URBANIZATION
AND
WATER QUALITY
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
-------
URBANIZATION
AND
Produced by
Terrene Institute
Washington, DC
In cooperation with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
March 1994
AGuideto Protecting the Urban Environment
-------
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank each person who helped with this guide, especially Peter Kumble of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments; Robert Morehouse, EPA Region 1; Tom Davenport, EPA Region 5; numerous
states and localities that provided practical information; and Robert Goo, as well as the many other reviewers at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This guide was produced under the direction of Lura T. Svestka, edited by Roberta F. Shulman, and designed
and typeset by Jessica A. Johnson.
This publication was produced under U.S. Environments
ative agreement number CX820957 with the Terrene Institute. Points of view expressed
in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Terrene Institute
nor of any of the contributors to its publication. Mention of trade names and commercial
products does not constitute endorsement of their use.
For additional copies
($12.95, plus $3 shipping and handling)
contact the
INSTITUTE
1717 K Street, NW, Suite 801
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202/833-8317 • Fax: 202/296-4071
Volume discounts available
Cover and text printed on recycled paper
Page ii
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Contents
FOREWORD iv
CHAPTER 1
How Urban Runoff Affects Your Community: The Problem 1
CHAPTER 2
Controlling Urban Runoff:
Designing a Nonpoint Source Management Program 7
CHAPTER 3
Planning to Prevent Urban Runoff 19
CHAPTER 4
Urban Nonpoint Source Control Methods 29
CHAPTER 5
Community Education and Citizen Involvement 4l
APPENDIX A
Federal Water Quality Program Summary 47
APPENDIX B
Information and Publications 49
APPENDIX C
Contacts 51
APPENDIX D
Watershed Restoration and Pollution Control Programs 59
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment Page Sii
-------
Foreword
Despite the gains achieved by Clean Water Act requirements and the installation of
municipal sewage treatment systems in most communities, water pollution still remains
a problem. Although industries and municipal treatment systems continue to affect
water quality, states estimate that nonpoint source pollution causes one- to two-thirds of the
impairment or threats to waterbodies.
Nonpoint source pollution results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition,
drainage, seepage, and hydrologic modifications. In urban areas nonpoint source pollution is
created when sediment, toxic substances, nutrients, pathogens, and even garbage wash off
fields, lawns, and impervious surfaces into our nation's waterbodies.
This guide is intended to help decisionmakers, such as local government officials and
planners, understand the causes of nonpoint source pollution and design and implement a
program to control this pollution. The guide provides a framework for developing a nonpoint
source program tailored to an individual community. It includes examples of successful runoff
management programs that illustrate the variety of strategies state and local governments have
adopted.
Technical guidance and expertise, however, are essential components in this process.
Urbanization and Water Quality lists a number of sources for such expertise: publications,
contacts, and summaries of several federal programs mandated by the Clean Water Act and
Coastal Zone Management Act. Applied within the community's structure, this information can
help improve and protect the quality of nearby waterbodies.
Page iv
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Chapter 1
How Urban Runoff Affects
Your Community: The Problem
The thirsty earth soaks up the rain,
And drinks, and gapes for drink again.
Abraham Cowley (1618-1667)
While centuries of poets have praised
the virtuous qualities of rain, urban
decisionmakers are forced to face
the harsh reality — rain and its close relative, snow,
are the major carriers of nonpoint source pollution.
Such pollution occurs in developed areas when
water runs off the land and streets — gathering pol-
lutants in its path and depositing them in nearby
waterbodies.
Urban runoff carries pollutants from many
sources and activities — automobiles, oil and salt on
roads, atmospheric deposition, processing and sal-
vage facilities, chemical spills, pet wastes, industrial
plants, construction site erosion, and the disposal of
chemicals used in homes and offices. In fact, pollu-
tant levels in urban waterbodies are generally much
greater than in forested watersheds.
Runoff water quality worsens as urbanization in-
creases:
• Trees that once intercepted rainfall are
gone.
• Natural dips or depressions that had formed
temporary ponds for rainwater storage are
lost by grading and filling for development.
• Thick, absorbent layers of natural vegetation
and soils are replaced by paved Gmpervious)
surfaces such as roads and roofs.
• Eroded paths such as streambanks become
channels, increasing the amount of sediment
carried by runoff.
As asphalt and concrete replace vegetation, run-
off increases and reaches waterbodies faster and
with greater force. And when the land loses its ca-
pacity to absorb and store rainwater, the ground-
water table drops and stream flows decrease during
dry weather.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 1
-------
CHAPTER 1
The Symptoms
Local governments must be alert to the obvious symp-
toms of water pollution. They include
• scum and algal mats floating near lake shores,
• excessive plant growth choking waters used
by boaters and swimmers,
• sediment-clogged drainage ditches and
sewers,
• decreasing depth of a lake,
• fewer fish and wildlife,
• contaminated water supply for drinking,
recreation, or industry,
• fish kills that may destroy sport fisheries or
close beaches,
• fish advisories caused by bacteria or toxic
substances found in fish, and
• extreme flooding or streambank erosion.
The Sources
Pollution from urban runoff can affect water in various
ways, depending on the pollutant The impacts and
sources of pollutants have been researched by many
organizations, including the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, from which much of this in-
formation was extracted (see Table 1).
¦ Sediment Sediment — organic and inorganic ma-
terial suspended and settling in water — clogs storm
drains; fills river channels, lakes, wetlands, and reser-
voirs; and increases the potential for flooding down-
stream. Sediment may fill in water supply reservoirs,
eventually requiring costly dredging or new water
sources.
These suspended solids make the water appear
muddy, decreasing its value for fishing and recre-
ation. As sediment settles to the bottom, phytoplank-
ton, fish, and invertebrates have difficulty feeding
and reproducing. Other aquatic life may be smoth-
ered or deprived of essential sunlight. Sediment can
also carry other materials — such as nutrients, pesti-
cides, and trace metals — that can harm both aquatic
life and human health.
Sediment and erosion are at their peak when the soil
is disturbed along with the vegetation that stabilizes it
And once sediment enters a stream, it can take many
years to travel through the waterway. As silt, clay, and
sand move downstream, they erode the streambank, af-
fecting fish and wildlife habitat along the way.
H Nutrients. Nutrients — excessive levels of phos-
phorus and nitrogen — pose a severe problem as
urban development intensifies. Nutrients encourage
undesirable algal blooms and excessive aquatic weed
growth. This nutrient-rich process, called eutrophica-
tion, greatly decreases the water's quality.
In lakes, for example, decomposing plants can
cause surface scums and unpleasant odors, discolor
water, and decrease oxygen. This breakdown limits
swimming, boating, fishing, and other recreational
uses; reduces fish and wildlife habitat; and contami-
nates water supplies. The water-holding capacity of
lakes and reservoirs may also decrease.
Urban runoff carries nutrients from roads, side-
walks, and parking lots, and from lawns, golf courses,
parks, cemeteries, homes, and commercial sites. In
some areas, improperly maintained household septic
systems add to the problem.
¦ Bacteria. Urban runoff often contains high levels
of harmful bacteria and viral strains, including fecal
streptococcus and fecal coliform from human and ani-
mal wastes. When these levels exceed public health
standards, as they often do, water is unsafe to drink,
beaches are closed, and harvesting shellfish beds is
restricted.
Older, more intensively developed areas produce
the most bacteria from organic wastes and sanitary
sewer overflows. In addition, pet and bird wastes in-
crease the nutrient and bacteria content of runoff.
¦ Oil and grease. Oil, grease, and other petroleum-
based substances contain hydrocarbons, some of
which are harmful to sensitive animal species and
aquatic life. Hydrocarbons attracted to sediment set-
tle in the bottom of waterbodies, where they may
harm bottom-dwelling organisms and be transferred
through the food chain.
Hydrocarbons also degrade fisheries habitats and
damage the appearance of the water's surface. They
lower dissolved oxygen by limiting the interaction of
water and air. Oil and grease problems are highest in
the runoff from parking lots, roads, and service sta-
tions. Oil held in the soil can eventually seep through
to the groundwater and be carried to the streams.
B Heavy metals. Heavy metals — including lead,
copper, cadmium, zinc, mercury, and chromium —
can be toxic to aquatic life and contaminate drinking
water supplies. Heavy metals affect sensitive animal
species, plants, and fisheries and enter the food chain
through animal tissue ingested by humans and other
animals.
Pago 2
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
How Urban Runoff Affects Your Community: The Problem
Table 1.—Pollutants typically found In urban runoff.*
COMMON
URBAN
RUNOFF
POLLUTANTS
SOURCE
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS
NONPOINT SOURCE IMPACTS
Sediment
Urban/
Suburban
average
80 mg/L
Fills in ponds and reservoirs with mud; contributes, to decline of sub-
merged aquatic vegetation (SAV) by increasing turbidity and reducing the
light available for photosynthesis. Acts as a sink for nutrients and toxi-
cants and as a source when disturbed and resuspended.
Total
Phosphorus
Urban
Suburban
1.08 mg/L
0.26 mg/L
A contributing factor cited in eutrophication (nutrient over-enrichment) in
receiving waterbodies and subsequent algal blooms. Algal blooms con-
tribute to the decline of SAV by reducing light available for photosynthesis,
further degrade water quality by decreasing the level of dissolved oxygen
(DO), and may cause changes in the composition of plankton and fish
species.
Total
Nitrogen
Urban
Suburban
13.6 mg/L
2.00 mg/L
Like total phosphorus, contributes to eutrophication and algal blooms.
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
Urban
Suburban
163.0 mg/L
35.6 mg/L
Decreases the concentration of dissolved oxygen. Low DO concentration
and anaerobic conditions (complete absence of DO) can lead to fish kills
and unpleasant odors. Primarily released as organic matter in the "first
flush" or urban runoff after a storm.
Bacteria
Urban/
Suburban
average — 200 to
240,000 MPN/L
High concentrations can lead to closure of shellfish harvesting areas and
prevent swimming, boating, or other recreational activities.
Zinc
Urban
Suburban
0.397 mg/L
0.037 mg/L
Most commonly found toxic metal in the mid-Atlantic coastal region;
chronically exceeds EPA water quality criteria. Primary cultural source is
the weathering and abrasion of galvanized iron and steel.
Copper
(Nationwide
Urban Runoff
Program
average)
Urban
Suburban
0.105 mg/L
0.047 mg/L
Chronically exceeds EPA water quality criteria. Primary cultural source is
as a component of antifouling paint for boat hulls and, in urban runoff,
from the leaching and abrasion of copper pipes and brass fittings. An im-
portant trace nutrient, it can be bioaccumulated and, thereby, create toxic
health hazards with the food chain and increase long-term ecosystem
stress.
Lead
Urban
Suburban
0.389 mg/L
0.018 mg/L
Lead from gasoline burning in automobiles is less of a problem today be-
cause of unleaded gasoline use. However, lead from scraping and paint-
ing bridges and overpasses remains. Chronically exceeds EPA water
quality criteria. Attaches readily to fine particulates that can be
bioaccumulated by bacteria and benthic organisms (e.g., oysters and
mussels) while feeding. Lead has adverse health impacts when con-
sumed by humans.
Oil and
Grease
Urban/
Suburban
average
2-10 mg/L
Toxicity contributes to the decline of zooplankton and benthic organisms.
Accumulates in tissues of benthic organisms; a threat to humans when
consumed directly or when passed through the food chain. Primary cul-
tural source is automobile oil and lubricants.
Arsenic
Urban/
Suburban
average
6.0 ng/L
An essential trace nutrient. Can be bioaccumulated; creates toxic health
hazards within the food chain and increases long-term stress for the entire
ecosystem. Accumulates within tidal, freshwater areas, increasing the
toxicity for spawning and juvenile fish. Primary cultural source is fossil fuel
combustion.
Cadmium
Urban/
Suburban
average
1.0 ng/L
Urban runoff contributes a major portion to the mid-Atlantic coastal region.
Primary cultural source is metal electroplating and pigments in paints.
Can be bioaccumulated; creates toxic health hazards within the food
chain and increases long-term toxic stress for the entire ecosystem.
Chromium
Urban/
Suburban
average
5.0 ng/L
Primary cultural source is metal plating and as a component of paint pig-
ments. An essential trace nutrient, it can be bioaccumulated, creating
toxic health hazards within the food chain and increasing long-term toxic
stress for the entire ecosystem
Pesticides
Urban/
Suburban
average
<0.1 ng/L
Primary urban source is runoff from home gardens and lawns. Can
bioaccumulate in organisms and create toxic health hazards within the
food chain. Observed levels currently below standards.
•Based on mid-Atlantic Coast data. Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1993.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 3
-------
CHAPTER 1
Most metals found in urban runoff come from cor-
roding, decaying surfaces, often accelerated by
acidic rain, and from dissolving or leaching materials.
Among the sources of metals are roofing materials,
downspouts, leaded gasoline, galvanized pipes, metal
plating, paints, wood preservatives, catalytic convert-
ers, brake linings, and tires. Maintenance of bridges
and other structures can also contribute paint scrap-
ings and abrasives.
¦ Toxic substances. Toxic chemicals, including pes-
ticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), can seri-
ously impair water quality and threaten human and an-
imal health. In addition to pesticides, toxic wastes are
found in fertilizers, herbicides, and household sub-
stances such as paints and cleaning materials. Proper
use and disposal of these substances are mandatory.
¦ Chlorides. Chlorides or salts are toxic to many
freshwater aquatic organisms, which can tolerate only
a certain level of salinity. Increased levels of sodium
and chloride in surface and groundwater can also af-
fect soil structure, stressing plant respiration and les-
sening viability.
The main source of chlorides is road salting to re-
move ice and snow. Chlorides run off roads, parking
lots, and sidewalks, and find their way into wetlands,
streams, lakes, and groundwater. Because of their
high mobility, chlorides can have a major impact on
groundwater.
H Temperature. Even a slight rise in water tempera-
ture can adversely affect some aquatic life and insects
in and around a waterbody, including stoneflies, may-
flies, and trout This is particularly true of streams that
alternate between cold and warm water.
Runoff can raise stream temperatures as a result of
passing over an urban landscape warmed by structures
and paved surfaces. Less shade because of fewer trees
also raises stream temperature. Runoff stored in shal-
low ponds and heated by the sun between storms, espe-
cially pollution controls, that hold runoff for extended
periods, can also harm aquatic life.
¦ Trash and debris. Floatable wastes collect at im-
passes in streams and lakes, disturbing water flow and
impairing the aesthetic quality of the environment.
This debris, from street litter and careless disposal
practices, washes into waterbodies both over land and
through the storm drain system.
H Impervious surfaces. Paved surfaces absorb less
rainfall, thus directly increasing water velocity. More
sediment will be deposited downstream; and the
rapid, forceful flow may drastically erode stream-
banks, making the area vulnerable to flooding. In-
creases in paved surfaces can be directly linked to the
accelerated loss of aquatic habitat. Heavier sediment
loads clog streambeds with sand and silt, destroying
habitat. Pool and riffle stream areas also become se-
verely degraded, leaving poor conditions for both the
fish community and the macroinvertebrate insect
community on which fish depend for food.
H Disturbance of stream habitats. Development
inevitably requires that roads and pipelines cross
streams, rivers, and wetlands. Construction activities
can upset ecosystems and habitats; permanent struc-
tures such as culverts can block the movement of fish,
preventing recolonization.
Wildlife habitat may also be affected by the re-
placement of vegetation by roads and structures. In-
stallation of concrete-lined storm drainage channels,
for example, often requires removing tree canopies
and results in a loss of riparian and aquatic habitats.
Open spaces play an important role in controlling
nonpoint source pollution in most urban areas.
Therefore, the whole watershed should be consid-
ered in making conservation decisions. Maryland,
for example, has a Forest Conservation Act that pro-
tects existing forests while allowing continued devel-
opment. It requires a developer to map existing for-
ests and submit a forest conservation plan. This type
of program can serve as a reference for urban com-
munities facing similar decisions.
In the past, communities have treated pollution cri-
ses as they arose. They have built treatment plants to
control point sources of pollution, and used various
best management practices (BMPs) to address urban
runoff (see Chapter 4). But today, communities are
realizing that the hydrology and ecology of their en-
tire watershed influence water quality (see Fig. 1).
Communities are also recognizing that the greatest
loss from water pollution is that people can no longer
use and enjoy the natural resource. They can't swim,
boat, fish, picnic, or just enjoy a lake or river. As a re-
sult, the economic impact on the community is signifi-
cant — people must go elsewhere for recreation, tak-
ing with them dollars that could be spent on gas, food,
lodging, and entertainment. Pollution may also cause
property values to fall, eroding the tax base.
With this increased awareness and knowledge, com-
munities of all sizes are building two-pronged water
quality programs: (1) they are identifying and correct-
ing existing problems, and (2) they are focusing on pre-
venting future problems. Communities are finding that
a comprehensive nonpoint source management pro-
gram will help them avoid many of the problems caused
by urban pollutants be/ore they occur.
Page 4
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
How Urban Runoff Affects Your Community: The Problem
a Water Balance
Canopy
* Interception
Surface
Runoff
Interflow Basefiow
Transpiration
Basedow
Natural
b. Streamflow
Urban/Suburban
Large
Storm
_ Higher and More
Rapid Peak Discharge
I
— Pre-development.
* ~ Post-development
Small
Storm
v More Runoff Volume
jjr
^ \ Lower and Less
x ^ Rapid Peak
TIME
c Response of Stream Geometry
$-3f •p":*-*
Summer Low Flow Level
Figure 1.—Changes in watershed hydrology as a result of urbanization. Source: Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, 1987.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 5
-------
Page 6 Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Chapter 2
Controlling Urban Runoff:
Designing a Nonpoint Source
Management Program
With urbanization inevitably comes non-
point source pollution. This pollution
stems from the basic processes of
urbanization and the individual lifestyles of citizens.
A nonpoint source management program is one el-
ement within a community's overall management
plan, just as the effects of urban runoff are one con-
cern. But each piece connects within the community
puzzle, if only within the budget Therefore, the task
of controlling nonpoint source pollution must be ac-
complished by the entire community, planning and
working together.
Conservation techniques on undeveloped land —
floodplains, wetlands, stabilized streambanks, and
slopes — go far in assuring water quality. These natu-
ral features play important roles in managing non-
point source pollution in local communities and
should be included in any comprehensive manage-
ment approach.
This chapter describes a step-by-step approach to
designing a nonpoint source management program, a
process that a community can adapt to its own situa-
tion. Subsequent chapters contain information on the
pollution prevention and control methods that can be
applied to managing urban runoff.
Figure 2 charts some cf the elements of a success-
ful nonpoint source management program. While
most programs begin with defining the problem, a
program requires continued revisiting, reevaluating,
and adjusting. A central element in all phases of pro-
gram development and implementation is educating
and involving the public. In fact, the program's suc-
cess depends on public support and buy in. Chapter 5
discusses techniques to be incorporated at every
phase of the program to keep the public aware and
supportive.
The following is a step-by-step guide to construct-
ing a successful nonpoint source management pro-
gram:
Step 1: Define the current or potential problem.
Step 2: Evaluate existing programs and resources.
Step 3: Build program infrastructure.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 7
-------
CHAPTER 2
A Nonpoint Source
Management Program
Step 1: Define the current or
potential problem.
Whether you are reacting to citizen complaints or
planning ahead to prevent potential problems, you will
need substantive, reliable data to define your com-
munity's current or future problems.
Enlist staff, interns, and/or volunteers to deter-
mine what information is needed, why it is important,
and how to obtain it Emphasize accuracy in collect-
ing data and keep meticulous records on when,
where, and how the data were collected.
Organize and store data for ease of use and acces-
sibility, preferably in a computer database, complete
with backup copies.
Your most important task is to first get to know
your efitire community to evaluate it for actual and
potential nonpoint source pollution problems. All fac-
tors are important — from the people who live there
to the community's physical position within its water-
shed.
Research and inventory your resource area and
community to completely understand the commun-
ity's strengths and weaknesses in relationship to the
watershed. You'll find most of this information at your
local soil and water conservation district or your state
water quality authority. The U. S. Geological Survey,
your regional planning commission, and local univer-
sities can also help. Table 2 lists further sources of
various data.
Table 2.—Sources for natural resource assessment, Inventories, and other data.
TYPE OF
INFORMATION
NEEDED
CONTACTS
Water Quality Data
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; state water quality agencies, fish and game departments, departments of
health; and tribal environmental offices
Land Use Data
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Bureau
of Land Management; state cooperative extension services, land office; tribal environmental or agricul-
tural offices: local government offices such as city planners and county commissioners
Economic Data
County extension service, councils of government, economic research services, chambers of com-
merce; state department of commerce; tribal councils; real estate agents, private consultants
Demographic Data
Councils of governments, census reports, chambers of commerce, state statistics bureaus, almanacs
Source: Terrene Institute, Clean Water In Your Watershed: A Citizens Guide to Watershed Protection, 1993.
Figure 2.—Elements of a successful watershed
project. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
The Watershed Protection Approach: A Project Focus,
1994.
Step 4: Identify potential options.
Step 5: Evaluate options and alternative strategies.
Step 6: Set program goals.
Step 7: Select a final strategy.
Step 8: Develop a work plan.
Step 9: Adopt and implement the work plan.
Step 10: Monitor, evaluate, and revise the program.
Page 8
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Controlling Urban Runoff
An important resource for community programs is
section 319 of the Clean Water Act. This provision re-
quires each state to assess and design a management
program to control potential nonpoint source pollu-
tion problems. Contact the responsible state agency
to pinpoint local problems and determine if resources
have been allotted.
¦ Identify and map your watershed. Include
smaller watersheds within its jurisdiction and specific
sites needing attention because of development or
other special circumstances (see Fig. 3).
• Locate wetlands and other critical areas.
• Identify vegetation strips and other areas that
can control pollution or urban runoff.
• Map your community's drainage pattern
downstream and the location of groundwater
aquifers and those used for drinking water
(see Fig. 4).
¦ Identify the land uses within the watershed.
Map and calculate the number of acres within the
watershed for each type of use. Check with your zon-
ing commission first, and if you need more detail, go
to
• land ownership and variance zoning records,
• site approvals,
• building permits, and even
• aerial photos.
You may not be able to obtain comprehensive, ab-
solutely accurate and precise land use information —
but the more details you gather now, the better your
community will understand the land use in and
around its watershed.
Categories can be defined broadly — residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and open space
— and further subdivided as necessary.
For example, low-density residential has a differ-
ent impact on water quality than high-density resi-
dential. Among industrial uses, a mining company
may cause more nonpoint source pollution than a
sugar processing plant. And forests differ from wet-
lands.
Some questions to ask:
• How much of the agriculture is dairy,
soybeans, pasture, rangeland, or other?
• Are open spaces forest, meadow, or wetlands?
Figure 3.—Watersheds nest within each other; a site
within a small watershed lies within the community
and is part of the larger watershed.
Figure 4.—A watershed graphically depicted. Source:
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
* How rapidly are the urban areas developing?
• How are urban areas divided for development
(commercial, residential, industrial, other
uses)?
H Investigate environmental factors. Assess geol-
ogy, topography, soil characteristics, vegetation,
groundwater recharge areas, flood-prone sites, and
hydrologic and biological characteristics.
Get help in determining what principles of geol-
ogy, topography, soil, and vegetation are important in
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 9
-------
CHAPTER 2
understanding water quality. Study USDA Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) soil maps, Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain
maps, and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps.
You can find assistance locally from the USDA Exten-
sion Service, soil and water conservation district, and
university and high school science departments.
¦ Determine current waterbody quality. Obtain
basic information on your waterbodies — pollutant
concentrations, vegetative cover, and aquatic life —
and determine if the state has monitored or desig-
nated them by classes. Water quality standards spec-
ify the concentrations of various pollutants allowable
according to how the waterbody is used. Water quality
designated uses include fishing, boating, water sup-
ply, priority wetlands or floodplains, and productive or
open shellfish beds.
The state water quality agency should be able to
provide current data, including documentation of any
known water quality problems. If the state has infor-
mation for your waterbody, a baseline database on its
water quality may exist If not, determine how to es-
tablish baseline data; perhaps your local college or
university can help.
Investigate ongoing efforts to collect data, such as
those obtained from citizen monitoring groups (see
Chapter 5).
B Determine actual threats to surface and
groundwater. Is an industrial park being developed
with the potential for construction runoff and, later,
operational discharges from high traffic parking and
maintenance lots? Is land use changing significantly
— or at a rapid rate? Is there a known trouble spot?
Threats to groundwater include high water tables,
uncapped abandoned wellheads, discharges associ-
ated with industrial development, and failing and in-
appropriately located septic systems.
B Identify other problem areas. Identify specific
sites that need attention, using land use maps to de-
fine areas of greatest imperviousness. Additional ac-
tions can include
• researching water quality and biological re-
sources;
• walking along streams to visually assess exces-
sive erosion, lack of riparian cover, water qual-
ity conditions, and physical stream conditions;
• identifying point sources by obtaining copies of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) permits for discharge levels;
• obtaining data related to flood control or
stormwater best management practices;
• obtaining information from local resource man-
agers familiar with water resources; and
• checking sections 319 and 314 (Clean Lakes)
assessments and 305(b) reports made by your
state water quality agency on impaired
waterbodies (EPA requires these reports from
each state).
¦ Research the local economy. An accurate picture
of the local economy is important to make growth pro-
jections and to assess what funds might be available to
protect water quality.
• Determine what portion of the watershed's
population is rural and what portion is urban.
• Describe factors specific to the area, such as a
large plant opening or a long-time employer
closing.
• Assess the growth trends in the community and
in the watershed. Development is a major cause
of both short- and long-term nonpoint source pol-
lution. Understanding population and growth
trends also helps determine the areas most vul-
nerable to water quality deterioration.
• Assess income levels compared to national and
regional averages and calculate the local tax
base and revenues available from government
grants and other sources. Current and pro-
jected tax revenues and other income sources
will determine the amount of resources avail-
able to manage water quality.
E Evaluate industry and infrastructure. Are in-
dustrial plants and infrastructure, such as sewage and
stormwater systems, potential nonpoint source pollut-
ers? Assess age, state of environmental technology
and practices, and other features. Seek guidance from
experts in this assessment.
Assess the condition of roads, bridges, airports,
marinas, and other parts of the transportation net-
work.
• Note needed or ongoing repairs or new con-
struction, and specify possible nonpoint source
pollution hazards.
• Observe current road and ditch maintenance
practices and note opportunities for improve-
ment.
Page 10
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Controlling Urban Runoff
DETERMINING FINANCING
STRATEGIES
Communities must answer several questions
before selecting the best financing option for the
situation:
• Are funds sustainable? Will they last
over the long term or are they only a
short-term band-aid approach?
• Are funds easy to obtain? Is the
application complicated? Does it require
multiple approvals?
• Are funds difficult to administer? Will you
need additional staff to trackand.
prepare reports or assess and collect
fees?
• Does a correlation exist between the
funding and the problem? Will those who
pay for the benefits receive them?
• Will the funding be used appropriately?
Will it be a quick fix or will it have
secondary benefits?
• Have legal restrictions been placed on
the use of the funds?
Step 2: Evaluate existing programs
and resources.
B Identify existing ordinances and enforcement
authorities. Identify state and local laws that author-
ize government to proceed with control methods. For
example, zoning ordinances might authorize setbacks
or buffer strips, limit development on impervious
areas, or establish erosion and sediment controls. Ex-
isting programs and authorities should be used — and
strengthened — to benefit water quality.
Determine if your governmental unit has the legal
authority to protect its floodplains and enforce ordi-
nances using fines, permits, inspections, stop work
orders, or other methods to make a nonpoint source
program work. Communities often set fines for septic
violations, for example.
E3 Investigate funding options. Review funding op-
tions and select those that best suit your community.
For an overview of traditional and innovative funding
mechanisms, refer to EPA's "A State and Local Gov-
ernment Guide to Environmental Program Funding
Alternatives" (Appendix B).
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
STORMWATER UTILITY FINANCING
The stormwater utility is a creative approach to
funding that also addresses political and institu-
tional questions. One of the most important bene-
fits of a stormwater utility is that it can provide a
steady stream of funds to develop, operate, and
maintain a comprehensive stormwater manage-
ment system. This, in turn, permits the develop-
ment of integrated, long-range planning from one
source.
Establishing a stormwater utility can be com-
plicated. It requires collecting water and analyz-
ing its quality, assembling land use and economic
information, and establishing an equitable billing
system. Moreover, establishing the utility can
prove expensive because of costs for engineer-
ing, legal, and financial studies; new staff; and in-
formation management systems. Local officials
must educate citizens to overcome public resis-
tance to a new utility charge.
Many cities have such programs, including
Bellevue, Washington, and Billings, Montana
(see Appendix C for contact information).
Federal sources
• Federal Construction Grants Program —
States provide seed money loans to local
governments for water quality projects to
be repaid from local fees or taxes. This
program, however, is being gradually
replaced by the State Revolving Loan Fund.
• State Revolving Loan Fund —
Administered by a state agency, loans can
be used to fund projects to control
nonpoint pollution and be repaid from
local revenue.
• EPA Clean Lakes Program Grants —
Publicly owned lakes may qualify for
federal grants available through state
environmental agencies.
• Section 319, Clean Water Act — EPA
provides grants to specific nonpoint
source projects that demonstrate
progress in controlling and abating
nonpoint source pollution.
State and local sources
• Special use taxes — State or community
levies, fees, or taxes on cigarettes, boat
licenses, hotel rooms, or permits.
Page 11
-------
CHAPTER 2
CALIFORNIA NONPOINT SOURCE
STATE REVOLVING FUND LOANS
California was one of the first states to use
state revolving funds for nonpoint source proj-
ects. Projects included demonstration projects,
retention/detention basins, wetlands for storm-
water treatment, and a variety of best manage-
ment practices. Eligible programs also include
training, public education, technology transfer,
and development of ordinance and management
practices.
Loans can cover 100 percent of the project
cost. Repayment, which can take as long as 20
years, begins one year after the program begins.
Interest rates are determined by the state's gen-
eral obligation bond rate.
The loan request begins with an eight-page
application and background information. The
local government passes a resolution establish-
ing repayment arrangements. The State Water
Board places the project in the SRF Intended Use
Plan approved through a public hearing process.
• BMP tax credits — Used for installing
best management practices or similar
controls.
• Drainage fees — Used to compensate for
excessive runoff from a site.
• Bonds — Paid for by fees from
developers or users.
• Special assessments — Levied through
utility districts established by
communities.
Step 3: Build program infrastructure.
H Identify all participants and determine their
objectives. Participants with a vested interest might
include state and local agencies, governing bodies
such as legislatures and city/county councils, local or
national public environmental groups, trade associa-
tions, citizens, and business leaders. Establishing a
working relationship with the lead state nonpoint
source pollution agency is particularly important for
information, resources, and support.
Ei Match the resources with the problems. Deter-
mine what governmental units fit into your proposed
plan and which methods of funding will work best.
You may not need a staff as much as you need the abil-
ity to coordinate the available resources.
TYPES OF NONPOINT SOURCE
PROGRAM FINANCING
A number of creative strategies for financing
water quality programs have been implemented in
recent years. Examples of the most successful are
• Real estate transfer fee: Nantucket,
Massachusetts, has funded a land
purchase program through a 2 percent
transfer fee on all property sold on the
island. From the land bank's beginning in
1984 until June 1993, the fee has
collected nearly $27 million.
License fees: In Iowa, the Groundwater
Protection Fund includes revenue from
increases in pesticide dealer license fees.
Chemical manufacturers are also
assessed a 75 cent per ton tax on
" nitrogen-based fertilizers.
• Impact fees: In Florida local governments
can assess development impact fees
when issuing permits to cover
infrastructure costs associated with new
development.
• Sales tax: Washington increased state
sales tax on cigarettes by 8 cents a pack
to finance water pollution control
programs: 50 percent for marine, 10
percent for nonpoint source, 10 percent
for freshwater, 10 percent for
groundwater, and 10 percent for
discretionary programs.
• Stormwater utility fees: Some
governments have created a stormwater
utility service to achieve multijurisdictional
solutions. Charges are based on the
amount of a property owners' impervious
surface and generally range from $1 to $4
a month.
• Environmental trusts: Minnesota
established a trust with proceeds from the
state lottery; half of the net proceeds will
remain in the fund for five years.
• State revolving funds (SRF): These
funds were authorized by the Water
Quality Act of 1987 specifically to improve
water quality. The SRF money is loaned to
local governments, who repay it with
revenue raised from local fees or taxes.
SRF funds recycle a set amount of money
to finance numerous projects over an
extended period.
Page 12
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Controlling Urban Runoff
Local governments. Identify the units within your
community with the authority, knowledge, and re-
sources to coordinate a nonpoint source control
program — for example, departments of public
works, public health, or the environment. In small
communities, the conservation commission, plan-
ning board, or code enforcement office might
have the authority. Other relevant governmental
units might include regional planning commis-
sions or the departments of park maintenance,
road maintenance, waste disposal, or health.
Existing municipal programs can be modified
to address urban runoff concerns. For example,
a pretreatment inspection program for a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) can be ex-
panded to look at runoff at each'industrial facility.
Similarly, fire and safety programs can be ex-
panded to inspect runoff collection points. This
coordination should be high priority since it can
be much more cost effective to use existing pro-
gram resources than to start a new program.
Find out what actions neighboring cities and
counties, particularly in your watershed, are tak-
ing to control nonpoint source pollution. While
you cannot control other jurisdictions, even
though their actions might affect your water
quality, you should be well informed of their
problems and methods of controlling them.
State agencies. Determine agencies responsible
for nonpoint source management, groundwater,
water quality standards, floodplains, wetlands,
coastal zone management, land conservation,
land planning, endangered or threatened spe-
cies, and scenic and wild river protection.
Find out what help the lead nonpoint source
agency can offer and fit this resource into your
control strategy. State nonpoint source coordina-
tors may not be able to help with all problems —
they have their own agendas, determined by
state and federal priorities. With the diversity of
funding sources for nonpoint source control, the
community may need to enlist the support of sev-
eral different agencies.
Federal resources. U.S. EPA and USDA can pro-
vide technical advice and materials. In addition,
the Army Corps of Engineers can provide techni-
cal guidance, information, and permits. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is a source for biologi-
cal information, and the National Park Service
and U.S. Geological Survey can provide water-
shed information.
VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Virginia's stormwater management ordinance
is an example of state-enabling legislation (Code
of the Commonwealth of Virginia: Title 10.1,
Chapter 6, Article 1.1). Municipal ordinances can
be established by reference to the state law or tai-
lored to local needs. Specifically, the components
of Virginia's legislation are
• statement of purpose;
• definition of terms;
• authorization for local programs;
• guidelines for developing technical
criteria and administrative procedures;
• statement on the status of state projects
and lands;
• specification of the state's oversight
responsibilities;
• authorization for establishing more
stringent local requirements;
• procedures for submitting plans and
approving and exempting land uses;
• authorization for collecting performance
sureties, recovering administrative costs,
and assessing service charges;
• description of the appeals process;
• specification of civil penalties and
_ enforcement options;
• authorization for cooperation with federal
and state agencies; and
• statement exempting the legislation from
limiting the authority of other agencies.
The Virginia legislation includes all minimum
critical elements and provides the legal authority
for local governments to adopt their own storm-
water management ordinances. The Virginia law
places the primary burden on new development
by defining existing runoff levels and the corre-
sponding level of water quality effects, erosion,
and flooding as a point of reference. Local gov-
ernments can require performance bonds or
escrow accounts for development. If proper
stormwater controls are not installed, resources
will be available to complete required activities
without burdening taxpayers.
Cognizant of EPA's municipal stormwater re-
quirements, the Virginia law also authorizes local
governments to cooperate with federal agencies.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 13
-------
CHAPTER 2
Appendix C lists these and other information
sources, including some interstate programs or com-
pacts, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gulf
of Mexico Program, EPA's National Estuary Pro-
gram, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program,
and NOAA programs.
¦ Determine public attitudes and perceptions.
Alert citizens can be your best allies and informants.
Use citizen complaints about water quality to spot cur-
rent problems. Citizens often express such complaints
in phone calls or letters to council members or the
local newspaper editor. Look for newspaper articles
on local lake or river problems.
.If necessary, use a survey to assess public atti-
tudes and perceptions regarding water quality issues
and to determine the level of support and cooperation
the program might elicit Formal citizen monitoring
projects are extremely successful components of
many state and area water quality programs.
Step 4: Identify potential options.
The following chapters will help you think about your
options for controlling urban runoff. Add to them the
information you have garnered through your explora-
tion of the agencies and organizations already work-
ing in the nonpoint source pollution arena. Your state
nonpoint source coordinator can point to techniques
that will work in your area.
• List each option to be considered for your plan
(and your specific problems).
• For each option, list reasons favoring its use
and those in opposition.
• Estimate the cost, including maintenance and
longevity, for each option.
Step 5: Evaluate options and
alternative strategies.
By now, you should have mechanisms in place to
share information and thoughts about the process
with many groups and individuals — both those
knowledgeable in the field and interested citizens. At
this point, you certainly need to know how your com-
munity is thinking. In addition to local stakeholders,
make sure to include federal and state landowners
and other groups such as the Department of Defense
and the Conservation District
Some jurisdictions use the consensus method, re-
quiring support from all members, to make water pol-
icy decisions. Collecting information, airing view-
points in group discussions, and analyzing the prob-
lems and solutions lead to acceptable compromises.
The consensus process frequently produces a more
creative and binding outcome, important when a
community commits to a long-term project
In exploring the merits of each option for control-
ling nonpoint source pollution, carefully consider the
following issues:
• benefits and costs to the community;
• feasibility of implementation;
• public support and/or opposition;
• funding sources;
• staff to administer, enforce, and monitor;
• potential for problems and adverse reactions;
• technical support; and
• long-term maintenance ability.
¦ Models. Computer models can be used as a design
tool to project possible scenarios for pollution control
programs, but they should be used with care and ex-
pertise. Modeling can be an expensive exercise that
does not always relate to the real world. Models now
in use include several versions of SWMM, a Storm-
water Management Model developed by EPA, and its
companion, RECEIV, and AGNPS, the Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Model. Many states and regional
governmental units are using GIS (Geographic Infor-
mation System), another computerized tool, to predict
erosion and other factors. Local governments can
adapt GIS to their own needs.'
Step 6: Set program goals.
After analyzing the information collected, determine
the focus of your program. This step takes you back to
the original premise: Does your community have an
immediate problem, or has it simply recognized the
wisdom of preventing future nonpoint source prob-
lems?
Thus, your program goals will be driven either by
the need (1) to take immediate action, or (2) to
achieve community support for a long-term preven-
tive program. Of course, you may have to balance
both concerns.
The basic steps in setting realistic goals, however,
are based on setting priorities and matching them
with available resources:
Page 14
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Controlling Urban Runoff
0 Identify and list your community's most
serious problems.
• List all other problems, both immediate and
potential.
• Rank all problems for immediate,
medium-range, and long-term action.
• Establish a series of objectives and a timeline
for achieving each goal.
Visible progress is important to build community
support As you set program goals, try to identify at
least one objective that can be accomplished quickly
to assure your community that progress is being
made.
Step 7: Select a final strategy.
The strategy selected should meet several objectives.
At a minimum, it should
B Establish the legal, financial, and administra-
tive framework for the nonpoint source manage-
ment program.
B Develop a comprehensive public educa-
tion/participation program that ensures commu-
nity buy-in to the nonpoint source management
process. Far from being an isolated element, public
education, understanding, involvement, and support
are vital elements in each stage of a project—from de-
fining a problem, to developing workable solutions, to
adjusting and monitoring the progress (see Fig. 5).
TARGETING
Implement a comprehensive management
program by stages based on water quality prob-
lems —particularly when resources are limited.
By ranking problems according to your specific
area needs and targeting them for control, you
can realize the greatest water quality benefits
for resources expended. See Chapter 4 for dis-
cussion of best management control practices.
MONITOR
INSTALL
CONTROLS
(construct, permit,
preserve)
Figure 5.—Comprehensive public education/
participation program. Source: Terrene Institute, Clean
Water In Your Watershed: A Citizens Guide to Watershed
Protection, 1993.
H Restrict construction/development in highly
erodible areas — steep slopes and erodible soils.
Some slopes are not amenable to runoff control and
some soils are impermeable — unable to absorb run-
off. These areas should be identified and conventional
ground-disturbing construction prohibited.
B Reproduce predevelopment hydrological con-
ditions. In addition to controlling runoff, a nonpoint
source control program should, to the extent possible,
diminish the hydrological changes brought about by
development. Successful planning requires recogniz-
ing and addressing the serious implications of such
changes.
B3 Reduce or remove pollutants. Because control
methods differ markedly in removal mechanisms,
their performance in removing pollutants can vary
significantly. Applying best management practices is
one method of achieving goals (see Chapter 4 for dis-
cussion of BMPs). However, BMPs change with time
and conditions and should be monitored and modified
as necessary. Retrofitting includes constructing new
BMPs or modifying existing practices in developed
areas. Control practice effectiveness should con-
stantly be reevaluated considering new technology,
maintenance, repair, or upgrading needs.
B Use strategies appropriate to the watershed
and the site. Many control methods do not work be-
cause they are unsuited to the geographic area or site.
Inappropriate methods can cause maintenance prob-
lems or nuisance conditions; in some cases, inappro-
priately located methods may not function at all.
Decisionmakers need to understand a site's special
characteristics. For example, plans may need to be
modified after field reviews of the site's physical condi-
tion.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 15
-------
CHAPTER 2
¦ Protect and preserve vegetative treatment sys-
tems with nonpoint source benefits. Buffers and
natural systems filter out many pollutants in urban
runoff before they become a problem. Communities
should identify and preserve these natural vegetative
treatment systems, because once they are altered,
they cannot be easily replaced.
¦ Protect critical aquatic habitats and natural
wetlands. Determine the aquatic species most threat-
ened by nonpoint source pollution in the watershed.
What can be done to protect their habitats? Is the pre-
ferred technique compatible with other uses of the
water? Should more than one control method be used?
¦ Be responsible for maintenance of controls.
Controls are effective only if regularly maintained,
and maintenance costs can be significant Over 20
years, structural BMPs can exceed their initial con-
struction costs, passing on costs to future residents
or taxpayers. While some effective BMPs require sig-
nificant maintenance, others — particularly some
nonstructural BMPs — are not expensive to main-
tain. Anticipate future maintenance needs and con-
sider the cost factor compared to other needs and re-
sources.
¦ Positively affect the environment Control meth-
ods significantly affect the natural environment and
adjacent community, either positively or negatively.
Small investments in design, landscaping, and mainte-
nance can make a control method an attractive, or at
least an unobtrusive, feature in a community. Without
such effort controls can become unsightly nuisances.
If that occurs, public support for nonpoint source con-
trol is jeopardized.
Step 8: Develop a work plan.
After defining the goals and the strategy, develop a
specific work plan. The work plan should express the
community's goals in definitive terms, yet be broad
and flexible in their execution. It should ultimately be
a practical, easy-to-use guide to decisionmaking over
the long term.
The work plan should also include specific meas-
urable objectives to meet community goals (e.g., ni-
trogen concentration will drop 10 percent by 2000
from 1990 levels) and fit into the existing infrastruc-
ture. The plan should complement existing plans,
translating local goals, priorities, and resources into
action.
Consider other plans in developing a work plan for
your community:
• comprehensive land use plan
• stormwater management plan
• roadway/transportationplan
• zoning map
• water and sewer network
• open space conservation plan
• preservation of critical areas
Also consider
• legal authorities
• local/state agencies
• existing land use patterns and zoning
The following is an outline for developing a non-
point source pollution control work plan:
I. Formulate goals, objectives, assumptions.
II. Describe the size and scope of plan.
III. Identify legal authority.
IV. list the responsible agency or agencies.
V. Describe staff and training needs.
VI. Describe existing conditions and resources,
using data relating to the community, in-
cluding water quality problems and oppor-
tunities for improvement.
VII. Describe demand pattern for water. Analyze
how water use patterns relate to demo-
graphic and economic groups; measure im-
pact on residents, nonresidents, and tour-
ists; assess impact of fees and other charges
on demand patterns; analyze why existing
opportunities (i.e., recreation, fishing) are
not being used.
VIII. Provide needs analysis. Analyze supply and
demand relationship; develop program
standards; describe water quality needs,
state need for a plan/program, and local gov-
ernment's ability to meet program needs.
EX. Analyze present policies and programs as
they relate to program goals and outcomes.
Recommend and justify the option selected.
X. Appendix. Include background studies
(pertinent information collected), data and
methods, bibliography (sources), and ac-
knowledgments and credits.
Page 16
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Controlling Urban Runoff
Step 9. Adopt and implement the
work plan.
The work plan must be adopted by the community's
governing body. Information gained in developing the
work plan should be used to further the effort to edu-
cate and involve the public and community decision-
makers. Whether a public referendum is required to
pass the plan and financing mechanism or a commit-
tee or city council will make the final decision, inevita-
ble differences of opinion can be resolved through a
continued program of public information, education,
and political savvy.
¦ Implementation. After local adoption, follow an
implementation plan that describes the necessary ac-
tions and who is responsible. Schedule actions by time
period, group, and responsible agency. Relate costs to
the general budget Describe needs for training, legis-
lation, public participation, and state approval process,
if necessary.
B Training. A successful water quality program re-
quires a high degree of staff involvement A program
must have technical staff to develop specific controls,
administrative staff to oversee the project, clerical
staff to maintain records, and volunteers to carry out
citizen education and monitoring functions. Staff and
volunteers should help develop the plan and begin
training soon after its adoption.
Workshops sponsored by federal, state, regional,
and county agencies and by private environmental
groups are good ways to gain expertise. In addition,
local university extension curricula may offer
courses that relate to the program. On-the-job train-
ing can also be effective if supervised by professional
water quality specialists (see Appendix C).
Step 10: Monitor, evaluate, and
revise the program.
While some revisions will occur early in the planning
process, evaluation and modification should continue in-
definitely. Incorporate a monitoring and evaluation plan
into the work plan and see that staff or volunteer pro-
grams are in place to carry out this ongoing process.
To make sure the control method is working, de-
velop a monitoring program that relates results to ini-
tial goals set early in the planning process. The moni-
toring program must have clear goals, such as
• evaluating BMP efficiency;
• specifying problems with receiving water
quality;
• identifying priority sources (for example, gas
stations or malfunctioning septics);
• validating results against other studies or
models; and
• complying with applicable regulations,
including local requirements.
Compliance may be a good area in which to in-
volve citizens. Citizens have made valuable contribu-
tions to local monitoring programs. However, volun-
teer monitors must be well trained, supervised, and
motivated to ensure that the data is accurate and use-
ful. The local government should carefully supervise
program activities and conduct the analyses (see
Chapter 5).
A monitoring program should consider, at a mini-
mum, the following parameters:
• beneficial uses that need protection;
• expected impacts on water resources and
assorted habitat; and
• an approach to measuring impacts.
Prepare an annual report of your progress for the
county or city council and other governing bodies.
This serves not only as a program evaluation tool but
also keeps the community informed. In addition, the
state government may be able to include the report
as part of its annual report required by the Clean
Water Act.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 17
-------
Page 18
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Chapter 3
Planning to Prevent
Urban Runoff
A successful nonpoint source management
plan begins by identifying general con-
cepts and goals in the total community
development or comprehensive plan. Specific con-
trols (see Chapter 4) to prevent pollution should be
part of each site plan.
Damage that occurs as part of the development
process is, at worst, irreparable and, at best, costly to
clean up. Therefore, urban runoff pollution preven-
tion should be part of the overall plans for roads,
parks, utilities, and other public facilities as well as
for each site.
Such plans should consider the larger drainage
basin, the immediate watershed, the municipality,
and, finally, the specific site. Water quality plans must
work in harmony with local legislation and programs
of other political jurisdictions.
Developing a Land Use Plan
Land use planning begins with the local government,
but it must also adhere to state mandates and compre-
hensive planning. A good nonpoint source program
coordinates federal and state laws with local programs
in a plan that improves and protects water quality ac-
cording to community needs. Local government
should provide the broad legal authority to develop
comprehensive plans and programs.
Land use planning can prevent pollution problems
by protecting water quality, open spaces, stream val-
leys, and floodplains. At the same time, planning
should support local economic needs. Through com-
prehensive planning, communities can address water
quality issues by setting development goals — for en-
vironmental quality, a sustainable economy, viable
commercial areas, population density, housing pat-
terns, recreational facilities, tourism, and property
values — that work together to ensure the overall
"quality of life."
Land use planning reduces pollutant loads in two
ways:
• by controlling the type, size, and location of
development in a given area, and
• by reducing pollution generated at specific
levels of development.
While comprehensive planning provides general
guidance in managing nonpoint source pollution, spe-
cific practices are put in place through zoning laws
that regulate development.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 19
-------
CHAPTER 3
REeouecfc, ~
Z&-&T10cJ
MeA
• IOO F<-<*>5>>v
-------
Planning to Prevent Urban Runoff
Planned unit development (PUDs). Through com-
prehensive development planning, PUDs provide
a mix of zoning classifications including compati-
ble commercial, residential, and even light indus-
trial development. PUDs, which sometimes in-
clude clustered development, range in size from
a few acres to over 1,000.
PUDs harmoniously blend varying uses to
create an attractive, interrelated unit that pre-
serves both property values and aesthetics. As
with cluster development, a PUD's goal is to
maintain density while maximizing open space.
The ideal PUD locates residences and offices
within walking distance of each other, dramati-
cally reducing traffic.
A PUD's main water quality benefit is large-
scale urban runoff management planning. Local
governments control PUDs through negotiations'
between the developer, the public, and the public
review authority. PUDs must maintain open
space to facilitate stormwater drainage and some-
times require developers to provide special struc-
tures to handle runoff.
Incentive or bonus zoning. This method is used to
promote cluster development. It permits the de-
veloper higher density than normal in return for
maximizing open and/or public use space or
other amenities.
Downzoning. Downzoning changes an estab-
lished zone to a lower density level or less in-
tense use. Typically, industrial zoning permits
the most intense land use, followed by light in-
dustrial, commercial, and residential.
Downzoning is used on strips of land adjacent
to waterways to provide a buffer between indus-
trial sites and the streambank or on a whole area
surrounding a waterbody to reverse or prevent
pollution.
Phase-in zoning. Phase-in zoning is used when
present development is incompatible with water
quality goals but abrupt change would be too dis-
ruptive to the economy and the community. For
example, to protect a lake surrounded by heavy
industrial development, the community might
close and decontaminate plants when their useful
life is finished, rather than allowing them to be
sold or leased to another industry, and prohibit
new plants from opening.
Large-lot zoning. Large-lot zoning applies to large
residential developments, generally 5 to 20 acres.
Regulations call for designs that take advantage
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
of common management to achieve water quality
goals. These may include reducing the quantity
and impact of septic system leachate to a water
supply, building stormwater detention basins, or
preserving . open land to facilitate aquifer
recharge.
Conditional zoning. Conditional zoning can be
used in a standard zone or where zones are not
clearly delineated. It carefully monitors and lim-
its potentially harmful activities by permitting
certain activities only under special conditions.
For example, a conditional zoning might allow
multiunit apartments in a single-family housing
zone only if no septic tanks were us'ed.
Floating zone. A floating zone is defined by char-
acteristics rather than geographical location. The
proposed use must be compatible with the sur-
rounding uses 'and conform to the zone's ex-
pressed purposes.
Under a floating zone, for example, multifam-
ily dwellings that conform to specific code re-
quirements regarding septic tanks, grading, and
open space preservation could be acceptable in
an area zoned for single-family dwellings. Alter-
natively, a floating zone might restrict certain de-
velopment in a wetland or around a well or aqui-
fer recharge zone. A developer would need to
show that the project does not fall within the area
subject to floating zones or take adequate steps
to protect water quality within the zone.
Overlay zoning. An overlay zone is a mapped dis-
trict that places restrictions or requirements in
addition to those of the underlying zone. Overlay
zones are used to meet, a special public interest
that is not met by the existing zone or by rezon-
ing. For example, these zones can protect spe-
cific water sources such as ponds, wells, or wet-
lands lying within residential, commercial, or
industrial zones. In Figure 7, the stream valley
corridor buffer overlay zones provide special pro-
tection for water resources located within the ex-
isting zones, reducing the impact of uses on
water and natural habitat.
In another example, Maryland counties use
overlay zoning within the Chesapeake Bay Criti-
cal Area — a 1,000-foot land buffer surrounding
the tidal portion of Maryland's bay tributaries —
to protect land and water resources. The critical
area overlay zone is designed to foster more sen-
sitive development activity for shoreline areas
while minimizing the adverse impacts of develop-
Page 21
-------
CHAPTER 3
"UMrre of- the-
U>p*~rvoP~
LIMITS Or- THE.
WATEJ3SHED £W\MEAn"
E-^,C-l , p-1
|N"b/£AT&- £/!STlN6
"ZONING? c^LA6^>lF!
Figure 7.— Overlay zoning adds another measure of protection to critical resources. Source: Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, 1993.
ment on water quality and natural habitats. Zones
are known as intensely developed areas (IDAs),
limited development areas (LDAs), and resource
conservation areas (RCAs).
Floodplain zoning. Building in floodplains —
areas subject to periodic inundation by runoff —
is considered unsafe. Except for roads or other
transportation facilities, development is gener-
ally restricted. Local governments or FEMA can
provide floodplain maps.
Open space preservation. This zoning protects
community open spaces by creating public parks
or undeveloped strips of land adjacent to
waterbodies. This important zoning provides
open space to allow urban runoff to seep into the
ground and recharge the water table. Open space
preservation also protects critical aquatic habi-
tats such as wetlands, reduces flooding, and en-
hances aesthetics.
Not all open space uses benefit water quality.
A zoo, for example, requires high maintenance to
Page 22
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Planning to Prevent Urban Runoff
dispose of manure, care for parking lots, and
clean up litter. In addition, open space should be
used differently depending on its location within
the watershed.
Aesthetic zoning. Aesthetic zoning places design
restrictions on new or historic buildings, prevent-
ing development or renovation from blighting
the community or destroying its style or scale
continuity. Aesthetic zoning can also protect
water quality by requiring open space or limiting
development size and the pressure it places on
the watershed. For example, restrictions can pro-
tect attractive shores and swimming, boating,
fishing, and other recreational uses.
Performance zoning. Performance zoning limits
development to the resources of the specific
property. While the overall intensity of use meets
zoning requirements, the gross density can vary,
depending on the property's characteristics. Per-
formance zoning can set a maximum use inten-
sity (density factor) on the buildable portion of
the site. This avoids many small zoning districts
providing different levels of protection. The envi-
ronment is protected from disturbance of unsta-
ble or rare resources, but flexibility is allowed in
less sensitive areas.
In using zoning as part of an environmental pro-
gram, planners should consider all options to ensure
that the zoning solution is appropriate and feasible.
For example, downzoning a heavily developed area to
protect a waterbody might not be economically feasi-
ble, but incentive zoning could be applied to future
development or an overlay zone used to augment ex-
isting zoning.
Zoning regulations promote legal issues and chal-
lenges. Courts often strike down unnecessarily re-
strictive or discriminatory ordinances. In addition,
zoning is a political issue, often requiring a referen-
dum or other formal adoption mechanism. There-
fore, zoning plans must be carefully structured to ad-
dress a variety of needs and constituencies.
Q Subdivision review. Land use is regulated by
many zoning categories. However, before separately
owned parcels of land can actually be developed, they
are subject to subdivision review.
The subdivision review process includes several
stages in which various government entities and
agencies review development plans to ensure that the
developer has met all the standards and require-
ments placed on the land and has obtained all neces-
sary permits and approvals.
ZONING + SITE PLAN REVIEW
A small, primarily rural Maryland community
is devising a plan to protect the water supply of
its rapidly growing town.
Subdivision regulations have been
amended to give the town council authority to
regulate the density of development based on
anticipated demands and effects on the water
supply and quality. Aquifer recharge areas
have been identified and an overlay zoning
district established.
A site plan for a development must be pre-
pared by a professional hydrogeologist for re-
view and approval by the town council and the
planning commission. The plan must delineate
the development within the recharge area and
project water demand and its effect on aquifer
recharge. If the council determines that the de-
velopment does not lie within any recharge
area, the development plan may proceed
through normal processing.
The council or planning commission may
reject any plans that
• impose adverse effects upon the
aquifer recharge rate or water quality
(the developer may resubmit modified
plans),
• would create a water demand on the
site greater than the groundwater
recharge rate, or
• cause more than a 10 percent
decrease in a site's recharge rate
(immediate rejection).
Other economic and water quality consider-
ations may also be grounds for rejection.
These requirements include building lots, streets,
sewers, grading, and relationships to other proper-
ties and the comprehensive plan. The review can also
include runoff control, drainage, and erosion control
requirements, and provisions for parks, buffer areas,
open spaces, and maintenance responsibility. These
features are often phased in as the project pro-
gresses, with completion required by the time the
lots are sold.
Before subdivision review was part of the normal
planning process, developers often sold lots without
such basic design features as roads, parks, and open
spaces. The community had to pay for further improve-
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Pago 23
-------
CHAPTER 3
merits. Reviews guarantee that developers meet re-
quirements before construction can begin or pro-
ceed.
Subdivision review is a good time to review the de-
sign of permanent urban runoff management struc-
tures. This allows the entire parcel to be reviewed as
a whole rather than in small separate parcels that
may not individually require comprehensive treat-
ment
Site plan review is a stage in the subdivision proc-
ess. It enables government to review the technical as-
pects of a proposed development. While not always
required, site plan review ensures that new develop-
ment or expanding current uses comply with zoning,
environmental, health, and .safety ,requirements. A
site plan shows the proposed development in context
and provides a good picture of how it will fit in with
the surrounding areas. It shows existing topography,
natural features, wetlands, and runoff facilities. The
detailed project site includes internal roads and park-
ing areas, building placement, recreational areas, and
landscaping.
¦ Land acquisition. To protect water quality and
the environment, jurisdictions can purchase property
uniquely valuable to the community. Land purchases
protect wells, wetlands, and strips bordering water-
ways. Publicly owned land is used for parks and recre-
ation and preserved as open space to recharge the
groundwater.
While acquiring land to gain control of critical
areas can be an effective technique, it is costly. Ac-
quiring contiguous pieces of property often takes
many years. Converting private lands to public own-
ership also removes them from the tax rolls — and re-
quires ongoing management and maintenance ex-
pense.
In addition, land purchase is a divisive issue be-
cause of the cost and the frequent resistance to tak-
ing land out of development. Communities should
prioritize potential land purchases and carefully eval-
uate each parcel's importance, such as ability to
recharge groundwater, existing land uses, and devel-
opment trends. Communities can then plan to fully
purchase lands most critical to preserving water qual-
ity, and use partial purchase arrangements for less
critical land.
Several types of purchase arrangements and fi-
nancing mechanisms are possible.
Fee simple interest. The most expensive type of
acquisition is outright purchase, where the juris-
diction gains full or "fee simple" title and the
WISCONSIN STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM
The Stewardship Program, created in 1989,
is part of Wisconsin's century-old history of ac-
quiring and protecting environmentally sensi-
tive lands.
Through the program's stream bank protec-
tion category, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) or nonprofit conser-
vation organizations protect water quality and
fisheries from urban and rural runoff through
land purchases and easements along
streams.
In 1992, for example, the department pur-
chased a 43-acre corridor easement for
$39,500. The corridor included a .7,000-foot
frontage along the Milwaukee River and 27
acres of wetland and lowland woods. The
easement protects water quality and fish habi-
tat and assures public access to the shoreline.
While landowner resistance has resulted in
only a modest number of easements, DNR
has reported a renewed interest in the pro-
gram, with some 40 landowners giving permis-
sion for easement appraisals. The addition of
a fee acquisition authority by the legislature
should also enhance landowner acceptance.
Source: Wisconsin Stewardship Program Progress
Report, April 1993.
maximum measure of control over land uses.
The community can benefit by establishing
parks, recreation facilities', or a conservation dis-
trict.
Partial interests. More limited interests can be
tailored to specific public objectives, including
environmental protection. Partial interests gen-
erally take several forms:
~ Conservation easements and restrictions. The
easement holder can prohibit actions on the
property, such as restricting certain high-
density development or prohibiting hazard-
ous materials or septic tank systems. Ease-
ments apply to all subsequent landowners
for the full term, which might be specified,
or in perpetuity. Property owners gain bene-
fits because easements take land off the tax
roles or assess it at sharply reduced levels.
Page 24
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Planning to Prevent Urban Runoff
Conservation easements — such as the
Maryland Environmental Trust, Eastern
Shore Conservancy, Western Maryland
Conservancy, and Wisconsin's Stewardship
Program — are becoming more prevalent.
~ Purchase of development rights. In this case,
the right to develop the property is pur-
chased, while ownership remains with the
landowner. Hie landowner cannot develop
the property, based on the restrictions in
the deed.
~ Restrictive covenants. A restrictive covenant
attaches to the property and applies to fu-
ture landowners. However, unlike an ease-
ment in which a local government can en-
force restrictions, a restrictive covenant can
be enforced only by other property owners
similarly restricted.
To protect water quality, a local planning
board might require a restrictive covenant
limiting paved surfaces as a condition to
granting site plan approval for a proposed
subdivision. Or, a government might pur-
chase a parcel outright, place restrictive
covenants on the title limiting future devel-
opment rights, and sell the deed-restricted
property back to a private party. Such re-
strictions can be used to prohibit specific
land uses, densities, or activities that pose a
threat to water quality.
While partial interests do not provide govern-
ments with total control, they have certain advan-
tages:
~ the community is not burdened with main-
taining the property;
~ the property remains on the tax rolls; and
~ lower costs allow the community to obtain
interests in more parcels.
Financing. Since full or partial purchase of land is
costly, the community should carefully consider
the alternatives. A number of strategies can be
used to finance purchases, including those listed
in Chapter 2.
~ Donations or "bargain sales." Motivate indi-
viduals by allowing a charity or tax deduc-
tion to donate or take a loss on property sold
to the local government.
FINANCING LAND ACQUISITION
Through a land bank program, Nantucket
Island — off the coast of Massachusetts —
has acquired 1,105 acres from purchase or gift
as of June 1993. This represents 3.5 percent
of the island's total acreage (see page 17,
Nonpoint Source Program Financing). The
land bank has targeted two coastal preserves
with a large amount of shore frontage for ac-
quisition as open space public lands. The pro-
gram, funded by a 2 percent real estate trans-
fer fee, receives favorable support from
residents.
~ Purchase by conservation groups. Encourage
private conservation groups to purchase the
land.
~ Increased water and sewer fees. Dedicate
"user fees" added to utility bills to land pur-
chase.
~ Increased local property or property transfer
taxes. Levy fees on real estate transfers and
trust funds set up to acquire land with the
proceeds, placing the burden on develop-
ers.
~ Municipal bonds. Issue bonds to raise
money for land acquisition, depending on
state law and federal limitations.
Protecting Critical
Resources
Q Floodplains. Floodplains provide flood storage,
runoff infiltration, vegetative filters, and protection for
wildlife and streambanks. Naturally vegetated flood-
plains are a valuable habitat for plants and wildlife and
allow streams to find their natural courses.
Generally, state and local governments work
through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program
to preserve national floodplains. States have passed
enabling legislation providing various levels of assis-
tance and coordination to local governments, which
adopt measures to reduce or eliminate flood damage
in return for flood insurance. When enforced, these
measures prevent and/or limit development in flood-
plains, allowing them to continue to provide flood
storage, runoff infiltration, and erosion protection.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 25
-------
CHAPTER 3
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM
NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 to
reduce the loss of life and property and the
cost of rising disaster relief from flooding.
These goals are achieved by
• requiring that new and substantially
improved buildings be constructed to
resist flood damages;
• guiding future development away
from flood hazard areas; and
• transferring the costs of flood losses
from the taxpayer to floodplain
property owners through flood
insurance premiums.
The courts have consistently upheld the
land use management criteria of the NFIP and
over 18,000 communities participate in the
program.
The floodway, which maintains the flood-
carrying capacity of rivers and streams, is the
most important provision of the NFIP. The
floodway is the area of the watercourse plus
adjacent floodplain land that must be pre-
served to allow the base flood (100-year flood)
discharge without increasing flood heights
more than a designated amount. Communities
must prohibit any development within a flood-
way that would increase flood heights.
A floodway — a de facto preservation tool
— also protects critical riparian habitats, mini-
mizes degradation of surface water quality,
and provides for groundwater recharge.
A community that preserves and manages its
floodplains also preserves a natural control for non-
point source pollution and a no-cost alternative to de-
tention basins and other structural controls (see
Chapter 4). As an added benefit, homeowners may
also enjoy lower flood insurance rates.
E3 Wetlands. Once considered wastelands, wetlands
are now highly valued for a multitude of benefits. In
some cases, wetlands are even being constructed to
control nonpoint source runoff. Wetlands support
plants that remove suspended sediment and dis-
solved nutrients from runoff and provide a habitat for
a variety of wildlife. They also store excess runoff and
absorb destructive waves that can erode shorelines.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects the
nation's wetlands by requiring permits to fill and
dredge them.
Although wetland protection and use are critical to
any comprehensive plan to reduce nonpoint source
pollution, using wetlands to filter pollutants has draw-
backs. Wetlands can easily become sinks, allowing
trapped toxic pollutants to seep into groundwater. A
nonpoint source management plan should, therefore,
consider wetlands in the context of the entire drain-
age system.
¦ Stream buffers. These undeveloped zones at the
edge of waterbodies preserve vegetation to reduce
erosion and trap sediment, nutrients, and other pollu-
tants before they reach the water. Buffers can also
shade streams to reduce temperature, improving fish
and wildlife habitat. Local jurisdictions usually pass
laws to .establish these buffers.
¦ Stabilized hillsides and steep slopes. Vegetative
or structural controls secure banks by retaining soil,
holding back runoff, and maximizing infiltration. To
protect slopes, local governments have purchased the
land, used a site plan review process, or passed special
ordinances.
¦ Aquifers or wellheads. A valuable water re-
source, these structures require protection to pre-
serve water quality. Sources as diverse as toxic
wastes, manure, pesticides, road salt, and oil can
cause contamination.
EPA has estimated, for example, that 20 percent of
the one million underground petroleum storage
tanks may be leaking and could contaminate water
supplies. Since municipal pumping systems draw
substances discharged toward the well, areas sur-
rounding wells are particularly vulnerable. Toxins
can easily enter an aquifer through an open, unsealed
wellhead, making wellheads a chief source of ground-
water contamination. Therefore, many county health
departments are identifying abandoned wellheads
without adequate caps or seals.
Many jurisdictions protect areas around wells,
ranging from a few hundred feet to several miles,
with special ordinances, permits, and prohibitions
against specific types of development and activities.
In some cases, communities have purchased the land
surrounding a well to assure protection. The Well-
head Protection Program, part of the 1986 Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments, provides technical
assistance to communities to protect wellheads.
Page 26
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Planning to Prevent Urban Runoff
Intensely Developed Area
Limited Development Area
Resource Conservation Area
<
Characteristics
¦ Dense residential, institutional,
commercial, or industrial uses
¦ 4 or more dwelling units per acre
¦ Public sewer and water serving 3 or
more housing units per acre
Applicable Criteria
¦ Reduce pollutant loadings by at least
10% from predevelopment loads
¦ Reduce nonpoint impacts to streams
and tidal waters from redevelopment
¦ Protect remaining wildlife and fish
habitats
Characteristics - Characteristics
¦ 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres up to ¦ Housing density of less than 1
4 per acre dwelling unit per five acres
¦ Areas with public sewer, or water, or both ¦ No public sewer or water
¦ Mixture of land usage—not dominated - ¦ Primarily open fields, wetlands, forest,
by agriculture, wetlands, forest, or and agriculture
open space Applicable Criteria
Applicable Criteria ¦ Limit residential development to an
¦ Replace cleared lorest land on an overall density not to exceed 1
acre-for-acre basis dwelling unit per 20 acres
¦ Restrict removal of existing forest land ¦ Encourage agriculture and forestry
to 20% when development occurs
¦ Restrict Impervious areas to 15% of
the land area being developed
a Encourage clustering of dwelling units
to conserve natural habitats
Figure 8.—Characteristics of land classifications In Maryland's critical areas, and criteria for management.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland's Critical Area Program.
Successful Land Use
Programs
While land use controls vary according to location, a
number of communities have successfully used these
strategies to curtail nonpoint source pollution.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Maryland's
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program is one way
local communities can implement state programs de-
signed to protect water quality. The Critical Areas
Commission, which established criteria to classify
and protect lands in a 1,000-foot strip surrounding the
tidal portions of the bay's tributaries, requires juris-
dictions to write and adopt local programs. They
must include both state and local comprehensive
plan requirements for zoning, site planning, subdivi-
sion review, and other activities. The Critical Areas
program addresses development, resource use, and
resource protection.
Local jurisdictions must assign their lands in the
critical area to one of the following development cate-
gories (see Fig. 8):
• intensely developed —four or more dwelling
units per acre;
• limited development — one to four
dwelling units per 5 acres; or
• resource conservation — less than one
dwelling unit per 5 acres.
These definitions also include other characteris-
tics, such as land usage and sewerage. Development
requirements have been specified for all three cate-
gories. For example, only 5 percent of the land in a
limited development or resource conservation area
may be reclassified to more intense use.
Dade County, Florida, has developed a Wellfield
Protection Ordinance that prohibits underground
storage tanks and other potentially polluting activities
in the recharge zone of public wells. The ordinance is
based on a mathematical groundwater flow model
that predicts the speed that groundwater travels in
recharge areas. In Massachusetts, the Cape Cod
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 27
-------
CHAPTER 3
Planning and Economic Development Commission is
using a similar principle to protect its well fields.
In 1988, Washington state developed a Local Plan-
ning and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution
administrative code (chapter 400-12) that outlines
procedures for state watershed management The
state code was originally developed by the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority that monitors an envi-
ronmentally sensitive area encompassing 12 water-
sheds.
The Washington program stipulates local water-
shed plan development, to be funded primarily
through grants from the state Department of Ecol-
ogy. Under the regulation, a watershed management
committee prepares plans and addresses all major
watershed nonpoint sources. Unlike traditional citi-
zen advisory committees, these local bodies have sig-
nificant decisionmaking responsibility. They operate
under the general aegis of a lead agency — usually a
county — responsible for convening the committee
and overseeing plan development. The planning com-
mittee, government entities affected by the plan, and
the Department of Ecology must approve each plan.
Page 28
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Chapter 4
Urban Nonpoint Source
Control Methods
fig onstruction and development activities
^ can be one of the worst sources of urban
nonpoint source pollution. Improper con-
struction erosion and sediment control can cause
large volumes of sediment to impair sewers, streams,
lakes, and stormwater control devices. When this ex-
cessive sediment enters small streams, wetlands, and
lakes, it can damage or destroy wildlife habitat by
smothering stream and lake bottoms, filling im-
poundments with sediment, increasing dredging
costs, and impeding navigation.
After construction is complete, many changes in
land use and site drainage characteristics can cause a
host of additional problems. Changes include in-
creased impervious surfaces and pollutant loadings,
as well as different runoff patterns and increased vol-
umes and temperature. Cold water fisheries may be
destroyed, streambank erosion and flooding may be
increased, and beneficial uses of waterbodies — such
as swimming, fishing, and boating — may be im-
paired. To avoid or reduce these problems, a dual
focus on proper construction site erosion and sedi-
ment control and postdevelopment runoff control is
necessary.
A number of control practices can be used to re-
duce the impact of development or redevelopment.
Local conditions will determine what practices are ap-
propriate for a given situation. In most cases, stan-
dard erosion and sediment control practices can be
used, although they may need to be adjusted for
areas with steep slopes, intense rainfall, or highly ero-
sive soils. Management strategies for postconstruc-
tion runoff controls are generally site specific — they
must be specifically designed to fit the individual de-
velopment site and local conditions. Often a combina-
tion of techniques offers the most protection.
Practices used to control sediment and erosion
during construction, when the soil is not stabilized,
are different from practices used for long-term runoff
control after construction. During the site develop-
ment process — before construction begins — an
erosion and sediment control plan should be devel-
oped for each activity during construction. This plan
should be developed in conjunction with a storm-
water management plan to address the runoff from
the newly completed project or development.
Tools of the trade are usually referred to as best
management practices (BMPs). The term BMP is
used to describe the most effective practice or combi-
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 29
-------
CHAPTER 4
nation of practices to control runoff and nonpoint
source pollution. A BMP may be a system that re-
duces the pollutants that enter urban runoff or a
method that reduces the amount of pollutants in the
runoff before it enters a waterbody. BMPs are gener-
ally grouped into categories — structural or non-
structural — depending on the operating principle or
physical mechanism used to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. Nonstructural controls decrease erosion
potential, while structural controls prevent and miti-
gate erosion and sediment movement.
Nonstructural BMPs are a cost-effective way to
manage stormwater runoff and prevent nonpoint
source pollution. These controls take advantage of
the land's natural features and use, relying on plan-
ning, design, maintenance, education, economic in-
centives, and even regulation to prevent runoff con-
tamination (see Chapter 3).
A variety of urban BMPs can be used to mitigate
some of the adverse impacts caused by development
More detailed information on selecting and using
BMPs can be found in the resources listed in Appen-
dix B.
Preconstruction Planning
¦ Basic development practices. Land use strate-
gies for local government to plan an overall nonpoint
source control program were discussed in Chapter 3.
But requirements for developers before construction
begins, particularly at the site plan review stage, can
help prevent problems from occurring on individual
sites. A developer can be required to submit a detailed
plan for managing runoff and for returning the site to
a predetermined hydrological condition after complet-
ing construction.
Since few control methods can handle the large
loads of sediment that erode during construction, a
combination of control systems should be planned for
and put in place. In some cases, the measures used
during construction can be modified to control runoff
over the long term.
Use the following check list, singly or in combina-
tions, to develop an urban runoff management plan.
• Respect contours and natural features of the
landscape — for example, avoid stream
valleys and steep slopes.
• Use downzoning to restrain development.
• Specify minimum lot sizes.
• limit development by soil type or proximity to
waterbody.
Page 30
• Restrict or prohibit development in sensitive
areas identified in the comprehensive plan.
• limit density of development.
• limit percentage of lot that can be disturbed.
• limit percent of impervious cover.
• Preserve natural 100-year floodplain (area that
will receive a flood at least once within 100
years); allow no modification of the natural
floodplain; and ensure that development is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
• Prohibit clearing or grading on steep slopes
(more than 25 percent recommended) and
limit road grades (equal to or less than 7
percent recommended).
• Prohibit development in nontidal wetlands
and require a buffer zone for these areas.
• Retain upland and riparian trees as a certain
percentage of predevelopment tree cover.
• Require waterway disturbance permits for
structures such as roads and utilities so they
do not restrict fish migration or riparian areas.
• Reserve a minimum percent of open space on
each new development site.
• Designate the percent of the land that can be
exposed at one time during construction;
specify the duration of exposure and the
developer's revegetation/stabilization
responsibilities.
• Impose time restrictions on construction —
e.g., prohibit disturbances during spawning
season.
• Revegetate immediately or as soon as possible
following construction.
• Provide for stormwater collection or
treatment, such as use of sediment control
basins, wetlands, or wet ponds, to
accommodate large storms.
• Route clean water around the site.
• Maintain infiltration capacity, using natural
drainage conditions where possible. This may
mean limiting impervious area to a fixed
percentage of lot size and limiting runoff to
predevelopment rates and characteristics.
• Control erosion and sediment through the
watershed protection ordinance.
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Urban Nonpoint Source Control Methods
• limit the grade of constructed slopes.
• Stabilize existing steep slopes by sodding and
pegging to establish grass cover, building
retaining walls, and planting woody vegetation
on the most extreme slope.
• Dispose of construction wastes such as oil,
cement, and debris.
• Require inspection during and after
construction.
• Require long-term maintenance and review of
plans for adjacent parcels.
• Ensure that development plan meets all
existing ordinances.
¦ Groundwater considerations. When considering
options for postdevelopment stormwater control,
groundwater should be considered in choosing a
BMP. Activities that have a significant impact on
groundwater should be controlled by design stan-
dards. For example, a standard could require runoff
collection systems for roads and parking lots to con-
trol at least the first flush — the first 1/2 inch of rain-
fall that typically contains most contaminants — dur-
ing any storm.
Controlling Development
Local governments should consider the total environ-
ment in selecting a nonpoint source pollution strategy
that will provide the maximum benefit to the environ-
ment and to consumers. These benefits usually
depend not only on the method itself but also on its de-
sign, maintenance, and congruence with the sur-
rounding landscape.
A community's success in preventing pollution de-
pends largely on how well it has planned for controls
during and after the development process (see Fig.
9).
BMP
Dry extended detention
o
©
3
©
#
3
3 C
13 3
Extended detention w/marsh
0
©
0
o
3
O (
§ 3 3
Wet extended detention
0
©
©
%
o
®
@ (
& 3 ©
Wet pond
0
o
©
0
o
©
® (
) 3 $
Infiltration trench
0
3
o
o
#
o
O 1
9 O ©
Infiltration basin
0
3
o
0
©
3
3 i
1 O 3
Porous pavement
n
3
0
0
©
0
0 i
1 O ©
Water quality inlet
0
0
o
0
©
o
O (
i o ©
Grassed swale
3
0
0
3
©
3
O (
13©
Filter strip
3
O
0
©
3
0 t
$ 3 ©
Shallow marsh
0
0
0
©
0
3
O (
13 3
O Seldom provided
@ Usually provided
Sometimes provided (w/design modifications)
Figure 9.—Comparison of nonpoint source control methods in benefiting the surrounding environment and
community. Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1993.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Pago 31
-------
CHAPTER 4
BMP
Factors
Pond Systems
Wel 1 Dry ED Ponds
Infiltration Systems
French Orams. Oty Wells,
Porous Pvml, Trenches
Wetland Systems
Stoflmater Wetlands
Filter Systems
Sand & PeaVSand Filters
Grassed Swales
Water Quality Inlets
OilfGnt Separators
Slope
0
o
©
High Water Table
•
o
®
o
•
Close to Bedrock
3
0
3
3
0
Proximity to Foundations
0
•
•
o
Space Consumption
O
•
O
•
•
Maximum Depth
•
o
3
o
o
Restricted Land Uses
•
•
O
•
0
High Sediment Input
3
0
3
o
o
Wetlands/Forest Permits
0
•
O
©
•
Stream Warming
o
•
O
@
•
OMay Preclude The Use Of A BMP
9 Can Be Overcome With Careful Site Design
0 Generally Not A Restriction
Figure 10.—Screening techniques for urban BMPs. Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1993.
H Site conditions. In developing a comprehensive
nonpoint source water quality protection plan, the first
step is to assess the site's geographic elements and
morphology (see Fig. 10).
Soil. Permeability — the ability of the soil to ab-
sorb runoff — is crucial in selecting an appropri-
ate control method. This characteristic particu-
larly affects infiltration methods, which can
affect groundwater quality (see Fig. 11).
Slopes. Steep slopes preclude the use of several
types of control methods and certain types of de-
velopment. For example, porous pavement and
grassed swales must be situated on sites with
slopes of 5 percent or less, whereas infiltration
trenches are not practical when slopes exceed 20
percent.
Size of the watershed area. The success of some
control methods depends on the watershed size.
For example, detention ponds normally do not
work unless the watershed area is greater than
10 acres. Alternately, infiltration and vegetative
controls are most successful in areas less than 10
acres (see Fig. 12).
Water table. A high water table can reduce the ef-
fectiveness of an infiltration basin. If a seasonally
high water table extends to within 4 feet of the
bottom of an infiltration basin, the site generally
is not considered suitable. The depth of infiltra-
tion and pond controls are limited by their prox-
imity to the water table.
Distance to bedrock. As with a high water table, a
bedrock layer too close to the surface (2 to 4 feet
from the bottom of an infiltration basin) will pre-
vent the infiltration basin from draining properly.
Similarly, controls that use ponds generally will
not work if the bedrock lies within an area that
must be excavated to provide stormwater stor-
age.
Page 32
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Urban Nonpoint Source Control Methods
SOIL TYPE
Sand Loamy Sandy Loam Silt Sandy Clay Silty Sandy Silty Clay
Sand Loam Loam Clay- Loam Clay- Clay Clay
Loam Loam
minimum infiltration rate (inches per hour)
BMP 8.27 2.41 1.02 0.52 0.27 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02
Extended detention
pond
Wet pond
Infiltration trench
Infiltration basin
Porous pavement
Grassed swale
Filter strip
m
11
|
IlllllPWt
mmmmMrn
|
Sill
sppps.
plf
illil
1
1
illPti
1
1
Legend: = Feasible range for application I I = Marginal range for application
Source: Schueler (1987)
Figure 11.—Restrictions for BMP application based on soil permeability. Source: Schueler, 1987.
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES)
BMP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 100
Extended detention
pond
Wet pond
Infiltration trench
Infiltration basin
Porous pavement
Grassed swale
Filter strip
1
1
1
|
Legend: E;/:¦ 1= Feasible range for application 1 1= Marginal range for application
Source: Schueler (1987)
Figure 12.—Feasible BMPs for different watershed sizes. Source: Schueler, 1987.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Pago 33
-------
CHAPTER 4
Proximity to foundations and wells. Infiltration ba-
sins should be at least 100 feet away from drink-
ing water wells to prevent groundwater contami-
nation. Wellhead protection areas may require
even greater distances to properly protect public
water supplies. To prevent seepage, they should
be installed at a reasonable distance (100 feet)
from a building foundation.
Land use. A very small or intensively developed
site may preclude the use of space-consuming
controls such as detention ponds and porous
pavement. In addition, some controls are appro-
priate only to particular types of land uses. For
example, sand filters are suitable for parking lots,
while grassed swales are effective only in low
density residential areas.
Effects of temperature. Shallow marshes and wet
ponds heat up rapidly during' the summer, and
their runoff into colder streams can harm aquatic
life.
¦ Predevelopment status. The second step in se-
lecting a control method is to determine which option
comes closest to duplicating the site's hydrology prior
to development. Consideration involves a number of
factors:
Control of peak flows. Some local regulations re-
quire that a nonpoint source control method be
able to control the peak flow from a two-year
storm — a storm expected to produce a flood
every two years. Some jurisdictions require con-
trol of even larger storms. Ponds are an excellent
method for achieving this goal; infiltration basins
are somewhat less effective.
Control of first flush. First flush is the dis-
proportionately large amount of pollutants usu-
ally found in runoff during the early part of a
high intensity or large volume storm, caused by
the rapid runoff of accumulated pollutants. First-
flush control — the first 1/2 inch of rainfall —
can also be required for a runoff area. However,
if storms in an area are frequent, the first flush
may not be significant and further monitoring
may be needed.
Volume control. Infiltration basins can reduce the
runoff volumes of smaller storms by diverting
much of the runoff back into the soil.
Groundwater replenishment. Infiltration basins
provide an excellent way to replenish ground-
water lost because of development; however, this
benefit must be weighed against the potential for
groundwater contamination.
Streambank erosion control. While some nonpoint
source pollution methods control streambank
erosion to some extent during a two-year storm if
properly designed, installed, and maintained,
more severe storms require large extended de-
tention ponds and infiltration controls to prevent
downstream erosion.
¦ Pollutant removal. The third step is to determine
which control method will remove the greatest vol-
ume of pollutants. Important interrelated factors are
the removal mechanisms, types and percentage of
-runoff to be treated (first flush versus total runoff),
and the type of pollutant being removed!
The nature of the pollutant is the most important
factor in a control method's effectiveness. For exam-
ple, most control methods are extremely effective in
removing sediment and trace metals, which are usu-
ally adsorbed into sediment surfaces. However, vege-
tative systems are more effective in removing soluble
pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlo-
ride. Systems that combine nonvegetative and vege-
tative features are generally highly effective.
¦ Cost. A final step in selecting a control method is
estimating the cost by taking into account all factors
associated with the method. Construction and both
short- and long-term maintenance are, of course, the
major cost components. Costs may include
• labor,
• materials,
• land purchase,
• loss of tax revenue on acquired lands, and
• downstream mitigation.
Flood Control and
Retrofitting
In the past, flood control efforts have focused primar-
ily on decreasing the volume of water that abruptly en-
ters waterbodies. Traditional methods to reduce flood-
ing include using dry detention basins that
temporarily store excess runoff, constructing chan-
nels, streambank hardening, and floodplain restric-
tions that limit development along or in flood-prone
stream areas.
Page 34
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Urban Nonpoint Source Control Methods
These flood control measures were not originally
designed to control pollution caused by increased ur-_
banization. The historical focus was on quantity con-
trol — not quality control. Urban planners and water
quality professionals now recognize that these issues
must be incorporated into an overall strategy that as-
sesses both flooding and pollutant removal. Existing
flood control BMPs are now being redesigned or ret-
rofitted to protect water quality. New flood control
BMPs are almost universally being built with this
dual focus.
A comprehensive watershed protection strategy,
which uses nonstructural and structural BMPs, will
reduce the long-term costs of both controlling floods
and protecting water quality.
Identifying and preserving buffers and natural
systems is an important component of a watershed
management plan. These areas serve as nonstructu-
ral controls, filtering out many pollutants in urban
runoff that might reach the waterbodies. However, in
existing developments, they have often been altered.
When nonstructural controls are impossible or im-
practical because of existing development, a commu-
nity may turn to structural practices — constructing
new runoff treatment structures or retrofitting exist-
ing runoff management systems.
Retrofitting requires modifying runoff control
structures or conveyance systems, originally de-
signed to control flooding, to also control water qual-
ity. Modifications might include enlarging structures,
changing the inflow and outflow patterns, and in-
creasing detention times.
Retrofitting costs are a major hindrance in improv-
ing water quality in developed areas. Therefore, com-
munities may need to identify the most insidious pol-
lutants and then select the most cost-efficient and
effective solutions to deal with them, thus improving
water quality in urban runoff.
Urban Best Management
Practices
BMPs should be selected as part of an erosion and
sediment control plan during the site development
process, with long-term runoff management part of
the objective. The best system of practices to control
nonpoint source pollution alter construction is com-
pleted may be a modification of the practices used dur-
ing the construction process.
Selecting the proper BMP system is critical in
achieving the ultimate goal — reducing the pollu-
tants in urban runoff. In selecting the most appropri-
ate BMPs for a specific site, consider the following:
URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAMS
Several states and localities have made signifi-
cant advances in developing and implementing
runoff controls. Two particularly noteworthy exam-
ples are in Maryland and Florida.
m Maryland began its stormwater management
program with the passage of a 1982 state law
requiring each county and municipality to
adopt a stormwater management ordinance
based on state criteria. Criteria call for
maintaining predevelopment hydrological
conditions and reducing erosion and pollution.
The state Sediment and Stormwater
Administration reviews and approves local
ordinances and develops stormwater
management programs for state and federal
construction projects. The ordinances must
include an approved stormwater management
plan, criteria and procedures for stormwater
management, proper implementation of the
plan (including design criteria for specific
proposed controls), maintenance and
inspection procedures, and penalties for
noncompliance. The ordinances are required
for any new construction projects, with a few
exceptions for single-family homes on small
parcels of land.
¦ Florida's stormwater management program
applies to all new development. Administered
through a stormwater rule that serves as a
performance standard, Florida's program
ensures that runoff volume, speed, timing,
and pollutant loads are close to
predevelopment levels.
The standard requires that a stormwater
management system remove at least 80 to 95
percent of the annual pollutant load of
sediments, nutrients, and many heavy metals.
If permit applicants show that they can meet
the standard, the state assumes that water
quality requirements will not be violated. But if
violations occur, the state can impose more
stringent requirements, even if the basic
performance standard has been met.
• the site's physical condition and development
status;
• runoff control benefits provided by each BMP
option;
• the pollutant removal capability of each BMP
option under several design scenarios;
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 35
-------
CHAPTER 4
• the environmental and human advantages of
each BMP option; and
• the long-term maintenance cost of the BMP.
Table 3 compares the effectiveness of a number of
currently used urban best management practices.
Urban BMPs are generally grouped into four catego-
ries based on the operating principle or physical
mechanism used to reduce the amount of runoff pol-
lutants — detention basins, retention/infiltration de-
vices, vegetative controls, and source controls.
¦ Detention basins. Detention basins are most pop-
ular and effective in reducing suspended solids and
particles by temporarily holding the runoff and allow-
ing the sediment to settle.
: In addition to reducing the pollution in runoff, de-
tention basins also delay the amount of runoff re-
leased into receiving waters, thus reducing flooding
and streambank erosion and lessening the stress on
the physical habitat The slow release also dilutes the
runoff, thereby reducing the concentration of pollu-
tants entering the stream.
With proven success in controlling runoff, deten-
tion basins can reduce suspended solid concentra-
tions by 50 to 95 percent. These basins can be used
for large drainage areas, be incorporated into new de-
velopment site plans, and enhance the value of the
surrounding property.
Often, however, finding suitable land for a deten-
tion basin is difficult and constructing basins in de-
veloped areas may not be possible. One solution may
be to convert dry ponds previously installed for flow
control; they can usually be economically retrofitted
to detention basins.
Routine maintenance is required for detention ba-
sins. Solids should be removed regularly, because re-
moving accumulated solids after 10 to 20 years can be
expensive.
Detention basins are generally of three types:
Dry ponds. Used for flood and erosion control,
dry ponds remain dry and available to catch
water following large storms. While intended to
control water quantity, they can be retrofitted to
improve water quality.
Wet ponds. Designed to hold water permanently,
wet ponds can be highly efficient in removing
sediment and in reducing nutrients through bio-
logical activity such as algal growth if properly
constructed.
Extended detention dry ponds. These ponds catch
stormwater and retain it for 24 to 40 hours, re-
maining dry at other times. They remove pollu-
tants by trapping sediment particles and allowing
them to settle.
¦ Retention/infiltration devices. Retention or infil-
tration devices allow runoff to percolate into the
ground, reducing the amount of pollutants released
into the receiving water. The filtration and adsorption
mechanism traps many pollutants — particularly sus-
pended solids, bacteria, heavy metals, and phospho-
rus — in the upper soil layers and prevents them from
reaching the groundwater.
Infiltration devices can remove up to 99 percent of
runoff pollutants, depending on the percolation rate
and area, soil type, pollutants present, and available
storage volume. Success also depends on the rainfall.
Not only do infiltration devices have high pollution
removal rates, but they can also be built in developed
areas and effectively reduce the volume of runoff.
However, poor site conditions such as imperme-
able soils, a high water table, and bedrock can lessen
the effectiveness or cause failure of retention/infiltra-
tion devices. These devices must also be installed
carefully to prevent soil compaction from heavy ma-
chinery, and they require such pretreatment devices
as grass filter strips to remove coarse sediment from
the infiltration surface. Operation and maintenance
are also critical. Many infiltration BMPs have failed
from lack of maintenance. Devices must be designed
for ease of access, maintenance, and operation.
Retention devices fall into the following categories:
Infiltration basins. An infiltration basin is a natural
or excavated large open depression. It temporar-
ily stores runoff until the water percolates
through the bottom or sides. Excess runoff can
overflow through elevated outlets to maximize
the storage volume. Because runoff usually per-
colates in a day or two, these basins can be dry.
Infiltration trenches and dry wells. Similar in de-
sign, infiltration trenches and dry wells are exca-
vated holes filled with coarse stones and then
covered. Dry wells are used primarily for roof
drainage; trenches are used on larger areas such
as streets and commercial parking lots. In both
designs, runoff infiltrates the surrounding soil or
is collected by perforated underdrain pipes and
routed to an outflow. Infiltration trenches pre-
serve the natural hydrology of an area and can fit
on small sites. However, they require consider-
able maintenance and can contaminate ground-
water under certain conditions.
Page 36
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
H|Table3'.—Acor
1 Istjiassaees^s&^ssi'
nparativietassessn
lent of'theeffectiv
enessof current urbi
an best mane
gement practices. : .
URBAN BMP
OPTIONS*
RELIABILITY
FOR POLLUTANT
REMOVAL
LONGEVITY*
APPLICABLE
TO MOST
DEVELOPMENTS
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
COMPARATIVE
COST
SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STORMWATER
WETLANDS.
Moderate to high,
depending on
design
20+ years
Applicable to most
sites if land is
available
High
Stream warming; natural
wetland alteration
Marginally higher than
wet ponds
Recommended with design
improvements and the use of
micropools and wetlands
EXTENDED
DETENTION
PONDS
Moderate, but not
always reliable
20+ years, but
frequent clogging
and short
detention
common
Widely applicable,
but requires at least
10 acres of drainage
area
Moderate
Possible stream warming
and habitat destruction
Lowest cost
alternative in size
range
Recommended with design
improvements and the use of
micropools and wetlands
WET PONDS
Moderate to high
20+ years
Widely applicable,
but requires drainage
area of greater than
2 acres
Moderate
to high
Possible stream
warming, trophic shifts,
habitat
Moderate to high
compared to
conventional
Recommended, with careful
site evaluation
MULTIPLE
POND SYSTEMS
Moderate to high;
redundancy
increases
reliability
20+ years
Widely applicable
Moderate
to high
Selection of appropriate
pond option minimizes
overall environmental
impact
Most expensive pond
option
Recommended
INFILTRATION
TRENCHES
Presumed
moderate
50% failure rate
within five years
Highly restricted
(soils, groundwater,
slope, area,
sediment input)
Low
Slight risk of
groundwater
contamination
Cost-effective on
smaller sites; rehab
costs can be
considerable
Recommended with
pretreatment and
geotechnical evaluation
INFILTRATION
BASINS
Presumed
moderate, if
working
60-100% failure
within 5 years
Highly restricted (see
infiltration trench)
Low to
moderate
Slight risk of
groundwater,
contamination
Construction cost
moderate, but rehab
cost high
Not widely recommended
until longevity is improved
POROUS
PAVEMENT
High (if working)
75% failure within
5 years
Extremely restricted
(traffic, soils,
groundwater, slope,
area, sediment input)
Low
Possible groundwater
contamination
Cost-effective
compared to
conventional asphalt
when working property
Recommended in highly
restricted applications with
careful construction and
effective maintenance
SAND FILTERS
Moderate to high
20+ years
Applicable for
smaller developments
Low
Minor
Comparatively high
construction costs and
frequent maintenance
Recommended, with local
demonstration
GRASSED
SWALES
Low to moderate,
but unreliable
20+ years
Low-density
development and
roads
Low
Minor
Low compared to curb
and gutter
Recommended, with
checkdams as one element
of a BMP system
FILTER STRIPS
Unreliable in
urban settings
Unknown, but
may be limited
Restricted to
low-density areas
Moderate if
forested
Minor
Low
Recommended as one
element of a BMP system
WATER
QUALITY
INLETS
Presumed low
20+ years
Small, highly
impervious
catchments
(<2 acres)
Low
Resuspension of
hydrocarbon loadings;
disposal of hydrocarbon
and toxic residuals
High, compared to
trenches and sand
filters
Not currently recommended
as a primary BMP option
* Based on current designs and prevailing maintenance practices. Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1992.
-------
CHAPTER 4
Sand filter. Sand filters, used to pretreat runoff
before it enters another stormwater structure,
are suitable for small sites in highly impervious
areas and can be retrofitted into existing urban
areas. To use sand filters, drainage areas must be
stabilized against erosion. Designed mainly to
enhance water quality, sand filters are also used
to control first-flush water quantity in smaller
drainage areas.
Porous pavement. Most practically used for park-
ing lots, porous pavements increase infiltration of
water into the soil, maintaining the water balance
at nearly the same level as before the land was
paved. Runoff rapidly permeates the pores of sev-
eral layers of different permeable materials and
filters the pollutants into the underlying subsoil
or perforated drain pipes. The rate of pollutant re-
moval depends on the amount of filtered runoff
and underlying soil type.
A study by the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments found that porous pave-
ment removes as much or more suspended sedi-
ment and other pollutants — phosphorus, nitro-
gen, bacteria, lead, and zinc — as detention/
retention basins. Porous pavements can also
moderate runoff rate and volume so that drain-
age patterns and surrounding vegetation remain
normal, improving erosion control and enhanc-
ing water quality.
Operation and maintenance must be consid-
ered in the use of porous pavements, however.
They do eventually clog and should be routinely
vacuumed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
URBAN BMPS
Proper operation and maintenance of
urban BMPs are critical to their success. A
1990 study of four Maryland counties showed
that in 434 wet and dry detention ponds, 70
percent were not operating properly. Poor
maintenance was the most frequently cited
reason.
To ensure that stormwater management fa-
cilities are an asset to the community, not a lia-
bility, maintenance must include
' periodic inspections;
• debris and sediment removal from
basins and channels;
• pipes, pumps, and structure
maintenance;
• general housekeeping, such as grass
cutting and repairs;
• mosquito control;
• fish stocking; and
• vegetation control.
Before adopting a nonpoint source program
using urban BMPs, include sufficient funding
for regular maintenance to ensure proper func-
tioning.
Maintenance can be performed by private
corporations, individuals, or local government
staff. While homeowners' associations and in-
dividual property owners can do some mainte-
nance, depending on private citizens to main-
tain urban BMPs is risky. Legal maintenance
and monitoring agreements can be negotiated
between a developer and the local public
works department. When maintenance is
clearly its responsibility, local government may
choose to contract with a private company.
A realistic cost estimate is vital to making
the community aware of its responsibility for
nonpoint source pollution. Maintenance re-
quires staff time to record and assess routine
maintenance checks and on-site visits to per-
form the routine checks.
Oil/grit separators. Also known as water quality
inlets, oil/grit separators are designed to remove
sediment and hydrocarbons from runoff before it
is released to the storm drain network or infiltra-
tion system. Runoff passes through long, rectan-
gular concrete chambers — modified to remove
sediment, grit, and oil — before exiting through
a storm drain pipe.
Oil/grit separators are used infrequently be-
cause of their limited ability to remove pollutants
caused by low average detention times and the
possibility that pollutants removed during one
storm could reenter runoff from later storms.
However, oil/grit separators can remove coarse-
grained sediments from urban runoff and treat
runoff before it enters underground filtration
systems. They are unobtrusive, compatible with
storm drain networks, and easily accessed.
E Vegetative controls. Vegetative BMPs decrease
the velocity of stormwater runoff, promoting infiltra-
tion and settling of suspended solids and preventing
erosion (see Fig. 13). For maximum effectiveness,
Page 38
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Urban Nonpoint Source Control Methods
Figure 13.—Vegetative BMPs take many forms and are used for various purposes. Adapted from Schueler, 1987.
vegetative controls must be used in combination with
other BMPs as a first line of defense in removing sus-
pended solids before more intensive treatments take
over. Vegetative BMPs also remove organic material,
nutrients, and trace metals.
Less costly than other control practices, vegetative
controls enhance the attractiveness and value of sites.
Using vegetative controls to pretreat runoff improves
the operation and maintenance of other BMPs.
The ultimate performance and practicality of vege-
tative controls depend on the site's physical features.
Plant material must be selected carefully and regu-
larly maintained. Because they have limited ability to
control runoff, and effectiveness varies according to
the season, vegetative controls should not be a site's
only control practice.
Several types of vegetative controls are as follows:
Basin landscaping. Landscaping can improve a
stormwater basin's effectiveness in removing
pollutants. Landscaping around a basin reduces
the amount of impervious surface area, provides
an attractive, green buffer along streambanks,
and protects and enhances the use of existing
wetlands. Proper landscaping can route storm-
water runoff through green areas and away from
erosion-prone steep slopes and other areas.
Grassed swales. Grassed swales are depressions,
such as gullies, that infiltrate and transport run-
off water. They are often used in residential de-
velopments and on highway medians as an alter-
native to curb and gutter drainage systems.
Swales control peak discharges by reducing
runoff velocity. The swale allows some runoff to
infiltrate the soil, thus diminishing the volume of
water passing downstream. Swales are easy to
construct, attractive, and. a potential habitat for
wildlife. However, effectiveness varies consider-
ably from site to site; swales may encourage mos-
quitos, ragweed, dumping, and erosion.
Filter strips. While similar to grass swales, filter
strips are shallower and distribute runoff
across a wider area. Their efficiency depends
on strip length, slope, and size; soil porosity;
normal runoff velocity; and vegetation type.
Grassy strips supplemented with shrubs and
small trees increase the ability to absorb and
retain nutrients.
Riparian reforestation. Trees planted near
streambanks can stabilize soil, cool water, and
benefit many forms of aquatic life.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 39
-------
CHAPTER 4
E Pollution prevention. Local governments should
establish ongoing programs to reduce the generation
and exposure of pollutants that accumulate on streets
and other surfaces, and eventually wash into lakes
and streams. These source reduction programs are
usually called pollution prevention programs.
In most cases, pollution prevention is more cost ef-
fective than structural BMPs in reducing pollutant
loadings. However, a combination of source reduc-
tion efforts and structural BMPs is generally needed
to fully control the effects of urbanization.
Pollution prevention controls — also known as
nonstructural controls — include land use planning
and zoning strategies, as well as public education ef-
forts. Storm drain painting, recycling, and household
hazardous waste collection offer high value for title
initial investment Incentives to use public transporta-
tion or otherwise lower emissions that generate pol-
lutants are also considered source controls. (See
Clean Water in Your Watershed: A Citizens Guide to
Watershed Protection for more information on source
reduction controls and areas to target for community
participation.)
Pollution prevention controls can generate a sense
of community; in addition, they have aesthetic or eco-
nomic benefits. To be effective, source reduction
practices require a combination of education, regula-
tion, and guidance. Chapter 5 more fully discusses
these issues relating to citizen involvement and edu-
cation.
listed below are common pollution prevention
controls communities can consider. Local govern-
ments can
• collect and recycle crankcase oil;
• begin leaf and other yard waste collection
programs;
• establish catch basin drainage programs;
• redesign road salting programs to minimize
the salt quantity and, where feasible, use an
alternative deicer;
• educate the public about the hazards of
fertilizers and pesticides used in commercial
lawn care and grounds maintenance
operations and the alternative organic
treatments;
• start remedial erosion control programs;
• educate the public on how to reduce litter and
properly dispose of pet wastes and household
pollutants;
• remove illegal and improper industrial and
commercial connections to storm drains that
. discharge directly into receiving waters
without prior treatment; and
• plug or seal abandoned wells and cisterns that
are conduits for nonpoint source groundwater
pollution.
Other administrative strategies may include haz-
ardous waste restrictions or contingency plans.
Source prohibitions — barring storage or use of dan-
gerous materials in a defined area — are common
ways to protect health and the environment. Many ju-
risdictions, for example, now prohibit handling or
storing toxic chemicals where a spill could threaten
groundwater supplies. Jurisdictions also offer hazard-
ous waste amnesty days, which provide residents the
opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste.
Many commercial and industrial users produce
hazardous wastes that threaten water quality. They
include dry cleaners, auto service stations, industrial
plants, trucking and railroad facilities, and airports.
Other activities — such as agriculture, junk yards,
machine shops, landfills, and septic systems — also
use hazardous materials.
Most of these activities are controlled by NPDES
industrial or municipal stormwater permits, but local
governments should check with their permitting au-
thorities to determine the degree to which permit re-
quirements are being met and controls inspected.
Pago 40
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Chapter 5
Community Education and
Citizen Involvement
Even the best planned nonpoint source
pollution program cannot succeed with-
out community participation and coop-
eration. Citizen monitoring groups and solid public
information and education programs are invaluable
tools to be planned for and nurtured.
Because nonpoint source pollution is a continuing
issue related to development and individual life
styles, a water quality program must be established
and embraced to succeed. Organization and ordi-
nances mean nothing without community support
The community must buy in and accept the pro-
gram, just as it does a sewage treatment system.
To gain support, you must understand your com-
munity. Is your community small or large? Are resi-
dents grimarily retired or parents with young chil-
dren? Are residents commuters or do they earn their
living in the community? Do most residents stay in
the community all year or seasonally? How much do
residents know about nonpoint source pollution?
How will they be affected by a nonpoint source man-
agement plan? How can they be expected to react to
the proposed plan?
A public opinion survey or series of well-publi-
cized public hearings throughout the watershed and
in your immediate community will help you get to
know the community and give you a basis for measur-
ing public opinion.
B Public awareness. Public information and educa-
tion are important ways to curb nonpoint source pollu-
tion, since the solution lies largely in changing individ-
ual behaviors and lifestyles. An informational program
must educate citizens about the problem and make
citizen involvement part of the solution.
6S Framing the message. An initial step in develop-
ing a public awareness program is to frame your mes-
sage. Determine what information about nonpoint
source pollution you wish to convey, and stress this
message at every opportunity. The tone and level of
complexity of your message depend on the commun-
ity's composition and sophistication. The program
should include concrete information about using and
disposing of toxic substances in homes, yards, farms,
and work places.
S3 Targeting the audience. Nonpoint source pollu-
tion affects everyone in the community. On the issue
of control, business people, developers, and home-
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 41
-------
CHAPTER 5
owners each have an individual agenda. Make sure
your public awareness program considers these indi-
vidual needs and interest.
Tailor your messages and presentations to specific
groups — for example, college faculty, city employ-
ees, developers, civic organizations, or youth groups.
Involve environmental groups such as the Izaak Wal-
ton League, state associations of conservation dis-
tricts, and other public or private organizations.
¦ Reaching your audience. A targeted public
awareness campaign uses a variety of tools to convey
your message and attain your goals. Some of the tools
include
• Media. Techniques include press
releases, articles, photos with captions,
talk shows, news programs, public
service announcements, newsletters,
and public notices to publicize your
message.
• Community events. River/lake festivals,
county/city fairs, and other special
events are educational and public
awareness opportunities to make your
message known to a variety of audiences.
• Awards. Broaden your visibility,
recognize good work, and gain a variety
of advocates for your program through
conservation awards for young people,
public service awards, and participation
and sponsorship awards.
• Meetings. Use public gatherings, club
meetings, special conferences, and
workshops to explain your program;
customize your message to the needs
and interests of your audience.
• Speakers'bureau. Face-to-face
communication to a specialized audience
provides a powerful opportunity to
deliver your message, answer questions,
and clarify ambiguities.
• Educational materials. Brochures and
posters obtained from EPA, the state
water authority, or other groups can be
distributed to schools, civic groups, and
businesses to further support your
message.
B Using a variety of information/education tools.
The numerous techniques available to make your
community aware of the nonpoint source problem and
its solutions are limited only by your imagination and
budget See the following list and Table 4 for ideas to
ensure support from your community:
• Publicize your program in all possible
ways — use fact sheets inserted into
utility statements, flyers, radio, TV,
newspapers, public hearings, group
meetings; develop personal contacts with
reporters — offer story and photo
opportunities.
• Tailor your message to various levels of
knowledge—from those who
understand the concept of nonpoint
source pollution to those who have never
heard of it
• Form committees to work on specific
aspects of the program; include
representatives from all interest
groups.
• Offer field trips to groups. Seeing the
watershed's problem has much more
impact than reading about it.
• Distribute drafts of the plan to interested
groups for review.
• Set up meetings using existing
organizations such as 4-H or Extension
Service and organize community
informational watershed workshops.
• Involve schools — make presentations to
classes or conduct field trips.
• Set up nonpoint source pollution displays
at every opportunity — county fairs,
local Earth Day events, conferences,
school events.
H Citizen monitoring. Environmentally conscious
citizens have made great contributions to local pro-
grams nationwide. Groups such as the Chesapeake
Bay Watch and the Streamwalk Committee in Seattle,
Washington, have become integral parts of the water
quality program. Citizen groups can collect valuable
information on basic parameters — they can monitor
and identify problems, collect surface water samples,
and measure turbidity.
Page 42
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Community Education and Citizen Involvement
Table 4.—Community education and citizen Involvement methods.
METHOD
MOST EFFECTIVE USE
RESULTS
Newsletters
Announce meeting time and dates, update information on
actions already taken, list issues to be discussed at upcoming
meeting
Public awareness
Newspaper
articles
Same as newsletter — provide additional detail about local
success stories, photos of citizen activities; feature articles
provide information about problems and solutions
Public awareness
Demonstration sites
Exhibit innovative technology — should be accompanied by
signs, brochures, or permanent on-site interpretive staff
Public awareness, knowledge,
understanding
Printed and taped
material (e.g.,
factsheets, videos)
Explain new technology, describe case studies, provide training
information for new employees, outline facts to stakeholders
Public awareness, knowledge,
understanding
Signs
Mark watershed boundaries, identify critical areas, promote
specific behaviors in specific places, identify cooperators in
project, explain adjacent project and its BMPs, provide
interpretive natural resources information
Public awareness, knowledge,
understanding
Meetings
Share information, plan actions, evaluate progress
Public awareness, knowledge,
understanding, desire/ability to
•act
Field trips
Observe resources to be protected, view installed BMPs, learn
how BMPs operate, monitor (assessment or compliance type)
BMPs
Public awareness, knowledge,
understanding, desire/ability to
act
On-site inspections
Identify problems, recommend corrective actions, evaluate
effectiveness of pollution controls, identify noncompliant
stakeholders, educate individuals
Action
Training
Provide new skills to stakeholders
Action
Technical assistance
Identify problems, recommend solutions, assist with installation
of BMPs, educate individuals, evaluate effectiveness of
solutions
Understanding, desire/ability to
act, action
Source: Terrene Institute, Clean Water In Your Watershed: A Citizens Guide to Watershed Protection, 1993.
Local officials see two advantages to citizen moni-
toring. First, these activities are an economical way to
gather high quality data. Second, citizen monitoring
is a valuable tool to build grassroots interest in water
quality issues. In addition to helping officials identify
and avert potential water problems, citizen groups
build public support for nonpoint source programs
and remedial actions, when necessary.
Despite these benefits, a volunteer program needs
careful handling. Everyone is not suited to be a volun-
teer monitor. Groups and individuals may have diffi-
culty staying motivated throughout an entire sam-
pling project Inappropriate training or procedures
can result in useless data. Sampling also involves a
slight risk of injury; local governments must have
sufficient liability insurance to cover such situations.
Consider the following recommendations con-
cerning volunteer monitoring programs:
• Citizen monitoring projects should not
stand alone but should be integrated into a
total water quality management program.
• A qualified water quality specialist should
develop the sampling design, analyze the
data, and prepare the final report.
• A qualified water quality specialist
should train and supervise volunteers in
the field, review data frequently, and
work closely with the state water quality
agency.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 43
-------
CHAPTER 5
TVA RESERVOIR LANDS PLANNING PROGRAM*
The Tennessee Valley Authority manages some
300,000 acres of public reservoir lands, spanning
seven states and including 23 multipurpose reser-
voirs with more than 11,000 miles of shoreline.
When he established TVA in 1933, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt charged it with "the broadest
duty of planning for the proper use, conservation,
and development of the natural resources of the
Tennessee River drainage basin."
TVA uses the land for activities ranging from
generating electrical power to managing recre-
ation, forestry, and wildlife areas. Communities
and the public use TVA's reservoir lands for indus-
trial and navigation facilities, agriculture, commu-
nity parks, and recreation.
Since it receives more than 1,500 requests for
land use each year, TVA considers planning a land
management priority. To accommodate the grow-
ing demand for development on its lands, TVA initi-
ated a planning process to balance competing de-
mands for public and private uses with
environmental needs and national, regional, and
local values.
TVA uses planning teams to determine how the
land should be used. The team considers public
comment, compatibility with existing and adjacent
land uses, and legal requirements in making its de-
cision. Plans approved by the TVA Board are con-
tinually revised to keep up with growth pressures,
economic trends, public needs, environmental
conditions, and changing laws. A Geographic Infor-
mation System (GIS) keeps track of an endless
amount of resource data on which the team bases
and updates its recommendations.
As part of its planning process, TVA developed
a three-step public participation plan. First, TVA
identified why and how the public should be in-
volved; next, it identified its audience; and finally, it
planned how to involve the public. During public
meetings, for example, private citizens and local,
state, and federal agencies identify regional con-
cerns and local land use issues. This information is
incorporated into the GIS data and used to make
social, cultural, and environmental planning deci-
sions.
TVA's land planning process provides a contin-
uing opportunity for local governments and citizens
to offer their views on how public reservoir lands
should be used, with public acceptance an added
benefit. This objective assessment of regional
needs guides TVA in handling a multitude of land
use request.
Constant public involvement and reevaluation
give TVA an insight into early problems, avoiding
later crisis management. In addition, local govern-
ments and interest groups have a clear under-
standing of TVA's land use and development inten-
tions. Finally, this process provides warnings of
potential detrimental impacts to water quality from
proposed uses.
*Adapted from TVA Reservoir Lands Planning and Land
Management Planning Applications of a Geographic
Information System fact sheets.
• The sample design should be relatively
simple and not dependent on precise
measurement.
• Volunteers should be carefully recruited
and trained; periodic training may be
necessary to replace drop-outs and
refresh monitoring skills of current
volunteers.
• The water quality specialist should
encourage frequent reports, personal
presentations at group meetings, and
media coverage to keep the group
motivated.
The Missing Link —
Community Partnership
The optimum situation — informed watershed plan-
ning to identify and correct existing problems and pre-
vent future problems — will achieve the best environ-
ment possible. But all planning, no matter how
complete, must be done with your community, not for
it.
The advantages of the prevention/restoration
ethic are impressive and would tempt any community
— clean, usable waterbodies attract business and rec-
reational dollars and measurably improve the eco-
nomic health of the community. Remedial measures,
designed to address current environmental condi-
tions, can return water resources to an acceptable pu-
rity level.
Page 44
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Community Education and Citizen Involvement
However, billions of dollars are lost on public
works projects, declining property values, and
missed revenues from tourism, recreation, and other
uses because of the missing link — community part-
nerships. Without community buy-ins by educated
citizens who understand their individual responsibil-
ity and the community's needs, remediation will need
to be repeated in each generation, if not more often.
Planning and prevention within the total commu-
nity and watershed area comprise a vital permanent
solution to water quality issues. In some cases, elimi-
A Guide to Protecting the Urban
nating the cause of pollution may not be enough —
the waterbody will still need rehabilitation. In other
cases, communities must restore the quality of a
waterbody even as they prevent further harm.
So plan for the optimum, seeking guidance and co-
operation from your community along the way. When
the community agrees to implement the plan you
know will work, you will have served them — and the
environment — well.
-------
Page 46
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Appendix A
Federal Water Quality
Program Summary
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (CZMA)
This act established a program to encourage states
and territories to develop comprehensive programs to
protect and manage coastal resources, including the
Great Lakes. To receive federal approval and imple-
mentation funding, states and territories had to dem-
onstrate programs and enforceable policies suffi-
ciently comprehensive and specific to regulate land
and water uses and coastal development and to re-
solve conflicts between competing uses. They also
needed authority to implement the enforceable poli-
cies.
Under federally approved state and territorial pro-
grams, the program must protect and manage impor-
tant coastal resources, including wetlands, estuaries,
beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish
and wildlife and their habitats. Resource manage-
ment and protection are accomplished through state
laws, regulations, permits, and local plans and zoning
ordinances.
Water quality protection was not specifically cited
as a purpose or policy of the original statutes. The
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990 specifically charged state coastal programs, and
state nonpoint source programs, to address nonpoint
source pollution affecting coastal water quality.
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA)
In these amendments, Congress recognized that non-
point pollution is a key factor in the continuing degra-
dation of many coastal waters and established a new
program to address this pollution. Congress further
recognized that the solution to nonpoint pollution lies
in state and local action. In enacting CZARA, Con-
gress called upon states to develop and implement
state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs.
EPA developed the technical guidance to help
states develop control programs. The guidance speci-
fies management measures for sources of nonpoint
pollution in coastal waters — agriculture, silviculture,
urban, marinas, and hydromodification. Manage-
ment measures are economically achievable meas-
ures to control the addition of pollutants to coastal
waters; that is, they reflect the greatest degree of pol-
lutant reduction achievable through the application
of the best available nonpoint pollution control prac-
tices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operat-
ing methods, or other alternatives.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 47
-------
APPENDIX A
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Traditional point sources of water pollution are regu-
lated by EPA and the individual states under the
NPDES permit program established by section 402 of
the Clean Water Act, which establishes permit re-
quirements for certain municipal and industrial storm-
water discharges.
Under Phase I, NPDES permits are required for
municipal separate storm sewers serving large or
medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000 or
100,000 people, respectively) and for stormwater dis-
charges associated with industrial activity. Permits
are also issued, case by case, if EPA or a state deter-
mines that a stormwater discharge contributes to a vi-
olation of a water quality standard or significantly
contributes pollutants to U. S. waters.
Under Phase II, EPA is to prepare two reports to
Congress that (1) assess the remaining stormwater
discharges, (2) determine, to the maximum extent
practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in
such discharges, and (3) establish procedures and
methods to control stormwater discharges to the ex-
tent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.
Then EPA is to designate stormwater discharges in
addition to those addressed in Phase I that must be
regulated to protect water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to regulate those desig-
nated sources.
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
This statute establishes a national program to control
nonpoint sources of water pollution and to protect
groundwater. Under section 319, states address non-
point pollution by assessing the problems and causes
within the state, adopting management programs to
control the pollution, and implementing the manage-
ment programs.
States are required to submit an assessment of
state waters not expected to meet water quality stand-
ards because of nonpoint source pollution and a man-
agement program for controlling nonpoint source
pollution. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants
to states to assist them in implementing management
programs or portions of management programs that
have been approved by EPA.
National Estuary Program
Administered by EPA under section 320 of the Clean
Water Act, this program focuses on point and non-
point pollution in geographically targeted, high-prior-
ity estuarine waters. In this program, EPA assists
state, regional, and local governments in developing
comprehensive conservation and management plans
that recommend priority corrective actions to restore
estuarine water quality, fish populations, and other
designated uses of the waters.
Section 320 authorizes EPA on its own or at the re-
quest of a state, to convene a management confer-
ence to address water pollution problems in estuar-
ies. This conference must identify the causes of
environmental problems within the estuarine zone
and develop a comprehensive conservation and man-
agement plan for the estuary that recommends cor-
rective actions and compliance schedules for control-
ling point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Pesticides Program
Administered by EPA this program controls some
forms of nonpoint pollution under the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It au-
thorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten
groundwater and surface water. FIFRA provides for
the registration of pesticides and enforceable label re-
quirements, which may include maximum rates of ap-
plication, restrictions on use practices, and classifica-
tion of pesticides as "restricted use" pesticides, which
would limit their use to certified applicators trained to
handle toxic chemicals.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance Specifying Management Measures from Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution In Coastal Waters, 1993.
Page 48
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Appendix B
mi——m
Information and Publications
Dynamac Corporation. 1991. Regional Stormwater Man-
agement Planning. Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene Insti-
tute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Chicago, IL.
Entranco Engineers, Inc. 1991. Institutional Support for
Stormwater Management Programs. Fact sheet.
Prep, by Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 5,
U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Chicago, IL.
. 1991. Urban Runoff Impacts to Receiving Wa-
ters. Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene Institute in coop,
with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Chicago,
IL
FTN Associates. 1990. Impacts of Changes in Hydrology
Due to Urbanization. Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene In-
stitute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot
Agency, Chicago, IL.
. 1990. Integrated Stream Management Pro-
grams Reduce Impacts to Aquatic Habitat. Fact
sheet Prep, by Terrene Institute in coop, with Region
5, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Chicago, IL.
. 1990. Uses of Wetlands in Stormwater Manage-
ment Fact sheet. Prep, by Terrene Institute in coop,
with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Chicago,
IL
GKY & Associates, Inc. 1990. Financing Mechanisms
for BMPs. Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene Institute in
coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Chi-
cago, IL
. 1990. Stormwater Control Benefits of Managed
Floodplains and Wetlands. Fact sheet Prep, by Ter-
rene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ.
Prot Agency, Chicago, IL
. 1990. Stormwater Management Ordinances for
Local Governments. Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene In-
stitute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot
Agency, Chicago, IL
Greenfield, J., L. Herson, N. Karouna, and G. Bernstein.
1991. Forest Conservation Manual: Guidance for the
Conservation of Maryland's Forests during Land Use
Changes, under the 1991 Forest Conservation Act.
Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov., Washington, DC.
Horner, R., E. Livingston, E. Shaver, J. Skupien. In prep.
Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management Prep,
by Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Chicago, IL.
Kelly, M.H. In prep. New Development, Habitat and
Water Quality: Drafting a Local Ordinance. Prep, by
Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Envi-
ron. Prot. Agency, Chicago, IL
Kendig, L., S. Connor, C. Byrd, and J. Heyman. Perform-
ance Zoning. Am. Plann. Ass. Press, Washington, DC.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1992.
Environmental Management: A Guide for Town Offi-
cials — Best Management Practices to Control Non-
point Source Pollution. Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta,
ME.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 49
-------
APPENDIX B
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1986.
Guide to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Comm.
Montgomery County Planning Board. 1991. Everything
You Always Wanted to Know about Planning, Zoning,
and Subdivision in Montgomery County, Maryland.
MD-Natl. Cap. Park Plann. Div., Silver Spring.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and
Engineers and Surveyors Institute. 1992. Northern
Virginia BMP Handbook: A Guide to Planning and
Designing Best Management Practices in Northern
Virginia. N. Va. Plann. Distr. Comm., Annandale.
Phillips, N. 1992. Decisionmaker's Stormwater Hand-
book. Terrene Inst, Washington, DC.
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical
Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov., Washington, DC.
. 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems:
Guidelines for Creating Diverse and Effective
Stormwater Wetland Systems in the Mid-Atlantic Re-
gion. Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov., Washington, DC.
Schueler, T. and M. Bley. 1987. A Framework for Evalu-
ating Compliance with the 10 Percent Rule in the
Chesapeake Bay. Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov., Wash-
ington, DC.
Schueler, T. and N. Karouna. 1991. A Commitment to Re-
store our Home River: A Six-Point Action Plan to Re-
store the Anacostia River. Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov.,
Washington, DC.
Schueler, T. and J. Lugbill. 1990. Performance of Cur-
rent Sediment Control Measures at Maryland Con-
struction Sites. Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov., Washing-
ton, DC.
Schueler, T., M. Heraty, and P. Kumble. 1992. A Current
Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices:
Techniques for Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution
in the Coastal Zone. Metro. Wash. Counc. Gov.,
Washington, DC.
Shaver, E. 1992. Delaware's Sediment Control and
Stormwater Management Program. Fact sheet. Prep,
by Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Chicago, IL.
. 1992. Sand Filter Design for Water Quality
Treatment. Fact sheet. Prep, by Terrene Institute in
coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Chi-
cago, IL.
Stack, W.P. 1989. Retrofitting Stormwater Management
Basins for Phosphorus Control. Fact sheet. Prep, by
Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 3, U.S. Envi-
ron. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
Strecker, E., J. Kersnar, E. Driscoll, and R. Horner. 1992.
The Use of Wetlands for Controlling Stormwater Pol-
lution. Terrene Inst., Washington, DC.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1990. Compendium of Ordi-
nances for Groundwater Protection. TVA/WR/ WQ-
90/9. Chattanooga, TN.
. Land Management Planning Applications of a
Geographic Information System. Fact sheet Norris,
TN.
. Reservoir Lands Planning. Fact sheet Norris,
TN.
Terrene Institute. 1990. Urban Runoff and Stormwater
Management Handbook. Prep, in coop, with Region
5, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Chicago, IL
. 1993. Clean Water in Your Watershed: A Citi-
zens Guide to Watershed Protection. Prep, in coop,
with Region 6, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washing-
ton, DC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1993. Degraded Urban Detention
Ponds: Recognizing Problems and Finding Solutions.
Fact sheet Prep, by Terrene Institute in coop, with
Region 5, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington,
DC.
. 1993. Delineating Watersheds: A First Step to-
wards Effective Management Fact sheet. Prep, by
Terrene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Envi-
ron. Prot Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Rural
Clean Water Program. EPA 440/4-90-012. Off. Water,
Washington, DC.
. 1992. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint
Source Control Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003. Off.
Water, Washington, DC.
. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Meas-
ures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Wa-
ters. EPA 840-B-92-002. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
. 1994. A State and Local Government Guide to
Environmental Program Funding Alternatives. EPA
841-K-94-001. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
. 1994. Watershed Protection Approach: A Proj-
ect Focus. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
Wanielista, M. 1990. Facts About Stormwater Manage-
ment in the State of Florida. Fact sheet Prep, by Ter-
rene Institute in coop, with Region 5, U.S. Environ.
Prot Agency, Chicago, IL
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Wis-
consin Stewardship Program Progress Report Madi-
son.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Urban Targeting
and BMP Selection. Region 5, Water Div.; Off. Water
Reg. Stand.; Off. Water Enforce. Permits, U.S. Envi-
ron. Prot. Agency and Terrene Inst, Washington,
DC.
Page 50
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Appendix C
¦TimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwiiiiiiMiiiniiiiiii
Contacts
State Water Quality Agencies
ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
RO. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36109-1463
Tel: (205) 271-7700
PERMITS/COMPLIANCE SECTION
1751 Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Tel: (205) 271-7801
ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
P.O. BoxO
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Tel: (907) 465-5000
* DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Tel: (907) 465-5260
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
3033 N. Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Tel: (602) 207-4512
* WATER PERMITS UNIT
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (602) 207-4574
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
id Other Contacts
ARKANSAS
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
101 E. Capitol, Suite 350
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 682-1611
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
AND ECOLOGY
Permits Section
8001 National Drive
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Tel: (501) 562-7444
CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Tel: (916) 657-2390
SENIOR STAFF COUNCIL
Tel: (916) 657-2421
COLORADO
WATER QUALITY AGENCY
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
Tel: (303) 692-3500
PERMITS AND ENFORCEMENT
Tel: (303) 692-3590
Indicates states that do not have delegated NPDES programs.
Page 51
-------
APPENDIX C
CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
P.O. Box 5066
Hartford, CT 06102-5066
Tel: (203) 566-7049
WATER MANAGEMENT BUREAU
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (203) 566-7167
DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE19903
Tel: (302) 739-4860
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES/POLLUTION
' CONTROLBRANCH
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
Tel: (302) 739-5731
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HAWAII
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
5 Waterfront Plaza
Suite 25D
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96801-9984
Tel: (808) 543-8337
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Clean Water Branch
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
5 Waterfront Plaza
Suite 250A
Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: (808) 5864309
IDAHO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Water Quality Bureau
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
Tel: (208) 334-5860
* PERMITS AND ENFORCEMENTS
Tel: (208) 334-5898
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER & REGULATORY
AFFAIRS
5010 Overlook Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20032
Tel: (202) 404-1120
* WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
Tel: (202) 404-1120 ext. 3040
FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Tel: (904) 488-4805
* ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR
Tel: (904) 488-0782
GEORGIA
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
7 Martin Luther King Drive, Suite 643
Atlanta, GA 30334
Tel: (404) 656-4988
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Protection Division - Municipal
4244 International Parkway, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30354
Tel: (404) 362-2680
GUAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IT&E Harmon Plaza, UnitD-107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon, Guam 96911
Tel: (671) 646-8863
ILLINOIS
DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Tel: (217) 782-3362
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stormwater Management
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Tel: (217) 782-0610
INDIANA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Tel: (317) 232-8603
STORMWATER COORDINATOR
Tel: (317) 233-6725
IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Water Quality Planning Division
East 9th and Grand Avenue
Des Moines, LA 50319-0034
Tel: (515) 281-5145
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (515) 281-7017
* Indicates states that do not have delegated NPDES programs.
Page 52
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Contacts
KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Bureau of Water
Forbes Field, BIdg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
Tel: (913) 296-5500
INDUSTRIAL PERMITS
Tel: (913) 296-5547
KENTUCKY
DIVISION OF WATER — NONPOINT SOURCE
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Tel: (502) 564-3410
LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2263
Tel: (504) 7654)741
~PROGRAM MANAGER
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
Tel: (504) 765-0525
* ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR-MUNICIPAL
Tel: (504) 7654)534
MAINE
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Department of Environmental Protection Agency
State House #17
Augusta, ME 04333
Tel: (207) 289-3901
* DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Nonpoint Program Coordinator
Tel: (207) 287-3901
MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Water Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Tel: (410) 631-3543
PROGRAM REVIEW DIVISION
Tel: (410) 631-3543
MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: (617) 292-5968
* OFFICE OF WATERSHED
NPDES Coordinator
40 Institute Road
P.O. Box 116
N. Grafton, MA 01536
Tel: (508) 792-7470
MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
Tel: (517) 373-2867
STORMWATER PERMITS UNIT
Tel: (517) 373-1982
MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tel: (612) 296-6300
ENGINEER/SUPERVISOR
Tel: (612) 296-8280
MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Tel: (601) 961-5171
OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
Industrial Wastewater Branch
Tel: (601) 961-5073
MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Tel: (314) 7514810
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
Tel: (314) 526-2928
MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
Water Quality Bureau
P.O.Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Tel: (406) 444-2406
WATER QUALITY PERMITS
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Tel: (406) 444-2406
Indicates states that do not have delegated NPDES programs.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page S3
-------
APPENDIX C
NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
Tel: (402) 471-4220
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NPDES Permits
1200 N Street, The Atrium
Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Tel: (402) 4714239
NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Capitol Complex
333 W.Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
Tel: (702) 687-4670
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Tel: (702) 687-5870
NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03302-0095
Tel: (603) 271-3503
* INDUSTRIAL PERMITS SECTION
Tel: (603) 271-2457
NEW JERSEY
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PLANNING
401 East State Street
CN 423
Trenton, NJ 08625-0423
Tel: (609) 633-7021
WASTEWATER PLANNING AND STORMWATER
PERMITTING
Tel: (609) 633-7021
NEW MEXICO
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT
Purchase Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Tel: (505) 827-0187
* SURFACE WATER QUALITY BUREAU
Health Program Manager, Surface Water Section
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Tel: (505) 827-2798
NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
50 Wolf Road
Room 306
Albany, NY 12233-3500
Tel: (518) 457-6674
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Tel: (919) 733-4064
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
512 N. Salisbury Street
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Tel: (919) 733-5083 ext. 571
NORTH DAKOTA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND CONSOLIDATED
LABS
1200 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
Tel: (701) 221-5210
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (701) 221-5210
OHIO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 644-3020
STORMWATER UNIT
Tel: (614) 644-2259
OKLAHOMA
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Water Quality Division
2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Tel: (405) 521-2384
* DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Customer Assistance Program
1000 N.E. 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
Tel: (405) 271-1400
* Indicates states that do not have delegated NPDES programs.
Page 54
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Contacts
OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
811SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 229-5630
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (503) 229-5256
PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
Tel: (717) 783-8303
PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE
400 Market Street State Office Building, 10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-2702
Tel: (717) 787-3481
PUERTO RICO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
Santurce, PR 00909
Tel: (809) 729-6920
* PERMITS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
431 Ponce de Leon Avenue, 5th Floor, Office 527
P.O. Box 11488
HatoRey, PR 00910
Tel: (809) 767-8731
RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI02908
Tel: (401) 277-3961
SANITARY ENGINEER
Tel: (401) 277-6519
SOUTH CAROLINA
BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803) 734-5228
STORMWATER MANAGER
Tel: (803) 734-5300
SOUTH DAKOTA
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
Tel: (605) 773-4216
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Point Source Control Division
Tel: (605) 773-3546
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
ENVIRONMENT
401 Church Street, 6th Floor, L & C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Tel: (615) 532-0625
TEXAS
STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
P.O. Box 658
Temple, TX 76503
Tel: (817) 773-2250
* WATER COMMISSION
Permitting Section, Watershed Management Division
1700 N. Congress Avenue, Steven F. Austin Building
P.O. Box 13087
Austin,TX 78711-3087
Tel: (512) 463-7748
UTAH
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Tel: (801) 538-6146
STORMWATER COORDINATOR
228 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Tel: (801) 538-6146
VERMONT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
Agency of Natural Resources
Building #10 North
103 South Main Street
2nd Floor
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
Tel: (802) 241-3770
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Permits Section
Tel: (802) 241-3822
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
45A Estate Nisky Center
Suite 231
St. Thomas, VI00802
Tel: (809) 774-3320
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
1118 Watergut Homes, Christiansted
St. Croix, VI00820-5065
Tel: (809) 773-0565
* Indicates states that do not have delegated NPDES programs.
Page 55
-------
APPENDIX C
VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 786-2064
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
4900 Cox Road
P.O. Box 11143
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Tel: (804) 527-5083
WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Tel: (206) 407-6427
URBAN NONPOINT MANAGEMENT UNIT-
MUNICIPAL
Tel: (206) 438-7076
WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
Tel: (304) 558-2107
OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES
Stormwater Coordinator
Tel: (304) 558-8855
WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI53707
Tel: (608) 267-7610
STORMWATER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Tel: (608) 266-2779
WYOMING
WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Herschler Building, 4th Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Tel: (307)777-7626
DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-
WATER
Tel: (307) 777-7082
EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators
U.S. EPA REGION 1 CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT
Bob Morehouse
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Tel: (617) 565-3513
U.S. EPA REGION 2 NJ, NY, PR, VI
Mack Henning
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
Tel:(212) 264-2059
U.S. EPA REGION 3 DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
Hank S. Zygmunt, Jr.
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: (215) 597-3429
U.S. EPA REGION 4 AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
Maryann Gerber
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Tel: (404) 347-2126
U.S. EPA REGION 5 IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
Tom Davenport
77 West Jackson Boulvard(WQW-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312) 886-0209
U.S. EPA REGION 6 AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
Brad Lamb
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Tel: (214) 655-6683
U.S. EPA REGION 7 IA, KS, MO, NE
Julie Elfving
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913) 551-7475
U.S. EPA REGION 8 CO, MT, ND, SC, UT, WY
David Rathke/Carol Russell
One Denver Place, 999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (303) 293-1449
U.S. EPA REGION 9 AS, AZ, CA, GU, HI, MP, NV, TT
Jovita Pajarillo
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 744-2011
U.S. EPA REGION 10 AK, ID, OR, WA
Elbert Moore
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 553-4181
Page 56
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Contacts
Additional Contacts
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
Tel: (410) 267-0061
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Office of Mitigation
500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
Tel: (202) 56&-1600
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Tel: (601) 688-3726
NANTUCKET LAND BANK
22 Broad Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Tel: (508) 228-7241
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20235
Tel: (202) 6064181
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment
Pollution Sources Characterization Branch
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 220
Rockville, MD 20852
Tel: (301) 443-0454
STORMWATER UTILITY FINANCING
Department of Ecology
Municipal Stormwater Unit
P.O. Box 47696
Olympia, WA 98504-7696
Tel: (206) 407-6000
Public Works Administration
510 North Broadway, 4th Floor
Billings, MT 59101
Tel: (406)657-8230
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Permits Division
NPDES Program Branch
Tel: (202) 260-9541
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Permits Division
Water Quality and Industrial Permits Branch
Tel: (202) 260-9537
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Tel: (202) 260-7100
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Watershed Branch
Tel: (202) 260-7074
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
National Estuary Program
Tel: (202) 260-6502
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
P. O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Basin and Area Planning Division
Tel: (202) 720-2847
Land Treatment Division
Tel: (202) 720-1870
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 57
-------
Pago 58
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Appendix D
Watershed Restoration and
Pollution Control Programs
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
Administers educational and regulatory programs designed
to protect the environment (prevent and control pollution).
Provides environmental assessments, water quality monitor-
ing, regulations and regulatory oversight, education, plan-
ning, technical assistance, grants, and loans for pollution con-
trol. Works mainly with state, federal, regional, and local
agencies on pollution control efforts.
Staff, nformation and daia,
laboratories and research facilities,
grants and loans for pollution
control, educational materials,
monitoring equipment. Offices
located in 10 regional centers and
Washington, DC.
EPA Water Quality
Overall water quality planning and management:
• Nonpoint Source Control program oversees and approves
state development of water quality assessments and
implementation of management programs designed to
- control nonpoint source pollution; directs funds to high
priority watersheds or projects.
• Clean Lakes program provides funds to restore or enhance
publicly owned lakes.
• Water Quality Standards Program provides technical
assistance in developing numeric, narrative, and biological
.limits (standards) to protect water quality and its use.
• Coastal programs oversee a number of different
programs and initiatives designed to assess coastal
resources and study ways to protect coastal waters.
Includes the National Estuary program; administers new
CZARA.
Staff for technical assistance to
state and local agencies; review
and approval of state programs,
research, and special studies.
Provides grants to states for most
water quality protection activities,
educational materials, and
programs; funds for special studies
or projects.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 59
-------
APPENDIX D
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (continued)
EPA Permits
NPDES permits for industries, cities, and confined animal
feeding operations; provides enforcement for noncompliance.
Staff for technical assistance with
modeling and permit drafting, site
inspections, and compliance
monitoring; funds for special
studies or projects.
EPA Pesticides
Regulates pesticide labeling and registration, including appli-
cation rates, allowable crops and pests, environmental and
human health cautions, disposal procedures; licenses re-
stricted-use pesticide applicators.
Staff to review research results,
assist with strategic planning,
education and training, oversee
enforcement procedures of states;
funds for special projects and
studies.
EPA Groundwater
Administers the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program; pro-
vides technical and programmatic assistance to state well-
head protection programs.
Staff for technical assistance;
funds for special studies.
EPA Wetlands
Cooperatively administers wetlands dredge and fill permits
with the Corps of Engineers; enforces actions for illegal wet-
lands filling; technical support for wetlands delineations; re-
search and education about wetland values and function.
Staff to oversee and" enforce
activities, monitoring wetland
status, health, and.trends; funds
for special studies, educational
materials, and programs; data.
EPA Monitoring and
Surveillance
Provides environmental assessment, data analysis, oversight
of state monitoring programs, special studies and agency re-
search, EPA lab and Office of Research and Development co-
ordination.
Staff for technical assistance to
states and citizens on monitoring
programs and projects; special
studies and data analysis upon
request; water quality monitoring
at select locations.
EPA Drinking Water
Regulates public drinking water supplies and suppliers; spe-
cial studies on human health and risk; develops drinking
water criteria and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Ad-
ministers special program for watershed treatment to de-
crease pollution loads to drinking water supplies if installation
of BMPs is cheaper than the water treatment method needed.
Staff for technical assistance to set
drinking water standards. Special
studies, oversight, and compliance
monitoring of public water supplies
and suppliers.
EPA National
Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
Reviews and comments on other federal agencies' environ-
mental impact statements (EISs); prepares EISs for EPA-
sponsored projects.
Staff for technical assistance to
prepare NEPA documents and
review pollution control techniques
required as part of federal action.
EPA Office of
Research and
Development (ORD)
Conducts basic and applied research to support EPA's mis-
sion, including biological and physical studies on fate and
transport of environmental contaminants; studies ecosystems
at large.
Provides reports, data, maps,
monitoring equipment, study, and
demonstration sites; staff for
technical assistance in interpreting
research results. Laboratories and
research stations located
throughout the country.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
Stabilizes and supports efficient production, marketing, and
distribution of food and fiber. In addition to commodity and
public welfare programs, administers a number of conserva-
tion programs to assist private and federal land owners or
managers in natural resource conservation and multiple-use
management. Works mainly with private individuals on im-
proving resource management.
Staff, technical assistance,
information and data, educational
materials, cost-share funds,
engineering equipment. Field
offices located in nearly every
county, state, and Washington, DC.
Pago 60
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Watershed Restoration and Pollution Control Programs
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Department of Agriculture (continued)
USDA— Multiple agenc
Conservation
Reserve Program
Wetlands Reserve
Program
Sustainable
Agricultural
Research and
Education Program
Conservation Cross
Compliance
(Sodbuster and
Swampbustei)
Water Quality
Incentives Program
y administration of the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bill programs:
Conserves and protects highly erodible or other environmen-
tally sensitive land from production with permanent vegeta-
tive cover through 10-year easements and annual rental pay-
ments.
Available only in pilot states to return drained wetlands to wet-
land status and protect existing wetlands. Uses same ease-
ment/payment method as CRP.
A practical research and education and grant program to pro-
mote lower input methods of farming.
A quasi-regulatory program that denies subsidy payments to
farmers who plow highly erodible land or drain wetlands.
A watershed treatment program designed to improve or pro-
tect soil and water resources in watersheds impacted or
threatened by NPS pollution.
In most cases, responsibilities
within programs are divided
between various USDA
departments:
SCS — Technical assistance in
planning, designing, and
implementing BMPs.
ASCS — Administrative oversight
of program and cost-share funding
disbursement.
CES — Education and information
about the variety of conservation
and economic choices available.
CSRS — Research, data, and the
results of demonstration field trials
of new technologies.
USDA Soil
Conservation
Service (SCS)
Technical assistance on planning, site-specific design, and in-
stallation and management of soil and range conservation,
animal waste, and water quality management systems; spe-
cial land and water resource assessments and inventories.
Cost-share funds to install BMPs on private lands available
from some programs.
Staff and equipment in field offices
for technical assistance including
engineering designs, survey work,
and planning for water resource
protection.
USDA SCS —Small
Watershed Program
(PL-566)
Evaluates and treats small agricultural watersheds with multi-
ple resources to protect. Targets resources for both technical
and financial assistance and educational programs.
Staff for technical assistance to
landowners and decisionmakers in
the watershed; funds for
demonstration projects.
USDA SCS — Great
Plains Conservation
Program (GPCP)
Intensive conservation treatment for individual farms located
within the Great Plains ecoregion through long-term agree-
ments (3 to 10-year contracts) with farmers.
Technical assistance and
cost-share funds up to 75 percent
of the average cost of selected
high priority conservation practices.
USDA SCS —
Resource
Conservation &
Development
Program (RC&D)
Helps local governments in authorized areas plan and use
natural resources and solve local problems.
Planning assistance for small
communities for resource
protection; financial assistance up
to 25 percent of a project — not to
exceed $50,000.
USDA SCS — River
Basin Program
Assists state and local governments identify water and re-
lated land resource problems, evaluate alternative solutions,
and develop their implementation program.
Staff for technical assistance to
decisionmakers for inventory and
planning activities.
USDA SCS —
Natural Resource
Assessment
Programs: Soil
Survey, Natural
Resources Inventory
Various programs to map and assess the condition of natural
resources (soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife) and conserva-
tion treatments.
Maps, reports, data information,
statistical analysis.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 61
-------
APPENDIX D
AGENCY AND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Department of Agriculture (continued)
USDA Agricultural
Stabilization and
Conservation
Service (ASCS)
Provides administrative oversight and cost-sharing programs
for approved conservation practices from ASCS and other
USDA administered programs; tracks crop production and
other statistics; distributes crop subsidy and deficiency pay-
ments.
Financial assistance (i.e., cost
sharing); map and conservation
practice information.
USDA ASCS —
Agricultural
Conservation
Program (ACP)
Annual cost-sharing for a number of soil conserving, produc-
tion improving, and water quality practices.
Funding for cost-share programs
generally limited to $3,500 per
farm per year.
USDA ASCS —
Emergency
Conservation
Program (ECP)
Annual cost-sharing to replace conservation treatments
(mainly structural) destroyed in areas designated as natural
disaster areas.
Cost-share funds for high priority
conservation practices.
USDA ASCS —
Water Bank Program
Designed to improve and restore wetland areas through
financial compensation for 10-year easements on private
property.
Funding for easement
compensation on eligible lands in
participating states.
USDA ASCS —
Colorado River
Salinity Control
Program (CRSCP)
Financial assistance on farm projects that seek to control sa-
linity levels delivered to the basin, primarily irrigation water
management.
Funds, reports, data on level of
conservation treatment and
demonstration sites; cost-sharing,
monitoring, and education.
USDA ASCS —
Forestry Incentives
Program (FIP)
Cost-share to revegetate and improve timber stands on pri-
vate lands.
Cost-share funds.
USDA Cooperative
Extension Service
(CES)
Educational programs and information to aid individuals in se-
lecting, operating, and maintaining the most beneficial con-
servation treatments. Economic analysis and data for each
farm or ranch; technical assistance in integrated pest man-
agement and landscape issues. Programs generally carried
out in cooperation with state land-grant universities.
Staff to offer educational programs
and technical assistance and
personalized economic analysis;
coordinates small-scale
demonstrations on local farms;
educational materials.
USDA Cooperative
State Research
Service (CSRS)
Applied research, usually at state experiment stations, on ag-
ricultural production and soil and water conservation, gener-
ally using demonstration plots. Conducts the Sustainable Ag-
riculture Research and Education (SARE) program. Many
projects in cooperation with state land grant universities.
Provides reports, data, equipment;
occasionally has funds for joint or
special projects outside the normal
research agenda; grants for
Agriculture in Concert with the
Environment (ACE) program.
USDA Forest
Service (FS) —
National Forest
System (NFS)
Manages national forests and grasslands for sustained pro-
duction and multiple use. Works with individuals, industries,
and other agencies.
Staff, maps, reports, equipment for
construction and monitoring,
educational materials; occasionally
funds for special projects. Field
offices located in each national
-forest; regional offices located in 9
areas and Washington, DC.
USDA NFS —
Permit Program
Oversees timber sales and harvest contracts, grazing leases,
and minerals developed on FS property; provides technical
assistance to permittee in proper resource use.
Staff for technical assistance and
compliance monitoring.
USDA NFS Air and
Watershed Programs
Overall environmental planning and technical support for for-
est management decisions; special studies and watershed
demonstration projects in certain areas.
Funds for special studies and
watershed demonstration projects;
natural resource inventories and
reports, water quality or habitat
monitoring; environmental analysis
of resource trends and conditions.
USDA NFS —
Research
Basic and applied research on range and forest lands.
Technical papers on effects of
management on water quality.
Page 62
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Watershed Restoration and Pollution Control Programs
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Department of Agriculture (continued)
USDA NFS — State
and Private Forestry
—Forest
Stewardship
Initiative
Technical assistance and cost share to inholding or privately
owned lands adjacent to national forest lands for installing
BMPs.
Funds for and technical assistance
to individuals.
USDA Farmers
Home
Administration
(FmHA)
Loans and loan guarantees to eligible producers for operating
expenses, land purchase, and conservation measures.
Funds and loans for property
improvement and conservation,
treatment installation, and water
conservation practices. Located in
counties, states, and national
offices.
USDA Agricultural
Research Service
(ARS)
Basic and applied research on agricultural production and
conservation measures, including fertilizers, pesticides, and
BMP effectiveness.
Reports on BMP effectiveness and
environmental fate and transport
data; demonstration sites;
occasionally provides funds for
joint sponsored projects. Research
stations, located throughout each
state, specialize in.particular types
of investigations.
U.S. Department of
Commerce —
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA)
Administers programs in cooperation with states to inventory
and manage coastal resources; funds and performs basic re-
search and assessments relating to coastal eutrophication;
maintains database for agricultural pesticides and nutrient
loadings.
Funds to state coastal programs;
staff for technical assistance; data,
reports, and educational materials;
occasionally administers funds for
special demonstration projects.
NOAA—Coastal
Zone Management
Act Programs
(CZMA)
Administers a quasi-regulatory coastal protection program, in
cooperation with EPA, that sets performance-based manage-
ment measures for control and prevention of nonpoint source
pollution in coastal areas for all land use activities.
Staff for technical assistance;
funds for plan development.
U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) Army
Corps of Engineers
(COE)
Oversees construction and operation of large flood control
and public water supply reservoirs; conducts water quality
monitoring on lakes within its jurisdiction; regulates in-lake
activities and shoreline development. Cooperatively adminis-
ters wetlands dredge and fill permit program with EPA.and
Fish and Wildlife Services; can enforce permit requirements
for wetland BMPs or other mitigation measures.
Maps, special studies, water
quality monitoring data; staff and
funds for improvement of existing
projects; staff to review and
oversee 404 (wetlands) permits.
Field offices located in various
districts throughout states and
Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI)
Oversees, manages, or monitors national natural resources,
including land, water, and wildlife.
Staff, maps, reports,
demonstration sites, educational
materials, monitoring equipment.
Offices located in regional centers,
management areas, and
Washington, DC.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 63
-------
APPENDIX D
AGENCY AND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
U.S. Department of the interior (continued)
DOI Fish and
Wildlife Service
Oversees and regulates the nation's wildlife resources; man-
ages national wildlife reserves; enforces federal game and
fish laws; cooperatively administers national wetlands pro-
gram with.the Corps of Engineers and EPA. Cooperative pro-
jects to enhance wildlife habitat; special studies, especially
fisheries investigations.
Staff to enforce Endangered
Species Act and other laws on
public and private land; research
reports and data on habitat,
populations, and management of
wildlife. Funds for cooperative
projects. Educational materials,
teacher training, curricula, and
maps.
DOI Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)
Administers and manages federal lands; oversees grazing
leases, mineral exploration, and extraction bids and leases
on BLM lands; technical assistance to permittees on BLM
land in proper resource use; oversees recreational users of
BLM land.
Staff for environmental analysis
and trend evaluation on BLM land,
technical assistance, and
oversight. Funds for special
studies and cost-share for
permittees for certain conservation
practices (generally grazing/range
management); funds for range
improvement, riparian area
management, and recreational
area development projects. Maps.
DOI Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA)
Technical assistance to tribes on tribal lands mainly for social
services; some assistance for conservation work and educa-
tional programs; natural resource inventories and monitoring
surface and groundwater.
Maps; natural resource inventories
of Indian and tribal lands; funds for
special projects; staff for technical
assistance to tribes.
DOI Bureau of
Reclamation
'Administers, constructs, and oversees water supply facilities
in western states; regulates discharges from these facilities;
jointly administers the Colorado River Salinity Control Pro-
gram with many agencies to set consistent salinity standards
and manage public and private lands within the basin; new
initiative to reclaim lands damaged by federal irrigation pro-
jects.
Staff to oversee projects and
manage federal property and
facilities; assesses water quality
around reservoirs as part of the
national irrigation water quality
program; maps, reports, and some
data.
DOI National Park
Service
Administers and manages national parks for preservation of
natural resources.
Staff to oversee and administer;
funds for special studies and
occasional cooperative projects on
land adjoining park boundaries.
DOI Office of
Surface Mines (OSM)
Regulates the removal and reclamation of surface mined min-
erals, mostly coal on private lands.
Staff to oversee and provide
technical assistance in mining
operations, reclamation efforts,
and engineering studies;
vegetative site inspections and
monitoring resources; educational
materials, data, and reports.
DOI U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS)
Long-term baseline monitoring of water resources (quantity,
flow, and quality), hydrologic and geologic investigations and
data, special intensive short-term studies.
Maps, data, and information on
hydrology and water quality status
and trends; staff for technical
assistance in designing a
monitoring plan.
State Water Quality
Agencies
Administer many programs (similar to EPA) to protect water
quality in surface and groundwaters, including the NPDES
permit program, water quality standards regulations, the non-
point source program, and ambient statewide monitoring pro-
grams.
Staff for technical assistance to
local governments and individuals
implementing BMPs; water quality
monitoring, data, and reports;
funds for pollution control projects,
educational materials, and
programs.
Page 64
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Watershed Restoration and Pollution Control Programs
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
State Agencies (continued)
State Natural
Resource Agencies
Administer programs for wetlands and coastal protection.
Staff for technical assistance to
local governments; monitor natural
resource trends, reports, and data;
educational materials and
programs.
State Departments
of Agriculture
Regulate pesticide registration and use and administer mar-
keting and rural development programs; sometimes issue
permits for fertilizer or feedlots.
Staff to oversee pesticide
applicators and other regulatory
functions.
State Forestry
Commissions or
Departments
Oversee activities on state forest lands; administer forest
practice laws or BMP regulations.
Staff for site inspections, technical
assistance, and education for
private landowners and state
forests; information on forest
resources.
State Cooperative
Extension Services
Natural resource, family health, and agricultural production
education and training programs for citizens.
Staff, reports, educational
materials, technical assistance.
Field offices located in each county
or state office connected with
land-grant universities.
State Parks and
Tourism Departments
or Bureaus
Administer programs to promote tourism and the use of state
parks for recreation.
Maps, signs, educational
materials; occasional small grants
for historic preservation or local
development.
State Natural
Heritage
Commissions or
Boards
Administer programs to educate people and preserve historic
and cultural resources.
Maps, signs, educational materials.
State Highway or
Transportation
Departments
Oversee design, construction, and maintenance of state and
federal highways; provide assistance to local governments on
road-related issues; responsible for erosion and pollution
control along highway right-of-ways and during construction
and maintenance activities.
Maps, signs, educational
materials, maintenance
equipment, and flower and grass
seeds; technical assistance for
local governments; sometimes
provide funds for special studies or
beautification projects.
State Public Lands
Commissions or
Boards
Oversee administration of state lands; generate revenues for
state treasury.
Natural resource information and
maps.
State Natural and
Scenic Rivers
Commissions
Oversee use and protection of state designated scenic rivers,
may levy taxes and take enforcement actions to protect the
river.
Staff for river protection and
(sometimes) assessments;
occasionally provide funds for
special protection or improvement
projects.
State Livestock and
Poultry Boards or
Commissions
Regulate health, welfare, and safety of livestock, poultry pro-
duction, and products.
Staff for site inspections, technical
assistance, and enforcement
actions; sometimes special studies
and reports.
State Water Well
Boards
Regulate the drilling of new wells and the sealing of old ones
Staff for site inspections, technical
assistance, and enforcement;
educational materials and training
for drillers.
State Oil, Gas, and
Minerals
Departments or
Commissions
Oversee the leasing, production, and administration of state
and privately owned natural resources; responsible for spills
and environmental programs related to petroleum.
Staff for oversight and inspection
including site-specific
environmental audits and spill
prevention and clean-up.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 65
-------
APPENDIX D
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
State Agencies (continued)
State Plant Boards
Administer programs that evaluate mainly agricultural plants
and conservation plantings.
Staff for technical assistance;
special studies and reports.
State Health
Departments
Administer septic tank and public drinking water regulatory
programs; monitor water supplies; provide technical assis-
tance to local governments.
Staff for technical assistance to
local governments, monitoring,
and educational programs; data,
reports, and educational materials.
State Soil and Water
Conservation
Commissions
Administer cooperative programs with the USDA/SCS to con-
serve soil and water resources on private lands; provide tech-
nical assistance to individuals.
Staff for technical assistance to
individuals; engineering or
construction equipment, services,
and supplies that support BMP
implementation. Some states have
cost-share funds for BMPs.
State Fish and Game
Agencies
Regulate the harvest of fish and wildlife resources by individ-
uals and commercial operations; responsible for state cost re-
covery of lost fish and wildlife affected by environmental con-
tamination.
Staff for enforcement of state fish
and game laws and for technical
assistance in wildlife and fisheries
management for private
individuals; educational materials;
natural resource inventory data.
State Water Rights
Agencies
Allocate water rights (mostly in western states); regulate con-
sumptive use of water resources.
Staff for permit writing and
oversight; data and reports on
water flow.
Local Planning and
Zoning Boards, City
Planning
Commissions,
County Planning
Boards
Specify land use zoning and boundary determinations; gen-
eral community planning; oversee program operation.
Maps, long-range plans, inventory
of local resources, special reports,
budget information; staff for
technical assistance.
Local County
Judges,
Commissioners
Court, or Parish
Police Jury
Manage, construct, and maintain county roads and bridges;
oversee and approve county budgets for all county programs.
Taxing authority.
Information on county conditions;
equipment for construction and
maintenance; budget reports;
occasional funds for special
projects.
Local SWCDs
Local field office of state agency.
See State Soil and Water
Conservation Commission.
Local Erosion and
Sediment Control
Districts
Oversee activities that could cause erosion and sedimenta-
tion.
Staff for on-site inspections,
technical assistance, and
sometimes enforcement actions.
Local Irrigation or
Acequla Districts
Regulate local water use and maintain public or jointly owned
irrigation projects; responsible for controlling pollution and
erosion from projects.
Maintenance workers.
Local Flood Control,
Water Management,
or Subsidence
Districts
Regulate water and land use and management to prevent
subsidence or flooding.
Staff for on-site assessments and
inspections; maps, reports, land
use data; zoning informalion.
Local School
Boards and School
Administrations
Oversee public education within jurisdictional boundaries;
can set local curricula requirements and priorities. Taxing and
bond issuing authority.
Information on status of current
educational programs; assistance
in developing new initiatives.
Local Municipal
Utilities Districts
Oversee construction and maintenance of public works pro-
jects for water, sewer, and occasionally energy. Taxing and
bond issuing authority.
Information and special reports on
water issues; funds for special
projects to enhance system
operation and reduce costs.
Page 66
Urbanization and Water Quality
-------
Watershed Restoration and Pollution Control Programs
AGENCYAND
PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND
POSSIBLE ROLES
Regional River
Authorities
Manage and coordinate activities within their basin for flood
control, water quality protection, energy development. Taxing
authority.
Data, reports, maps, water quality
monitoring; staff for technical
assistance to local government
and other agencies or groups.
Funds for special projects.
Regional Planning
Commissions and
Councils of
Government
Assist in coordinating activities of all governments within the
area; provide technical assistance and information; promote
special projects of benefit to all.
Staff for technical assistance to
local governments; occasional
water quality monitoring, reports,
and data about local conditions;
funds for special projects.
Others —
Commodity Groups
Various groups usually formed to improve marketing and lob-
bying capabilities for specific crops or livestock interests.
Nearly every major crop has at least one such group.
Staff for data gathering and
analysis, public education
campaigns, technical support to
growers, legislative and market
analysis; funds from members for
special projects.
Environmental
Organizations
Various groups formed to protect, conserve, or preserve the
environment in general or to address a specific issue; lobby
for environmental laws and programs as well as funding.
Many perform volunteer services such as water quality moni-
toring, natural resource rehabilitation work, cost-share, or
provide other funds for special projects.
Staff and volunteers assist with
local projects; educational
materials and programs; reports
and data on environmental
conditions and trends; occasional
funding for cooperative work.
Social and Service
Clubs
Formed for reasons other than resource protection, most
have local projects that enhance or beautify community. Pro-
vide labor, supplies, and equipment on mutually beneficial
projects as well as insight into the community.
Volunteers for special projects.
Source: Adapted from Terrene Institute, Clean Water In Your Watershed: A Citizens Guide to Watershed Protection, 1993.
A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment
Page 67
------- |