an SCS Type II distribution) during the growth season(April1 thru Oct.31) and under normal soil moisture conditions, or on average frequency of one discharge per ten year period during the growth season of the year(April 1 thru Oct. 31).

The design capacity standard for systems is 25 year/one hour storm - so we sometimes use that in combination with a consideration whether the SSO was preventable, or not.

Any SSO that appreciably effects human health or the environment is a candidate for enforcement action.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon


Case by case

Greater than the 5 year winter storm event or 10 year summer storm event. However, as previously noted, we stopped issuing permits in 2007 because EPA objected.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin


nothing defnite

No set level. We make that determination on a case-by-case basis. In general, if a storm causes flooding we will use enforcement discretion.

All storms and SSOs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we have enforcement guidance/criteria or taking enforcement action for SSOs. We can also impose sewer moratorium for an overflow "resulting from a preciptitation event having a probable frequency of once in 5 years or less" ( Wisc. Adm. Code NR 110.05 (2) (c).


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

6. Please list your agency’s enforcement standards and enforcement requirements for SSOs.

Open-Ended Response

The agency does not have specific standards or enforcement requirements for SSOs, although it is not clear what those two terms mean.

SSO are not allowed. If an SSO is discovered and can't be quickly and easily eliminated, then an adminstrative order is issued to the Municipality.

See Guidelines for Characterizing Wastewater Violations in the Department's Enforcement Manual at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Enforcement/enforcement.htm.

EPA does not have written criteria for exercising enforcement discretion. However, the Agency has issued guidance on 'Setting priorities for SSOs' for EPA enforcement of SSOs in "Chapter 10 of the Enforcement Management System: Setting Priorities for Addressing SSOs". (see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/emscwa-jensen-rpt.pdf)


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


State of Georgia has spills (SSO) requirement which includes: immediate notification to the State verbally and written notification within 5 days; posting signs at the location of the spill and point of the entrance to the waterways which includes:volume, date, and a phone number; reporting to audio and video broadcasts; for a major spill (>10,000 gallon) monitoring for one year of DO, Fecal, pH, and temperature; for major spills: public notice in legal organ of the county, which includes, date, location, estimated volume, and corrective actions,; major spills: notifying downstream users within 20 miles; notifying the local Health department for the affected areas.

SSOs are prohibited by the applicable NPDES permits, and are considered unpermitted discharges. Once a threshhold is crossed for excessive number of SSO events in a calendar year, we pursue formal enforcement. The enforcement action requires a plan to eliminate SSOs.

We require cities and communities to address all SSO's. We have a fairly large list of cities across the state that have problems. We have issued some Administrative Orders with a schedule to require cities to move forward. Other cities have elected to address the SSO problems without using enforcement action. If we encounter a city that refuses to address the SSO's then we will take enforcement action including penalties.

We do not have specific enforcement standards or requirements for SSOs. The agency takes enforcement based upon the permittees SSO record, circumstances surrounding the SSO event and the permittee's response or lack thereof to SSO events in general and/or SSO events at particular locations.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada


Any SSO is a violation of discharging without a permit. They must take steps to eliminate the SSO's and in some cases pay a penalty

Permitting via Inflow & Infiltration reduction and elimination

The SSO must be stopped in a timely fashion. All sewage that is practical to capture must be captured and returned to the collection system. The area must be sanitized.

SSOs are illegal per se under the Clean Water Act. As such, any SSO constitutes an illegal discharge. Communities with a small number of less voluminous SSOs will be addressed with a less stringent enforcement response than communities with a large number of recurring wet weather SSOs.

Eliminate all SSOs that occur during storms less than the remedial design standard, or in some cases, an equivalent storm. Goal is for 1 or less overflow events per 10 years, on average. For any overflows that occur resulting from a storm that is believed to be in excess of remedial design standard, it is incumbent upon the collection system owner to demonstrate that the storm experienced was in excess of design storm - in which case enforcement discretion is considered.

All SSOs are unauthorized discharges unless all conditions in state and federal rule are met such as: Does not exceed limits; Is necessary for essential maintenance; The regulatory authority is notified at least 10 days before the date or as soon as possible under the circumstances. In terms of enforcement requirements, permittes are required to report, minimize, and recover, if possible. Reporting is all logged into an MPCA data base. SSOs that are preventable and repeated and/or significant in nature, are considered in the MPCA Enforcement Response Plan. This can include Schedules of Compliance in a NPDES permit, or formal enforcement actions requiring evaluation of the collection system and corrrective action plans to eliminate SSO problem areas. Most actions requiring elimination are negoiated settlement agreements between the MPCA and Regulated Party.

Statutory prohibition against discharing without a permit. Statutory prohibition against violation of permit condition. Statutory authority to issue notice of violation, administrative orders and penalties, and order corrective action. Statutory authority to initiate civil and criminal penalties.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon


All SSOs are prohibitted. Enforcable commitments are made to correct/eliminate SSOs.

We have developed a draft enforcement response and penalty guideline for all SPDES priority violations. Generally, with few exceptions, NYSDEC will take enforcement for SSOs.

Case by case evaluation of each community, Evaluate whether due to O&M or capacity related. Evaluate CMOM and SECAP

SSOs are prohibited except in response to a 5 year 24 hour winter storm event and a 10 year, 24 hour summer storm event.

There are 8 factors required by NC statute for us to consider when doing enforecment, Harm to REsources, duration/gravity, efft on water, cost of rectifying damage, moey saved by non compliance, willfull/intentional, prior record of violator and cost to State of enforcement. All SSO are violations but enforcment descretion is used depending on circumstances. No set storm or size of spill is set

SSOs are required to be reported to ODEQ. ODEQ has identified significant noncompliance (SNC) for SSOs as chronic when more than one SSO is reported from the same location in the same 12 month period. SNC facilities are reviewed periodically and issued formal enforcement actions requiring correction as necessary.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin


SSOs are not permitted.

A community that has a significant number of overflows and does not respond appropriately by immediatly addressing ongoing overflows and implemening a strategy to prevent future overflows could be subject to enforcemen.

Our policy is not to pursue enforcement when the SSO is "accidental." An accidental release is defined as a non-routinge release of pollutants that (1) was caused by a mechanical failure which is not the result of inadequate maintenance, human error, or caused by failure to comply with regulations; and (2) was not foreseeable and/or was a force majeure. The following criteria must also be met: (1) remediation of the site will not exceed three (3) months (if applicable); (2) the person took appropriate steps in response to the SSO (i.e. did a plan exist and was it followed); and (3) the person notified appropriate personnel and DEM in a timely manner of the release. Even if all the above requirements are met, DEM may pursue enforcement action if the SSO resulted in significant environmental harm such as causing closure of shellfishing areas.

The Enforcement Initiation Criteria is used to determine how violations are addressed. Category A violations require automatic initiation of formal enforcement action when documented during an investigation Category B violations require a Notice of Violation (NOV) at the first occurrence. Then, Category B violations require initiation of formal enforcement action if the violation is not corrected by an established NOV deadline or if the violation is documented at two consecutive investigations within the most recent 5-year period. Below are excerpts from that Criteria as they relate to unauthorized discharges. A4. Violation for which corrective action will take longer than six (6) months to complete, except for the following violations: • An unauthorized discharge from a wastewater collection system which is the result of infiltration/inflow and is not a Category A6 violation [B19.a(1)] A6. Unauthorized or noncompliant discharge, release, spill, or emission which results in a documented effect on human health or safety or a documented serious impact to the environment. [Fish kills that satisfy the “Notice, Response and Cause Demonstrations for Potable Water Discharges” (described below) are not included in this category. If appropriate, enforcement discretion should be applied if the demonstrations under “Notice, Response and Cause Demonstrations for Potable Water Discharges” are met] B14. Unauthorized discharge, release or emission where corrective action will take less than 6 months to complete and the violation is not a Category A6 or an unauthorized discharge from a wastewater collection system [see Category B19.a(2)] (TD or SS) B19.a(1) Unauthorized discharge from a wastewater collection system where corrective action will take longer than 6 months to complete and the violation is not a Category A6 violation (TD or SS; schedule longer than 6 months is allowed by the exclusion in Category A4) Examples: • Inflow/infiltration (I/I) • Undersized plant and/or collection lines B19.a(2) Unauthorized discharges from a wastewater collection system where corrective action will take less than 6 months to complete and the violation is not a Category A6 violation. See repeat B directions “1A)” regarding violations of non-specific requirements. (TD or SS) Examples: • Manhole overflows at multiple locations or at the same location caused by grease blockages • Lift station failures at multiple

Each SSO enforcement action may include different requirements ( studies, evaulations, I/I removal, upgrades, rehabs, etc.) depending on each community situation and what is needed, the ultimate goal being the reduction and elimination of SSOs and basement backups.


Respondent

Wyoming


SSO's are addressed as unpermitted discharges through the Wyoming Enforcement Management System (EMS). Wyoming has no known SSO systems. All violations identified to date have been operation and maintenance or construction based.


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

Yes No Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes

No

Yes NoYes No

Yes Yes Case-specific Yes

Yes No

7. Does your agency require elimination of SSOs?

8. Is the SSO elimination tied to a specific storm event?

9. If applicable, what is the magnitude of the storm event under which SSOs are prohibited?

10. Has your agency developed unique SSO requirements that only apply during storm events that exceed the previously specified magnitude?


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas





Yes No

Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes No

If a rain event is over 2 inches per hour then we would not classify this event as prohibited.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada





Yes No

No

Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Listed previously. 25 yr, 24 hour storm.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon





Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

No


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin





Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes No

SSOs are prohibited for all magnitude storms.


Respondent

Wyoming





Yes No


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

No Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response Yes

None

Notice and cleanup case-specific Yes


11. Please describe the unique requirements for SSOs that result from storm events that are larger than the specified magnitude.

12. Please describe the schedule for elimination of SSOs in your state or provide a web link that summarizes such information.

13. Has your agency established standards for identifying excessive inflow and infiltration?

One district has SSO's, and they are under order to eliminate them

SSOs are not allowed and must be eliminated ASAP.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas





It is on a case by case basis.

No

We have no such one size fits all schedule. Yes

this is case by case and usually is achieved through a consent order.

We just say they must be eliminated as soon as possible. We look at the fees and available financing for cities to determine what time frame to address SSO's is appropriate.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada





Yes

dependent on the cause of the sso Yes

No Yes

Yes

No N/A

There is not such a thing.

SSO elimination schedules are negotiated based on a number of factors, including frequency, duration, volume, human health and environmental impacts, etc.

generally 10 years is expected, with a max of 20 years for communities with funding shortages, schedulede for corrective action depends on the extent of problem and the ability of the community to quickly address them.

Case by case determination depending on factors, causes and settlements.

It is not a scheduled event, but rather to document what has been conducted. If a scheduled is to be established, then we will do so at the next renewal of the permit.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon





Yes

Yes

Schedule community dependant.

Yes

All schedules are case specific. Schedules are affected by affordability, complexity of infrastructure deficiencies, intermunicipal relationships, etc.

NYSDEC has developed a internal guideline for staff to review and approve SSO abatement plans. NYSDEC recognizes that for large severe SSO situations, that abatement measure need to be prioritized and will take longer to eliminate.

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/percs/Collection%20Systems/CollectionSystemsHome.html

As per consent order or other formal enforcement action schedule.

See Oregon Administrative Rule 340-041-0009(6). SSOs below design storm event are to be eliminated by January 1, 2010.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin





No

n/a

YesYes

Each community is addressed on a case-by-case basis. We have no overall schedule.

No such schedule but some individual communities have specific schedules to reduce I&I to eliminate wet weahter SSOs.

Individual WPDES permit compliance schedules


Respondent

Wyoming





No known SSO's in Wyoming.


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

No Open-Ended Response Grants

No Grants

No

No


14. Please describe your agency's standards for identifying excessive inflow and infiltration or provide a web link that summarizes such information.

15. Please identify funding sources available for SSO programs in your state. Select all that apply and describe your choice(s).

EPA uses the term excessive I/I when considering adjustments to percent removal requirements under the secondary treatment requirements. See 40 CFR 133. 103(d). This definition builds on the definition used in the Construction Grants program at 40 CFR 35.2005(b)(16).


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas




No Grants

No

No Grants

WE use the EPA definition for excessive inflow and infiltration. Grants


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada




Grants

No

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/sewersys.htm

Grants

No

No Grants

No Grants

See Kentucky's Administrative Regulations: 401 KAR 5:005, Sections 8 & 9

generally, 120 gallons per capita per day for dry weather (high groundwater) and 275 gallons per capita per day during any storm are standards for above which, cost-effective solution is to reduce I/I. This standard is adopted from EPA recommended standards for identifying excessive I/I.

MPCA staff review DMR data that shows trends (sping and fall spikes in flow data) in I and I problems at least annually, or prior to inspections, or looking at repeated SSOs at a facility. Facilities are denied additional flow extensions when the Average Annual influent flow exceeds the Average Wet Weather design flow of the facility. When they do exceed, enforceable schedules are established to reduce I and I.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon




No Grants

Grants

Grants

No Grants

No

SNC for SSOs as described above. Grants

No

We generally apply the standards developed by USEPA under 40 CFR 35

For grant purposes it is 3000 gallon per inch diameter per mile. If I &I is found to be the cause of SSOs it must be eliminated by permit requirement. Can Regional office study not on website.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin




No

Grants

No

No

No

EPA's I/I guidelinesUSEPA Criteria infiltration >120 gpcd inflow > 275 gpcd We also may view I/I as excessive if it results in SSOs, basement backups or WWTP problems/diversions


Respondent

Wyoming




No Grants


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

Loans Please describe your answer choice(s): Yes

Loans

Loans Yes

Loans The SRF may be a source of loans. Yes


16. Do any of your agency's wastewater treatment permits contain provisions for the blending of treated wastewater with the mixture of storm water and untreated sewage?

Other (general budget, etc.)

Some utilities may apply for loans or grants from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority.

When funds are available, the CT Clean Water Fund provides a 2% loan for 20 years to cover project costs.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas



Loans SRF. Yes

Loans Yes

Loans


State of Georgia's SSO Compliance and Enforcement Program is founded by the Federal 106 grant and State founds.


SRF, individual sewer fees, Community Development Block Grants, Rural Development Grants , State Grants

Grants from CDBG and Rural Development and loans from the Kansas State Revolving Fund are available for fixing SSO problems.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada



Loans Yes

SRF, CDBG, private Yes

Loans

Loans State SRF Loan Program. Yes

Loans

Unaware of such Yes

Loans

Loans

Infrastructure funding grants & loans special appropriation grants state infrastructure authority low interest loans conventional funding (e.g., bonding)


The Public Facilities Authority administers a loan and grant program for qualifying facilities. Facilties are ranked and placed on a Project Priority List (points are based on many factors one of which is SSOs). State Legislative authority provides funding to the State Revolving Fund each year and funding is provided to those facilities that qualify and meet state design standards for the project they are designing.

There is an SRF person that is in charge of this, so I have no direct knowledge of this process.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon



Loans

Loans Yes

Loans

Loans

Loans

Loans State Revolving Fund.

State grants have been made available. SSOs are amoung given highest priority ranking in determining elegibility for SRF funding.

Under the NYS SRF program, some ARRA gratn $$ were available, generally state assistance is limited to SRF loans

Aministered by Construction Grants and Loans Section of Division of Water Quality and sometimes by Clean Water managment Trust Fund

Funding sources are same as for other wastewater needs - OH Public Works, OWDA Loans, SRLF Loans and any federal STAG grants.

All funding agencies (USDA Rural Development, Clean Water SRF, HUD Community Development Block Grants, BIA Indian Health Service and etc.) Also local banks and sales taxes.


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin



Not applicable to EPA.

Loans

Loans

n/a

Loans Yes


Communities may eligible for SRF loans for SSO-related construction projects. Not sure about other types of funding sources.



WIDNR Clean Water Fund Communities may also seek loans for collection system projects from many other funding sources.


Respondent

Wyoming



Loans We have no SSO programs. Wastewater systems are designed to 50% capacity to allow for inflow, sump pumps or winter flows. Funding to increase system capacity or reduce inflow/infiltration is through SRF.


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

No Please describe your answer choice: Yes

No

Yes

No


17. Does blending operate with an interim authorization?

The permit for the Blue Plains facility (in Washington DC) allows blending of primary treated wastewater with secondary treated wastewater. Blue Plains is served by combined sewers.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas



No

Yes

No

Some permits allow CSO communities to recombine effluent only during wet weather and only under an approved Long Term Control Plan.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada



Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Several discharge permits allow the blending of secondary effluent with partially treated effluent during wet weather events.

However, the EPA has recently objected to the issuance of these operating permits.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon



No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin



No

No

No

No

No

NoYes

RI does not have any permits that establish limits for combined discharges of dry weather outfalls and wet weather outfalls. RI does have permits for WWTFs with combined sewer systems. However, these permits have separate outfalls and limits established for the dry weather outfall (i.e., secondary treatment limits) and the wet weather outfall (i.e., primary treatment in accordance with CSO policy). All other WWTFs are associated with separate collection systems and only include one permitted outfall for secondary treatment.

In some cases we do allow in-plant diversions during storm events, however, effluent discharged must meet WPDES permit limits.


Respondent

Wyoming



No


Respondent

Response Option

Arizona

ColoradoConnecticut

EPA HQ

Florida

No Yes No Open-Ended Response

No

No


18. If your agency views blending as a temporary solution, is there a plan and schedule to eliminate blending in the future?

19. Please describe the plan and/or schedule for eliminating blending in your state.


Respondent

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas




Yes See answer to prior question. This is only allowed as part of an approved LTCP.


Respondent

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada




Yes

No

Yes

No

variable, with each permit addressing that objective on a case-by-case basis

NPDES permit requirement to eliminate the practice. We have a very limited number of facilities with authorization to blend (less than 5).


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon




No

No Yes


Respondent

Region 1

Region 4


Texas

Virginia

WashingtonWisconsin




No No

We are currently working on "SSO Rules" that will address this issue.

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesIndustrial Stormwater WQBEL Requirements Survey

Industrial Stormwater WQBEL Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Yes No Yes No

Region 9 08/03/2009 No No

Connecticut 07/22/2009 Yes Yes


Indiana 07/30/2009 No No

Kansas 07/22/2009 No No

Louisiana 07/22/2009 No No


Completion Date

1. Has your agency developed parameter-specific water quality standards (WQS) that apply to wet weather discharges (i.e., parameter specific standards for dissolved oxygen, TSS, pH, metals, hydrocarbons, etc.)? Parameter-specific water quality standards may take the form of numeric pollutant concentrations.

2. Has your agency developed parameter-specific water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) that apply to wet weather discharges (i.e., parameter specific standards for dissolved oxygen, TSS, pH, metals, hydrocarbons, etc.)? WQBELs often take the form of maximum daily limits or monthly average limits.

Response Option





Minnesota 08/28/2009 No

Mississippi 07/31/2009 No No

Montana 07/29/2009 Yes No

Yes. WQS apply in all cases in the case of toxics DO etc. and are concentration based. We have not developed them specifically for wet weather. The question seems to imply that someone (we) may have developed WQS specific to wet weather discharges. I think this is a misunderstanding of an application of WQS (e.g. an effluent limitation versus the standard).





Nevada 07/22/2009 No No

North Carolina 07/28/2009 Yes No

North Dakota 07/23/2009 No No

Oregon 08/05/2009 No Yes

Texas 07/30/2009 Yes Yes

Vermont 08/14/2009 No NoVirginia 07/23/2009 No No

Washington 08/18/2009 Yes No





Wisconsin 07/22/2009 No No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No Other (please specify) Yes No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No


3. Has your agency developed benchmark monitoring values for storm water discharges? Benchmark monitoring values are developed for individual parameters and are often used to assess the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs).

4. Has your agency incorporated WQBELs into NPDES stormwater general permits?


My answers apply only to the NPDES Stormwater Program and do not address Water Management District or Environmental Resource Permitting requirements.

Rarely - to establish Storm water Quality measures or corrective action.

Industrial stormwater bmps applied are the ones developed in EPA's MSGP.


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana




Yes No

No

Yes

The Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater (MSGP ISW) discharges is currently on public notice, does not include WQBELs

The General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges includes benchmark monitoring values.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington




No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

YesYes

Yes


Respondent

Wisconsin




We recommend the USEPA benchmarks


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

TSS Turbidity pH

TSS pH


5. Please specify the pollutants for which stormwater WQBELs have been developed. Please only list the parameters that are specified under the stormwater general permit.


Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Oil and Grease


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



With regard to Industrial storm water general permits, see above response to question 2. The MSGP ISW does not include BMP WQBELs


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Ammonia

Ammonia

5. Please specify the pollutants for which stormwater WQBELs have been developed. Please only list the parameters that are specified under the stormwater

Total Phosphorus

Heavy Metals

Heavy Metals


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


Please list any additional parameters for which WQBELs have been developed.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


We have done this on a limited basis on Individual Permits for INdustrial sources. I do not konw all the parameters where we have developed WQBELs. For our general permits, we have a general WQBELs requirement to comply with water quality standards but have not developed WQBEL for specific pollutant parameters.


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Open-Ended Response TSS Turbidity pH

Tubidity pH

6. Please select one individual stormwater permit that is currently active in your state, and provide a brief description of the activity (e.g., a description of the construction activity). In the next question you will be asked to list the WQBELs that are specified under this permit.

7. Please specify the pollutants for which stormwater WQBELs have been developed. Please only list the parameters that are specified under the stormwater individual permit mentioned above.

OmniSource, Bay City (Now Expired) Scrap Salvage Yard


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



Individual permits that address stormwater may have been issued for some industries such as mining. However if they include WQBELs they take the form of BMPs.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



Chemical facility


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Oil and Grease Ammonia

Oil and Grease


Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Heavy Metals

Heavy Metals


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


Heavy Meta


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


Yes

PCBs Yes

7. Please specify the pollutants for which stormwater WQBELs have been developed. Please only list the parameters that are specified 8. Are stormwater WQBELs only developed under special circumstances? For example, are WQBELs only developed for stormwater discharges when a receiving water body is on the 303 (d) list?

9. If stormwater WQBELs are only developed under special circumstances, please describe the circumstances that may lead to the development of stormwater WQBELs.


Benchmarks for all industries. Effluent limits only apply to certain industries.

Known contaminants at a site or WQS violations


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



Not applicable No. The MSGP ISW does not include WQBELs.

A site specific individual permit may be required to address WQ standards but for storm water our FAV (Final Acute Value) is the appropriate level of pollutant loading for facility based storm water discharges (intermittent in nature and occurring at high flows in the receiving water). This is not used as a directly applicable technology based standard but is used as a benchmark. Comparison to the benchmark is not a violation but is used to determine if additional measures should be required . This would be done on an n individual permit basis if BMPs could not bring the discharge to levels meeting the FAV.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



zinc Yes When a parameter has consistently approached the TBEL, when there is a discharge into 303d list, or when, to the judgment of the permit writter, there is a pollutant of concern.


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No Other (please specify)

No

No

10. Has your agency developed both acute and chronic WQBELs for wet weather discharges?


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana


No We do not believe that chronic standard is appropriate to be applied to a wet weather discharge except in unusual circumstances, because the ISWD is intermittent (more than 72 hours average), diluted by runoff from other non regulated runoff, and significant runoff events will generally not be associated with a 7Q10 flow event (where our standards are applied).


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


No

Yes


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

12. What criteria does your agency use in developing WQBELs for storm water discharges?

Open-Ended Response

11. If you answered "no" to the previous question, meaning your agency only develops one WQBEL for each parameter, how do you ensure that both acute and chronic effects are addressed?

Acute toxicity criteria

Chronic toxicity criteria

Wildlife criteria



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

12. What criteria does your agency use in developing WQBELs for storm water discharges? 11. If you answered "no" to the previous question, meaning your agency only develops one WQBEL for each parameter, how do you ensure that both acute and chronic effects are addressed?

In the case of the general industrial stormwater permit TBELs were included for sectors that EPA had developed them for toxics. No WQBELs were developed for toxics. TSS was used as a surrogate parameter for reasonable potential analysis of discharges to Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Tier II waters) and the agency determined that no WQBEL was needed.(see also 9 and 10)


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington

12. What criteria does your agency use in developing WQBELs for storm water discharges? 11. If you answered "no" to the previous question, meaning your agency only develops one WQBEL for each parameter, how do you ensure that both acute and chronic effects are addressed?

On the limited instances where we have developed WQBEL in individual permits, we base them on the acute criteria.



Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


Taste and odor criteria Other (please specify)Human threshold criteria

Human cancer criteria

WQBELs are based on applicable water quality standards


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana


For the industrial storm water permit we have not developed WQBELs for storm water. We have compared the increase in potential pollutants as part of a reasonable potential analysis and estimated the effect on the water quality standards. See 2 and 9, 10 and 11. Control measures are checked with benchmark monitoring (e.g. toxics monitored at the FAV level). See 9,10, and 11


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families.

Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response 1 2

13. How are acute WQBELs expressed in general storm water permits? For example, are acute WQBELs expressed as daily maximum limitations? If applicable, what is the time period over which acute WQBELs are averaged?

14. How are chronic WQBELs expressed in general storm water permits? For example, are chronic WQBELs expressed as weekly average limitations? If applicable, what is the time period over which chronic WQBELs are averaged?


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families. 13. How are acute WQBELs expressed in general storm water permits? For example, are acute WQBELs expressed as daily maximum limitations? If applicable, what is the time period over which acute WQBELs are averaged?


Not applicable. See 9, 10, 11. All permits express limits as control measures which are implemented through BMPs, but we compare them to the benchmark FAV, not chronic values. All effluent limits are technology based effluent limits.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families. 13. How are acute WQBELs expressed in general storm water permits? For example, are acute WQBELs expressed as daily maximum limitations? If applicable, what is the time period over which acute WQBELs are averaged?


yes. Daily maximum Daily average- 30 days


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


3 4 5


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


6 7 Other Yes No

No

No

No

No

16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your state consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows?



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families. 16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your state consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows? YesWQBELS are

not developed for chronic SW discharges (see 14)

See 2 and 9,10 11. We use existing and proposed controls, variability of the pollutant in the effluent, and dilution of the receiving water, to evaluate the potential for exceedance


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families. 16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your state consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows?

No

Yes

No


Respondent

Wisconsin

15. Are chronic WQBELs only developed for certain pollutants? If so, please specify the pollutants/ pollutant families. 16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your state consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows?

No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

17. How are storm water discharge flows used in developing WQBELs?


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana


See 9,10 11. We use existing and proposed controls, variability of the pollutant in the effluent, and dilution of the receiving water to evaluate the potential for exceedance.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


By defining critical conditions and allowable initial zone of dilution


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Open-Ended Response Yes No Other (please specify)

No

N/A No

n/a No

Yes

18. If wet weather discharge flows are used in the application of water quality standards (WQS) or to calculate water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs), how are these flows determined?

19. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your agency consider the flow of the receiving water body? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on receiving water body flows?


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



NoWe have not developed a flow based WQBEL for general permits. We may have developed them for individual permits, but it is required to consider flow in the consideration of reasonable potential and/or for setting any WQBEL that comes from that consideration. See 2, and 10.

We have no record of developing a WQBEL for storm water discharges . If we did, we probably would use existing and proposed controls, variability of the pollutant in the effluent, and dilution of the receiving water to evaluate the potential for exceedance as we did for our assessment of reasonable potential . See 17

If we were to do such calculations they would be based on the 7Q10, but for storm water the 7Q10 does not appear to be appropriate calculation. We


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



No

Yes

No

They are determined under dry weather condutions, or whatever is the worst case secnario


Respondent

Wisconsin



No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

No

No

No

As specified in water quality standards No

20. How are receiving water body flows used in developing WQBELs?

21. Has your state incorporated flow-based WQBELs into both individual and general storm water permits?

Storm water General Permit - Yes

Storm water General Permit - No


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



NoWe do not develop WQBELs, but see See 17, 18, and 19.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



No

No

by determining worse case scenario dilution conditions No

No


Respondent

Wisconsin



No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Storm water Individual Permit - No Other (please specify) Yes No

No No

No No

No No

Yes No


22. Does your agency account for storm-induced increases in stream flows when developing water quality standards (WQS) and/or water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges?

Storm water Individual Permit - Yes

WQBELs in individual permits have been based on stream flow


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



No We have not developed a flow based WQBEL for general permits. We may have developed them for individual permits, but it is required to consider flow in the consideration of reasonable potential and/or for setting any WQBEL that comes from that consideration. See 2, 10, 17, 18 etc. We do account for flow in reasonable potential in all these cases.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



No No

Yes

Yes No

No No


Respondent

Wisconsin



No No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Other (please specify) Open-Ended Response Yes No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No


23. Please elaborate on how your agency accounts for storm-induced increases in stream flows when developing WQSs and/or WQBELs.

24. Are Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) based limits applied to storm water discharges?



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana




No

No

No

We have not developed a flow based WQBEL for general permits or for individual permits, but it is required to consider flow in the consideration of reasonable potential and/or for setting any WQBEL that comes from that consideration. (See 2, 10, 18 21 etc) We use existing and proposed controls, variability of the pollutant in the effluent, and dilution of the receiving water to evaluate the potential for

We have not developed a flow based WQBEL for general permits or for individual permits. It is essential to consider flow in the consideration of reasonable potential and/or for setting any WQBEL that comes under requirements for reasonable potential analysis. See 2, 10, 18. We use existing and proposed controls, variability of the pollutant in the effluent, and dilution of the receiving water to evaluate the reasonable potential for exceedance.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington




No

No

No

Yes

NoYes

No


Respondent

Wisconsin




No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Open-Ended Response

25. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please explain how WET-based limits are applied to storm water discharges.

26. Has your state incorporated whole effluent toxicity (WET) based limits into both general and individual storm water permits?




Storm water Individual Permit - No


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



No No


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



On a case by case basis No Yes

No No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No 1 2 3 4

No

No

No

No

No

No

26. Has your state incorporated whole effluent toxicity (WET) based limits into both general and individual storm

27. Are models used in developing storm water discharge limits?

28. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, which model(s) does your agency use to develop wet weather discharge limits?




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana




Yes

Permit

No

No

There is a potential for this if the benchmark FAVs are violated.

We use simple spreadsheet calculations with mass balance equations that some people call models. More detailed models may be used for individual permits that address storm water.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington




No

No

No

Yes

NoNo

No

TexTox for WQBEL


Respondent

Wisconsin




No


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

5 Other Yes Other (please specify)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

28. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, which model(s) does your agency use to develop wet weather

29. Does your agency regulate all point source wet weather discharges, regardless of whether the receiving water bodies are in compliance with water quality standards (WQSs) or not?

Wet weather discharges are only regulated when receiving water bodies are not in compliance with water quality standards (WQS)

Industrial activities are regulated if they are identified in 40CFR122.26 and have a surface water discharge.

If the discharge is subject to 40 CFR 122 and/or a significant contributor of pollutants.

These are regulated if the stormwater discharges are defined as "Industrial Stormwater".

individual facilities are regulated if they are in a regulated SIC code or if determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



Yes

Yes

Point sources are discrete discharges. We do not regulate all discrete discharges such as unregulated MS4s, agricultural ditches, and certain industries, commercial parking lots and a million other discharges that are not regulated unless they become a significant source of pollutants. TMDLs could bring these facilities into regulatory programs but this has not been done yet and is not expected soon.


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



Yes

Yes

noYes

Wet weather discharges are only regulated when receiving water bodies are not in compliance with water quality standards (WQS).

SSO prohibitions and requirements are outlined in POTW permits. Stormwater permit require BMPs and pollution prevention.

We only regulate the point source wet weather discharges that are addressed in EPAs Phase I and Phase II Stormwater Rules. Many point source discharges are not subject to NPDES.


Respondent

Wisconsin



We regulate industrial facilities based on SIC code and other factors


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No Other (please specify) Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

30. Are there any water bodies in your state that are listed for non-attainment of water quality standards due to wet weather discharges?

31. Besides 303 (d) impaired water bodies, are you aware of any documented cases in which water bodies have suffered adverse impacts due to storm water discharges?

Not for industrial stormwater discharges.

Regulated facilities may contribute to nonattainment


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Most likely agriculture is involved with several impairments but I am not aware of anywhere the wet weather discharge is the only listed cause (see next question)


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



No

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

YesYes

No Yes


Respondent

Wisconsin



We have many listed impaired waters due to both point and non-point discharges. I am not aware of any listed solely due to storm water diacharges for an industrial facility.


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

No Open-Ended Response Yes No

No Yes

No Yes

No No

Incident specific fish kills. No

No Yes

Yes


32. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can you provide examples?

33. Does your agency apply technology based limits to storm water discharges?




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana




Yes

No No

Yes

Wet weather flows cause habitat loss and siltation especially through bank erosion each year. Feedlots have overflows and failures each year. Probably many examples. See subsequent questions.

The General Industrial Stormwater Permit includes ELG effluent limits and BMP TBELs based on the EPA’s ISW MSGP.

Discharges of sediment and other pollutants from industries or mines to smaller and/or isolated surface waters which are not on the 303 (d) list


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington




No No

No

No Yes

No Yes

see construction NoNo Yes

no No

A significant fraction of construction sites impact receiving waters, whether 303(d) listed, or not.


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance?

Open-Ended Response 1 2 3

Control measures in industrial permit. DEP

Structural and nonstructural BMPs


SWPPP requirements are technology based limits

State NPDES permit authority

KS Dept. of Health and Environment if we did WQBELs.

As determined appropriate by the agency, "Industrial Stormwater" is regulated either by the MSGP or as outfalls with limitations in individual permits.

n/a - WQBELs are not applied.

Department of Environmental Quality, Water Bureau


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance? 34. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can you provide examples?

MPCAFor the MSGP ISW TBELs are included in the permit based on the Federal ELGs. In many cases TBELs are the control measures of the permit, as implemented through BMPs. Benchmarks are not TBELs but are used to check the effectiveness of the BMPs selected to implement control measures.

Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for certain facilities or activities as required


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington

35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance? 34. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can you provide examples?

BOD, OIl and grease, TSS, pH, etc. TCEQ

BMPs in SW GP VA DEQ

Department of Ecology

Division of Environmental Protection

coal pile runoff based on steam electric requirements

Dept of Health - Water Quality Div.


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option


Other

36. How does the above state agency enforce storm water WQBEL compliance?

Stormwater WQBELs have not been developed

Through voluntary compliance

Through policy implementation

Through standards-based regulation





Indiana Dept of Environmental Management (IDEM)



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance? 36. How does the above state agency enforce storm water WQBEL compliance?

X




Storm water WQBELs have not been developed


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


X



None - we don't have WQB effluent limits




Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No

Yes

Yes

n/a n/a

Yes

36. How does the above state agency enforce storm water WQBEL 37. Does the above state agency have statutory authority to derive and implement wet weather WQBELs?

Stormwater WQBELs have not been developed.



narrative permit requirement


We do not employ WQBELs.

Yes if we decide to implement WQBELs.

Through compliance with permit conditions for General


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana


Yes

Yes


See following questions.

However, the majority of the water quality standards are not designed to address stormwater discharges.




Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington


Yes

No

Yes

individual permits Yes

not sureYes

Yes

None - we don't have WQB effluent limits

We don't have WQB effluent limits

No stormwater WQBELs in place yet


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Yes No 1 2 3

Yes pesticides program

Yes TMDL

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

38. Besides the NPDES storm water permit program, are there other programs in your state that address storm water discharges?

39. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please provide the names of those programs.


nonpoint program

pollution prevention program

Coastal Management

Water Management Districts

Environmental Resource Permits

Various local and parish flood control agencies.


Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



Yes

No

Yes

Local ordinances and regulations and authorities, local watershed districts, MNDNR, MNBWSR

DNR, BWSR, state and local agencies that are too numerous to count for this survey.

Various federal/state/local permit or similar programs

Non-point source and similar efforts

TMDL assessment and related efforts


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington



No

Yes

No

No

Yes state programYes

No

State Stormwater Management Program, addressing waters in the 20 coastal counties and ORW and HQW waters.

Water Supply Watershed Protection program

401 wetlands certification program

VA DCR SW Management regulations


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

Other Yes No Cities Counties

No

No

No

No

No

No


40. Do you know of sub-state jurisdictions that have their own storm water permit programs and are issuing permits that contain storm water WQBELs?

41. Please indicate which types of sub-state jurisdictions have their own storm water permit programs and are issuing storm water WQBELs.




Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana




No Cities Counties

No

No

There is no other organization in the state that can determine WQBELs.


Public and private outreach and related efforts


Respondent

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Texas

VermontVirginia

Washington




No

No

No

No

NoNo

No

Div of Land Resources, Sed. and Erosion Control Program


Respondent

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Response Option

1 2 3 4 5 6 Other


42. Which cities (if any) have developed their own storm water permit programs and are issuing permits that contain storm water WQBELs?



Respondent

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana



These sub-state jurisdictions only have their own stormwater permit programs. They are not able to develop WQBELs.

See 40, 41. Many have addressed storm water through permits but none have authority to develop WQBELs

See 40, 41. Many have addressed storm water through permits but none have authority to develop WQBELs

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesMunicipal Stormwater WQBEL Requirements Survey

Municipal Stormwater WQBEL Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option Yes No Yes No Yes No Other (please specify) Yes No TSS Turbidity pH Ammonia Open-Ended Response TSS Turbidity pH Ammonia Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes No Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other Yes No Other (please specify)

Region 9 08/03/2009 No No No

California 07/29/2009 No No Yes

Connecticut 07/22/2009 No No No No

Florida 07/23/2009 No No No

Indiana 07/30/2009 No No No

Michigan 11/09/2009 No No No No Response

Minnesota 07/23/2009Mississippi 07/31/2009 No No No

Missouri 08/14/2009 Yes Yes Yes TSS pH TSS Turbidity pH Ammonia No No No

Montana 07/29/2009 Yes No Yes

North Dakota 07/23/2009 No No No No

Oregon 07/23/2009 No No No

Texas 07/30/2009 No No NoVermont 08/14/2009 No No NoWashington 08/13/2009

none Yes Known water quality problems No No

Completion Date

1. Has your agency develop ed parameter-specific water quali ty standards (WQS) that apply to wet weather discharges (i .e., parameter sp ecifi c standards for dissolved oxygen, TSS, p H, metals , hydrocarbons, etc.)? Parameter -specific w ater quali ty standard s may take th e form o f numeric

2. Has your agency develop ed parameter -specific water quali ty based efflu ent l imitatio ns (WQBELs) that app ly to wet weather d ischarges (i .e., parameter specifi c s tandards for dissolved oxygen, TSS, p H, metals , hydrocarb ons, etc.)? WQBELs often take the fo rm of maximum

3. Has yo ur agency developed benchmark monito ring valu es for storm water discharges? B enchmark mon itoring values are develo ped for individual parameters and are o ften used to assess the effectiveness of best management p ractices (B MPs).

4. Has your agency in corp orated WQBELs into NPDES s tormwater general p ermits?

5. Please specify the pollutants fo r wh ich sto rmw ater WQB ELs have been developed. Please only lis t the parameter s that are specified under the s tormwater general permit.

6. Please select o ne individ ual s tormwater p ermit that i s currently active in yo ur s tate, and provid e a brief description of the activity (e.g., a description of the construction activity). In the next question you wil l be asked to l ist the WQBELs that are specified under this permit.

7. Please specify the pol lutants for w hich s tormwater WQBELs have been develop ed. Please only li st th e parameters that are specified u nder th e sto rmw ater in dividu al per mit mentio ned abo ve.

8. Are s tormwater WQBELs on ly developed under special cir cumstances? For examp le, are WQBELs on ly develo ped for stormwater discharges when the receiving water body i s on the 303 (d ) lis t?

9. If stormwater WQBELs are only developed under special ci rcu mstances , please describe the circumstances that may lead to th e develop men t of stormw ater WQB ELs.

10. Has your agency developed both acute and ch ronic WQBELs fo r wet weather d ischarges?

11. If yo u answ ered "no" to th e previo us question, meanin g yo ur agency only develop s on e WQB EL for each parameter, how do you ensure that both acute an d ch ronic effects are add ressed ?

12. What cri ter ia do es your agency u se in develo ping WQBELs for storm water discharges?

13. How are acute WQBELs expressed in gen eral stor m water p er mits? Fo r example, are acute WQB ELs expr essed as d ai ly maximum limitations? If appl icab le, what is the time period o ver which acute WQBELs are averaged?

14. Ho w are chro nic WQB ELs exp ressed in general s torm water permits? For example, are chronic WQBELs expressed as weekly average l imitations? If ap plicable, w hat is the time perio d over which chron ic WQBELs are averaged ?

15. Ar e ch ronic WQBELs only develop ed for certain pol lutants? If so , p lease specify the pol lutants/ p ollu tant families.

16. When calculating and/or d evelopin g water qu al ity based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm w ater discharges , does yo ur state con side r stor m water d ischarge flows? In othe r wor ds, does your state deve lop WQBELs th at are based on storm water discharge flow s?

Other (p lease speci fy)

Other (please speci fy)


Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosp horus

Heavy Metals

Please li st any a ddition al para meters for which WQBELs h ave been developed.

Oil and Grea se

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphor us

Heavy Metals

Please lis t any additio nal parameters for which WQBELs have been develo ped .



Acute toxici ty cri teria

Chronic toxici ty cri ter ia

Wildli fe cri teria

Taste and odor cri teria

Human threshold cri teria



We adopted the EPA benchmark stand ar ds for analytical mon itoring required fo r faci lities regulated under the MSGP. We have no t adopted specifi c b enchmarks for MS4s.

Oil and Grease

we h ave a lot of general stormw ater permits and limits vary see http://ww w.d nr.mo.gov/env/wp p/permits/wpcpermits-s tormwater.h tm

City o f Springfield P hase I, MS4 representative monito ring at six p oints within the city

Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Heavy Metals

TDS, BOD, COD, Fecal col iform, Fecal streptococcus , Mercur y, Beryllium,

In the fi rst TM DL monitorin g project associated with MS4s, N&P l imits were set at a co mmon point shared by multiple cities .

mass balance equation to wla, then lo ng-term average and compare the more stringent b/w acute and ch ronic

Acute toxici ty cri teria

Chron ic toxici ty cri teria

Wildli fe cri teria

Taste and odor cri teria

Human thresho ld cri teria

we have protection of aqu atic li fe/human health /fish consumption


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Michigan

MinnesotaMississippi

Missouri

Montana

North Dakota

Oregon

TexasVermontWashington


Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response Yes No Other (please specify) Open-Ended Response Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 Other Yes Other (please specify) Yes No Other (please specify) Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes No Open-Ended Response 1 2 3 Other

No No Yes Yes No Yes MEP is a technology-based effluent limit

No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Control measures DEP

When the developing WQBELs No No Yes No No No Yes Yes otection

No No Yes Yes No No

No Municipal stormwater is regulated consistent with federal requirements Yes Structural and nonstructural BMPs

No No Yes Yes No No X

No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes Yes No

No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes

No No No Yes PLOAD SWMM Yes unknown No Yes

No No Yes No No Yes On a case by case basisNo No no No Yes see previous No xNo No Yes No No

No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No

same for all

17. Ho w are storm w ater discharge fl ows used in developing WQB ELs?

18. If w et weather discharge fl ows ar e used in the ap plication of w ater quali ty standards (WQS) or to calculate water qu al ity based efflu ent l imitation s (WQBELs), ho w ar e these flows determined?

19. When calculating and /or developing water quali ty based effluent l imitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your agency co nsid er the flow of the receiving water body? In other words , does yo ur s tate develop WQBELs that are based on receivin g water b ody flow s?

20. How are receiving water body flo ws u sed in developing WQB ELs?

21. Has your state inco rporated flow-based WQB ELs into both ind ividual and gen eral s torm water permits?

22. Do es your agency accou nt for storm-in duced in creases in stream flows when develop ing w ater quali ty standards (WQS) and /or water qu ality b ased effluen t limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges?

23. Please elaborate on h ow your agency accoun ts for storm-induced increases in stream flows when develop ing WQSs an d/or WQBELs.

24. Are Whole Effluent Toxici ty (WET) based limits ap plied to storm w ater disch arges?

25. If you answer ed "yes" to the previo us question, please explain how WET-based limits are ap plied to storm w ater disch ar ges .

26. Has your state incor porated w hole effluent to xicity (WET) based limits into both gen eral and ind ividual sto rm water p ermits?

27. Are mod els used in developing storm w ater disch ar ge limits?

28. If yo u answ ered "yes" to the previous qu estion , w hich mod el(s) does your agency use to d evelop w et weather discharge limits?

29. Do es your agency regulate all point source wet weather d ischarges, regar dless of whether the receiving water bo dies are in compliance with water quali ty standards (WQSs) or no t?

30. Are there any w ater bod ies in yo ur s tate that are lis ted for non-attainment of water qu al ity s tan dards due to wet weather d ischarges?

31. Besides 3 03 (d) imp aired w ater bodies, are you aw are of an y documen ted cases in which water bodies have suffer ed adverse impacts due to s torm water discharges?

32. If you answered "yes" to th e previo us q uestion, can you provid e examples?

33. Do es your agency app ly techn ology based l imits to s torm water d ischarges?

34. If you answer ed "yes" to the p revious question, can you pr ovide examples?


Storm water Gener al Permit - No


Sto rm water Individual Permit - No



Oth er (please speci fy)

Stor m water General Permit - Yes






Wet weather discharges are only regulated when receiving water bodies are not in compliance with water qua lity standards (WQS)



Stormwater WQB ELs have not b een developed


Through p olicy implementation

Through standard s-based regulation

Stormw ater WQBELs have not been developed

State NPDES Permit Au thority

Through policy implemen tation

sorry, but I d o not have time to cross reference the 303(d ) li st w ith al l our en forcement reports .

fo r constru ctio n and ind ustrial s torm water discharges.

Regio nal Water Quali ty Contr ol Board

State Water Reso urces Contro l B oard

Stormwater WQBELs have not been develop ed

Through vo luntary compl iance



Gen erally yes. (No t co mfor tab le witht the term "all ")

Water bo dies in our state are lis ted for non-attainme nt of w ater qual ity stan dards or design ated uses . A water b ody may be l is ted regard less of the wet weather d ischarges.

Sto rmw ater disch arges permitted under the Enviro nmental R esource Per mitting (ER P) Program are subject to technology based limits . For ad ditio nal information on the ERP Program and the Florida' s s tate stormwater rule visit: http://ww w.d ep.state.fl.us/Water/wetlands/erp /rules/stormwater/index.htm



In diana Department of Environ men tal Management





misso uri streams are either in non-attainment or attainme nt and has n o bearing on wet w eather dischargers at this time...

numerous enforcemen t cases of WQS violations

Sto rm Water P ollution Prevention Plan s, Best Management Practices , M S4 general permits require mimicking o f pre-construction con ditions fo r all new deve lopments one acre or more.

Missou ri Department of Natural Resources

Attorn ey General's Office

Through vo luntary compl iance



All s torm water discharges to receiving "s tate waters" fro m regulated Small Mun icipal Sep ar ate Sto rm Sewer Systems (M S4s) requir ed to get NPDES/MPDES permit auth orizations based on fed eral/s tate requirements.

Smaller surface w ater bodies within regulated Small MS4 b oundaries as well as w aterbodies in some unregulated MS4s

Storm water WQB ELs have not been develop ed


SSO's are subject to pro hibitions and requir emen ts un der per mits for POTWs.

Sto rmw ater managemen t program s ix minimum contro l measu res

Dept of Health - Water qual ity Div (wou ld be)

Techno logy-based Best M an agement Practices are to be imp lemented to redu ce the discharge of p ollu tants fro m the MS4 to the Maximu m Extent Practicable.

Department of Environ men tal Quali ty



Diso lved Oxygen Model

Department of Environ men tal Quall ity, Water Bur eau



Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

California

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Michigan

MinnesotaMississippi

Missouri

Montana

North Dakota

Oregon

TexasVermontWashington

36. How does the above state agency enforce storm water WQBEL compliance? 42. Which cities (if any) have developed their own storm water permit programs and are issuing permits that contain storm water WQBELs?

Other (please specify) Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 Other Yes No Cities Counties 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other

Yes Yes pesticides program No

Yes No

Yes Yes TMDL No

Yes No

No No

CitiesYes No No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes No

none implemented to date Yes Yes No

unknown No No

not sure state No

Yes Yes No

37. Do es the above state agen cy have statutory au thority to derive and imp lement w et weather WQBELs?

38. Besid es th e NPDES storm water permit program, are ther e other p rograms in your state that ad dress stor m water discharges?

39. If yo u answ ered "ye s" to the previous que stion , p lease provide the names o f those programs.

40. Do you know of sub-state jurisdictions that have their ow n storm w ater permit programs and are issuing permits that contain storm w ater WQB ELs?

41. Please indicate which types of sub-state jurisdictio ns have their own storm w ater permit programs an d are issuing storm water WQ BELs .






nonpo int source program

non-po int source program

401 certification program

Coastal Managemen t

Note: I 'm pro bably no t the best perso n to an swer this question.

Water Managment Districts - Evironmental Reso urce Management

Local cities, cou nties

No npoint Source Program

narrative conditions , inspections, self-monitorin g/reporting, n otice of violation, letter s of warnin g, settlement agreements , abatemen t order s, etc.

MoDNR Hazard ous Waste Program and Solid Waste Program.


we have 153 regulated MS4s of wh ich all are sup posed to b e implemen ting a program, an d many of them are issueing permits , but o nly a few have limits such as Metropol itan St. Louis Sewer District who oversees 61 en tities .

Various federal/ state/local permit or s imilar programs

Non-point source p rogram and s imilar efforts

TMDL assessment and related effor ts

Public and private outr each an d related efforts

non-po int source program

Soil Eros ion and Sedimentatio n Contr ol

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesConstruction Stormwater WQBEL Requirements Survey

Construction Stormwater WQBEL Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent

Response Option Yes No Yes

Region 9 08/03/2009 No

Connecticut 07/22/2009 No

Florida 07/24/2009 No

Georgia 07/22/2009Indiana 07/28/2009 No



Michigan 07/23/2009 No

07/23/2009 No

Completion Date




Minnesota - 833787450





07/22/2009 No


Montana 07/29/2009 Yes


North Carolina 08/05/2009 Yes


Oregon 08/05/2009 No






Texas 07/24/2009 No

Utah 08/18/2009 No

Vermont 08/14/2009 No



Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


No Yes No

No No

No No

No No

YesNo No

No No

No No

No No

No No





Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon




No No

No Yes

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington



No No

No No

No Yes

No Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Other (please specify) Yes No TSS





My responses to this survey apply only to the NPDES Stormwater Program and the Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Large and Small Construction Activity. Environmental Resource Permits and Water Management District Permits may have separate requirements.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





We have a narrative standard (Nuisance conditions prohibited Minn. Rule 7050.0210 subp. 2) that is often referenced in our construction stormwater enforcement cases.

we have a stream standard but no effluent limits for construction activities

Operators who discharge to impaired waterbody for turbidity or sediment may monitor stormwater discharge and meet a turbidty requirement of 50 NTU. THey ahve the option of conducting the monitoring or installing additoinal BMPs. We do not have many sites that discharges to these impaired waters and I do not believe that any of the sites have elected to conduct the monitoring.


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington




25 NTU turbidity action limit


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Turbidity pH Ammonia


Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Heavy Metals


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Open-Ended Response TSS Turbidity






Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


pH Ammonia


Oil and Grease

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Heavy Metals



Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Yes No Open-Ended Response Yes No

8. Are stormwater WQBELs only developed under special circumstances? For example, are WQBELs only developed for stormwater discharges when a receiving water body is on the 303 (d) list?





Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Open-Ended Response


11. If you answered "no" to the previous question, meaning your agency only develops one WQBEL for each parameter, how do you ensure that both acute and chronic effects are




Chronic toxicity criteria

Wildlife criteria

Taste and odor criteria

Human threshold criteria


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response


13. How are acute WQBELs expressed in general storm water permits? For example, are acute WQBELs expressed as daily maximum limitations? If applicable, what is the time period over which acute WQBELs





Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other



Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No

No

No

No n/a

16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your agency consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows?




Open-Ended Response

We don't have water quality based effluent limits.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon


16. When calculating and/or developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for storm water discharges, does your agency consider storm water discharge flows? In other words, does your state develop WQBELs that are based on storm water discharge flows?



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No No

No No

No No

No No








Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





No No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No No

No

No No

No No









Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





No No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No









Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





No

No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington




No

No

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Yes No 1 2 3

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No








Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





No

No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington




No

No

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


4 5 Other Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes





Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon




Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes




Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington



Yes

Yes



Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Other (please specify) Yes No Other (please specify) Yes

Yes

Yes

No Yes

Yes

No

Yes Yes

No See explanation in previous survey Yes




Construction activity must disturb greater than one acre of land and discharge to surface waters to be regulated.

Yes if parameters such as TSS are considered because of NPS runoff.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





No Yes

No

Yes Yes

No

Yes

No

No

The MPCA does not specifically list waters bodies for non attainment due to "wet weather dishcarges". However, There are TMDLs where wet weather discharges have been noted to be a large contributor to what ever impairment the water body was listed for.

this only applies if there is a TMDL being done

some listed for turbidity violations but unsure of question.


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington




Yes

No I don't think so, I am not sure.

no No Yes

No Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



No

No

Increased flows resulted in stream bank erosion.

No




Impairments that have been observed are typically related to discharges of excess sediment to wetlands and other resource areas that may alter the functionality of the resource.

Eutrophic lakes receiving nutrients; Excess sediment in stream that degrades habitat

See answer on previous survey - construction stormwater discharges - large plumes and delta's and filled in streams and wetlands documented by aerial photography.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon




No

No

No

No

The MPCA has taken numerous enforcement actions for construction stormwater discharges that have cased significant adverse impact to all types of waters. Most of the impacts are from sediment laden water and the documentation is in the form of aerial photos, site photos and some sampling. For more details please see the MPCA quaterly enforcement page at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/newscenter/enforcement.html

Occasional sediment discharges to various typically smaller perennial, intermittent, and/or ephemeral waterbodies, particularly during seasonal Springtime rains and snowmelt runoff.

There are many streams that have evidence of impairment from sediment deposition but the exact cause of the degradation has not be assessed. There are also many small streams that don't have monitoring to tell if there is degradation but there is evidence that excess sediment was in the system sometime during it's history.


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington



No

No

no

numerous streams affected by construction and non-construction runoff


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



Yes No Open-Ended Response 1

Yes SWPPP requirements are technology based.

Yes BMPs

No

No

No

No

Yes




NPDES permit authority


Specific BMPs required in the Minnesota NPDES construction stormwater requirements - Requirement for permanent treatment for all sites that create one or more acres of impervious surface. Permit specifies permanent treatment options and design critera for each option - wet detention ponds, infiltration systems, filtration systems, regional ponds and alternative methods.


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon


35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance? 33. Does your agency apply technology based limits to storm water discharges?


Yes BMPs in the construction stormwater permit

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes in the form of construction stormwater BMPs

2.5 ml/L/hr settleable solids for most streams, 0.5 ml/L/hr for more sensitive streams.

In certain sensitive streams, we require special BMPs but not effluent limits. this is done by both the Division

DEQ- we have a narrative WQBEL for discharges to meet instream water quality standards.


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington

35. What state agency enforces storm water WQBEL compliance? 33. Does your agency apply technology based limits to storm water discharges?


No

Yes

No

No

Where industry has storm water limits found in the "categoricals" we apply them.

Department of Ecology


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan



1 2 3 Other

DEP

WQBEL are not utilized.


Indiana Depat of Environmental Management

n/a; no WQBELs are developed.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon



Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources


In construction, no one applies any effluent limits. Only protection is from violating a stream standard.

North Dakota Department of Health


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington


TCEQ

X

x


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Other (please specify) Yes

Yes

Yes

See #35.

Yes

Yes


37. Does the above state agency have statutory authority to derive and implement wet weather WQBELs?






narrative permit requirement




Through standards-based regulation.

n/a; none are developed.

Through Voluntary Compliance

Through Policy Implementation


Don't have WQBEL's as part of the construction stormwater program at this time


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon




Yes

Yes

We don't have WQBEL for stormwater discharges so this question is not applicable.

Because there are no wet weather water quality standards, there are no wet weather WQBELs.



We don't have construction effluent limits.




Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington



YesThrough policy implementation





Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


No Other (please specify) Yes No 1

Yes

Yes TMDL

Yes

No No

Yes

n/a Yes

Yes

Yes





pesticides program

local Water Management Discharges

If utilized, the KS Dept. of Health and Environment does.

KS Dept of Ag - Div of Water Resources - flod plains

There are various local drainage districts in the state.

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

See previous survey answers


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon





Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes 401 certification

Minnesota Shoreland Rules

Because there are no wet weather water quality standards, there are no wet weather WQBELs

Numerous other federal/state/local permit or similar programs

not sure but believe they probably could


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington




No

No

Yes

No

State based, i.e. authority from state statute


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


2 3 Other Yes No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No



nonpoint programCoastal Management

Environmental Resource Permitting


Respondent

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon




No

No

No

No

No

No

UIC TMDL No

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - permit for working in public waters

Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act

Board of Water and Soil resources - 103E Ditch law

Non-point source program and related efforts

TMDL assessments and related efforts

Various public and private outreach efforts

When you say "stormwater discharges", are you still talking about construction-related? We have a sediment control program operated out of a sister agency of our department.


Respondent

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington



No

No

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


Cities Counties 1 2 3








Respondent

Response Option

Region 9

Connecticut

Florida

GeorgiaIndiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan


4 5 6 Other


Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesLand Application of Biosolids and Septage Survey

Land Application of Biosolids and Septage Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent Completion Date 1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste?

Response Option Biosolids - No

EPA Headquarters 07/23/2009 Yes No

Region 3 07/27/2009 Yes Yes


Region 6 07/23/2009 Yes Yes


Region 9 07/23/2009

Arizona 07/28/2009 No No

Connecticut 07/27/2009 No No

Florida 07/20/2009

Biosolids - Yes

Residential Septage - Yes

Residential Septage - No


Respondent Completion Date 1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste?

Georgia 07/20/2009 Yes No

Iowa 08/06/2009 Yes

Kansas 07/22/2009 Yes No

Louisiana 08/06/2009 Yes Yes

Maine 08/21/2009 Yes No

Massachusettes 07/28/2009 No No



Michigan 07/30/2009 Yes No

Minnesota 07/23/2009 No

Missouri 07/30/2009 Yes Yes

Montanta 07/31/2009 No No




New Jersey 07/27/2009 Yes Yes

New York 08/06/2009 No No

North Carolina 07/27/2009 Yes

North Dakota 07/22/2009Ohio 07/27/2009 Yes No

Oregon 07/29/2009 Yes No

Texas 07/30/2009 Yes Yes

Vermont 07/28/2009 Yes No



Virginia 07/29/2009 No No

Washington 07/24/2009 Yes No

Wisconsin 07/20/2009 Yes No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Land Application of Biosolids and Septage Survey. August 31, 2009.1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste?


Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in biosolids?

Monitoring of pathogens or operational parameters required

Testing is one of the approved pathogen reduction alternatives that may be used

We don't land apply sludge directly. One facility composts their sludge and has monitoring requirements. That's what I'll be referring to in this survey.

We require monitoring of the parameters for the allowed methods under Part 503 methods (i.e. time, temperature, pH, etc.). For those Part 503 methods that require monitoring of indicator organisms, such as fecal coliform, then that is required.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste? 2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in biosolids?

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

All Sewage Sludge (includes domestic septage, portable toilet waste, and grease waste from Food Establishments when the grease is mixed with sewage sludge).


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

Yes

Yes

Biosolids regulated by EPA Region 8 No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

require to demonstrate compliance with pathogen reduction criteria

We do not regulate land application of residential septage


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

Yes

Yes

Specific treatment processes are mandated, however.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

4. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids.

Other (please specify) Open-Ended Response Total Nitrogen - Yes

Yes

Only nitrogen is required Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in biosolids?

3. If operators are only required to monitor nutrients under special circumstances, then please describe the circumstances that may warrant nutrient monitoring.

For land applied sludge, must meet nitrogen needs of crops/vegetation.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

4. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids.2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in biosolids?


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

We require biosolids to be applied at agronomic rate which requires monitoring of nutrients in the biosolids and the soil of the application site. However, we do offer the option of a "default rate" method of allowing a maximum of 2.0 dry tons of biosolids per acre with no requirement to monitor nutrients in the biosolids. However, the soil must still be analyzed for nutrients annually.

To develop a Whole Nutrient Management Plan To develop the Agronomic Rate Sampling of the soil at the land application site or sites when a Whole Nutrient Management Plan is not developed. For Exceptional Quality Biosolids (label & permit application requirements).

Nutrient content is monitored in order to determine the land application rate


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

YesIn general, only if the biosolids will be beneficially used in an agricultural application. Not for pure disposal.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Total Potassium - Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Ammonia Nitrogen, as N - Yes

Total Phosphorus, as P - Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

4. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids. 5. How often are permittees required to monitor the nutrients in land-applied biosolids?

Other (please specify) Once per Year

organic nitrogen

See pGeneral Permit at www.epa.gov/region8/water/biosolids go to permits and documents


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


TKN, Nittate-Nitrite

Percent N, Percent Ammonia Nitrogen, Percent phosphorus, percent potassium, nitrate, percent nitrite, percent organic matter, and, in certain cases, pH

total volatile solids, calcium, magnesium, iron, chloride, total carbon, sodium


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Once per Year


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Plant Available Nitrogen (by calculation)

Once per Year

Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN) Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N)

water extractable phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Water Extractable Phosphorus has been introduced in many permits


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

5. How often are permittees required to monitor the nutrients in land-applied biosolids?


see permit

Bi-Monthly

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge applied to an application site.

Monitoring frequency is determined by the amoung of sewage sludge disposed of/used.

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of biosolids land applied in a given 365 day period.



Preparer of biosolids shall monitor for nutrients, the monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of biosolids prepared

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge generated by the facility if they are allowed to land apply (no monitoring for landfilled biosolids). Class AA biosolids have to be monitored monthly. Class AA is equivalent to Class A meeting table 3 limits in Part 503 and are distributed and marketed


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


quarterly


The nutrients in the soil at the land application site are to be monitored annually. The nutrients in the biosolids is monitored at the frequency dictated by the 503 sludge rules, from one to six times annually, depending on volume of biosolids generated.


The frequency of monitoring is dependent on the amount of sludge that is agronomically utilized.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Monitoring frequency for nutrients are based on one of two factors, whichever is greater. At a minimum, samples are collected at a frequency that either assures a representative sample will be collected (ie one good composite before each hauling period) or based on the amount of material a facility generates in a 365 day period (per Table 7 of the Mighican Part 24 Rules).


Representataive samples are required per federal and state rules, actual requirement is not per site but per dry tons applied per year


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


prior to each application event




The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge produced at the treatment plant per year.

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of biosolids generated by the source.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


determined by the amount of biosolids a source land applies per year (EPA 503 monitoring schedule)


Monitoring frequency is determined by sludge production


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Yes No Other (please specify)

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

6. Does your agency require permitees to monitor nutrients in land-applied residential septage?


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


No

No

No

Yes

No

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


No

No

Yes

No

Yes. This is done through soil sampling and testing. The septage waste law (Part 117) however, does not require the licensed septage waste business to sample for nutrients in the septage waste that they pump.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

No

NoNo

No

No

No


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

8. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied residential sludge.

Open-Ended Response Total Nitrogen - Yes

Yes

Yes

We do not land apply septage

Yes



Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

8. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied residential sludge.7. If operators are only required to monitor nutrients under special circumstances, then please describe the circumstances that may warrant nutrient monitoring.

No septage or soil nutrient monitoring is required for residential septage applications.

Please note that LDEQ does not separate domestic septage from "sewage sludge". Sewage Sludge includes domestic septage, portable toilet waste, and grease from Food Service Establishments when the grease is mixed with sewage sludge. Therefore, the same requirements previously indicated with sewage sludge applies to domestic septage.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


The licensed septage waste business that disposes septage waste on land is required, under Part 117, to perform a soil fertility test within 1 year before the date of the application for a site permit including the analysis of a representative soil sample of each location constituting the site as determined by the bray P1 (bray and kurtz P1), or Mehlich 3 test.

Pumpers are required to monitor Annual Application Rate. If found to have overapplied may be required to pull soil samples.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Only the soil/septage nutrients are monitored annually

once per year analysis for data gathering purposes

only for a large operation involving more than two vehicles from one hauler.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Total Potassium - Yes Other (please specify)

Yes

Yes Yes



This is only if the facility is big enough to be regulated by DEP. Smaller septage facilities regulated by DOH may not have to monitor nutrients.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Same response as in Number 4.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Part 117 requires the licensed septage waste business to test soil for phosphorus (P). See response to question 7 for details.

May be required to sample for the above items only if overapplication has occured or suspected.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Once per Year Other (please specify)

9. How often are permittees required to monitor the nutrients in land-applied residential sludge?



monitoring frequency in determined by the amount of biosolids prepared in the calendar year.

Same as biosolids if regulated by DEP, don't think they have to monitor if regulated by DOH. DEP regulates septage management facilities treating 10,000 gals per day annual average or more than 20,000 gals in any one day.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes




Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


When required by the Department

See the response to question 7. Since the septage waste business typically uses their land application sites annually they are sampling the soil for P on an annual basis as well. P is a great measure to see if the nutrient uptake is adequate. If P levels are on the rise it’s a good indicator that the septage waste business is overapplying and exceeding the AAR of the crop.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont




Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin




Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids.

Yes No Other (please specify) Arsenic - Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

10. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied biosolids?


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids.10. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied biosolids?

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

No

Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


PCBs - Yes Cadmium - Yes Copper - Yes Lead - Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Mercury - Yes Molybdenum - Yes Nickel - Yes Selenium - Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied biosolids. 12. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied biosolids?

Zinc - Yes Other (please specify) Once per year

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Chromium

Yes

TCLP once during permit life

Chromium, permitted WWTP are required to run a full TCLP annually


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Chromium; Target VOCs, Target SVOCs, Dioxin


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

Yes

Yes

Once per year

other pollutants of concern, as needed

PCBs only from old sludge lagoons and when decomissioning old wastewater ponds


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Yes and chromium

Yes Aluminum, Magnesium,

Yes

Yes

Yes Chromium Once per year

Yes chromium


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

Yes

Yes

PCBs at time of permit application

PCBs if from an older lagoon

beryllium, chromium, (priority pollutant scan once per term)


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

12. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied biosolids?

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge applied to the field.





Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes






Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada





Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont






Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin




Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Other (please specify) Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

freq determined by POTW production Yes

Yes

Yes

Bi-Monthly Yes

Yes

13.Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied biosolids? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.


same frequency as for nutrients, except for PCBs, only one time per permit term.

Monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of biosoldis prepared in a calendar year

Class AA monthly, all others based on amount of sludge generated by the facility (not amount applied)


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

12. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied biosolids? 13.Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied biosolids? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Dependent on the amount of sludge that is agronomically utilized. Yes

quarterly Yes

The monitoring frequency is determined by the volume of sludge generated by the wastewater treatment facility, per the 503 regulations. This varies from once annually to a maximum of six times annually.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

Yes

Yes

Monitoring frequency for metals are based on a couple of factors, whichever is greater. At a minimum, samples must be collected at a frequency that either assures a representative sample will be collected (ie one good composite before each hauling period) or based on the amount of material a facility generates in a 365 day period (per Table 7 of the Mighican Part 24 Rules). In the case of a facility exceeding Table 3 -Pollutant Concentrations of the Part 24 Rules, minimum sample frequency is double that which is required in Table 7.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

at a minimum, once prior to each application event Yes

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge produced at the treatment plant per year.

The monitoring frequercy is determined by the amount of biosolids generated by the source.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

Yes

determined by amount of sludge produced Yes



Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied biosolids.

No Other (please specify) Arsenic - Yes PCBs - Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

13.Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied biosolids? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied biosolids. 13.Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied biosolids? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

Yes

Yes

No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Cadmium - Yes Copper - Yes Lead - Yes Mercury - Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Molybdenum - Yes Nickel - Yes Selenium - Yes Zinc - Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Yes No

Yes

No

No

see permit No

No

Chromium Yes

No

Yes

15. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied residential septage?

Additional pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied biosolids. 15. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied residential septage?

No

No

No

Yes

Chromium No

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


No

No

No

No

No

Federal limits for PCB's would be enforced. The ceiling concentrations used are the fed. ones, not specific ones we developed


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

and chromium No

NoNo

No

Chromium No

chromium Yes

For PCBs and other organics we look at EPA Technical Support Document information for Guidance values.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

No

No

PCBs - VA regulations use the following language:"Sewage sludge with high PCB concentration. This part does not establish requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge with a concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) equal to or greater than 50 milligrams per kilogram of total solids (dry weight basis)." While a ceiling conc. is not established per se, VA would not permit land application of a material with a PCB content >50 mg/kg total solids.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied residential septage.

Other (please specify) Arsenic - Yes PCBs - Yes Cadmium - Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

15. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied residential septage?


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied residential septage.15. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied residential septage?

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Copper - Yes Lead - Yes Mercury - Yes Molybdenum - Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Nickel - Yes Selenium - Yes Zinc - Yes Other (please specify)

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Chromium

Yes Yes Yes Again, only for DEP regulated facilities, not DOH


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes

Yes Yes boron


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


See response to question 7.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes chromium


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Once per year Other (please specify) Yes

Yes

Yes

Same as biosolids Yes

17. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied residential sludge?

18. Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied residential septage? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sludge

Monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of sewage sludge disposed of/used.

Monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of biosoldis prepared in a claendar year


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



Yes

quarterly Yes



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



N.A. See the response to question 15.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes

Once per year



Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



Yesdetermined by the amount of biosolids a source land applies per year (EPA 503 monitoring schedule)


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

19. Please specify the pollutants and the corresponding ceiling concentrations that have been developed for land-applied residential septage.

No Other (please specify) Arsenic PCBs

75 mg/kg 50 mg/kg

No

No

No

No

75 mg/kg (dry weight)

No

same as biosolids



Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

19. Please specify the pollutants and the corresponding ceiling concentrations that have been developed for land-applied residential septage. 18. Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied residential septage? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.

No

No

No

No

10 mg/kg

Same as EPA 503 limits when ceiling concentrations are needed.

Less than 10 mg/kg of total solids (dry wt. basis)


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


No

No

No

No

Part 117 requires the septage waste business that land applies; Sec. 11710(a) “The septage waste disposed of shall be applied uniformly at agronomic rates.” This alludes to the Part 24 rules (biosolids) requirement for P; if the Bray P1 soil test level exceeds 300 pounds (P) per acre (150 ppm), or if the Mehlich 3 soil test exceeds 340 pounds (P) per acre (170 ppm) in site soils.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


75

No

NoNo

No

No

No


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


No

No

specific limits for septage are not outlined, but VA would permit based on same ceiling conc. for biosolids.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Cadmium Copper Lead Mercury

85 mg/kg 4,300 mg/kg 840 mg/kg 57 mg/kg

" " " "






Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


25 1000 1000 10






Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


85 4300 840 57


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Zinc

75 mg/kg 420 mg/kg 100 mg/kg 7,500 mg/kg

" " " "


420 mg/ kg (dry weight)




Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


10 & 25 2500 2500






Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


75 420 100 7500


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

20. Which of the following strategies does your agency utilize in order to control agronomic rates? Please indicate whether each strategy applies to land-applied biosolids and/or residential septage.

Biosolids Residential Septage Biosolids Residential Septage

Biosolids

Biosolids

Biosolids Residential Septage


Cumulative pollutant loading rates for nutrients - Biosolids

Cumulative pollutant loading rates for nutrients - Residential Septage

Ceiling limits for nutrients - Biosolids

Ceiling limits for nutrients - Residential Septage


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Biosolids Biosolids Residential Septage

Biosolids


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Residential Septage



Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Biosolids

Biosolids



Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin





Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida



Biosolids Biosolids



Soil nutrient monitoring - Biosolids

Soil nutrient monitoring - Residential Septage

Sludge nutrient monitoring - Biosolids

Sludge nutrient monitoring - Residential Septage


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Biosolids Biosolids

Biosolids

Biosolids Biosolids


Biosolids Residential Septage Biosolids

Biosolids Biosolids


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Residential Septage Biosolids


Biosolids


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Biosolids Biosolids

Biosolids Biosolids

Residential SeptageBiosolids Biosolids


Residential Septage Biosolids



Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin




Biosolids Biosolids


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida



Agronomic rates for crop grown cannot be exceeded

The amount applied cannot exceed the nitrogen agronomic need of the crop. For septage, an annual application rate is calculated based on nitrogen needs of the crop to be grown.

Agronomic application rates depending on crops. Small DOH facilities can be limited by gallons applied


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Annual Pollutant Loading Rates - Sludge

We do not allow land application of septage


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Disposal records are required twice a year from the pumpers. Calculate volume by waste type/crop grown/acreage


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Nutrient utilization rates are initially determined based upon fertilizer guides published by a state university. Actual rates are adjusted based upon soil monitoring.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Note that nitrogen is the only nutrient currently regulated. Proposed changes for phosphorus.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Open-Ended Response

see above

see permit

21. What methods does your agency use to determine agronomic rates(e.g., how does your agency calculate agronomic rates). If your agency has different requirements depending on the type of land-applied waste, please specify the requirements for each type of land-applied waste.

Calculation of plant available nitrogen per EPA guidance, comparison with target PAN for crop

ADEQ uses EPA's guidance document and worksheets to determine the agronomic rates

We allow the calculation methods for nitrogen in Ch. 7 of the 1995 EPA Process Design Manual: Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage. We also allow some basic increases to provide plant available nitrogen in lieu of the calculations in Ch. 7 (allowances are more conservative than Ch. 7). We also have geographic areas limited by phosphorus. The Florida Legislature has further limited three watershed to no-net-loadings of phosphorus.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Mineralization Method

Depend on crop yield and crop fertilizer needs. Based on N.

In most cases it is part of the farm plan that recieves the sludge

The agronomic loading rates are nitrogen-based and are determined from a calculation taking into account the amount of nutrients in the biosolids and the soil, and the type of crop being grown, in addition to the harvest production expectations.

Allow the permittee to either obtain calculations from the LSUAgCenter or utilize the calculations from EPA Guidance Document.

Crop N needs determined based on recommendations in "soil Testing Handbook for Professionals in Agriculture, Horticluture, Nutrient and Residual Management (3rd Edition, 1997)". Other crop needs determined by MEDEP based on recommendations from Maine Cooperative Extension's Maine Sol testing Service and Analytical Laboratory at the University of Maine in Orono.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


PAN based on crop uptake

Type of waste and crop

Michigan Part 24 Rules requires facilities to apply biosolids at an Agronomic Rate, which is defined in part as the calulated biosolids application rate which provides the amount of plant available nitrogen (PAN) needed by the plant to be grown. The specific method of how agronomic rates is calculated is not stipulated in the rules therefore, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality recommends that facilities use the multi-year plant available nitrogen method. Septage Waste: Part 117 requires the septage waste business to dispose of septage waste “…uniformly at agronomic rates”. AAR details are described in the Septage Waste Program’s Guidance Manual for the Land Application of Septage Waste. The formula used for AAR is that provided in the 40CFR Part 503 - Nitrogen Requirement of the Crop/0.0026. The resulting product is the amount of septage waste in gallons that can be applied to land in a given year to meet the nutrient requirements of a given crop.

Agronomic rates are based on the nitrogen needed by the crop. That is how it is defined.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Based on Nitrate Nitrogen in soil in relation to nutrients in biosolids

for biosolids: to meet nutrient needs for crops grown for septage: a hydraulic loading rate limit of 25,000 gal/acre/year.

For Biosolids, North Carolina utilize Plant Availalbe Nitrogen (PAN) loading limitation based on crop Realistic Yield Expectations (RYE) that have been developed for each county's soils classification. Please see http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/programs/nmp/yields/ for PAN and Phosphorus loading rates. Nitrogen is the primary parameter used for determining agronimic rates. Phosphorus, or other nutrient is used on a case by case basis when PAN does not appear to be the limiting factor.

Application is limited to the plant available nitrogen (PAN) needs of the crop(s) to be grown during the next crop/calendar year. The PAN in the biosolids is calculated, and this determines how many dry tons are needed to provide the PAN needed for the next crop. Also, phosphorous concentration in the soil is monitored using Bray-Kurtz or Mehlich III test methods. If phosphorous concentration is too high in the soil, application is prohibited.

Agronomic rates are based upon fertilzer guides published by a state university. The quantity of biosolids applied to an individual site is calculated based upon the fertilizer guide, the nutrient content of the biosolids (accounting for different forms of nitrogen and mineralization rates), previous organic nitrogen additions (including biosolids, manure, etc.), and residual soil nitrate concentrations. One of the state universities as well as a university in an adajent state have developed a biosolids application calculator.

Application rate for biosolids determined using internally developed model which accounts for both nitrogen and phosphorus loading. Based upon mineralization rate sutdy by UVM, RUSLE2, and VT P Index. Also accounts for all other nutrient sources, such as manure and chemical fertilizer based upon Agcy. of Ag manure management BMPs.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Nutrient management plans are mandatory for both types of waste, NMP must be developed by planner certified by VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, and plan must meet requirements specified in VA DCR regulations

Based on nitrogen for biosolids. Use of the standard equation in the federal biosolids rule for septage.

1. Biosolids/Septage: Crops are based upon Univ-Wisconsin Documents for crop uptakes tables and are provided also on soil test results. 2. Nutrients for septage are based upon the EPA formula lbs of nitrogen/acre divided by 0.0026 3. Biosolids: Mineralization rate of 25% - 1st yr, 12% - 2nd yr, 6% - 3rd yr for Nitrogen (TKN) 4. Biosolids application with >30% of agronomic rate requires nutrient management plan (ie account for other sources of nitrogen)


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Yes No Other (please specify) Biosolids

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

22. Has your agency developed regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in land-applied waste? For example, does your agency require permittees to analyze land-applied biosolids/residential sludge for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)?

23. Does your agency require monitoring of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the following types of land-applied waste? Please select the types of land-applied waste that must be tested for PPCPs.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



No

No

No

No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



No

No

No

NoNo

No

No

No


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



No

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Residential Sludge Other (please specify) Yes


24. Besides monitoring requirements, has your agency developed additional regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in land-applied waste?

Monitoring of pharmaceuticals is not required


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

No Biosolids Residential Sludge Biosolids


25. What are the additional regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the following types of land-applied waste?

26. Are there proposed requirements for controlling PPCPs in the following types of land-applied waste? If so, please provide details about the proposed requirements.


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes




no

No proposed requirements.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada




no


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont




no

no


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin




no

some discussion, but none at this time


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Residential Sludge Yes No Other (please specify)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes


27. Does your agency allow waste-to-land applications on fields that are tiled?


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



no No

No

No

No

No

No proposed requirements.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



Yes

Yes

no Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes

no Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

no Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



no Yes

Yes

none at this time Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Yes No Setback distance for Biosolids

No

No

No

No

No

No

same as for all biosolids sites

28. Has your agency developed setback requirements to minimize the contamination of tile discharges? For example, a setback requirement may prohibit the application of biosolids within 100 feet of an open tile line intake structure.

29. If applicable, please specify the setback distances that have been developed to help minimize contamination of tile discharges. If setback distances differ according to the type of land-applied waste, please indicate the requirements for each type of land-applied waste.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



Yes

Yes NA

No for Septage Waste

3 ft. separation distance to ground water and tile depth, for land with 0 to 6% slopes - surface application setback is 200 ft. and for injection is 100 ft., surface application and incorporation within 48 hours is 200 ft., on slopes 6 to 12%, one can only inject or surface apply and incorporate and separation distance is 200 ft. to surface water or tile inlets. Tile inlets are considered a direct conduit to surface water, winter application requires a 600 ft. setback and can only be applied on 0 to 2% slopes, see Mn. Rule Ch. 7041.1200


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes Developed case by case as part of NMP

Yes

No

No

No

No

100' to subsurface gw lowering systems from surface application by irrigation. All else 0' setback to subsurface drainage.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



Yes

No

No

A specific distance from these structures is not identified, but the regulations give the agency authority to specify additional buffers, and the buffer would likely be the same as from a spring, likely 100 ft.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Open-Ended Response

see permit


30. Has your agency implemented any additional BMP requirements to minimize the contamination of tile discharges due to land-applied waste?

Setback distance for Residential Sludge

ADEQ does not have any specific language in rtule to prohibit application of biosolids or septage on tiled fields and has not established any BMPs


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



no

NA no

No for septage waste. However, Sec. 11714 of Part 117 states; “A person shall not dispose of septage waste directly or indirectly in a lake, pond, stream, river, or other body of water. A septage waste business that land applies septage in such a manner so it enters into a field tile would result in the discharge of that material into waters of the state. If that happens, the septage waste business would be in violation of the part noted above and therefore subject to enforcement.

there are no "rules" for septage, Industrial residuals have the same setbacks


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Farm Conservation plans required

no

-horizontal and vertical separation distance -runoff control - site restriction

No new land application within State recognized critical water shed area (protection of potable water supply). Other setbacks to surface waters, ditches, etc.

Not in current rule, but in draft rule monitoring of field tiles will be required before, during, and after application to assure that biosolids are not leaving the application site.

Land application to tiled fields is assessed on a case-by-case basis. In general, land application may not occur on tiled fields during the wet weather season (which is very seasonal).


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



same as above yes - NMP requirements specify additional restrictions for certain soil types that are tile-drained

Tiled fields are identified as encountered. More issues with land applied industrial wastes (food byproducts, solids, sludges) than with biosolids (DM issues). Though important to incorporate relatively soon on tiled sites--specific site conditions that site approvers will add. Same with Karst geology.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

No No

No No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

31. Does your agency prohibit the application of biosolids/residential septage to fields that have slopes in excess of a certain limit? As an example, some states prohibit waste-to-land applications on fields that have slopes greater than 8%. If your agency has such a regulation, does the regulation apply to the following types of land-applied waste?

Land-applied biosolids - Yes

Land-applied biosolids - No

Land-applied residential septage - Yes

Land-applied residential septage - No


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes; 6% if applied to the surface of the soil and 12% if injected.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


No No

Yes No

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes

No No

Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Other (please specify) Yes No Other (please specify)

Yes

see permit No

Yes

Yes

31. Does your agency prohibit the application of biosolids/residential septage to fields that have slopes in excess of a certain limit? As an example, some states prohibit waste-to-land applications on fields that have slopes greater than 8%. If your agency has such a regulation, does the regulation apply to the following types of land-

32. Does your agency require permittees to maintain a record of the waste-to-land applications that occur over time? If so, do these historical records have any bearing on how waste-to-land applications are regulated?

Yes records are required for cummulative pollutant loading


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



Yes

No

Yes

No

Not certain of what you mean by "waste to land applications".

It all depends if potential problems should arise from the land application of the Biosolids (LDEQ does not allow for "untreated" waste to be land applied to the soil.)


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

industrial by-product residuals


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Farm Conservation Plans Required

>7% must incorporate or inject, >15% prohibited


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



for CPLR biosolids

YesOur management guidelines address this issue, but our regulation is silent.

yes, yes-phosphorus is suggested to limit biosolids application to 1 per every three/four years


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Biosolids - Yes Biosolids - No

No No

No No

Yes

No No

Yes Yes

No No

33. Does your agency require applicants to measure the background levels of heavy metals at proposed application sites prior to the first application of biosolids and/or residential sludge?

Residential Sludge - Yes

Residential Sludge - No


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes Yes

No

No No

No

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


No No

No No

No No

No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


No No

Yes No

Yes

No No

No No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


No No

Yes Yes

No No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Other (please specify) Biosolids - Yes Biosolids - No

No

No

see permit Yes

No

No

No


34. Does your agency require permittees to measure the background levels of nutrients at proposed application sites prior to the first application of biosolids and/or residential sludge?

soil samples may be required depending on the history of the site


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not unless there is a past history of Biosolids having been applied.

If the sludge contains levels over the screening concentrations we can require that the parameter of concern is monitored in soil.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



No

No

No

No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Initial soil monitoring is not required, but is recommended.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



Yes

Yes

Yes

only if some site-specific condition exists - case-by-case


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


No

No

see permit

No

No

No





Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes

No

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes

No

No

The Septage Waste Program requires a soil test to check P levels. If they exceed 300 lbs (for the Bray P1) or 340 lbs (Mehlich 3) per acre the Septage Waste program may not issue a land application permit for that site.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

There is no requirement to measure background nutrient levels prior to the first application. However, nutrient monitoring is *strongly* encouraged at all sites and many sites are measured prior to the first application. At some sites, the agency may require initial soil nutrient monitoring. This is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Decisions to require initial soil monitoring are determined based upon geographic region of the state, site history, as well as site agricultural practices.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes

Yes

No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


No No

No No

No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

No No

35. Has your agency developed cumulative pollutant loading rates for nutrients? If so, do these cumulative pollutant loading rates apply to application sites that are fertilized with the following types of land-applied waste?




Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


No No

No No

No No

No No

Yes


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


No

Yes

No No

Yes for P (see answer in question 34).


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


No No

Yes No

No

No No

No No

No No

No No


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes

No No

No No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida



36. Please select the nutrients for which cumulative pollutant loading rates have been developed. If applicable, please specify whether each cumulative pollutant loading rate applies to land-applied biosolids and/or residential septage.

Total Nitrogen - Land-applied Biosolids

Total Nitrogen - Land-applied Residential Septage

The applicator cannot exceed the agronomic rates for the crop to be grown

Land-applied Biosolids

Land-applied Residential Septage


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



Nutrients cannot be applied over the crop uptake rate of any nutrient based on soil testing data performed prior to land application for both sludge and septage.



Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



per federal regulations, metals only


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont





Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Ammonia Nitrogen, as N - Land-applied Biosolids

Ammonia Nitrogen, as N - Land-applied Residential Septage

Total Phosphorus, as P - Land-applied Biosolids

Total Phosphorus, as P - Land-applied Residential Septage




Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes




Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Residential Septage


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin





Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Plant available nitrogen

36. Please select the nutrients for which cumulative pollutant loading rates have been developed. If applicable, please specify whether each cumulative pollutant loading rate applies to land-applied biosolids and/or

Total Potassium - Land-applied Biosolids

Total Potassium - Land-applied Residential Septage

The applicator cannot exceed the agronomic rates for the crop to be grown


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Nutrients cannot be applied over the crop uptake rate of any nutrient based on soil testing data performed prior to land application for both sludge and septage.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


At 200 ppm, Bray 1, in soil, the most stringent erosion control plan derived by NRCS would have to be in place if necessary per NRCS


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


none


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes

37. Has your agency developed cumulative pollutant loading rates for heavy metals? Do these cumulative pollutant loading rates apply to application sites that are fertilized with the following types of land-applied waste?




Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes No

Yes

No No

Yes Yes

Yes No

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes No

Yes

Yes No


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes

Yes

No No

Yes No

Yes Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


See permit see permit

37. Has your agency developed cumulative pollutant loading rates for heavy metals? Do these cumulative pollutant loading rates apply to application sites that are fertilized with the following types of land-applied

38. Assuming your agency requires permittees to maintain a historical record of waste-to-land applications, how is this information used to regulate future land applications? Please highlight any additional strategies your agency may use besides the strategies just mentioned (i.e., cumulative pollutant loading rate requirements).

if a site is going to be used as a cumulative load site, the permittee must determin if biosolids have been previously applied to the site. the info/records have to be kept forever.

Cumulative pollutant loading rates only required when biosolids exceed 40 CFR 503.13 Table 3. Only about 5% of biosolids generated exceed Table 3, so historical records not required in most cases (except for 3 year maintenance of records for Class B to ensure harvesting restrictions met.

biosolids and septage cannot be applied if the cummulative pollutant loading rate will be exceeded. ADEQ also has an annual pollutant loading rate that cannot be exceeded

Just cumulative application rates, except in areas restricted by phosphorus and then the soil test P may affect allowed fertilizer application rates


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes



Life of the site is determined by CPLR

Residual mineralization rates for N

We keep records of waste-to-land applications, but we have not used these data for regulating future land applications.

We have no requirements other than what is required under the 503 sludge regulations.

Same rates as required by EPA.

All of the untreated sewage sludge in Louisiana that is proposed to be treated into a Biosolids for land application purposes meets the EPA Table 3 requirements; therefore, Cumulative pollutant loading rates are not generally needed.


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada



Licensed septage waste businesses are required under Part 117 to maintain land application records (volume, pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction methods) and to submit them to the Program on an annual basis. These data are used by the Program to determine whether or not a septage waste business is land applying at AAR.

federal cumulatives only

the only requirement used to regulate are the cumulative metal loading rates


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont



Cumulative applications only required if above high quality

to determine the site life for each field.

All future regulation is dependent on metal loadings applied to fields and phosphorous levels in the soil at a site.

Our state follows the federal 503 regulations regarding heavy metal pollutant loading rates.

Previous biosolids applications are used to adjust biosolids application rates. This adjustments are based upon research at a state university and account for organic-N mineralization for 2-5 years following initial application.

Annual and quarterly reporting. Reviewed by field investigators and enforcement staff for red flags. Also reviewed upon renewal.

cumulative loading on sites is calculated annually. site use prohibited if any cumulative limit is reached.


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin



Records on >Table 3 biosolids applied to a site must be maintained inperpituity. Tracking is required, and when the CPLR is reached, no additional applications are allowed.


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

40. Please specify which professionals are required to obtain certification.

Yes No Land Applicators - Yes Land Applicators - No

No

No

No

No

No

No

39. Does your agency require sample collectors and/or land applicators to obtain certification?


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes

40. Please specify which professionals are required to obtain certification.39. Does your agency require sample collectors and/or land applicators to obtain certification?

No

No

No

Yes Yes

No

No


Respondent

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montanta

Nevada


Yes Yes

No

No for the Septage Waste Program.


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


No

No

Yes Yes

No

No

Yes Yes

No


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


Yes Yes

No

No


Respondent

Response Option

EPA Headquarters

Region 3

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Region 9

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida


Other (please specify)Soil/Waste Sample Collectors - Yes

Soil/Waste Sample Collectors - No


Respondent

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusettes


Yes


Respondent

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North DakotaOhio

Oregon

Texas

Vermont


Yes


Respondent

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin


No persons writing nutrient management plans

Wet Weather Benchmarking Report Appendix C: Survey Questions and ResponsesLand Application of Manure Survey

Land Application of Manure Survey. August 31, 2009.Respondent 1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste?

Response Option

Region 6 07/30/2009 No

Region 7 07/23/2009 No No

Region 10 08/31/2009 No No

Connecticut 08/04/2009 No No


Georgia 08/07/2009 No No

Indiana 07/20/2009 No No

Iowa 07/22/2009 No No

Kansas 07/27/2009 No No

Completion Date

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) - Yes

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) - No

Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) - Yes

Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) - No


Respondent 1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste? Completion Date

Massachusetts 08/07/2009 No No

Michigan 08/05/2009 No No

Minnesota 07/24/2009 No No

Missouri 08/17/2009 No No

Nebraska 07/24/2009 No No

New Hampshire 07/24/2009 No No

New Jersey 07/20/2009 No No

North Carolina 07/20/2009 No No

North Dakota 07/27/2009 No No

Ohio 08/07/2009 No No

Oregon 08/06/2009 No No


Respondent 1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste? Completion Date

Texas 07/29/2009 No No

Washington 08/20/2009 No No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste?


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in CAFO waste?

Except when unauthorized discharge to a water of the U.S. occurs. The permittee is then required to sample the discharge and analyze for pathogens, among other things.

AFOs are currently addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, FDEP is developing permitting rules for AFOs that discharge to ground water.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste? 2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in CAFO waste?

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Only at permitted CAFOs, not at AFOs


Respondent

Texas

Washington

1. Does your agency require monitoring of pathogens in the following types of land-applied waste? 2. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in CAFO waste?

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Open-Ended Response

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes


4. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste.





Federal law - sample manure, litter, or wastewater at least once annually

not presently, but when CAFO general permit is issued it will required

Must be monitored in the event of a discharge to surface water. Routine ground water monitoring required at land application areas.

If over 1,000 animal units or if land applying agricultural waste in a sensitive groundwater area.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

none

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

It's required annually at permitted CAFOs.

Operators are required to monitor nutrient in the waste on annually for the purpose of determining application rates. They may also be required to monitor nutrient in runoff or the receiving stream if there is a release.


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas



5. How often are permittees required to monitor the nutrients in land-applied CAFO waste?

Once per Year

The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of manure applied to an application site.

Ammonia Nitrogen analysis is also required where unauthorized discharge has occurred.

Once per Year

Federal regulations only state nitrogen and phosphorus.

Once per Year

Once per Year


Ortho-phosphate, nitrate+nitrate, total ammonia on a case-by-case basis.

Once per Year


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



organic nitrogen

Once per Year

Once per Year


Once per Year


Once per Year

Once per Year


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Once per Year


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes


6. Does your agency require permittees to monitor nutrients in land-applied AFO waste?


once per year , when permit is issued

NMP specifies waste monitoring frequency, ground water monitoring wells typically sampled quarterly

AFOs - once per year -- CAFOs twice per year

Book values may be used in lieu of sampling.

Depends on location of land application field and size of the facility


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yesmonitoring requirement varies by facility size, location and compliance history


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Yes

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Open-Ended Response

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

If located in a sensitive groundwater area Yes Yes Yes


8. Please specify the nutrients that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied residential AFO waste.




AFOs are currently regulated on a case-by-case basis. However, FDEP is currently developing permitting rules for AFOs that discharge to ground water.

Georgia requires AFOs with liquid manure systems to apply for Land APPlication System Permit for 300 animal units or more .. Dry manure AFOs with less than 1000 AU are not required to apply for a state issued permit


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



Only if they have been issued an NPDES permit.

Yes Yes

none

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Only if they are required to have an NPDES permit Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

ongoing every 4 years or when changing animals or management. Also, annually during first three years in operation.


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Yes

Once in permit cycle


9. How often are permittees required to monitor nutrients in AFO waste?



Once per year


Once per year

Once per year

Book values may be used in lieu of sampling.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



previously noted

Yes

once every 3 years

Yes

No special category as "residential"

Once per year


organic nitrogen

Once per year

Varies with location / compliance history / system used


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Yes Once per year


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste.

Yes No PCBs - Yes Lead - Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

10. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied CAFO waste?

Arsenic - Yes

Cadmium - Yes

Copper - Yes

Mercury - Yes


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste.10. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied CAFO waste?

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

Texas

Washington

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste.10. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied CAFO waste?

No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste.

Zinc - Yes

12. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied CAFO waste?

Molybdenum - Yes

Nickel - Yes

Selenium - Yes


Once per year


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

11. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied CAFO waste. 12. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied CAFO waste?

Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No


13. Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied CAFO waste? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.





Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No permitted CAFO to date has been required to monitor for heavy metals.



Respondent

Texas

Washington



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

PCBs - Yes Lead - Yes

14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied CAFO waste.

Arsenic - Yes

Cadmium - Yes

Copper - Yes

Mercury - Yes

Molybdenum - Yes

Nickel - Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied AFO waste.

Zinc - Yes Yes No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied CAFO waste.

15. Does your agency require monitoring of heavy metals in land-applied AFO waste?

Selenium - Yes

Additional Pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed


Arsenic - Yes


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied AFO waste.14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied CAFO waste.


No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No


Respondent

Texas

Washington

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied AFO waste.14. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to heavy metal limitations that have been developed for land-applied CAFO waste.


No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


PCBs - Yes Lead - YesCadmium - Yes

Copper - Yes

Mercury - Yes

Molybdenum - Yes

Nickel - Yes

Selenium - Yes


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Zinc - Yes Yes

17. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied AFO waste?

18. Has your agency developed heavy metal limitations for land-applied AFO waste? Heavy metal limitations may be expressed as “ceiling concentrations” in permits. An example limitation for arsenic is 75 mg/kg.


Once per year




Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

16. Please specify the parameters that your agency requires permitees to monitor in land-applied AFO waste. 17. How often are permittees required to monitor heavy metals in land-applied AFO waste?


Yes The monitoring frequency is determined by the amount of manure applied to an application site.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

No PCBs - Yes Lead - Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No


19. Please specify the pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed. This question only pertains to ceiling concentrations that have been developed for land-applied AFO waste.


Arsenic - Yes

Cadmium - Yes

Copper - Yes


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No


Respondent

Texas

Washington



No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Zinc - Yes


Mercury - Yes

Molybdenum - Yes

Nickel - Yes

Selenium - Yes

Please specify any additional pollutants for which ceiling concentrations have been developed


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

20. Which of the following strategies does your agency utilize in order to control agronomic rates? Please indicate whether each strategy applies to land-applied CAFO and/or AFO waste.

CAFO AFO

CAFO

CAFO CAFO

CAFO

CAFO CAFO

CAFO AFO

CAFO CAFO CAFO AFO

CAFO AFO CAFO AFO

Cumulative pollutant loading rates for nutrients - CAFO

Cumulative pollutant loading rates for nutrients - AFO

Ceiling limits for nutrients - CAFO

Ceiling limits for nutrients - AFO

Soil nutrient monitoring - CAFO

Soil nutrient monitoring - AFO


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


CAFO

CAFO AFO CAFO AFO

CAFO

CAFO AFO

CAFO AFO

CAFO AFO

CAFO AFO CAFO AFO

CAFO AFO CAFO AFO


Respondent

Texas

Washington


CAFO AFO


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


CAFO AFO

Sludge nutrient monitoring - CAFO

Sludge nutrient monitoring - AFO

Please list any additional requirements/strategies that your agency employs to control agronomic rates

The CAFO operator is required to analyze the waste for nutrients and then apply that waste based on crop need. In other words, the waste has to be land applied in accordance with crop needs.

Phosphorus-Index, use of manure management planner to determine the balance between manure application with crop uptake, considers P and N from all sources.

A nutrient management plan must be submitted with the permit application. The NMP is subject to FDEP approval and becomes an enforceable part of the permit.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


CAFO

CAFO AFO Need to define cumulative pollutant loading rate.

CAFO AFO

NRCS Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans

CAFO AFO

acreage requirements

CAFO AFO

The management of manure is not regulated by the Department of Environmental Services, unless it impacts groundwater or surface water.

hydraulic capacity of the soil, cap on total P applications, lower rates on frozen/snow covered ground, etc.


Respondent

Texas

Washington


CAFO AFO application is based on the needed nutrients for optimum health and growth of the crop. Nutrient needs are based on soil and waste analyses. Application rates cannot exceed the nitrogen requirement of the crop. As P levels in the soil rise, increasing the P Risk index, the maximum rate is reduced to the phosphorus requirement of the crop, then to the crop P removal rate.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO

590 standard

narrative rate approach,when gp is issued

Crop yield - soil test analysis - crop needs based on UGA recommendations

NRCS 590

Yield goals usually tied to nitrogen rates


We have developed a tool that we use to determine whether the CAFO is applying manure at agronomic rates. The Region 6 tool is now being tested by other EPA Regions.

Uses manure management planner developed by Purdue, each state in our Region (7) has developed state technical standards similar to NRCS 590 Standard for quidance

Agronomic rates are established in the NMP, which is developed pursuant to NRCS Code 590 or other guidance from sources such as University of Florida IFAS or Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


PAN

Application rates recommended by NH Cooperative Ext.

Rates calculated by USDA and NJ Dept of Agriculture

based on crop nutrient needs and soil hydraulic capacity

Various calculation methods / ORAWM ss

Permitted CAFOs are required to land apply production waste at agronomic rates. These are determined from levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil. Applications cannot exceed the capacity of the soil and the planned crops to assimilate nutrients, and are quantified and based on the most limiting nutrient in the soil (P or N), type of crop, realistic crop yield goals, soil type and all nutrient inputs in addition to those from large CAFO waste. These requirements are only for the permitted CAFOs that land apply their own waste. They do not Combined sources of nutrients can not exceed University recommendations (or crop N removal for legumes), which are based on crop type, previous crop and in some cases crop yield. Phosphorus is used as rate criteria in areas where soil test phosphorus is high.

University of Nebraska crop recommendations based on soil sample analysis, waste analysis, P-index, irrigation water analysis.

Agronomic rates for N and P are based on Realistic Yield Expectation for the crop and soil type.


Respondent

Texas

Washington


Texas NRCS Practice Standard Code 590


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

AFO Yes No

No

No

No

No

No

No

land grant publications No

Yield goals usually tied to nitrogen rates No

21. What methods does your agency use to determine agronomic rates(e.g., how does your agency calculate agronomic rates). If your agency has different requirements depending on the type of land-applied waste, please specify the requirements for each

22. Has your agency developed regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals in land-applied waste? For example, does your agency require permittees to analyze land-applied CAFO/AFO waste for pharmaceuticals?


Currently on a case-by-case basis. FDEP is developing permitting rules for AFOs that discharge to ground water.

Crop yields - soil test analysis - crop needs based on UGA recommendations


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No

Generally same as CAFOs No

No

same No

No

No

No

No

same No

No

Application rates recommended by NH Cooperative Ext.

Rates calculated by USDA and NJ Dept of AgricultureAgronomic rates for N and P are based on Realistic Yield Expectation for the crop and soil type.

Various calculation methods / ORAWM ss


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Noapplication is based on the needed nutrients for optimum health and growth of the crop


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO AFO Yes No

23. Does your agency require monitoring of pharmaceuticals in the following types of land-applied waste? Please select the types of land-applied waste that must be tested for pharmaceuticals.

24. Besides monitoring requirements, has your agency developed additional regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals in land-applied waste?

Monitoring of pharmaceuticals is not required



Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO AFO CAFO AFO Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

No. No. No

Yes

Yes

Yes

25. What are the additional regulatory requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals in the following types of land-applied waste?

26. Are there proposed requirements for controlling pharmaceuticals in the following types of land-applied waste? If so, please provide details about the proposed requirements.



Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon




Yes

No No Yes

no no Yes

NO NO Yes

No

none none Yes

no no Yes

Yes

no no Yes

Yes

No proposed requirements


Respondent

Texas

Washington




no no Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

28. Has your agency developed setback requirements to minimize the contamination of tile discharges? For example, a setback requirement may prohibit the application of AFO waste within 100 feet of an open tile line intake structure.



Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Respondent

Texas

Washington


No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Setback distance for CAFO waste

Not Applicable


100' setback or 35' vegetated buffer or some other arrangement approved by the Agency

100 feet from tile intake, or 35 ft if permanently vegetated buffer, or site specific demonstration that setback is not necessary

Question 27, 28 and 29 are difficult to answer -- YES and NO -- really does not fit -- The circumstances of each operation are looked at.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


100 feet or 35 feet if there is a veg buffer

300 feet setback from open tile inlets and for surface application

100 ft

25 feet for pre-1997 farms, 75 feet after 1997

35 ft vegetated/100 ft

100' to down gradient open tile line intake structure; or 35' w/vegetated buffer, or no setback if alternative conservation practice will provide reductions equal to or better than reductions achieved at 100-foot setback.

100' or 35' vegetated strip for land application, and 300' for stockpiles from open tile inlet

100' non-vegetated, 35' vegetated, or other alternative as protective as the first 2 options


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Setback distance for AFO waste Open-Ended Response

cover tile intake while applying waste

Not Applicable

Same as for a CAFO

Conservation plans to minimize leaching for CAFOs



Tiles are really not used a lot in Region 6. They are more used in other Regions, such as Region 5

FDEP has adopted EPA CAFO rules in entirety by reference. CAFOs are required to follow all EPA requirements. AFOs are currently on a case-by-case basis.

Requires plugging of intakes during application on frozen/snow covered-ground.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



no

No

35 ft vegetated/100 ft

permitted AFOs = same as CAFOs

Yes, incorporation within 24 hrs, no application on saturated ground, no application when there is a 70% chance of a 1/2 inch of rain forecasted w/in 24 hrs, inspection of tile outlets.

300 feet setback from open tile inlets for surface application

30' to identified streams, lakes and impounded waters unless in accordance with Department approve nutrient management plan.

25 feet for pre-1997 farms, 75 feet after 1997

Inspections of tile drain outlets and ditches are required during land application.

lower rates, disrupting pathways to tiles, shallow injection, tile stops/plugs, visual monitoring

NPDES CAFO/AFO Permit does not allow tile line discharge. Many tile systems are fitted with valves or recycle systems to achieve no discharge.


Respondent

Texas

Washington



no


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

No No

No No

No No

No No

31. Does your agency prohibit the application of CAFO/AFO waste to fields that have slopes in excess of a certain limit? As an example, some states prohibit waste-to-land applications on fields that have slopes greater than 8%. If your agency has such a regulation, does the regulation apply to the following types of land-applied waste?

CAFO waste - Yes

CAFO waste - No

AFO waste - Yes

AFO waste - No


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


Yes No

Yes No

No No

No No

No No

Yes Yes

No No

No No


Respondent

Texas

Washington


No No


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes



We use the concept of the Phosphorus Index which takes into account slope, proximity to a water body, etc.

Prohibition and application (N-based or P-based) depends on a Phosphorus Risk Index that takes into account slope. The P-Index is normally developed by NRCS and can vary by state.

The slope of land application areas would be addressed on a site-specfic basis in permits.

Some slopes may be restricted during calculation of the P-index. Also, there is a slope restriction during winter application.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

A CAFO must do a field assessment of all land used for land application. This does look at slope and environmentally sensitive areas i.e surface water, they are also required to run MARI for any fields used during winter application.

CAFO Winter application, when allowed, has a 6% slope restriction for solid manure and 2% for liquids.

slope is a factor in the P-index which may limit application

it's not prohibited, but application on slopes over 15% is more restricted


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Other (please specify) CAFO - Yes CAFO - No AFO - Yes AFO - No

No No

No

No No

will when gp is issued No No

No No

No No

No No

No No


33. Does your agency require applicants to measure the background levels of heavy metals at proposed application sites prior to the first application of CAFO and/or AFO waste?


require permittees to maintain a record of application.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

Yes Yes

No No

No No

No No

CAFO waste applications must be recorded. At this time, probably because the permitting program is relatively new, no changes have been made to regulation based on record findings.


Respondent

Texas

Washington



No NoYes records of land application are required, but the records don't have any bearing on future land application. Land application is based on soil and waste analyses, coupled with the nutrient needs of the crop.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO - Yes CAFO - No AFO - Yes AFO - No Other (please specify) CAFO - Yes

Yes

No

Yes No Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

34. Does your agency require permittees to measure the background levels of nutrients at proposed application sites prior to the first application of CAFO and/or AFO waste?


Background levels of nutrients would be addressed in the NMP, for CAFOs. AFOs are currently on a case-by-case basis.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



Yes No Yes

Yes No

No No

Yes Yes

No No

No No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes


Respondent

Texas

Washington



Yes Yes


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO - No AFO - Yes AFO - No Other (please specify)

No

No No

No No

No No

No

No No


We use soil phosphorus limits, such as 200 ppm. If this limit is reached, then the operator needs special permission to continue land applying manure to those fields with high phosphorus concentrations.

Must account for all sources of P and N, including organic N and synthetic fertilizer. The nutrient concentration of the soil is a factor in the P-Index.

Loading rates are established in the NMP on a site specific basis.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


No

No No

Need to define cumulative pollutant loading rate.

No No

Yes annual only, no lifetime loading restriction

No No

Yes

We examine phosphorus cummulative loading near waters and on high phosphorus soils at both CAFOs


Respondent

Texas

Washington


No No Cumulative pollutant loading rates are not used in Texas for CAFO/AFO waste.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

CAFO CAFO CAFO CAFO

36. Please identify the nutrients for which cumulative pollutant loading rates have been developed. If applicable, please specify whether each cumulative pollutant loading rate applies to land-applied biosolids and/or residential septage.

Total Nitrogen - CAFO

Total Nitrogen - AFO

Ammonia Nitrogen, as N - CAFO

Ammonia Nitrogen, as N - AFO

Total Phosphorus, as P - CAFO

Total Phosphorus, as P - AFO

Total Potassium - CAFO

Total Potassium - AFO


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


CAFO CAFO CAFO

CAFO

CAFO CAFO


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Other (please specify) CAFO - Yes CAFO - No AFO - Yes AFO - No

No

No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No



Loading rates are established in the NMP on a site specific basis.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No

No No


Respondent

Texas

Washington



No NoCumulative pollutant loading rates are not used in Texas for CAFO/AFO waste.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas




Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


Soil tests are required for Cu and Zn, and if the index reaches a certain level, application must stop. But there is no pre-determined cumulative rate for metals.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

None Yes



We use land application records to determine whether or not the CAFO is land applying manure at agronomic rates.

Permitted CAFOs are required to mainatain records and submit annual operating reports. Loading must be in accordance with the NMP. At the time of permit renewal, the applicant reevaluates and adjusts loading rates as needed.


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon



See response to #32 above. No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Crop available nitrogen available from previous applications must be subtracted from allowable rate. Phosphorus additions are tracked over a six-year period for land near waters and land with high soil phosphorus.

Records are maintained of the nutrient value in the wastes which is used to calculate the application rate. Results of soil sampling will indicate the amount of carry-over, if any, which will affect subsequent application rates.

Farmers must keep track of waste applied to demonstrate compliance with agronomic rates for N and P.

Must maintain soil levels of N and P at or below target levels. If soil levels of nutrients are increasing or above target levels, CAFO/AFO required to modify Animal Waste Management Plan and nutrient application rates


Respondent

Texas

Washington



NoRecords of past applications are not used to determine future application rates. Application rates are based on soil and waste analyses, combined with crop nutrient needs.


Respondent

Response Option

Region 6

Region 7

Region 10

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas


No Yes

Yes

Yes No


Land Applicators - Yes

Land Applicators - No

Soil/Waste Sample Collectors - Yes

Soil/Waste Sample Collectors - No

CAFOs that land apply manure or process wastewater must be permitted


Respondent

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon


Yes

Yes No

Responses to SurveyMonkey instrument - Center for...

Documents

Transcript of Responses to SurveyMonkey instrument - Center for...